|
|
Monday - September 06, 2010
Dell is Chinese now?
 Dell is Chinese now?
I learned this bit of news from a friend I used to work with at Dell. Dell has recently sold off all its manufacturing in the United States. Most Dell employees who worked in manufacturing are now either out of work or they are employed by some other company that took over the factory. This is shocking enough in itself because Dell's model for success was based primarily on its manufacturing innovations and how it made the build to order the money making juggernaut that Dell was in the late 1990's.  But that wasn't what really made my jaw drop. What he told me is that almost all of Dell's executives have picked up and left Austin, Texas and moved to China. That's right, Dell is now a Chinese company with its headquarters in China. It turns out that labor costs are pretty significantly lower in China, but the labor costs are a tiny part of the overall cost of business. Dell has gotten its cost per box down to less than $1 to manufacture (not including cost of components). That is, the labor and facilities to make a Dell computer costs the amount they have to spend to buy all the bits and pieces, and then less than $1 to put them all together and give it to the shipper all arranged neatly to arrive at the customer's door together. So, really, the labor cost is not what drove Dell to move its executives overseas. What drove them overseas was something entirely controllable. It's taxes. The tax rate on American companies doing business in the US is exorbitant. I don't know the numbers, but the point is that a lot of very highly paid people who run Dell Computer decided to pick up and move to a communist country to live in rather than stay near their loved ones. China is killing us with tax breaks, or we're killing ourselves with outrageous tax rates. Probably both are true. How much would it be worth it to you to pick up your family and move to a communist country? Personally, no amount of money would get me to move to China or any communist country, but there are apparently plenty of people who already make a ton of money in the US who were convinced to pack up and move to the other side of the Earth. This is in fact more evidence that the war on immigration is misguided. Businesses that can't compete without exporting executives will not stay in the United States. It doesn't matter how many Mexicans come across the border, our businesses are going to move anyway. This is one of the most depressing developments I've seen in a long time. Why aren't we seeing this prominently published in the news? I guess so-called journalists haven't been given their official press releases on the subject. Journalists are worthless.
Click here for a separate link to this Drivel Send me your two cents
|
Wednesday - March 17, 2010
Hurt Locker
Hurt Locker
Okay, I get the point. Being in an exciting place doing exciting things has a certain intoxicating aspect. Even General Robert E. Lee wrote that "It is well that war is so terrible. We should grow too fond of it." I agree with that sentiment. As long as you're not the one getting shot or blown up, it is very exciting. That seems to be the point of "The Hurt Locker." Other than that, it's another stupid Hollywood cliche. First, there are plenty of inaccuracies. The HMMWV's used are from 2006 or later, yet the events are supposed to occur in 2004. Blood shed only moments earlier is not going to jam a magazine for a .50cal sniper rifle. When you're in the desert of Iraq, you don't drink tiny juicey bags like your toddler has, you drink 1.5 liter bottles and suck it dry very fast. I find it very hard to believe that a bomb making factory would booby rig a young boy's body within their own facility. No one, absolutely NO ONE goes outside the wire in Iraq usually without at least four vehicles and a dozen men, and in no circumstances alone in downtown Baghdad. Not only is that a certain death sentence, it is procedurally unlikely. Inside of a HWMMV is way too noisy to have a conversation of any sort, especially the sort of touchy feely introspective examination of mortality such as they have at the end of the movie. These are all legitimate, but admittedly petty points. If the movie were better they would hardly be worth mentioning. But the movie isn't better. It is cliche ridden and promotes the stereotype that being in the military during wartime causes everyone to suffer serious mental problems. Cliches? There are only two officers in the movie. One is portrayed as the typical moron, which is standard for Hollywood. It seems that our military is led exclusively by morons who think only of their careers. The other officer is a naive psychologist who feels a need to prove himself to the combat soldiers and joins in on a mission, only to get blown up because he wants to be nice to people instead of being forceful in making them move away. Where is the EOD team's superiors? Are they just a bunch of free lancers? Why is there no one to control this nutty EOD tech? You'd think that working in EOD requires men that are calm and controlled and that anyone acting stupid would be identified and straightened out fast. Okay, cinematic license can account for this behavior and these errors. I understand this. What I don't understand is the choice of these idiosyncracies. This is a movie made by a woman who is anti-war and decidedly anti-Iraq-war. She doesn't understand or want to recognize that men at war are smart, hard working, and motivated to win and succeed. She portrays the military as made up of men who are sick, disturbed and dangerous to their own people. The point of the movie was to highlight that "war is a drug." I agree with that, and with Robert E. Lee's love of war's excitement. But instead of demonstrating this point as a universal truth that must be guarded against ("We should grow too fond of it.") they present it as a degenerate symptom of sick people. Someday Hollywood will make a war movie that is realistic and adult enough to examine war and its impact on good people that doesn't portray them as cartoon characters or evil monsters. Oscar or no Oscar, this movie is an infantile stereotype and trivializes human experience, and demeans men at arms.
Click here for a separate link to this Drivel Send me your two cents
|
Thursday - August 13, 2009
It's on the Radio, it Must be True
It's on the Radio, it Must be True
I often listen to National Public Radio, unless they have a money begging week on. I justify this from a need to know my enemy. The pretentiousness is almost insufferable at times. I assumed that they were biased, and they are extremely biased, but I also figured that even if they never tell the entire story, at least their half of the story is generally factual – at least to the extent that any mainstream media would be. But I'm losing even that much confidence in them. I'm not sure that they're not even in the same category as Dan Rather and CBS who unapologetically fabricated slanderous lies whenever they wished. Yesterday they had a fluff piece about the Bravo channel. The agenda of the fluff piece isn't so clear. They appear to have a running story line the past few weeks of how the intelligentsia have their secret pleasures of watching non-intellectual television shows or reading trashy novels. Tee hee, aren't they cute? Bravo channel is a channel pretty much dedicated to convincing us that homosexuals are about 75% of the population. Maybe that is part of NPR's agenda. I couldn't say. On the fluff piece, some executive from Bravo brags about how its audience is the most educated, smartest, most intellectual, trendiest, and wealthiest of any channel on cable television. This is absurd on its face. I find it really hard to believe that a show about really bad amateur clothing designers attracts more intelligent people than the science channel. But Madeline Brand didn't even blink at the claim. There was probably once a time when "journalists" would check out claims before presenting it as news. I guess they've trained us quite thoroughly by now and we just expect them to be omniscient. I suspect that the "journalists" don't have a good sense of reality and it seems perfectly rational to allow Bravo to advertise itself and make such claims without verifying them. There's something very wrong with that way of thinking. "Journalists" like to believe that they control what we know. Perhaps that was largely true before, but it is no longer. We no longer have to pretend that "journalism" is a job that requires special training or degree. Publishing news or investigating truth is something that anyone can do, and we do – all of us on the internet. There in no need to rely on these bozos anymore.
Click here for a separate link to this Drivel Send me your two cents
|
Monday - July 09, 2007
"Journalistic Code" or, Why Novak is an Idiot
"Journalistic Code" or, Why Novak is an Idiot
Robert Novak is no more than a gossip monger. I
read
today that Robert Novak "tells all" in his new book. He's made his
living as a gossip monger and has been successful because he can project an
insufferable stuffiness and snobbishness as he tells us all the secrets of
Washington. He's really no different than People magazine except that he writes
about brainless people who can take our money away, whereas People magazine just
writes about people who make
movies.Part of his schtick is to act
as though he is privy to all the insider wheeling and dealing in politics, and
relate his tales with an air of superiority. People will listen to anyone who
acts as though they are superior.Novak
was the one, if you'll recall, who did the "tell all" article that exposed
Valerie Plame, the CIA employee with the odd name, as a CIA employee. As gossip
goes, this was not only boring, but unimportant. If she ever was an undercover
agent, and that is not clear, her manipulating the CIA for political purposes
certainly justified noting that she worked for the CIA.
Most people know now about the absurd
investigations and Scooter Libby's conviction for not being involved. But all
that could have been avoided had Novak simply come forward from the beginning to
tell the authorities investigating this non-crime how he became aware of her
status. But no, Novak had to
perpetuate the myth that gossip mongers are the high priests of politics and
immune from the rules the rest of us abide by. He's a "Journalist." Whatever
that is.
While people's fates were twisting in the wind,
Novak stirred up more and more controversy, even staging a temper tantrum on
television. When simple cooperation with the investigation would have put this
needless mess to rest, he invoked the "code" of journalism as though purveying
unattributed statements and gossip is somehow ethical.
When I was a kid, the bad westerns and
other tv shows would mention the "code" of the outlaw. Such is the "code" of
Novak's journalism. That is to say, it's laughable on its
face.
Here's why it's
laughable:
Journalists are not smart
people. They have degrees in journalism for people who can't understand math or
science. Yet, journalists routinely write about things they can't possibly
understand and get it wrong almost every time. Anytime I have been associated
with an event that ended up in the news, the story has invariably been wrong.
Not just incomplete or abbreviated, but misleading and wrong. They are the kind
of people who think their lack of understanding of the world is the natural
state of people everywhere.
Novak felt
a need to keep his source secret. Why? Because how else will politicians be
able to tell him lies and gossip if he lets people know who the liars and
gossipers are? Somehow, when Novak abets a potential criminal act it's
sacrosanct, but if you or I were to claim privilege we would be tossed in the
slammer. But then, once the scandal has played out he's free to tell all in a
book he wants to sell. How
convenient.
No one seems to question
the merits of allowing politicians to speak "off the record" and without
attribution, Novak even seems to think this is a good thing. These are people
being paid by the citizens of the United States to work on our behalf.
Everything they do and say that is related to the job we pay them to do should
be attributable. Speaking without attribution is a very convenient way to
spread lies and gossip, but if they didn't then how would Novak make his
money?
In fact, Novak's refusal to
cooperate in the investigation is not only extra-legal, it is unethical. But he
won't see it that way since that's his rice
bowl.
People who write about current
events are not special categories of citizens. They are just citizens. That
couldn't be more clear today with the internet. Anyone can write on the news
today, and they do. We are no longer restricted to the ignorant and misleading
writing of people not smart enough to have real educations or knowlege. Experts
now write on the news from their homes and do a much better job of it. We don't
have to get our only news from the AP, who pays terrorists in Iraq and Palestine
to write their news rather than send trusted writers. We don't have to get
military analysis from someone who doesn't know the difference between a tank
and an armored personnel carrier, or a howitzer from a mortar. We no longer
have to rely on pretty boys on TV who never took a class in calculus or
chemistry to explain science and
technology.
Robert Novak had a
responsibility as a human being to clear up the facts surrounding a criminal
investigation and didn't. He had a responsibility to not allow politicians to
smear their opponents with gossip and hear say. Yet Robert Novak is perfectly
happy to contribute to a multi-year political mess by not coming forward based
on incorrect claims of principle. And he's perfectly happy to abandon these
"principles" when he can sell a book.
Click here for a separate link to this Drivel Send me your two cents
|
Monday - September 13, 2004
So-called "Journalists," Cults of Personality and Changing the
World
So-called "Journalists," Cults of Personality and Changing the
World
Long ago, when radio and newspapers were still
dominant, newspapers put much stock in their reputation for accuracy. Well,
that's the myth anyway. Along came the now-deified Edward Murrow, by all
accounts a good man, but whose name was used to create a myth of an ethos of
"journalism" as though it were a profession that required some sort of ethic and
training.
Schools began offering
"journalism" degrees, which were eagerly sought by the less intelligent and by
the hopelessly misguided who wanted to change the world. There's nothing wrong
with being less intelligent, nor is there anything wrong with wanting to change
the world. But the thing is that most people won't change the world. It's a
big world and it has a lot of inertia, and it frankly won't change based on the
romantic visions of the feel-good "journalists" who think the pen is mightier
than the sword.
So what happens when a
lot of less intelligent, feel-gooders who want to change the world get older and
find it harder and harder to think of ways to change the world? Good question.
But first, one more facet of "journalism" must be
looked at. As news coverage's reach from the print media waned in impact and
television came to dominate, it was natural that two factors influence the news:
Advertising got more expensive by far, creating undue influence on the content
of the news, and ratings to get those advertising dollars became much more
critical. Getting ratings had much more to do with the face and the voice on
the screen and less and less to do with the content and reliability of the news.
Thus grew the cult of personality in
the field of "journalism." Personalities that aren't very intelligent.
Personalities that think that their job is to change the
world.
So, let's pretend that you're a
not very intelligent guy, say you have a Texas twang that you can exaggerate for
that homey effect, and you find as you near the time of retirement and
enfeeblement of age that your dream of changing the world isn't coming true.
Well, this is natural, because only a
very few people will change the world, either by luck or by brilliance or by
extraordinary personality. But you're not very bright and you think just
because you have a homey Texas twang and you've managed to hoodwink a network
into making you their lead anchor that you should be able to change the world.
What do you do?
Well, most people of
principle, character and adult maturity would conclude that fate just hasn't
made your world changing possible, at least not yet, and continue with your
campaign as best you can.
The problem
is that some people with homey Texas twangs seem to believe that they should
take matters into their own hands to change the world in any way
possible.
Thus, the people at CBS seem
to be prone to forge documents to throw an upcoming
election.
It's not their fault (I'm
trying to use the language of the less intelligent world-changer-wannabes), it's
the fault of the system. It's the fault of a television broadcast system
controlled by the government through the FCC to discourage competition. It's
the fault of a cult of personality that magnified the self-perceived power of
less intelligent men.
It's not their
fault. It's just that they're bad people and they can't help it.
Click here for a separate link to this Drivel Send me your two cents
|
Saturday - September 11, 2004
Moron Dowd
Moron Dowd
It's strange that even Moron Dowd is calling
Kerry
a pathetic whimp, while at the same time conforming to the baseless
anti-Bush insults. Moron Dowd is
completely unfamiliar with military strategy but that doesn't stop her from
pontificating about our strategy.I'm
shocked at the increasing frequency of democrats calling on their candidate to
get violent, attack viciously, and to spread malicious lies. Kind of like Dan
Rather.But what really shocks me is
that Moron Dowd is now blaming the Beslan massacre on George W. Bush. What will
they not stoop to? Chechnya is in Russia, and although we've killed and
captured many Chechens who have been warring against us in Afghanistan and Iraq,
somehow Moron thinks that Bush failed to stop them from blowing up school
children in Russia? Isn't Russia one of the nations that refused to help us in
the war?Moron Dowd has a lot of nerve.
But she's just punching Bush in the face like she wants others to
do.
Civil discussion is lost on democrats. I'm no
republican, but I can at least appreciate that at least the republicans tend to
criticize their opponents on facts, not forgeries. The republicans address
issues, and personal character, not
fictions.
Republicans may have been
very effective questioning the character and history of John Kerry's role in
Viet Nam and his voting record, but he's running on his role in Viet Nam and
challenged republicans to address that part of his life. They've done so and
exposed him for the lying, opportunistic do-nothing that he is. They've exposed
his traitorous behavior in violent pro-communist movements (even his attendance
at meetings where they discussed assassinating US Senators). They've exposed
his anti-military voting record. They've exposed his faillure to do anything
worth mentioning in 20 years as a Senator, even though no one plotted to
assassinate him like he did to
others.
Yet the democrats don't
understand that the republicans aren't playing dirty. They're just effective.
They're effective because the truth of John Kerry is so bad that it's not hard
to expose the rot and treason that makes up his past. They're effective because
America in our state of war no longer thinks it's cute to have an anti-military
President.
But don't expect Moron
Dowd to understand the "nuances" of reality. Her only way of thinking includes
punching political opponents in the face.
Click here for a separate link to this Drivel Send me your two cents
|
Saturday - September 11, 2004
CYA
CYA
I'm going to take the time to point out another
aspect of the CBS forgeries that I think has escaped the notice of most people.
The subject line of one is
"CYA."
First, I don't remember CYA, for
"cover your ass" being a popular acronym until the late 1980's.
But more importantly, why would a man
write a memo to himself on a particular subject, a man who knows how filing
systems work and how documents are retrieved, and put the subject as "CYA"? If
he ever really needed to cover his behind, how would he find this memo, and how
would this memo help in the least bit? How would admitting that he succumbed to
pressure help him?
Of course the pathetic claim is that these came
from the personal files of LtCol Killian. But being personal files, you'd think
they'd be in his personal possession. Yet his widow, the presumed keeper of all
his paperwork, knows nothing of these personal files and further explains that
he could neither type nor did he make personal notes to
himself.So, why would a man who rarely
keeps personal records decide to suddenly that this merited a memo to himself?
Why would he document in writing that he was a weazel and succumbed to illegal
and unethical pressure to give special treatment to the son of an obscure
politician? Pressure from a general that retired 18 months previously, no
less?I will never believe any words
coming out of the mouth of Dan Rather again. If he tells me the sky is blue, I
will seek a second source for his claim. I will never watch CBS news again, and
I fully intend to research all their advertisers and tell them that I will
curtail buying their products until they pressure CBS to replace Dan
Rather.p.s. I learn that I'm not the
first to publicly
question the use of "CYA."
Click here for a separate link to this Drivel Send me your two cents
|
Saturday - September 11, 2004
More Media Credibility Problems
More Media Credibility Problems
The Washington Times, normally a very balanced
newspaper, is finally reporting about the terror
courts set up by Muqtada Al Sadr. I'm glad someone is finally doing
it, but I've known about these courts for months now, why is it only now making
the news?The Washington Times, though,
is the only mainstream media source that I know of that is making this public.
Where is the Post, CBS News, CNN, etc.? What do they pay their reporters to do?
How come I know of these things from the internet but these "journalists" don't
think it's important to report?First
we should remember that not only are many in the MSM completely corrupt (CNN
paid Saddam Hussein and refused to report on known tortures before the war) but
that "journalism" is just a euphemism for "people too stupid to get a real
degree in college." Honestly, they aren't the bottom of the collegiate
intelligence pecking order. They're one step below "political science" and one
step above "psychology" where the really true morons go.
We learn today that NRP is repeating another lie
about the CBS forgeries. They claim that the original claim by the Freeper
"Buckhead" that these documents were forgeries was made before the CBS
broadcast, thus it must have been made by the same person giving them to CBS,
and therefore it was all a republican conspiracy.
The problem is that the time stamp
they were looking at that caused them to make this supposition is from the
Pacific time zone. And besides, it was in a thread where people across the
country had been discussing the show for a couple hours already. You'd have to
be a moron, or really, truly have some kooky belief that all of the Freepers are
republican operatives working in concert to make these outrageous assertions
that Buckhead was the leader of a
conspiracy.
But that is the type of
person at NPR. They are poorly educated, wrapping themselves in a mantle of
upper crust appreciation of bad art and bad literature.
Yet they accuse bloggers of being
merely people sitting around at home in their pajamas. I don't know what that
even means. Are they saying that how you dress is a reflection of your
knowledge? Perhaps they truly think that because they have expensive suits when
they go on camera that not only does it bolster the perception of their
credibility, but it actually grants them
credibility.
The morons in the "field"
of "journalism" seem to have forgotten that the rest of the world is generally
more intelligent than them, and that for any particular subject matter the
internet can spit out experts that willingly share their expertise with all of
us. There is no way, even if "journalists" weren't the bottom of the collegiate
ladder, that they can possibly know as much as the millions of people on the
internet.
But the MSM does have a few
advantages that they're not exploiting. They have cameras, they have a budget,
and they have reporters. I would suggest that if the MSM wants to salvage its
credibility that it stop creating media personalities like the clearly idiotic
and agenda-driven Dan Rather and concentrate on finding the stories and
reporting on them with intelligence.
For instance, rather than having the
majority of their reporters in Iraq sitting around the same hotel, one or two
might have taken the initiative of going into Najaf and reporting on the
re-implementation of Sharia and the reign of terror going on. Some did go into
Najaf, but their sole purpose appeared to show the brutality of the Americans
and the heroic resistance of the terrorists. They can go into Fallujah and
report what we already know, that the terrorists there are terrorizing the
populations there. We know these things are occurring because we read blogs of
people there, but we don't hear it from CBS or CNN, or
NPR.
The MSM is dying, needs to die,
and information is no longer controlled by them. Some of them are hysterical in
reacting to this new reality, but that's their problem. They should have gotten
jobs more akin to their intelligence level, like street sweeper or toilet
cleaner, so they are a little slow to catch on to their own fate.
Click here for a separate link to this Drivel Send me your two cents
|
Friday - September 10, 2004
Word Processors and Media Credibility
Word Processors and Media Credibility
Okay, so RatherGate is underway and more and more
people are finally, hopefully, recognizing the complete moral depravity of Dan
Rather, CBS, and much of the mainstream
media.
So we got them. The very
amateurish forgeries are exposed and I am waiting for Dan Rather to be forced
out of office, err, fired shortly. All is well and good. The foolish effort to
smear George Bush with lies and animosity has failed and will likely boost his
credibility.
So why am I not
happy?
I'm not happy because this is neither the end nor
the beginning. I want to see a backwards analysis of what other lies and
forgeries have been spread by the democrats, oops, I mean the
media.And now that they've seen that
people are watching them, it won't be hard to make better forgeries in the
future. If these forgeries weren't so incredibly incompetent, we'd all have
been forced to be arguing whether or not it was pertinent if George Bush had
complied with his obligations 30 years ago.
This exposure of "journalistic"
malfeasance will only embolden them to make better forgeries next
time.Unless we as citizens stop giving
the media a pass on their claims of credibility and demand to see full proof at
all times, we will be victims again of better forgeries, not to mention
continued distortions and lies.Three
cheers for Powerline blog
and the others that exposed this criminal fraud. I hope we are never
able to be fooled again.
Click here for a separate link to this Drivel Send me your two cents
|
Wednesday - November 05, 2003
"It is the dream of every young man to be a war correspondent. Isn't
it?"
"It is the dream of every young man to be a war correspondent. Isn't
it?"
That's the quote of some pretensious woman on the
television. I'm watching another of the innumerable television homages to the
so-called "wonderful heros," the war correspondents. I think there are more of
these shows than there are homages to the people who actually face danger
regularly to fight the wars. Some of this is interesting, some of it is
appropriate, but when Christianne Amanpour puts her mug on the screen and tells
us that only they can tell us what is happening in the world, I am sickened.
She compounded my revulsion by insisting that she and her colleagues were the
ones to interpret the world's events for us.
What makes this so especially vile a claim is the
revelation that CNN admitted that it purposefully became the propaganda machine
for Saddam Hussein. I hope no one ever forgets that CNN reporters were the only
western reporters allowed inside Iraq because they were the only ones that
promised to not tell the truth about Hussein's regime. They knew about the
reign of terror, the tortures, the fear and mutilations, yet they told no
one.
These are the people who keep
lionizing their own value to this
world.
The truth is that "journalism"
is not a special profession. The US Constitution's first amendment doesn't
grant "journalists" any special rights that the rest of us don't have. The
truth is that anyone can witness the truth and write about it, it is only the
"journalists" that have in the past 55 years granted themselves an aura of
authority to bill themselves as having some special insight that others can't
have. The basis of their claim is that they have studied at journalism school
and received a degree that means that they did less work and were taught less
than used to be common among high school graduates. People who couldn't be
bothered to spend their college years learning a real education have become the
self-proclaimed filters for our understanding of world -- and local --
events.
I can't say when it began, or
when it became dominant, but my impression is that this journalistic arrogance
began after the second world war. With the rise in power of the FCC, and the
difficulty of receiving alternative news sources for most people, their
arrogance was matched only by their power, not by their skill or objectiveness.
With the recent overt and filthy admission of treason of CNN in the years before
this recent war, regarding "journalists" with any degree of respect as a
profession can no longer be taken seriously. Yes, there are some that are
respectable as individuals, but they are the exception to the
rule.
Finally, free speech through the
internet is trumping the power of control over our information sources. When
reporters give their biased, ignorant, and foolish versions of events going on,
you can count on some local person who is more aware and better educated on the
matter to set their lies straight.
I
have little patience for these frequent homages to war correspondents. The news
writers shouldn't be the news, or even the history to a greater extent than the
people actually making the history are. Andy Rooney took a few flights on a
bomber in WWII, and people think he's a hero. I'm unimpressed. The people who
rode those bombers everyday, knowingly steering their craft into danger, were
the heros.
Okay, the show is still on
and I just finished screaming obscenities at the screen. Some effete
"journalist" just finished saying that the war correspondents were brave by
choice. The infantrymen who had to stick their heads around corners and get
shot at were not as brave, because they had no choice, they had to be there.
The journalists were braver than the soldiers! He actually said this, and some
editor put it on the show! This is why I hate journalists. This is the twisted
and warped view of the world that they are so arrogant to claim is our world
view. Without them, they believe, we would know nothing. The truth is that
despite them, we try to understand what is happening because they are so often
wrong about basic facts and the simplest shades of understanding. What kind of
sick mind thinks that a man who stands nearby with a camera is braver than the
ones in front of him who have to run into the on coming bullets to stop the
enemy from shooting?
I'm too sickened
to continue. Thank god for the internet. The unchallenged power of these
intellectual midgets is ending.
Click here for a separate link to this Drivel Send me your two cents
|
|