Voted in California Election
|
Posted:Oct 30, 2010 12:42 am
Last Updated:Nov 5, 2010 7:23 am
4921 Views
|
Performed my constitutional duty today and voted. Won’t tell you for whom I voted; suffice not for any person who was a chairperson of a Silicon Valley Corp., such as ebay or HP, to cite two examples.
I also voted against Prop 19: “Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010." Having worked as a social worker in the field of addiction,—even though this does not concern me personally—I have seen firsthand how difficult addiction can be to extricate from, whether it’s alcohol, nicotine, drug, gambling. Prop 19 is one of those half-baked ideas that a pot-head would think is a good idea.
Too many time times I’ve seen too many people who have made disasters of their lives and the lives of those around them. Society, the State, has an obligation to warn its citizenry dangers of addiction, just like those cigarette warnings, which have, in fact, reduced cigarette smoking. In fact, quitting smoking is an important step in health maintenance. The war on drugs has to be fought to remind people the seriousness of addiction. The dealer has to be incarcerated. Society may turn a blind eye to the toker, it serves no useful purpose to put that person in jail. But can it afford to turn a blind eye to the hard core addict? In practice, State says: “You want to skork your brains, be my guest!” But no parent wants their to go down this path of addiction.
The drug culture has proven itself over the years—and we need only look at the urban polis to see this first hand, or in Mexico—to be dominated by means, vicious, and ugly people. People who can and will turn the souls of other people to garbage, and have no remorse in doing so.
To paraphrase Dorothy Parker: candy is dandy, liquor is quicker, but pot is hot. Wow, a drug to reduce a woman’s resistance to a man’s sexual charm, what a nifty idea! Said he with sarcasm. And this guy doesn’t give two hoots to her immortal soul, he has a sexual slave. It is to be hoped that people with judicious judgment will prevail and vote this down.
There were other questions, about reapportionment, about levying fees for parks, about this that and the other. Each of them equally important and confusing. Who is telling the truth in explaining these propositions? Who the liar? Is the proposition the best way to resolve a question. For example, one of my favorite, permanently deny pay to legislators when they don’t approve a budget on time, while reducing the requirement to pass a budge from 2/3 to a majority—50% plus one. And in the end, it is temptation to avoid to simply vote no on all the propositions, that the referendum process is not the way to operate the nitty gritty of government.
|
|
|
0
Comments
|
|
Turned 65 last Monday, Oct 18
|
Posted:Oct 25, 2010 4:32 pm
Last Updated:Dec 30, 2010 7:13 pm
5685 Views
|
So last Monday, I turned 65. Well now, how did that happen? My day and your welcome to it.
I usually wake up without alarm clock at 7 am. Coffee with the news; 7:30 am internet and comics; 8 am Hebrew/Greek/Latin; 9 am breakfast watching the first 20 minutes of Regis--after that the celebs have nothing much to say. 11 am 1 pm Class Astronomy and pre-Algebra--pre-algebra a requirement of the college--do learn a lot about basic mathematical procedures. Home, a nap finish what wasn't completed in the am re Hebrew/Greek/Latin. 4 pm Affairlook
5 pm supper with the news. 6 pm internet Affairlook etc (=internet porn) or else television if it's NCIS, NOVA, POIROT or Saturday Night at the movies. And as Pepys would say: at 11:30--'so to bed.' At night, I will wake up at about 2/3 am get up read 25 pages for an hour or so and go back to bed and still wake up refreshed, sans alarm clock, at 7 am.
I look back and am thankful I never fell into alcohol addiction or worse. I don't smoke so I have good health--no asthma or emphysema. I can attend to reading a book for an hour or more; I can summon sufficient concentration and intellect to solve Lorentz Transformation problems or the trapezoidal formula--partly in thanks to my brain but mostly in thanks to the modern calculator. I have a reasonably good memory.
Who we are--who we is--our being, our essentia--is determined by what we do. To paraphrase Heraclitus: Our behavior is our character. A person who drinks alcohol in excess, becomes alcoholic; a person who smokes becomes a smoker. You get the general idea. If you don't, read Heidegger.
The week before, I visited my and her and her husband in the southland; had a good weekend; thankful I have a family. She gave me for my birthday a Warner Brothers DVD of 4 Arthur Freed Films: Easter Parade, The Band Wagon, Meet Me in St. Louis, and Singin' in the Rain.
Attached is a recent photo dressed for attendance at "Pirates of Penzance." Very little grey hair--no I don't dye it. I weigh in at trim 165 lbs thanks to light regimen with a 25 lb weight.
For a life that began 1n 1945 so inauspiciously in a Chicago Catholic Orphanage, I gotta say, the end game is remarkable indeed!
|
|
|
1
comment
|
|
Folsom Street Fair, Sunday, Sept 26
|
Posted:Oct 6, 2010 7:45 pm
Last Updated:Dec 3, 2010 8:10 am
5900 Views
|
Well, there it was a very hot day in San Francisco for the Folsom Street Fair. A display of nudity, exhibitionism, leather fetish, gayness, and out door cuisine of the barbeque kind.
Lots of people, lots of boots, lots of booths, lots of boobs and let's not confuse booths and boobs and boots.
The day was hot--85 plus degrees--in contrast to one of the coldest summers imaginable in San Francisco.
The photo is a perennial favorite of an ice sculpted penis. That's me in the reflected glass window taking the picture.
|
|
|
2
Comments
|
|
Giuseppi Verdi's AIDA (and film SOPHIE'S CHOICE)
|
Posted:Sep 27, 2010 9:06 am
Last Updated:May 23, 2024 10:31 pm
4712 Views
|
Not so much a fan of the baseball. Not so much a fan the opera. Not so much a fan of BDSM. So there I am Friday evening, a warm balmy evening for San Francisco, with 30,000 true aficionados of Opera watching a FREE live simulcast, with English subtitles of the Italian, of Verdi's AIDA at the Giant's AT&T Ball Park. What I do for FREE!
What Do I know? Everybody sang on key. No one lost their place in the opera. Sumptuous costumes. Gotta love that Triumphal March of Act 2 Scene II. Female Chinese Gymnastic dancers, Elephants. Almost got the point, did I.
For the low brows amongst us--and you know who we are: Radames, a captain of the guard is in love with Aida, a slave girl. Aida's mistress, the King of Egypt's , Amneris, is also in love with the captain. Unknown to everyone in Egypt, Aida is an Ethiopian princess and the of Egypt's worst enemy, King Amonasro. Quoting from the notes.
Anyhoo, by Act III Radames and Aida plith their troth to each other outside the bounds of marriage. But in this singular act, Radames betrays his loyalty to Egypt, Aida betrays her loyalty to Ethiopia. Do you see where this is going? Sure you do. The Opera ends with them committing suicide in the tomb below the Temple; and everyone lives happily ever after. And doesn't that sound like Shakespeare's "Romeo and Juliet" was cribbed from; just saying.
Really glossing over a whole lot of subtlety, but hey, buy the DVD, get specifics yourself. Gotta love that Triumphal March.
At the end the principals come out on stage to much huzzahs and bravos and a la bonHeur!
And I wondered. The film SOPHIE'S CHOICE--also a movie about betrayal--ends without that standing ovation, without acknowledgment of the principals. A play, an opera says 'let's pretend' and the audience at the end says "Wowsa, wasn't that great fun. Such a performance!" What is to be said at the end of a movie like SOPHIE'S CHOICE? A movie wants to create verisimilitude, a movie wants to put the viewer directly into the scene of the event, to intrude the viewer directly into the scene of the event. Not a pretend scene as in live performance, but a piece of verisimilitude to recreate a moment. The different medium--film versus live stage performance is huge, not minor.
And this conclusion always seems appropriate for a movie like SOPHIE'S CHOICE: the exits/entrances from the theatre are called in Latin: the vomitories. A reading of a conclusion from the audience I have always thought appropriate for a movie like SOPHIE'S CHOICE.
|
|
|
0
Comments
|
|
Chamber Music
|
Posted:Sep 13, 2010 6:58 pm
Last Updated:Sep 26, 2010 8:05 am
5111 Views
|
Sunday, September 12, saw an all-day performance of Chamber Music with a surprising modern/contemporary tone. Despite the sampling of classical chamber music, the recital also had a contemporary tone, a tone Charles Ives would have enjoyed. The highlight of the afternoon was the Alexander String Quartet doing selections from Beethoven's Quartet in f minor, Op. 95 (1809).
There were three venues for performance; alas, being only able to be in one place at a time, I missed 2/3 of the performances. But the one third I did see was truly excellent. Most especially, a sampling of Chinese music with Chinese instruments.
|
|
|
4
Comments
|
|
Impressionists and Impressionism
|
Posted:Sep 13, 2010 6:46 pm
Last Updated:Sep 22, 2010 8:07 am
5197 Views
|
I always like the Impressionists because they were rejected by the French Salon.
The de Young Museum of San Francisco had an exhibition of Impressionist Paintings from Paris Musee d'Orsay that was truly remarkable.
They first showed an example of Salon Paintings. Not bad as paintings go. Course my standard: I like it. That's sort of sums up my aesthetic values when it comes to painting. If someone says it's a good painting, that evaluation is good enough for me. Course I like Andrew Wyeth, Edward Hopper, and that Saturday Evening Post guy from Stockton, Massachusetts, Norman Rockwell. Why, because they tell a story in their paintings; a story I get. I don't understand, I don't get Klee, Kandinsky, Mondrian, etc. I get Salvador Dali and Picasso because they can tell a story in their own way.
The Paris Salon preferred painting of an 'academic nature.' Subject matter had to be mythic, paintings larger than life, classical subjects, homage to classical themes, etc. Artists like Millet, Cezanne, Monet would present their paintings to the Salon and find themselves rejected because they did not fulfill expectations of topic or style of the Salon.
Were the impressionists any good? They were different. Where Salon painters focused on the subject matter, the Impressionists focused on the physical light being cast upon the subject. The physical light, not the metaphysical light.
But the casual viewer would be hard pressed to determine Salon painters and Impressionist painters. "Family Reunion" by Frederic Bazille, 1867 is a case in point. It's assemblage of people gathered on a terrace might pass as part of the accepted Salon; why it is 'different' and how it is 'different' is best left to the cognoscenti. And whether it's being 'different' wants to suggest 'better' than the Salon is a question for the cognoscenti.
Alas, whilst admiring Degas, someone suffered de gas. (Oh nothing like a good pun, and that was nothing like a good pun! To borrow a line from Mary Poppins.) Just remember Sartre rhymes with fart.
The revolution that represented the "Terrible Year" of 1870-1871 ushered in a revolution of painting as well, a revolution in how the world was to be interpreted. The ordinary painter doing the ordinary thing in ordinary light and capturing extraordinary light...
To accompany the de Young exhibition, San Francisco's Legion of Honor presented an exhibition of paintings, photographs of Paris in the 1880s at the time of the Impressionists. One of the more interesting portraits is Pierre Dubreuil's "1908 "Elephantaisie"." It is a picture of a giant behemoth of an Elephant chained at the foot and in the background stands the Eiffel Tower; a commentary on the encroachment of the technical world on the world of nature. But that should come as no surprise to anyone. The modern rifle allowed for the extermination of the American Buffalo; the recent Gulf Oil spill recapitulates an ancient idea--with modernism comes the end of that natural world. Whether, the planet can survive that modernism remains much in doubt. The artist as naive, is a preposition much in dispute.
Gertrude Stein and her brother Leo were early collectors of Impressionists. As was auto-maker Alfred Pope and his Theodate Pope Riddle whose collection of Impressionist paintings--Degas, Monet, Manet, Cassatt-- at Hill-Stead Museum in Farmington, Ct. Alfred Pope collected Impressionists in 1889 before it was fashionable.
I have chosen Jean-Francois Millet "Gleaners" (painted 1857)because he is an example of Salon painting, having exhibited his paintings at the Salon. But he also influenced Van Gogh. So the line from Salon, to Impressionist, to Post Impressionist, to Modern is far more direct than one might at first wish to acknowledge. And in the end, a good story always works...
|
|
|
3
Comments
|
|
John Edwards and Andrew Young
|
Posted:Sep 2, 2010 5:33 pm
Last Updated:Sep 7, 2010 7:47 pm
4788 Views
|
Just finished reading Andrew Young's book THE POLITICIAN about John Edwards' affair with Rielle Hunter and her subsequent pregnancy in the winter of 2007-2008, just before the spring primaries, all of which he lost by a distant 3rd.
The most important thing to highlight: They were all lawyers: John Edwards, Elizabeth Edwards, Andrew Young, Fred Baron, Pam Marple. All of them lawyers and they were engaging in highly unethical activity in an effort to get John Edwards elected to the Presidency.
What they were doing: issuing documents for public release asserting that Andrew Young was the paramour in Rielle Hunter's life and that Andrew Young was the father of the fetus. This despite knowing that it was a lie. (page 239)
Much of this behavior was brought about because Elizabeth Edwards--also an attorney--had cancer and the principles thought, expected her to die. This despite knowledge that chemo can and does extend victim's life. And expecting Mrs. Edwards to die of cancer sounded like wishing, for it would resolve not a few issues with Rielle Hunter.
Andrew Young believed in John Edwards and worked with him and Elizabeth for almost 10 years as his factotum performing all the tasks a personal assistant is expected to perform, not only for the Senator but for the Senator's family.
Only towards the end of the saga--January, 2008, Rielle Hunter has given birth to John Edwards , and John Edwards wants nothing to do with her and the and is indifferent to their fate. He is also indifferent to the fate of Andrew Young and his family who cared for Rielle Hunter, lived with a deception about the actual relationship and paternity--a deception that Mrs Edwards believed. She verbally abused Mr. and Mrs. Young knowingly spreading lies and innuendos about Young's supposed infidelities. Mrs. Edwards sounds shrewish.
One of the late night comedians made a joke about John Edwards. Rielle Hunter appeared on Oprah's show to discuss her love affair with John Edwards; the comedian announced that John Edwards would appear on Oprah to discuss his love affair with John Edwards. And that is the crux of John Edwards problem. Self absorbed despite being involved in the tragic death of his teenage in an auto-accident, despite his wife afflicted with cancer. This self-absorption of John Edwards becomes a controlling motif in his life.
And in the end, the electorate has to decide whether John Edwards believes in the words he speaks, or is he simply using those words to manipulate the electorate? While that notion might be the bane of all politicians, clearly the electorate took the measure of John Edwards and passed on him. To the electorate, Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton seemed to be better potential candidates than John Edwards in those early primaries.
But the deception continued because John Edwards hoped for a vice-presidential nod or a cabinet post--neither of which would be forthcoming.
Further, John Edwards duped billionaire Bunny Mellon, into giving millions of dollarsfor his campaign only to have the funds used to further his relationship with Rielle Hunter. She thought her money was going for a more laudable purpose of ending poverty with a think-tank.
Everybody in this 3 Stooges comedy came out sleazy. Everybody. The Youngs find a sexually explicit video tape of John Edwards and Rielle Hunter and now they know they have leverage to protect them from John Edwards and Mrs. Edwards pathology.
When the book was first published in early 2010 John Edwards had still not acknowledged the as his, something he finally did in the spring. In the summer of 2010 John and Elizabeth Edwards ended their 30 year marriage and apparently John Edwards picked up his relationship with Rielle Hunter. Who by the by, can best be described as a flake cadet, after reading Young's book.
Edward Young wrote the book to set the record straight, to clear his name, to assert to his what the situation was all about with Rielle Hunter, and to get much needed income to support his family.
But in the end, all of these lawyers look sleazy. Lacking in any moral fiber... Events controlled their lives...
|
|
|
1
comment
|
|
A FACIAL AVAILABLE AT YOUR LOCAL PHARMACY, LADIES
|
Posted:Aug 26, 2010 7:08 pm
Last Updated:Oct 24, 2010 8:38 am
5622 Views
|
There was an item on television's THE DOCTORS that women can purchase a facial in a bottle. Yes you read correctly. For semen to rub on milady's fact can be purchased. Apparently made of synthetic semen but with all the proteins and vitamins found in semen. Now there is an intriguing idea.
What was so fascinating, was an idea found on your favorite porn channel is discussed on mainstream television. Now that was fascinating.
|
|
|
6
Comments
|
|
Gilbert & Sullivan: The Pirates of Penzance--an evening of riotous entertainment
|
Posted:Aug 22, 2010 12:00 am
Last Updated:Aug 26, 2010 7:08 pm
4784 Views
|
San Fransisco's Lamplighter's produced an excellent performance of Gilbert and Sullivan's THE PIRATES OF PENZANCE,or "The Slave of Duty." For those who like puns and apun my word who does not, puns abound. Ruth, Frederick's nursemaid is hard of hearing, and instead of apprenticing him to a pilot, she apprentices him to a pirate. Hilarity ensues. The Major-General and the Pirate King are not sure whether 'orphan' or 'often' is being spoken. If the Major-General can lay claim to being an orphan, his life is spared since the pirates have a soft spot for orphans.
Phallic imagery abounds in the Operetta. Early in the play, the maiden daughters of the Major-General have their umbrellas taken away by the Pirates who then corral them into forced concubinage; later in the number, the maidens retrieve their umbrellas to corral the pirates. Later in the Operetta, the bobbies will have their billy clubs taken by the maidens who will wrap ribbons round them; well, you get the idea... By the by, this use of phallic imagery shows up most effectively as a plot enhancement in MAMA MIA where the middle aged single ladies use microphones in a phallic moment. If this is lost, then an important part of the movies motivation is lost; after all, they are middle aged ladies at a loss and in search of sexual partners. The phallic iconography is as old as ancient Greek comedy.
Despite being first produced in 1880, there is a modern tone to the play. Frederick is not certain that Ruth is all that attractive, he has never seen another woman other than Ruth, and wonders about her looks. She responds that she is "Well." When Frederick meets the Major-General's daughters, he does not want a plain one, he wants only the prettiest. Along comes Mabel and they are both smitten with each other. Attractiveness, the quest for the attractive is a trope that stays with all of us, all of our lives.
There is much physical comedy in the play. The Major-General is attempting to find a rhyme for strategy; he sits on one of the pirates knees and comes up with sat a gee--which is a pledge. In the closing act, the Major-General thinks he is alone in his garden mausoleum; unbeknownst to him, the pirates and the bobbies have gathered there. He sings "Hush! hush! not a word" and the whole ensemble melds into waving tree branches, waving flowers in the breeze, and babbling brooks flowing gently by; all while the Major-General thinks he is alone. A piece of comedic genius.
I couldn't think of a finer gift to give for the High School student than a DVD of Joseph Papp's production with Linda Ronstadt, Kevin Kline, and Patricia Routledge. For those truly mature students, TOPSY TURVY describes their relationship--Gilbert and Sullivan could barely tolerate each other--as well as the seamier side of Victorian society.
But, of course, live theatre makes it all come alive! The performance was truly exciting and excellent. An interpretaion with comic genius throughout.
|
|
|
0
Comments
|
|
How far can you see out to sea, See? Si!
|
Posted:Aug 19, 2010 7:43 pm
Last Updated:Aug 19, 2010 7:56 pm
4577 Views
|
Living here in San Francisco, I go to the beach fairly often and I have often wondered: how far can a person see out to sea?
Well, it turns out there is a mathematical formula for that--or in modern parlance, there's an app for that.
The distance a person can see out to sea is a function of the height of the eyes above the water
d= 1.2 times the square root of the height of your eyes
So in my instance my eyes would be 5'7" 0r 5' 7/12 or 5' . 58'
[or] d = 1.2 times square root of 5' . 58' = 2.83 mi. {plus or minus}
[or] 1.2 x 2.369 = 2.83 miles
Well now, I thought that was interesting: 2.83 miles I can see out to sea. See? Si!
What I do for a punch line!
|
|
|
0
Comments
|
|
Mosque at Ground Zero
|
Posted:Aug 16, 2010 7:33 pm
Last Updated:May 23, 2024 10:31 pm
4650 Views
|
I have been following this controversy since it brewed about a month ago.
It impresses me that many people equate Islam with Nazi. We wouldn't allow a Nazi flag at Auschwitz, why should we allow a Mosque within two blocks of ground zero.
People understand that Jihad for Islam is blowing up the world in Praise of Allah and for perpetrators, heavenly reward. That is a powerful mindset. Nuclear weapons in Iran taps into that fear of an eventual nuclear armageddon with Iran throwing off the first missile...
Just as there could be no rational dialogue with Hitler, one suspects that there can be no rational dialogue with Islam, the Taliban, or Al Qaeda. We might make allowances for pathology, but when the state endorses Nuclear armaments, than the world must be concerned. And that is the basis for reservations regarding locating a Mosque so close to a site where 3000 people died at the hands of Islamic Fundamentalist suicide attackers.
For myself, I don't understand what the problem is. This does not mean to suggest that I endorse Islam or the book of Koran. I see Islam as just one more crazy religion, like Mormons, or snake handlers.
This is 2010. The provincialism that led Mormons to move to Utah because they were persecuted elsewhere is long over. The provincialism that led to Quakers founding a colony in Pennsylvania is long over. The provincialism that led Maryland to be a Roman Catholic Colony are long over. The provincialism that led Rhode Island to be founded as a separatist Massachusetts Colony are long over. It seems that America can tolerate this level of diversity without losing its integrity as America. Presumably, the builders of the Mosque are Americans who espouse American values of tolerance and egalitarianism.
They are looking for a level of tolerance that most Americans are not willing to give. Sort of like the who moves two blocks away from his victim. And I'm not sure that anyone should have that level of tolerance.
|
|
|
0
Comments
|
|
Mosque two blocks from Ground Zero
|
Posted:Aug 16, 2010 7:11 pm
Last Updated:Aug 18, 2010 5:12 pm
4727 Views
|
I've been following this controversy on the news now for the several weeks it has been brewing. Most people equate Moslem with Nazi--we wouldn't allow a Nazi flag near Auschwitz, why should we allow an Islamic Mosque near Ground Zero--actually two blocks from Ground Zero in New York.
I'm intrigued that people seem to understand something about fundamentalist Islam: blowing up the world in praise of Allah and for Heavenly reward. That is the essential mindset of the Sept 11 suicide attackers and America has to suspect that it is the mindset of all Islam. That Jihad in praise of Allah would have no bonds.
Iran owning nuclear weapons must be disconcerting not only to the harmony of the Middle East but to the entire world.
Like Hitler there can be no converstation with fundamentalist Moslem; there is nothing rational about these people; the words they use have no meaning. That's the whole point of being irrational; and no one has ever convinced me that Islam and the Koran is ultimately, an irrational world.
The developers of the mosque are asking from Americans for a level of generosity that is ultimately not-possible. It's like a moving two houses down from where his victim lives.
I don't find Islam rational at all, I don't find the Koran a book worthy of reading. Islam is like the Mormons; a crazy religion. I would say that of religious fundamentalists of every sripe.
Should they be allowed to build a mosque? I think they should. That does not mean I endorse Islam or Islamic fundamentalist. Presumably, the developers are Americans who espouse American values. This is 2010. The provincialism that led the Mormons to settle in Utah because they were persecuted elsewhere is long over. The provincialism that made Maryland a Roman Catholic Colony is long over. The provincialism that made Pennsylvania a Quaker Colony is long over. The provincialism that made Rhode Island a separatist colony from Massachusetts is long over. In 2010, we can sustain the differences that exists among us and still retain our integrity as Americans.
|
|
|
2
Comments
|
|
Neil Patrick Harris and Adoption
|
Posted:Aug 14, 2010 5:06 pm
Last Updated:Aug 16, 2010 5:16 pm
4615 Views
|
There was an item on the News Page this afternoon that Neil Patrick Harris and his partner are expecting twins. That was pretty much the exact wording of the article. "Expecting" twins.
This is how I responded:
This article is lacking in information. Are they adopting twins? What country? What nationality? How old do they expect the twins to be? Twin boys, twin girls, a twin boy and girl?
The headline asserted that Harris' partner was expecting twins. Now I thought Harris was gay, and so I said, "Gee, I guess I'm wrong." Only to find that indeed, Harris' male partner is 'expecting' twins. Are we to assume that somehow his male partner is to be fertilized in vitro--and how weird is that?
So go back to rewrite, and write a normal article that asserts that Harris and friend are going to adopt twins and give factual info! Let's go for normal here and eschew the weird. This article insults the proud parents, the twins to be adopted, and the reading audience! The article gives a tone of mockery to what should be a very serious event in the life of the twins and of the parents. Adoption is not something to trivialize or mock which this article does.
Well, I didn't lay on Neil Patrick Harris that as a gay person, he has no business adopting--if he can do it, more power to him. I didn't judge Neil Patrick Harris for being gay, don't really care. I do take strong exception to the tone of mockery the announcement gave off: "expecting" a implies pregnancy and that tone suggested a mockery of adoption and the adoptive process. As an actor he should be sensitive to language, it's connotation and denotation as well as the emotive impact implied in language.
|
|
|
1
comment
|
|
To link to this blog (stevenjosepht) use [blog stevenjosepht] in your messages.
|
|
|
| Sun |
Mon |
Tue |
Wed |
Thu |
Fri |
Sat |
| |
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
111
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
|
|
|
|
