This afternoon I wrote about George Bush Jr., meaning that my blogging today couldn't sink to a lower level of intellect, right ?
WRONG !!!!
As I was eating my rice and various other things tonight, the Finnish version of Big Brother started on TV. I don't think there is anything in popular culture (including R 'n B music and even celebrity gossip magazines) that makes my jaw drop at the sheer idiocy and pointlessness of it all. I think the difference between Big Brother and the celebrity gossip magazines (because after all, they are both forms of escape from normal life to live someone else's life vicariously for people with no imagination to do anything else) is that, while people will religiously buy their gossip magazines every month and read them from cover to cover, that's all they do. It's quite sad, granted, but there's a limit to it. I have found the following interesting facts on the readership of Hello! magazine which, I would imagine, is typically representative of this type of magazine.
Hello! readers are 71% more likely than the average female to choose a car mainly on looks.
Only 4% of Hello! readers buy tomatoes, as of February 2003.
Hello! readers are also 64% more likely to vote for an electoral candidate based on his or her hairstyle rather than policies
I've found them unreferenced on Wikipedia and as such I'm not sure if these facts are actually true or not, but it's quite funny anyway and I'd say it's quite representative even if it is satyrical. There's a song by French singer Jean-Jacques Goldman which describes the desperation of the life of a woman who lives her life through the celebrities in these magazines.
Big Brother, however, is a different affair entirely. It is the ultimate in mental escapism yet, unlike watching travel programmes or documentaries, offers absolutely no interest of any sort, as far as I can see. Psychology PhD students aside, who seriously takes anything useful from Big Brother ? And what's more, it's not one nation's stupidity - from its inception in Holland in 1999, it has spread to nearly 70 countries (that's seventy countries where people sit on their sofas, watching other people sitting on sofas) as diverse as Montenegro (where it's called Veliki Brat), the Philippines (Pinoy Big Brother), Nigeria, Somalia and the Middle East (where it's known as Al-Rais), Albania and Colombia (where, predictably, it's called Gran Hermano). Not content with watching the "most interesting" parts on TV, some (and I know someone who does this) even pay money to access the cameras 24/7 via the internet !! It's quite amazing to my mind that people should pay money to sit on the internet at 2am in order to watch people they don't know sleeping. There are many things I don't like or I can see are brainless - hard rock, teen movies, Greek party islands - which I would never enjoy myself, but can see in a way how other people enjoy it. Watching Big Brother's 24/7 camera is something I just cannot understand.
From what I saw of the Finnish episode it's similar to shows I've had the misfortune of allowing my eyes to see in other countries - people sit around discussing brainless topics before doing some idiotic task, occasionally having a nervous breakdown and occasionally having sex (probably on the orders of the networks after even the most die hard airhead fan is considering switching off). At the end of this, someone wins a large amount of money and becomes an instant celebrity for having done precisely nothing of use.
Now, "people are stupid" is a line that I do like to repeat from time to time and (even though it's a massive generalisation) I do feel that there is some kind of pattern - the human population as a whole (or rather the "developed" Western population, living in places where life is so outstandingly boring that we sink to immense depths to "entertain" ourselves) comprises largely of sheep who follow trends and fashions for no other reason than "others are doing it". This leads me to one of the small problems I've been thinking about for a while. Namely the following :
Why is it that I, as someone who reads the news every morning, can access information on Jane Goody's personal life far more easily than I can on the war in Darfur, the development of cures against AIDS or the looming environmental threats which are poised to start destroying us all ?
Two facts are obvious to anyone who reads the news on any regular website - people read more about irrelevant celebrities' lives than they do about the battle against AIDS, and there are more frequent stories about irrelevant celebrities' lives than there are about the battle against AIDS. One of these two facts has engendered the other, although I'm not sure which. In either case, it's quite sad that life has reduced people to this. As I write this another reality show has just begun and I've realised that if I write everything I feel about the overly-emotional made-for-TV-spectacle tear-jerking reality shows I would probably overload the blogger.com servers. So with this in mind, it's probably about time to stop. I'm off to read a book.
Aug 27, 2008
"Iraq fair game, Georgia certainly not", say politicians
As a student of Political Science, I often get comments such as "ah, politicians are all rotten anyway" or "it's just a big pile of corruption" and "I don't trust politics". People then look at me expecting me to defend myself. Often, I disappoint them by pointing out that politicians are even more rotten than they think.
A lot has been made of Russia's invasion of Georgia recently. For some it's shocking. For some it's a scary return to the days of the Cold War. For me, it's quite funny - a stage where "the West" can once again show how wonderfully hypocritical it is with some quite brilliant soundbites. Firstly, presidential hopefully John McCain showed that he has the credentials to become a great leader of the free world in following in Bush II's footsteps by claiming something ridiculous.
George Bush II, always keep to make his mark on international events, pointed out that "Russia has sought to integrate into the diplomatic, political, economic and security structures of the 21st century. Now Russia is putting its aspirations at risk by taking actions in Georgia that are inconsistent with the principles of those institutions." The fact that the majority of Ossetians are Russian citizens and were being targeted by the Georgian army seems to be rather irrelevant here - the US was protecting American civilians by attacking Iraq, which was incidentally barely able to threaten its neighbours. Just because a bunch of people with Russian passports were being charged on by the Georgian army doesn't mean Russia was actually acting legitimately defending them. Far from it, apparently - this kind of thing is just not allowed !
"In the 21st century, nations don't invade other nations !" claimed John McCain to back up this accusation. Unfortunately I haven't been able to find out whether Iraq and Afghanistan were considered nations by the US or not, but in any case this seems to be a rather bizarre claim to make. A suggestion that Russia be barred from the G8 while its army is still in Georgia was also floated. Interestingly, McCain has stated that if he becomes president, he will aim for American troops to remain in Iraq until 2013.
Condoleezza Rice, not wanting to miss out on the action, came up with this little pearl : "This is not 1968 and the invasion of Czechoslovakia, where Russia can threaten its neighbours, occupy a capital, overthrow a government and get away with it. Things have changed !". Indeed, this is 2008 - it is not 2001 or 2003 either. Admittedly, the US did not invade neighbours, occupy their capitals, overthrow their governments and get away with it in 2001 and 2003 - it did actually make the effort to get the troops out to Asia in order to do all of these things. Which, I suppose, makes it acceptable.
Eventually, someone stopped playing the game. Zalmay Khalilzad, US ambassador to various places in recent times, decided to say "hey ! we're not being hypocritical, we're just being selective in who people are allowed to invade !". "The days of overthrowing leaders by military means in Europe -- those days are gone !" he said, skillfully avoiding the Iraqi/Afghan question. Unfortunately, in a slight oversight, he forgot to mention McCain and Rice's specific comments on timing, and therefore the US-led NATO bombing of Serbia in 1999 would fall foul of this statement. If I was being really pedantic, I could say that, Georgia lying south of the main peaks of the Caucasus, it's technically in Asia itself. But I digress.
In addition to its military action in Georgia, Russia has done something even more disgusting - it has recognised the independence of South Ossetia AND Abkhazia !
The US has positioned itself as a champion of international law and in this arena the UN Charter gives the organisation's purpose as one "to develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples". Self determination of peoples would mean that Ossetians would get their own state, as would the Abkhaz, both of which speak their own language and have their own cultures and customs. Russian intention to recognise two regions that have been in conflict but are clearly within the internationally recognised borders of Georgia... is regrettable" claims Condoleezza Rice.
Where the Americans tread, of course, the British will surely follow. Foreign Secretary David Milliband claimed that the crisis provided a "rude awakening" and that Russia's "unilateral attempt to redraw the map marks a moment of real significance". Also, "We fully support Georgia's independence and territorial integrity, which cannot be changed by decree from Moscow." Would this be the same Britain and America who dismantled Serbia and pushed Kosovo into independence on the basis of national self-determination ? What a strange world this is.
DISCLAIMER : I would also like to explain this before anyone thinks "Oh here we go, someone who wants to slate Britain and the US for everything". I don't see any particularly easy solution for this situation, nor do I think Russia's aggression can be condoned. Nor do I think that the US and Britain are the only ones involved in blowing the trumpet of Western double-edged morality either - many others have recognised Kosovo which was declared as an independent state completely against international law and are jumping onto the anti-Russian bandwagon as well. I'm just presenting a certain side of things which crop up again and again in any crisis situation relevant to the West across the globe.
A lot has been made of Russia's invasion of Georgia recently. For some it's shocking. For some it's a scary return to the days of the Cold War. For me, it's quite funny - a stage where "the West" can once again show how wonderfully hypocritical it is with some quite brilliant soundbites. Firstly, presidential hopefully John McCain showed that he has the credentials to become a great leader of the free world in following in Bush II's footsteps by claiming something ridiculous.
George Bush II, always keep to make his mark on international events, pointed out that "Russia has sought to integrate into the diplomatic, political, economic and security structures of the 21st century. Now Russia is putting its aspirations at risk by taking actions in Georgia that are inconsistent with the principles of those institutions." The fact that the majority of Ossetians are Russian citizens and were being targeted by the Georgian army seems to be rather irrelevant here - the US was protecting American civilians by attacking Iraq, which was incidentally barely able to threaten its neighbours. Just because a bunch of people with Russian passports were being charged on by the Georgian army doesn't mean Russia was actually acting legitimately defending them. Far from it, apparently - this kind of thing is just not allowed !
"In the 21st century, nations don't invade other nations !" claimed John McCain to back up this accusation. Unfortunately I haven't been able to find out whether Iraq and Afghanistan were considered nations by the US or not, but in any case this seems to be a rather bizarre claim to make. A suggestion that Russia be barred from the G8 while its army is still in Georgia was also floated. Interestingly, McCain has stated that if he becomes president, he will aim for American troops to remain in Iraq until 2013.
Condoleezza Rice, not wanting to miss out on the action, came up with this little pearl : "This is not 1968 and the invasion of Czechoslovakia, where Russia can threaten its neighbours, occupy a capital, overthrow a government and get away with it. Things have changed !". Indeed, this is 2008 - it is not 2001 or 2003 either. Admittedly, the US did not invade neighbours, occupy their capitals, overthrow their governments and get away with it in 2001 and 2003 - it did actually make the effort to get the troops out to Asia in order to do all of these things. Which, I suppose, makes it acceptable.
Eventually, someone stopped playing the game. Zalmay Khalilzad, US ambassador to various places in recent times, decided to say "hey ! we're not being hypocritical, we're just being selective in who people are allowed to invade !". "The days of overthrowing leaders by military means in Europe -- those days are gone !" he said, skillfully avoiding the Iraqi/Afghan question. Unfortunately, in a slight oversight, he forgot to mention McCain and Rice's specific comments on timing, and therefore the US-led NATO bombing of Serbia in 1999 would fall foul of this statement. If I was being really pedantic, I could say that, Georgia lying south of the main peaks of the Caucasus, it's technically in Asia itself. But I digress.
In addition to its military action in Georgia, Russia has done something even more disgusting - it has recognised the independence of South Ossetia AND Abkhazia !
The US has positioned itself as a champion of international law and in this arena the UN Charter gives the organisation's purpose as one "to develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples". Self determination of peoples would mean that Ossetians would get their own state, as would the Abkhaz, both of which speak their own language and have their own cultures and customs. Russian intention to recognise two regions that have been in conflict but are clearly within the internationally recognised borders of Georgia... is regrettable" claims Condoleezza Rice.
Where the Americans tread, of course, the British will surely follow. Foreign Secretary David Milliband claimed that the crisis provided a "rude awakening" and that Russia's "unilateral attempt to redraw the map marks a moment of real significance". Also, "We fully support Georgia's independence and territorial integrity, which cannot be changed by decree from Moscow." Would this be the same Britain and America who dismantled Serbia and pushed Kosovo into independence on the basis of national self-determination ? What a strange world this is.
DISCLAIMER : I would also like to explain this before anyone thinks "Oh here we go, someone who wants to slate Britain and the US for everything". I don't see any particularly easy solution for this situation, nor do I think Russia's aggression can be condoned. Nor do I think that the US and Britain are the only ones involved in blowing the trumpet of Western double-edged morality either - many others have recognised Kosovo which was declared as an independent state completely against international law and are jumping onto the anti-Russian bandwagon as well. I'm just presenting a certain side of things which crop up again and again in any crisis situation relevant to the West across the globe.
Aug 8, 2008
Can we leave the Chinese alone for a bit ?
Seriously - they've organised the Olympics, they're putting a show on for the rest of the world. Politics is politics, sport is sport. If we didn't give the task of organising big games to countries without a poor human rights record, the Olympics, World Cup and European championships of just about everything would simply alternate between Finland and Sweden, the two most innocent and incorruptible nations in the world. We've all got blood on our hands, let's face it. So what's the big deal with the Chinese ? Why is everyone saying we should boycott watching the games ? Why were heads of state threatening to not go to Beijing ? I've heard it's because China is currently illegally occupying Tibet. I've heard that athletes themselves are signing petitions ordering the Chinese to move out of Tibet, give it an independent state and to behave themselves properly with regard to human rights. I've heard they also want the Chinese to withdraw their investments in Sudan because of the Darfur situation. This is, quite honestly speaking, ridiculous.
There hasn't been a boycott of the Olympics since 1984 when the Soviets and much of the Eastern Bloc boycotted the Games in the US after a similar action by the West during the Moscow games in 1980. Since then the games have been held in South Korea, Spain, the USA, Australia, and Athens. I don't recall widespread criticism of the Games being awarded to the United States for its support of right wing death squads in Latin America, nor do I recall Australia being singled out for its treatment of Aborigines and refugees from war zones. Similarly, the London Games of 2012 don't seem to be criticised for British action over the world. Are the athletes going to sign a "Free Iraq and Afghanistan" petition in 4 years ? Or how about a "Stop investing in Nigeria because of its human rights record" petition ? Assuming that Paris had been awarded the 2012 Games, would we have stood on our pedestals and started criticising France's support of countless African dictators ? How about an "Apologise for propping up Jean-Bedel Bokassa/Mobutu Sese Seko/Hissène Habré/Idriss Déby" petition ? Or maybe France should be forced to apologise for Napoleon's invasion of Russia before it is awarded any global celebration of sport again ?
Sportsmen are not politicians, let's not treat them as such. China isn't a shining light of human rights, but nor are most countries. Just because they're going to be richer than us in 50 years doesn't mean we should piss on their bonfire this month. So leave them alone !
There hasn't been a boycott of the Olympics since 1984 when the Soviets and much of the Eastern Bloc boycotted the Games in the US after a similar action by the West during the Moscow games in 1980. Since then the games have been held in South Korea, Spain, the USA, Australia, and Athens. I don't recall widespread criticism of the Games being awarded to the United States for its support of right wing death squads in Latin America, nor do I recall Australia being singled out for its treatment of Aborigines and refugees from war zones. Similarly, the London Games of 2012 don't seem to be criticised for British action over the world. Are the athletes going to sign a "Free Iraq and Afghanistan" petition in 4 years ? Or how about a "Stop investing in Nigeria because of its human rights record" petition ? Assuming that Paris had been awarded the 2012 Games, would we have stood on our pedestals and started criticising France's support of countless African dictators ? How about an "Apologise for propping up Jean-Bedel Bokassa/Mobutu Sese Seko/Hissène Habré/Idriss Déby" petition ? Or maybe France should be forced to apologise for Napoleon's invasion of Russia before it is awarded any global celebration of sport again ?
Sportsmen are not politicians, let's not treat them as such. China isn't a shining light of human rights, but nor are most countries. Just because they're going to be richer than us in 50 years doesn't mean we should piss on their bonfire this month. So leave them alone !
A Discussion of the Human Condition
Yesterday morning my letterbox made a sound and I found my Bradt guide to the Congos. which I'd ordered at the beginning of the week. I ploughed straight into it. It looks like a great part of the world to visit (which we're saving up to do next year) and, despite the differences between it and the parts of Africa that I know, it brought memories flooding back. One of the biggest differences between Africa and northern Europe is the social interaction, the possibility of just talking to anyone for hours on end about nothing at all without it seeming like space filler. It's just fun. This evening rather contrasted with this book and these memories.
I went to a bar tonight. Firstly, it was Friday. Secondly, there were birthday drinks. Thirdly, it was something to do. And last of all, I like places where other people are. It gives me a chance to be social outside of a computer geek setting, and to people watch. Generally, people watching is limited to looking at girls and to observing people doing weird things and being critical of this in a very cynical kind of way. It does have other uses too, though. Having lived in 3 countries and visited many others (and having visited bars in most of these places), it's easy to pick up on local habits, notice trends among people from different places, and then sometimes see them everywhere and get annoyed by them. Going to a Finnish bar is an intriguing experience in terms of people watching; it is, at once, and a good place to get to know the Finnish psyche and a bad place to get to know it. It's a bad place because people do tend to go out to get plastered here, which naturally unleashes the inner self which never exposes itself in times of sobriety. It's a good place, however, because in the same bar you can see a cross-section of society to a far wider degree than I've noticed anywhere else. A frequenter of a Finnish bar will conclude that practically the entire Finnish nation consists of 4 types of people:
- People who have dyed their hair black, usually have tattoos of bats or incomprehensible Chinese characters, and wear t-shirts bearing slogans like "DEATH", pictures of skulls, and so on. Such people will almost always be dressed in black and red. Optional extras include black fishnet tights over red leggings (for women) and a shaved head and large goatee beard, or long hair tied into a pony tail (for men).
- Middle aged women sitting drinking gin long-drinks accompanied by other middle aged women, looking somewhat uncomfortable. I'm tempted to say that they are possibly looking for male company to replace the husband who has ditched them but, given that I'm not qualified as a psychiatrist and have no knowledge of telepathy, it's outside my mandate to guess such things.
- Geeky looking guys, almost always wearing square glasses, with blonde hair tentatively gelled up into spikes, also looking uncomfortable. I'm tempted to say that they are possibly looking for female company, and that they are probably hoping that this company doesn't come along until they've had a couple more beers. While having no knowledge of telepathy, I'm confident of being fairly accurate with this suggestion.
- "Past it" old guys, with 3-day stubble revealing their 3-straight-days drinking habits, usually with faded tattoos, sleeveless vests (preferably leather) and glazed expressions. Nevertheless, these people (if they have been admitted to the bar in the first place) are quite animated, and will talk loudly and at length with whoever cares to listen.
If one has lots of money and the patience to go to a overhyped club which is just as crappy as the others but loved by the masses from the rich suburbs for some reason, you will discover a 5th type - the young professional who probably drives a sports car, does not own any clothes which cost less than 50€ (including socks), and will generally sit around talking about sports cars and expensive clothes (possibly not including socks).
In any case, today I noticed several things which I've decided to share with you all. Now, I know I have been quite negative about Finns on several occasions in this blog and I've explained the reasons for this. They happen to be a people that I have a lot of time for - they are honest to a fault, very friendly once you actually get to know them and, once they get pissed enough, quite chatty and open and curious about us foreigners. Sober, they're quite quiet - this bugged me at the beginning but I've understood now that silence is not awkward here and nothing to shy away from. Hard for me to understand, but that's just the way it is. However, there are a few things which I've noticed here enough to write down.
Tonight, for instance, there were 5 of us at a bar - me, and 4 of M's friends. On sitting at the table, 3 of them started speaking in Finnish to each other (which is completely understandable - even if maybe not from a linguistic point of view) and one of them got a newspaper out and started doing a crossword. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but isn't this slightly strange ? If I went to the bar with a group of friends and one got a beer and pulled out a crossword, I'd take that as quite a blatant social "fuck you" and wonder if this person wouldn't be happier at home. As it happened, the other three didn't bat an eyelid at this and continued their conversation. I stared into space and drank my pint. To me, this fits into the same category as the girl and guy at a bar both writing text messages which I've seen here and there, and the people who walk along with someone else and pull out an MP3 player and start listening to it. The silence-as-a-conversational-tactic thing is something I've got used to even if I don't really enjoy it - outwardly giving signs of turning away from social company in a "sorry you're too boring for me" is something I just don't get. Again, it seems to be something which is taken as unproblematic here and, again, this is not an essentially Finnish disease - I've seen it in various places. It does seem to be quite rampant here though, leading to my conclusion that it's generally accepted as OK. It's also quite a complicated social fabric to work out given that people seem to go very hot-and-cold on the whole issue (e.g. if I'm out with a group and manage to corner one or two of them, they're absolutely open and chatty and lovely people to be with, and I fade to the background again when we reintegrate the herd). I plan to continue the research.
I went to a bar tonight. Firstly, it was Friday. Secondly, there were birthday drinks. Thirdly, it was something to do. And last of all, I like places where other people are. It gives me a chance to be social outside of a computer geek setting, and to people watch. Generally, people watching is limited to looking at girls and to observing people doing weird things and being critical of this in a very cynical kind of way. It does have other uses too, though. Having lived in 3 countries and visited many others (and having visited bars in most of these places), it's easy to pick up on local habits, notice trends among people from different places, and then sometimes see them everywhere and get annoyed by them. Going to a Finnish bar is an intriguing experience in terms of people watching; it is, at once, and a good place to get to know the Finnish psyche and a bad place to get to know it. It's a bad place because people do tend to go out to get plastered here, which naturally unleashes the inner self which never exposes itself in times of sobriety. It's a good place, however, because in the same bar you can see a cross-section of society to a far wider degree than I've noticed anywhere else. A frequenter of a Finnish bar will conclude that practically the entire Finnish nation consists of 4 types of people:
- People who have dyed their hair black, usually have tattoos of bats or incomprehensible Chinese characters, and wear t-shirts bearing slogans like "DEATH", pictures of skulls, and so on. Such people will almost always be dressed in black and red. Optional extras include black fishnet tights over red leggings (for women) and a shaved head and large goatee beard, or long hair tied into a pony tail (for men).
- Middle aged women sitting drinking gin long-drinks accompanied by other middle aged women, looking somewhat uncomfortable. I'm tempted to say that they are possibly looking for male company to replace the husband who has ditched them but, given that I'm not qualified as a psychiatrist and have no knowledge of telepathy, it's outside my mandate to guess such things.
- Geeky looking guys, almost always wearing square glasses, with blonde hair tentatively gelled up into spikes, also looking uncomfortable. I'm tempted to say that they are possibly looking for female company, and that they are probably hoping that this company doesn't come along until they've had a couple more beers. While having no knowledge of telepathy, I'm confident of being fairly accurate with this suggestion.
- "Past it" old guys, with 3-day stubble revealing their 3-straight-days drinking habits, usually with faded tattoos, sleeveless vests (preferably leather) and glazed expressions. Nevertheless, these people (if they have been admitted to the bar in the first place) are quite animated, and will talk loudly and at length with whoever cares to listen.
If one has lots of money and the patience to go to a overhyped club which is just as crappy as the others but loved by the masses from the rich suburbs for some reason, you will discover a 5th type - the young professional who probably drives a sports car, does not own any clothes which cost less than 50€ (including socks), and will generally sit around talking about sports cars and expensive clothes (possibly not including socks).
In any case, today I noticed several things which I've decided to share with you all. Now, I know I have been quite negative about Finns on several occasions in this blog and I've explained the reasons for this. They happen to be a people that I have a lot of time for - they are honest to a fault, very friendly once you actually get to know them and, once they get pissed enough, quite chatty and open and curious about us foreigners. Sober, they're quite quiet - this bugged me at the beginning but I've understood now that silence is not awkward here and nothing to shy away from. Hard for me to understand, but that's just the way it is. However, there are a few things which I've noticed here enough to write down.
Tonight, for instance, there were 5 of us at a bar - me, and 4 of M's friends. On sitting at the table, 3 of them started speaking in Finnish to each other (which is completely understandable - even if maybe not from a linguistic point of view) and one of them got a newspaper out and started doing a crossword. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but isn't this slightly strange ? If I went to the bar with a group of friends and one got a beer and pulled out a crossword, I'd take that as quite a blatant social "fuck you" and wonder if this person wouldn't be happier at home. As it happened, the other three didn't bat an eyelid at this and continued their conversation. I stared into space and drank my pint. To me, this fits into the same category as the girl and guy at a bar both writing text messages which I've seen here and there, and the people who walk along with someone else and pull out an MP3 player and start listening to it. The silence-as-a-conversational-tactic thing is something I've got used to even if I don't really enjoy it - outwardly giving signs of turning away from social company in a "sorry you're too boring for me" is something I just don't get. Again, it seems to be something which is taken as unproblematic here and, again, this is not an essentially Finnish disease - I've seen it in various places. It does seem to be quite rampant here though, leading to my conclusion that it's generally accepted as OK. It's also quite a complicated social fabric to work out given that people seem to go very hot-and-cold on the whole issue (e.g. if I'm out with a group and manage to corner one or two of them, they're absolutely open and chatty and lovely people to be with, and I fade to the background again when we reintegrate the herd). I plan to continue the research.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.JPG)