In the news in the States at the moment, the horrible, if not entirely unpredictable demise of one Mark Wolford, a preacher who took the word of the Bible rather more literally than proved good for him. Full story here, but the short version is that he handled extremely dangerous snakes as part of his services, in an effort I suppose to test both his own faith and the veracity of Mark 16: 17-18, which is quoted in the article I've linked to.
I don't even really know where to begin with the folly of this, with the inevitability of it. I realise that this is, of course, not the fault of religion per se, and entirely down to the stupidity and hubris of the individual involved, but what the fuck? Watching his own father die in exactly the same circumstances didn't teach this man anything? And who took their moral and spiritual guidance from such an individual? If they saw his ongoing preaching as evidence of his divine protection, what do they think caused his death?
The late Mr Wolford did not seem unduly troubled by doubt, notwithstanding his father's fate. "If I didn't do it, if I'd never gotten back involved, it'd be the same as denying the power and saying it was not real," he is reported as having said. Well, needless to say, I don't see it like that. The only thing he was denying is the plain fact that, if you're to accept his world view as a truth, either his father's faith was insufficient to save him, or there is no such God-given protection. Such post-rationalisation is typical of blind faith, though, if understandable in a preacher. You'd have to find some reason for seeing your father die in a test of faith which was neither of those realities, or you'd chuck it all in.
So, of course, this is his fault, not religion's. But take away the blind, stupid certainty of his faith, and he might at least have sought medical treatment, had he been messing with venomous serpents in the bloody first place. If there were any such entity, I'd be asking God to ensure that nobody else died in such a fashion in His name, and that Mr Wolford's children, if he had any, learn the lesson which eluded their father.
Thursday, 31 May 2012
Industrial action by doctors shows just how many the government is pissing off
The last time doctors took industrial action was during the mid-seventies. Well paid, well respected generally, they're not exactly the most militant group, but have voted overwhelmingly to strike for all but emergency activity on June 21st, with possible further action to follow.
Given how well paid they are, and the comfort in which most of them can expect to retire, and given the people who are likely to suffer as a result of their action, they can expect little sympathy from Joe Public. On that, my personal feeling is that they work hard, carry a heavy burden not to make mistakes because of the possible consequences of them, and are merely paid what all members of our health services are actually worth. I'd far rather bump the pay of nurses, junior doctors etc up at the expense of hugely paid businessmen, but that's another story.
Anyway, this is mainly noteworthy because, as white collar, middle-class, high-earning people, these are the last sort of voters the Tories should be looking to piss off. Lately, when there's been a Conservative government (which is how I view this one, regardless of the fact it's supposed to be a coalition), there have been more strikes among those sectors of work which are run by the more left-wing unions than there are when Labour are in power. What you might call traditionally working-class sectors are those who usually come into conflict with Tory ideology.
But here we have a disaffected group who come from what may reasonably be expected to be drawn from the Tory vote. In attacking pensions so broadly, and so deeply, they're infuriating people well outside the usual gamut of the disaffected. So we can now, to a list which already includes public sector workers, miners, nurses, fire fighters, transport workers and even the police (who, let's not forget, openly booed Theresa May at their conference), add doctors to this growing list of those they've angered.
At this rate, you've got to wonder who's going to be left supporting them when the next election comes round. There will, of course, be the usual tax cuts in the last pre-election budget, but is that going to be enough this time round to carry their sorry arses back in? In cutting everything so dogmatically, are they busy cutting their own electoral throats at the same time?
Given how well paid they are, and the comfort in which most of them can expect to retire, and given the people who are likely to suffer as a result of their action, they can expect little sympathy from Joe Public. On that, my personal feeling is that they work hard, carry a heavy burden not to make mistakes because of the possible consequences of them, and are merely paid what all members of our health services are actually worth. I'd far rather bump the pay of nurses, junior doctors etc up at the expense of hugely paid businessmen, but that's another story.
Anyway, this is mainly noteworthy because, as white collar, middle-class, high-earning people, these are the last sort of voters the Tories should be looking to piss off. Lately, when there's been a Conservative government (which is how I view this one, regardless of the fact it's supposed to be a coalition), there have been more strikes among those sectors of work which are run by the more left-wing unions than there are when Labour are in power. What you might call traditionally working-class sectors are those who usually come into conflict with Tory ideology.
But here we have a disaffected group who come from what may reasonably be expected to be drawn from the Tory vote. In attacking pensions so broadly, and so deeply, they're infuriating people well outside the usual gamut of the disaffected. So we can now, to a list which already includes public sector workers, miners, nurses, fire fighters, transport workers and even the police (who, let's not forget, openly booed Theresa May at their conference), add doctors to this growing list of those they've angered.
At this rate, you've got to wonder who's going to be left supporting them when the next election comes round. There will, of course, be the usual tax cuts in the last pre-election budget, but is that going to be enough this time round to carry their sorry arses back in? In cutting everything so dogmatically, are they busy cutting their own electoral throats at the same time?
Friday, 25 May 2012
The importance of reading what you've written
Many of you know what I do for a living, and also know that I get irritated when I see mistakes in printed material, on telly or wherever they may occur. Just occasionally, though, you see one which fills you with joy. This has, I promise, not been retouched - it's a photocopy of the front of a real menu, which I've scanned. I've annotated one mistake which is pretty obvious, but there's another on there that they really, really should have watched out for. See if you can see it.
Let's just say that I'd insist upon this fabulous offer, were I ever to visit this no doubt fine establishment.
Let's just say that I'd insist upon this fabulous offer, were I ever to visit this no doubt fine establishment.
Friday, 18 May 2012
Remembering Jim Henson
I'd have written this two days ago, if I'd had time. Wednesday 16th was the anniversary of the death of one of my absolute favourite entertainment figures, the great Jim Henson.
To anybody my age, The Muppet Show was essential viewing on a Sunday evening during their childhood, my one regret being that I wasn't actually old enough to really appreciate the thing for the quality of the writing, puppetry and set building.
It was, by a country mile, better than any entertainment programme on at the moment, and I'd have it back on TV in a heartbeat if it could be done as well as it was then. Henson's real genius, as well as his ability to handle a 'peace 'n'love' message without being heavy-handed, was in engaging absolutely all ages in producing a show that was consistently funny and inventive.
The Muppets form an essential part of my grown-up Christmas experience too – their version of A Christmas Carol somehow managing to remain faithful to the book while at the same time incorporating singing vegetables. You don't get that on Britain's Got Talent. (I realise that some people would argue that this is exactly what you get on BGT, but you take my point.)
Another one of those people taken too young at 53, he refused hospital treatment when he fell ill, some have said because of his religious beliefs (yet another reason to hate it if that's true, but that's well-trodden ground), and Kermit's voice and soul was gone. Though they continue to make films, the most recent of which being very well received, I rather fear my hope of a Sunday evening Muppet Show resurrection will never happen.
Cheers, Jim.
(I do not know who owns the copyright to this image and will very happily credit them should they get in touch. I hope, given the nature of my post, they would approve of me using it here.)
To anybody my age, The Muppet Show was essential viewing on a Sunday evening during their childhood, my one regret being that I wasn't actually old enough to really appreciate the thing for the quality of the writing, puppetry and set building.
It was, by a country mile, better than any entertainment programme on at the moment, and I'd have it back on TV in a heartbeat if it could be done as well as it was then. Henson's real genius, as well as his ability to handle a 'peace 'n'love' message without being heavy-handed, was in engaging absolutely all ages in producing a show that was consistently funny and inventive.
The Muppets form an essential part of my grown-up Christmas experience too – their version of A Christmas Carol somehow managing to remain faithful to the book while at the same time incorporating singing vegetables. You don't get that on Britain's Got Talent. (I realise that some people would argue that this is exactly what you get on BGT, but you take my point.)
Another one of those people taken too young at 53, he refused hospital treatment when he fell ill, some have said because of his religious beliefs (yet another reason to hate it if that's true, but that's well-trodden ground), and Kermit's voice and soul was gone. Though they continue to make films, the most recent of which being very well received, I rather fear my hope of a Sunday evening Muppet Show resurrection will never happen.
Cheers, Jim.
(I do not know who owns the copyright to this image and will very happily credit them should they get in touch. I hope, given the nature of my post, they would approve of me using it here.)
Monday, 14 May 2012
Romney shows true Republican colours
Mitt Romney's comments (here) on marriage, addressing a congregation of the converted (to say the least) as part of what is evidently a pitch to the Christian right voters in the States, shows both him and his party up for what they are.
It's a worrying sign that the same sort of people who want creationism taught in schools as fact, and who distrust atheists more vehemently than any other minority group in the US, according to an oft-quoted University of Minnesota study, still carry this much sway in the thinking of the patrician class of such a world power.
This man could be President, if the strength of feeling that this group evidently harbour against him can be used by the Republicans and translated into votes. Obama's support for free health care, and his modernist views on what marriage is, clearly strike a deep chord of discontent with these people. To parts of the outside world, and certainly to me, his attitudes merely seem human and contemporary, but this evidently marks him out as a socialist; sees him regarded as the worst kind of anti-American scum in some eyes in the country over which he presides.
It already looks absolutely imperative that Obama wins the Presidential election because, if Romney is to be the one standing against him and comes through to win, we could have another George W Bush on our hands. Remember him? The creationist loon who said, and I quote, at Chicago's O'Hare airport in 1987, "...I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."
So he dismissed some of his own countryment, regardless of their feelings for the US. We must all hope we never have another of his kind in the Oval Office, but Romney makes me fear it could be all too soon that we have exactly that.
It's a worrying sign that the same sort of people who want creationism taught in schools as fact, and who distrust atheists more vehemently than any other minority group in the US, according to an oft-quoted University of Minnesota study, still carry this much sway in the thinking of the patrician class of such a world power.
This man could be President, if the strength of feeling that this group evidently harbour against him can be used by the Republicans and translated into votes. Obama's support for free health care, and his modernist views on what marriage is, clearly strike a deep chord of discontent with these people. To parts of the outside world, and certainly to me, his attitudes merely seem human and contemporary, but this evidently marks him out as a socialist; sees him regarded as the worst kind of anti-American scum in some eyes in the country over which he presides.
It already looks absolutely imperative that Obama wins the Presidential election because, if Romney is to be the one standing against him and comes through to win, we could have another George W Bush on our hands. Remember him? The creationist loon who said, and I quote, at Chicago's O'Hare airport in 1987, "...I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."
So he dismissed some of his own countryment, regardless of their feelings for the US. We must all hope we never have another of his kind in the Oval Office, but Romney makes me fear it could be all too soon that we have exactly that.
Sunday, 6 May 2012
And the political wheel turns
So Boris Johnson seems to have won a second term on the basis that he's slightly less unpopular than Ken Livingstone. It was a close run thing with the big two miles clear of everybody else. From the point of view of the mayoral elections, probably more interesting was the fact that in the rest of the country, where major cities were voting on the principal of actually having an elected mayor, all but one rejected the idea. You have to wonder if the experience of Londoners, and the unedifying sight of the major players yelling at each other, had anything to do with how those votes went.
On local councils, the usual mid-governmental term took effect, with whoever's in opposition kicking the governing party's arse, as is often the case. (Or arses in this case, as it's the Lib Dems, beginning to reap what they sowed, whose rear end has been most comprehensively reddened this time round.) It's difficult to know if this represents a genuine rejection of the policy of cuts that are biting so deeply or is merely the standard response to an unpopular government. As all governments seem to be unpopular mid-term, we'll probably have to wait for a general election to see this play itself out to a conclusion. Or at least, the conclusion of a single rotation of this political wheel.
In the meantime, the best we London residents can hope for is that Boris continues to not do too much damage. Livingstone suggested that, in winning the mayoral election, Johnson has also settled the next Tory leadership battle. But with his four-year term certain to run beyond the next general election, I'm not sure how that's possible. Livingstone, just as he did with the tone of his campaign, got that one wrong I think.
On local councils, the usual mid-governmental term took effect, with whoever's in opposition kicking the governing party's arse, as is often the case. (Or arses in this case, as it's the Lib Dems, beginning to reap what they sowed, whose rear end has been most comprehensively reddened this time round.) It's difficult to know if this represents a genuine rejection of the policy of cuts that are biting so deeply or is merely the standard response to an unpopular government. As all governments seem to be unpopular mid-term, we'll probably have to wait for a general election to see this play itself out to a conclusion. Or at least, the conclusion of a single rotation of this political wheel.
In the meantime, the best we London residents can hope for is that Boris continues to not do too much damage. Livingstone suggested that, in winning the mayoral election, Johnson has also settled the next Tory leadership battle. But with his four-year term certain to run beyond the next general election, I'm not sure how that's possible. Livingstone, just as he did with the tone of his campaign, got that one wrong I think.
Monday, 30 April 2012
Mayoral election is Hobson's choice
This Thursday sees elections in London for both the Mayoralty and the London Assembly (not that most people have the faintest idea who sits on that body, nor its powers). It does, as is often the way in British politics, appear to be a fight between red and blue, with the other candidates some distance back.
I freely admit that, last time round, I voted for Livingstone as my way of hoping Boris J wouldn't get in. It left a slightly sour taste in my mouth, but I viewed him as the lesser of two evils. It's all very well being a likeable buffoon, but it should be remembered that the position of Mayor of London carries considerable power and influence and should perhaps not therefore be given to such an individual. I suspect that his election was, in part, a reflection of how unpopular Livingstone was (and is).
The fact is, though, that this time round, given the lengths Ken seems to have gone to to make himself appear even more the bumptious git, it feels impossible to vote for him. He's moved his opponent to screaming apoplexy with supposed 'lies' about his financial affairs and generally behaved in the worst traditions of smear politicians everywhere. I simply don't know whether I'll have it in me to vote for him when I come to stand in the booth on May 3rd.
What, then of the others? Boris? No chance – like I said, the fact that his old-school affable idiocy makes for good telly does not make him a viable option as a candidate. The best that can be said about his period in office is that he doesn't appear to have done much long-term damage. Hardly a ringing endorsement.
That leaves Paddick. For personal reason, I can't and won't vote Lib Dem. Those of you who know me will probably know why. So he's out.
Green? No - she has absolutely no chance of winning, and no clear statement on policies for anything. Their candidate's only election strategy seems to be to utter the word 'sustainable' as many times as possible, without actually having to outline any actions that may be taken, or ruling out any that may not.
BNP? Christ no. They should be congratulated for managing to persuade an immigrant to stand for them, but you've got to wonder whether the bloke's actually got a grasp of their own policies. The BNP may have a chance of an Assembly member with the voting patterns of certain deprived parts of London, but if they ever have a London Mayor, I'm off to Spain.
UKIP? More dangerous than the BNP in their way, because they're not known as racists and have, unlike Griffin's lot, the ability to speak faintly articulately. The evil which presents a public face of harmlessness is the most worrisome of all. I'd sooner vote Raving Loony. (Where is the Raving Loony candidate, by the way? I sincerely hope they're not disappearing from our election screens - they're the only ones who truly show up politics for what it is).
Then there's the half-dozen independents, of whom Siobhan Benita seems to have garnered the most attention. They really do have no chance, and I worry about any independent's lack of political experience. Have they the connections to grease the wheels? It's also difficult to garner any real appreciation of their policies when they're so excluded from the mainstream media.
Where, then, does that leave me? This is probably the first time in my adult life than I'll enter a voting booth with a genuine desire to write 'none of the above' on the damn slip. I'm not going to abstain from voting, I've always railed against doing such a thing, but part of me thinks that 'no winner', given the likely terrible turn-out, should be declared. If no candidate can be considered to have a mandate from the voters, perhaps the role should be mothballed and the powers handed to the Assembly until a candidate people actually feel able to vote for emerges.
I freely admit that, last time round, I voted for Livingstone as my way of hoping Boris J wouldn't get in. It left a slightly sour taste in my mouth, but I viewed him as the lesser of two evils. It's all very well being a likeable buffoon, but it should be remembered that the position of Mayor of London carries considerable power and influence and should perhaps not therefore be given to such an individual. I suspect that his election was, in part, a reflection of how unpopular Livingstone was (and is).
The fact is, though, that this time round, given the lengths Ken seems to have gone to to make himself appear even more the bumptious git, it feels impossible to vote for him. He's moved his opponent to screaming apoplexy with supposed 'lies' about his financial affairs and generally behaved in the worst traditions of smear politicians everywhere. I simply don't know whether I'll have it in me to vote for him when I come to stand in the booth on May 3rd.
What, then of the others? Boris? No chance – like I said, the fact that his old-school affable idiocy makes for good telly does not make him a viable option as a candidate. The best that can be said about his period in office is that he doesn't appear to have done much long-term damage. Hardly a ringing endorsement.
That leaves Paddick. For personal reason, I can't and won't vote Lib Dem. Those of you who know me will probably know why. So he's out.
Green? No - she has absolutely no chance of winning, and no clear statement on policies for anything. Their candidate's only election strategy seems to be to utter the word 'sustainable' as many times as possible, without actually having to outline any actions that may be taken, or ruling out any that may not.
BNP? Christ no. They should be congratulated for managing to persuade an immigrant to stand for them, but you've got to wonder whether the bloke's actually got a grasp of their own policies. The BNP may have a chance of an Assembly member with the voting patterns of certain deprived parts of London, but if they ever have a London Mayor, I'm off to Spain.
UKIP? More dangerous than the BNP in their way, because they're not known as racists and have, unlike Griffin's lot, the ability to speak faintly articulately. The evil which presents a public face of harmlessness is the most worrisome of all. I'd sooner vote Raving Loony. (Where is the Raving Loony candidate, by the way? I sincerely hope they're not disappearing from our election screens - they're the only ones who truly show up politics for what it is).
Then there's the half-dozen independents, of whom Siobhan Benita seems to have garnered the most attention. They really do have no chance, and I worry about any independent's lack of political experience. Have they the connections to grease the wheels? It's also difficult to garner any real appreciation of their policies when they're so excluded from the mainstream media.
Where, then, does that leave me? This is probably the first time in my adult life than I'll enter a voting booth with a genuine desire to write 'none of the above' on the damn slip. I'm not going to abstain from voting, I've always railed against doing such a thing, but part of me thinks that 'no winner', given the likely terrible turn-out, should be declared. If no candidate can be considered to have a mandate from the voters, perhaps the role should be mothballed and the powers handed to the Assembly until a candidate people actually feel able to vote for emerges.
Sunday, 22 April 2012
In defence of the sesquipedalian
Will Self is one of my modern-day writing heroes. A man who can drive you to a dictionary to make sense of one of his pieces of writing (a fact I regard as a good thing, given that it's such a powerful learning tool), and who is one of the very few people I've read who's used 'callipygian', one of my favourite words ever, in his work.
He's written a piece for the Beeb website defending not only his own use of these words, but bemoaning the fact that he needs to make that defence.
He rightly points out that this is one more symptom of the dumbing down of our culture, one more piece of evidence of the overwhelming need for immediacy, even in reading these days. The idea that looking up words is somehow a chore is anathema to me, and to Will Self, fortunately. He's one of those people holding up the barricades against that tide of atrophy, a little flashing buoy in a huge, dark sea of ignorance. I offer him my fullest approbation. (Yep, looked that one up...)
He rightly points out that this is one more symptom of the dumbing down of our culture, one more piece of evidence of the overwhelming need for immediacy, even in reading these days. The idea that looking up words is somehow a chore is anathema to me, and to Will Self, fortunately. He's one of those people holding up the barricades against that tide of atrophy, a little flashing buoy in a huge, dark sea of ignorance. I offer him my fullest approbation. (Yep, looked that one up...)
Monday, 16 April 2012
Carey's comments show scant regard for modernity
George, now Lord Carey, was criticised in some quarters for being a bit soft, and a bit unwilling to speak out, while he was Archbishop of Canterbury. Now speaking as a 'free' man, and a sitting peer, he's happier, it seems, to give free rein to his mouth.
He's spoken out in an interview with the Telegraph about what he sees as an erosion of Christian values and rights in an increasingly secularising society, complaining about a legal ruling in favour of the removal of prayers from the start of council meetings, and leaping to the defence of the guest house owners I've already written about in these pages. He's also complained about the treatment of a Relate counsellor who lost his job for refusing to counsel same-sex couples.
His comments on these cases basically amount to a call for Christians to be able to be free to exercise discrimination, while at the same time complaining about the fact that they themselves are being discriminated against. This apparent contradiction does not seem to occur to him. "This inability to find a way to accommodate the sincerely held beliefs of someone like Gary McFarlane creates a tyranny," he claims. So, if Mr McFarlane, the Relate counsellor in question, believed through his religion that he couldn't counsel mixed-race couples, or couples comprising a Christian and a Jew for example, would that be OK too? And of the B&B owners, he says: “I want to protect their freedom to take that line.” The same question must be asked there - can they refuse admission to mixed-race or mixed-religion couples too, if their religion demands it? Where is the line drawn?
A religious belief is not a licence to discriminate against people because they don't fit some ideal lifted from a several-thousand-year-old holy book, however genuinely held. He goes on to talk about his grandson Simon, who died of a suspected drug overdose. I don't know if the Telegraph article is trying to tell us that Carey is implying that securlarist culture is to blame for this poor lad's death, but he seems to forget as he laments the 'slippery slope' that 'led to his death' that his God is supposed to be the one who makes all these decisions, and takes us when it pleases Him. God calls us to Him in ways we are not meant to understand, but his grandson's death was all about a secular society giving him easy access to drugs? I can't personally reconcile the two concepts.
Whatever drives his 'call to arms', whether it's the very real and human grief he must be feeling or merely the freedom of expression he's now got since his retirement from the Archbishopric, he simply has to accept the way our society is going. This is a dam which is being asked to hold back more and more pressure, and if it isn't modified, it's going to fail. Work with modern society, and the Church still has a place. Fight against it and the marginalisation of faith will only continue, and possibly even accelerate.
He's spoken out in an interview with the Telegraph about what he sees as an erosion of Christian values and rights in an increasingly secularising society, complaining about a legal ruling in favour of the removal of prayers from the start of council meetings, and leaping to the defence of the guest house owners I've already written about in these pages. He's also complained about the treatment of a Relate counsellor who lost his job for refusing to counsel same-sex couples.
His comments on these cases basically amount to a call for Christians to be able to be free to exercise discrimination, while at the same time complaining about the fact that they themselves are being discriminated against. This apparent contradiction does not seem to occur to him. "This inability to find a way to accommodate the sincerely held beliefs of someone like Gary McFarlane creates a tyranny," he claims. So, if Mr McFarlane, the Relate counsellor in question, believed through his religion that he couldn't counsel mixed-race couples, or couples comprising a Christian and a Jew for example, would that be OK too? And of the B&B owners, he says: “I want to protect their freedom to take that line.” The same question must be asked there - can they refuse admission to mixed-race or mixed-religion couples too, if their religion demands it? Where is the line drawn?
A religious belief is not a licence to discriminate against people because they don't fit some ideal lifted from a several-thousand-year-old holy book, however genuinely held. He goes on to talk about his grandson Simon, who died of a suspected drug overdose. I don't know if the Telegraph article is trying to tell us that Carey is implying that securlarist culture is to blame for this poor lad's death, but he seems to forget as he laments the 'slippery slope' that 'led to his death' that his God is supposed to be the one who makes all these decisions, and takes us when it pleases Him. God calls us to Him in ways we are not meant to understand, but his grandson's death was all about a secular society giving him easy access to drugs? I can't personally reconcile the two concepts.
Whatever drives his 'call to arms', whether it's the very real and human grief he must be feeling or merely the freedom of expression he's now got since his retirement from the Archbishopric, he simply has to accept the way our society is going. This is a dam which is being asked to hold back more and more pressure, and if it isn't modified, it's going to fail. Work with modern society, and the Church still has a place. Fight against it and the marginalisation of faith will only continue, and possibly even accelerate.
Thursday, 12 April 2012
Modern heroes
A splendid chap by the name of Darren Groom has struck a blow for common good manners with a simple act which has brought him to the attention of the Beeb. This short item shows a man who was trying to serve people good coffee but, through their own inconsideration, was finding himself unable to do so promptly and properly. So he's decided that, if you're on your mobile while you try to place your order in his shop or at his coffee stall, he will not serve you.
Now anybody who knows me well will immediately recognise a story which will have me nodding vigorous agreement, and this is one of them. This chap is in the vanguard of what I hope will become a backlash against the sort of anti-social, savant behaviour exhibited by some people while they use these things, clamping them onto their ears like some kind of electronic limpet, enslaving themselves in the process.
Mr Groom, I salute you.
Now anybody who knows me well will immediately recognise a story which will have me nodding vigorous agreement, and this is one of them. This chap is in the vanguard of what I hope will become a backlash against the sort of anti-social, savant behaviour exhibited by some people while they use these things, clamping them onto their ears like some kind of electronic limpet, enslaving themselves in the process.
Mr Groom, I salute you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)