Local Update on Social Life, Politics in North Dakota, Karaoke/DJ Potential and looking for New Employment!
Tuesday, September 25, 2018
Local Update on Social Life, Politics in North Dakota (Kevin Cramer, Heidi Heitkamp and marijuana)
Local Update on Social Life, Politics in North Dakota, Karaoke/DJ Potential and looking for New Employment!
Friday, August 31, 2018
Take The Male Style Quiz (Are you James Bond, Indiana Jones or Tyler Durden?)
This can be used as a template on how to look in public.
You can of course tweek it to your individual tastes. I would advise so!
Here is what I scored:
http://masculine-style.com/archetype-quiz/
You can of course tweek it to your individual tastes. I would advise so!
Here is what I scored:
http://masculine-style.com/archetype-quiz/
Wednesday, July 4, 2018
Happy Fourth of July and a Married with Children Review
Happy 4th!
Married with Children Season 6 Review
Tuesday, May 15, 2018
First Post in a Month
Nobody outside of your circle of family and friends, and even them to some point does not give cares about your problems. You may say you are offended by this but it is actually nature, where actually you are feeling the shock of this news.
So yes chalk that up for nurture!
Once you let these this concept in you will actually feel better. You will probably run into loose women, money opportunities, a nicer place to live, more and/or better friends, etc.
Look I am trying to help you just listen to me and will be fine.
So yes chalk that up for nurture!
Once you let these this concept in you will actually feel better. You will probably run into loose women, money opportunities, a nicer place to live, more and/or better friends, etc.
Look I am trying to help you just listen to me and will be fine.
Friday, April 13, 2018
Thursday, April 12, 2018
Monday, April 9, 2018
Soy Boys
For some reason youtube won't let me link this on my blog.
Bernard's livestream from last Saturday night.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=44&v=bs_GdqEWaII
Bernard's livestream from last Saturday night.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=44&v=bs_GdqEWaII
Thursday, April 5, 2018
Alex Jones and Joe Rogan Discuss Aliens
Watch episode #911! Yes! Joe Rogan waited for episode nuber #911 to interview Mr. Jones.
Joe Rogan sometimes has good interviews, and this guy can talk for hours. It IS a talent!
On a side note (big note) what's funny is the radio station Alex was on in my town, the brother of one of the radio station owners/ talk show (older brother) hosts happens to run the sound board for his brother's show.
This said younger brother is a hardcore leftist and promoter of music shows (mostly of the crappy beard hipster scenester Williamsburg variety).
He happened to be in Austin, TX in 2016 for SXSW and passed an Alex Jones tent, where his reporters were asking people political questions, including about Donald Trump. When said bearded dorky scenester sound kid walked by Inforwars, they asked him about Trump. He said something clever in his mind, along the lines of "Trump is a white supremacist and sexist!"
Yeah you showed them!
Yeah you showed them!
Anyway that said dude was later caught trying to finger and feel up a drunk passed out girl. He was ostrasized from "the scene" and I think fired from his brother's radio station.
Point being Alex Jones says some crazy nonsense but he will survive!
Thursday, March 29, 2018
Book on Mormons and Race (Interview)
http://usreligion.blogspot.com/2018/03/interview-with-max-perry-mueller-on.html
Interview with Max Perry Mueller on Race and the Making of the Mormon People
Andrea L. Turpin
As I have written elsewhere on this blog, I love Mormon history. That's why I was delighted to interview Max Perry Mueller on his new book Race and the Making of the Mormon People (University of North Carolina Press, 2017). I actually happened to be teaching the Mormon unit in my American women's history course concurrently with reading this book, and it helped me answer several student questions! So without further ado, here is Mueller (lightly edited for length and clarity) on everything from the relationship between history, theology, and race to how he hopes we'll teach Mormon history differently:
AT: What led you to write Race and the Making of the Mormon People?
MPM: I’ve shared a bit of my professional and confessional history elsewhere. Let me just add that I’m an outsider—at least superficially—to experiences of Mormonism and “race.” (To be sure, to say that I haven’t experienced “race” is a sign of my privilege. As I hope my book shows, the power and privilege of “whiteness” is the assumption of its ubiquity and universality.) But the experiences of growing up among Mormons in Wyoming and North Carolina, and later coming of age with family members for whom race and religious marginalization were ever-present realities, informed the way I see the world as a person and as a scholar.
As for Mormonism, other scholars have observed that, like the Jews, the Irish, and the Italians, Latter-day Saints were once racial and religious others who succeeded in becoming “white”—in fact exemplary “white” Americans. In Race and the Making of the Mormon People, I wanted to tell a story about non-white Mormons—in particular, to examine how they set down their own “sacred pasts,” to borrow from Laurie Maffly-Kipp. These sacred pasts have long been excluded in both the official Mormon narrative as well as the narrative that outsiders have imposed upon the Mormon people. And when we examine these narratives, we find a handful of African-American and Native-American Mormons who wrote themselves into the “Mormon archive”—which I conceptualize as the written and oral texts that compose the Mormon people’s collective memory. They did so in order to claim their place among the prophets and pioneers that mark membership in early Mormon history.
AT: You state in your introduction: “History makes theology. But theology makes history, too.” What do you mean by this?
MPM: What I mean directly relates to the question of race in American history. What are the origins of America’s racial (racist) views that seem so impossible to unseat from our collective consciousness and, perhaps more importantly, from our institutions? We know that antebellum Americans often justified divisions between white and black Americans by pointing to their Bibles. Proslavery advocates declared that people of African descent were cursed to be the “servants of servants.” At the same time, enslaved and free African Americans saw themselves as a chosen people, akin to the enslaved Israelites awaiting liberation out of the American Egypt.
Historians often claim that such interpretations on both sides of what Du Bois famously called “the color line,” are historical, not scriptural. That is, Americans wrote race into scripture when scripture actually has little to say on the subject. The book of Genesis, for example, makes no explicit mention that the curse to be “servants of servants” that Noah pronounced upon the supposed African descendants of Ham is a curse of dark skin. In my book, I invert the usual focus on how America’s racial history influenced scriptural interpretation. I pose the question: What would a history of race look like if we examined how scriptures created theological lenses through which Americans viewed the nation’s various racial populations?
The Book of Mormon provides us with a unique opportunity to answer this question. It presents itself as a new—or more precisely newly restored—scripture that claims to contain all the “plain and precious” parts (1 Nephi 13) of the gospel that had been lost in the “Old World” gospel due to inept or unfaithful translators and scribes. As such, it’s a better “archive”—a key concept in my book— of Christ’s true teachings than the Old World gospel. And the main thrust of Christ’s true teaching is one that calls believers to end schisms—religious, political, and racial—within the human family. As such, I argue that drawing from the Book of Mormon, the earliest Mormons challenged the view that racial identities were fixed, written into law books, into scripture, and increasingly into scientific fact.
AT: How can better formulating this give-and-take help us better grasp how Mormons understood race, particularly the division between whites, Native Americans, and African Americans?
MPM: Let me give two data points to answer this question: one related to “scientific” epistemologies and the other related to political epistemologies of what we might call the three original American races, “black,” “white,” and “red.” In 1830, the same year that the Book of Mormon was published, the founder of the University of Louisville’s School of Medicine Charles Caldwell published a racial origins treatise in which he claimed that the book of Genesis account was limited to the origins of the “Caucasian” race. Caldwell, one of the pioneers of “craniology”—which claimed that human races could be classified into hierarchies based on the size and shape of skulls—argued that the roots of racial differences were found in the biological archive, not the biblical one. And not surprisingly, Caldwell found that Caucasian crania were the grandest, while the “African” crania were the smallest and least developed. The “American Indian” was somewhere in between. According to Caldwell, the Indian however was most noted for “his radical unfitness for civilization.” Caldwell’s views supported those of Andrew Jackson and the U.S. Congress, who also in 1830 passed the Indian Removal Act. Jackson asserted that no matter what they did to demonstrate assimilation and acculturation to the signifiers that defined American (Protestant) whiteness—literacy, Christianity, private land ownership, legal codes—by dint of their Indianness, there was no place for Native Americans in the American republic.
When it was published in 1830, the Book of Mormon exploded these ideas of racial fixity. Race is not real, not an eternal truth authored by God, the Book of Mormon taught. “Race” (as in dark skin) enters into history as the result of sin. The Book of Mormon’s first adopter believed that it mandated believers to restore the human family to its original racial unity. However, the Mormons were not racial egalitarians. Instead, “whiteness” (the race that is raceless) became an aspirational identity non-whites could achieve through conversion to Mormonism.
AT: Does your book also change how we should understand non-Mormon ideas about race in the nineteenth-century U.S.?
MPM: I hope so! Two related points: First, what I hope to show is that race is about storytelling. Explicit in the nineteenth-century U.S., and more implicit today, racial origins were narrated, often based on interpretations of religious scriptures. The early Mormons foregrounded these narrations about both the history and destinies of the different races. This is particularly true for the people most “white” antebellum Americans called “Indians,” and the Mormons called “Lamanites”—descendants of the lost Tribes of Israel who were oblivious to their true origins, but who would one day be restored to their true knowledge and their true place as central figures in the “New Jerusalem,” to be built in the latter days before Christ’s return.
A second point is the “secularization of race”—a topic that I allude to in the book, but hope to tackle in future books! The narratives of racial origins have moved from common text to subtext, or even into common subconscious. Today, when certain politicians announce the renewed war on drugs, when they describe “inner cities” as sites of unchecked violence and depravity, when police officers who shoot and kill unarmed black American men and boys justify their use of force by describing them as “beasts,” we can understand this rhetoric as cynical attempts to stoke racial anxieties. But it’s more pernicious than that. The ideology that the black body is a threat to the white order of things still exists on the epistemological plane of faith, the sources of which were religious, and in particular the religious origins stories that Americans narrated in the nineteenth century. There is a direct line between the rhetoric of “convicted felon” and “cursed slave,” between the rhetoric of innate black criminality and inherited “African” accursedness. It’s critical that we re-present these religious origins stories—move them from subtext to text in order to begin to dismantle the epistemological and institutional structures of racism.
AT: The book prominently features black Mormon Jane Manning James. What role does gender analysis play in your narrative?
MPM: Jane Manning James’s story is the thru-line of the book. That’s because her story is so captivating. It’s also because we have the most documentation of her singular life.
James is truly an intersectional figure: black, Mormon, and a woman in the nineteenth century, when all three of those identities placed her on the margin within and outside her community. As I detail in the book, James’s gender cuts both ways for her as she tried to gain acceptance among the Mormon people to whom she dedicated her life. For example, because she was a woman, James could not—on her own authority—enter the temple and perform sacred ordinances that Mormons believe essential for eternal exaltation. She needed to be connected to a priesthood holding man (only men are ordained to the priesthood in the LDS Church, and from around 1850 to 1978, black men were barred from holding the priesthood). Thus, in the last decades of her life (she died in 1908), James petitioned the church leaders to grant her temple access based on an offer of spiritual adoption that she claims Joseph Smith Jr. and his wife Emma Hale Smith made to her when she lived with them in Nauvoo, Illinois in the 1840s. Her petitions were denied until 1894 when she was allowed to be spiritually adopted by Joseph Smith—with the exception that she be “adopted to the Prophet” not as his child, but “as a servitor for eternity.” This is the first and last such “servitor adoption” in Mormon history. James was not permitted to enter the temple to participate in her own circumscribed adoption; a “proxy” stood in for her during the ceremony—another unusual occurrence, since proxies were exclusively employed for dead participants.
And yet today, James has become the unofficial face of black Mormonism—the spiritual matriarch to a growing number of African-American Mormons in the U.S., in the African diaspora, and in Africa, where the church has seen significant growth. This past General Conference—the semi-annual worldwide gathering of the church—for the first time since then church president Joseph F. Smith’s eulogy of her in 1908, a church general authority mentioned James by name. Displaying her carte-de-visite, Elder M. Russell Ballard singled out James as an exemplar of faith. James can be remembered—and celebrated today—because of her gender, while black priesthood holding men from her era, like Elijah Abel, could not be. Celebrating them would raise the issue of why black men were banned from holding the priesthood for more than a century.
Many applaud the fact that the church is finally celebrating James, myself included. And yet others worry that moving her form the margins of the Mormon historical narrative to its center is not without peril. The power of James’s story comes from its marginality. That is, James’s marginalization meant that she actually could not see the world through the same lens as her fellow white Mormons. Her lenses were corrective, so to speak. They provided what Du Bois called a “second-sight,” which forced her to see herself reflected in her church’s history of decline from its original promises of what I call “white universalism” to “white” and “black” as fixed identities.
AT: How would you like religious historians to teach Mormon history differently as a result of reading this book?
MPM: First, I hope we, as historians of American religion, take the Book of Mormon more seriously. I hope we read it and understand it on its own terms, without getting (too) bogged down in the debates about its origins. After all, the Book of Mormon is third only to the Quran and the Bible as the world’s most reproduced religious text. The publication of the Book of Mormon spawned a global religious movement with today 16 million members spread across six continents. For Mormons, the text creates a communal mode of reading human experience. For non-Mormons hoping to understand this Mormon mode of reading, the actual text of the Book of Mormon cannot go unread.
Second, and relatedly I hope scholars can approach Mormonism’s foundational text as the earliest Mormons did: as creating a radical new lens to view antebellum America’s predominant racialized populations, namely Americans of European, African and Native American descent. By studying the Book of Mormon as a text that theologizes not only the “white” and “black” races, but also—and in fact especially—the “red” race too, I hope my book moves the scholarship of the color line beyond the black/white binary.
Finally, I hope we study—and critique—the Mormon archive, a place where religion and race histories aren’t just preserved. Race and religion histories are made in the archive. We must ask whose voices and stories are written down and whose are not; what gets included and what gets excluded. Relatedly, writing always involves self-fashioning, editing, embellishing, conflating, excluding. I think we need to be humble and cautious when it comes to claiming that we can describe the “lived experiences” of all historical peoples, but especially those whose experiences were so circumscribed by racial, religious, and gendered boundaries. Such humility, I believe is important intellectually but also ethically: we must respect the literary selves that the people we study create for themselves, especially since often these people's literal selves were excluded, controlled, abused, and violated. Their agency thus exists on the page, even or especially when this agency could not always be enacted in their flesh and bone bodies.
AT: Thanks, Max!
As I have written elsewhere on this blog, I love Mormon history. That's why I was delighted to interview Max Perry Mueller on his new book Race and the Making of the Mormon People (University of North Carolina Press, 2017). I actually happened to be teaching the Mormon unit in my American women's history course concurrently with reading this book, and it helped me answer several student questions! So without further ado, here is Mueller (lightly edited for length and clarity) on everything from the relationship between history, theology, and race to how he hopes we'll teach Mormon history differently:
AT: What led you to write Race and the Making of the Mormon People? MPM: I’ve shared a bit of my professional and confessional history elsewhere. Let me just add that I’m an outsider—at least superficially—to experiences of Mormonism and “race.” (To be sure, to say that I haven’t experienced “race” is a sign of my privilege. As I hope my book shows, the power and privilege of “whiteness” is the assumption of its ubiquity and universality.) But the experiences of growing up among Mormons in Wyoming and North Carolina, and later coming of age with family members for whom race and religious marginalization were ever-present realities, informed the way I see the world as a person and as a scholar.
As for Mormonism, other scholars have observed that, like the Jews, the Irish, and the Italians, Latter-day Saints were once racial and religious others who succeeded in becoming “white”—in fact exemplary “white” Americans. In Race and the Making of the Mormon People, I wanted to tell a story about non-white Mormons—in particular, to examine how they set down their own “sacred pasts,” to borrow from Laurie Maffly-Kipp. These sacred pasts have long been excluded in both the official Mormon narrative as well as the narrative that outsiders have imposed upon the Mormon people. And when we examine these narratives, we find a handful of African-American and Native-American Mormons who wrote themselves into the “Mormon archive”—which I conceptualize as the written and oral texts that compose the Mormon people’s collective memory. They did so in order to claim their place among the prophets and pioneers that mark membership in early Mormon history.
AT: You state in your introduction: “History makes theology. But theology makes history, too.” What do you mean by this?
MPM: What I mean directly relates to the question of race in American history. What are the origins of America’s racial (racist) views that seem so impossible to unseat from our collective consciousness and, perhaps more importantly, from our institutions? We know that antebellum Americans often justified divisions between white and black Americans by pointing to their Bibles. Proslavery advocates declared that people of African descent were cursed to be the “servants of servants.” At the same time, enslaved and free African Americans saw themselves as a chosen people, akin to the enslaved Israelites awaiting liberation out of the American Egypt.
Historians often claim that such interpretations on both sides of what Du Bois famously called “the color line,” are historical, not scriptural. That is, Americans wrote race into scripture when scripture actually has little to say on the subject. The book of Genesis, for example, makes no explicit mention that the curse to be “servants of servants” that Noah pronounced upon the supposed African descendants of Ham is a curse of dark skin. In my book, I invert the usual focus on how America’s racial history influenced scriptural interpretation. I pose the question: What would a history of race look like if we examined how scriptures created theological lenses through which Americans viewed the nation’s various racial populations?
The Book of Mormon provides us with a unique opportunity to answer this question. It presents itself as a new—or more precisely newly restored—scripture that claims to contain all the “plain and precious” parts (1 Nephi 13) of the gospel that had been lost in the “Old World” gospel due to inept or unfaithful translators and scribes. As such, it’s a better “archive”—a key concept in my book— of Christ’s true teachings than the Old World gospel. And the main thrust of Christ’s true teaching is one that calls believers to end schisms—religious, political, and racial—within the human family. As such, I argue that drawing from the Book of Mormon, the earliest Mormons challenged the view that racial identities were fixed, written into law books, into scripture, and increasingly into scientific fact.
AT: How can better formulating this give-and-take help us better grasp how Mormons understood race, particularly the division between whites, Native Americans, and African Americans?
MPM: Let me give two data points to answer this question: one related to “scientific” epistemologies and the other related to political epistemologies of what we might call the three original American races, “black,” “white,” and “red.” In 1830, the same year that the Book of Mormon was published, the founder of the University of Louisville’s School of Medicine Charles Caldwell published a racial origins treatise in which he claimed that the book of Genesis account was limited to the origins of the “Caucasian” race. Caldwell, one of the pioneers of “craniology”—which claimed that human races could be classified into hierarchies based on the size and shape of skulls—argued that the roots of racial differences were found in the biological archive, not the biblical one. And not surprisingly, Caldwell found that Caucasian crania were the grandest, while the “African” crania were the smallest and least developed. The “American Indian” was somewhere in between. According to Caldwell, the Indian however was most noted for “his radical unfitness for civilization.” Caldwell’s views supported those of Andrew Jackson and the U.S. Congress, who also in 1830 passed the Indian Removal Act. Jackson asserted that no matter what they did to demonstrate assimilation and acculturation to the signifiers that defined American (Protestant) whiteness—literacy, Christianity, private land ownership, legal codes—by dint of their Indianness, there was no place for Native Americans in the American republic.
When it was published in 1830, the Book of Mormon exploded these ideas of racial fixity. Race is not real, not an eternal truth authored by God, the Book of Mormon taught. “Race” (as in dark skin) enters into history as the result of sin. The Book of Mormon’s first adopter believed that it mandated believers to restore the human family to its original racial unity. However, the Mormons were not racial egalitarians. Instead, “whiteness” (the race that is raceless) became an aspirational identity non-whites could achieve through conversion to Mormonism.
AT: Does your book also change how we should understand non-Mormon ideas about race in the nineteenth-century U.S.?
MPM: I hope so! Two related points: First, what I hope to show is that race is about storytelling. Explicit in the nineteenth-century U.S., and more implicit today, racial origins were narrated, often based on interpretations of religious scriptures. The early Mormons foregrounded these narrations about both the history and destinies of the different races. This is particularly true for the people most “white” antebellum Americans called “Indians,” and the Mormons called “Lamanites”—descendants of the lost Tribes of Israel who were oblivious to their true origins, but who would one day be restored to their true knowledge and their true place as central figures in the “New Jerusalem,” to be built in the latter days before Christ’s return.
A second point is the “secularization of race”—a topic that I allude to in the book, but hope to tackle in future books! The narratives of racial origins have moved from common text to subtext, or even into common subconscious. Today, when certain politicians announce the renewed war on drugs, when they describe “inner cities” as sites of unchecked violence and depravity, when police officers who shoot and kill unarmed black American men and boys justify their use of force by describing them as “beasts,” we can understand this rhetoric as cynical attempts to stoke racial anxieties. But it’s more pernicious than that. The ideology that the black body is a threat to the white order of things still exists on the epistemological plane of faith, the sources of which were religious, and in particular the religious origins stories that Americans narrated in the nineteenth century. There is a direct line between the rhetoric of “convicted felon” and “cursed slave,” between the rhetoric of innate black criminality and inherited “African” accursedness. It’s critical that we re-present these religious origins stories—move them from subtext to text in order to begin to dismantle the epistemological and institutional structures of racism.
AT: The book prominently features black Mormon Jane Manning James. What role does gender analysis play in your narrative?
MPM: Jane Manning James’s story is the thru-line of the book. That’s because her story is so captivating. It’s also because we have the most documentation of her singular life.
James is truly an intersectional figure: black, Mormon, and a woman in the nineteenth century, when all three of those identities placed her on the margin within and outside her community. As I detail in the book, James’s gender cuts both ways for her as she tried to gain acceptance among the Mormon people to whom she dedicated her life. For example, because she was a woman, James could not—on her own authority—enter the temple and perform sacred ordinances that Mormons believe essential for eternal exaltation. She needed to be connected to a priesthood holding man (only men are ordained to the priesthood in the LDS Church, and from around 1850 to 1978, black men were barred from holding the priesthood). Thus, in the last decades of her life (she died in 1908), James petitioned the church leaders to grant her temple access based on an offer of spiritual adoption that she claims Joseph Smith Jr. and his wife Emma Hale Smith made to her when she lived with them in Nauvoo, Illinois in the 1840s. Her petitions were denied until 1894 when she was allowed to be spiritually adopted by Joseph Smith—with the exception that she be “adopted to the Prophet” not as his child, but “as a servitor for eternity.” This is the first and last such “servitor adoption” in Mormon history. James was not permitted to enter the temple to participate in her own circumscribed adoption; a “proxy” stood in for her during the ceremony—another unusual occurrence, since proxies were exclusively employed for dead participants.
And yet today, James has become the unofficial face of black Mormonism—the spiritual matriarch to a growing number of African-American Mormons in the U.S., in the African diaspora, and in Africa, where the church has seen significant growth. This past General Conference—the semi-annual worldwide gathering of the church—for the first time since then church president Joseph F. Smith’s eulogy of her in 1908, a church general authority mentioned James by name. Displaying her carte-de-visite, Elder M. Russell Ballard singled out James as an exemplar of faith. James can be remembered—and celebrated today—because of her gender, while black priesthood holding men from her era, like Elijah Abel, could not be. Celebrating them would raise the issue of why black men were banned from holding the priesthood for more than a century.
Many applaud the fact that the church is finally celebrating James, myself included. And yet others worry that moving her form the margins of the Mormon historical narrative to its center is not without peril. The power of James’s story comes from its marginality. That is, James’s marginalization meant that she actually could not see the world through the same lens as her fellow white Mormons. Her lenses were corrective, so to speak. They provided what Du Bois called a “second-sight,” which forced her to see herself reflected in her church’s history of decline from its original promises of what I call “white universalism” to “white” and “black” as fixed identities.
AT: How would you like religious historians to teach Mormon history differently as a result of reading this book?
MPM: First, I hope we, as historians of American religion, take the Book of Mormon more seriously. I hope we read it and understand it on its own terms, without getting (too) bogged down in the debates about its origins. After all, the Book of Mormon is third only to the Quran and the Bible as the world’s most reproduced religious text. The publication of the Book of Mormon spawned a global religious movement with today 16 million members spread across six continents. For Mormons, the text creates a communal mode of reading human experience. For non-Mormons hoping to understand this Mormon mode of reading, the actual text of the Book of Mormon cannot go unread.
Second, and relatedly I hope scholars can approach Mormonism’s foundational text as the earliest Mormons did: as creating a radical new lens to view antebellum America’s predominant racialized populations, namely Americans of European, African and Native American descent. By studying the Book of Mormon as a text that theologizes not only the “white” and “black” races, but also—and in fact especially—the “red” race too, I hope my book moves the scholarship of the color line beyond the black/white binary.
Finally, I hope we study—and critique—the Mormon archive, a place where religion and race histories aren’t just preserved. Race and religion histories are made in the archive. We must ask whose voices and stories are written down and whose are not; what gets included and what gets excluded. Relatedly, writing always involves self-fashioning, editing, embellishing, conflating, excluding. I think we need to be humble and cautious when it comes to claiming that we can describe the “lived experiences” of all historical peoples, but especially those whose experiences were so circumscribed by racial, religious, and gendered boundaries. Such humility, I believe is important intellectually but also ethically: we must respect the literary selves that the people we study create for themselves, especially since often these people's literal selves were excluded, controlled, abused, and violated. Their agency thus exists on the page, even or especially when this agency could not always be enacted in their flesh and bone bodies.
AT: Thanks, Max!
Tuesday, March 20, 2018
Medievial Crusade (Normans and Rus) Byzantine Battles
Pope Urban II
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The reasons for the war are disputed, as is its course. Michael Psellus, an eyewitness of the battle, left a hyperbolic account detailing how the invading Kievan Rus' were annihilated by a superior Imperial fleet with Greek fire off the Anatolian shore. According to the Slavonic chronicles, the Kievan fleet was destroyed by a tempest.
The Byzantines sent a squadron of 14 ships to pursue the dispersed monoxyla of the Rus'. They were sunk by the Kievan admiral Ivan Tvorimich, who also managed to rescue Prince Vladimir after the shipwreck. A 6,000-strong Kievan contingent under Vyshata, which did not take part in naval action, was captured and deported to Constantinople. Eight hundred of the Rus' prisoners were blinded.
Vyshata was allowed to return to Kiev at the conclusion of the peace treaty three years later. Under the terms of the peace settlement, Yaroslav's son Vsevolod I married a daughter of Emperor Constantine Monomachus. Vsevolod's son by this princess assumed his maternal grandfather's name and became known as Vladimir Monomakh.
----------------------------------------------------------
The Battle of Dyrrhachium, fought in the autumn of 1081 between Norman
and Byzantine forces is reconstructed using the superb graphical models
from Sega's Medieval Total War II.
The Battle of Dyrrhachium (near present-day Durrës in Albania) took
place on 18 October 1081, between the Byzantine Empire, led by the
Emperor Alexius I Comnenus, and the Normans of Southern Italy under
Robert Guiscard, Duke of Apulia and Calabria. The battle was fought
outside the city of Dyrrhachium (also known as Durazzo), the Byzantine
capital of Illyria, and ended in a Norman victory.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Middle Byzantine Empire, Byzantines and Crusades, From the end of Macedonian Dynasty to Sack of Constantinople (1204). Komnenos Dynasty, Angelos Dynasty, Byzantine-Norman wars, Byzantine-Seljuk wars
-------------------------------------------
Sunday, March 18, 2018
Social Media is Below eBay and Podcasts
Fuck wasting too much time on social media. I would rather spend time searching on eBay, Craigslist and elsewhere while listening to podcasts.
Social media such as Facebook, Twitter and perhaps Youtube can be good marketing tools. Only losers surf these sites for hours a day. That loser has been me, but never again.
Do I sound like Trump using the word loser? Do you really think he started using that word before anyone in the history of the world?
Social media such as Facebook, Twitter and perhaps Youtube can be good marketing tools. Only losers surf these sites for hours a day. That loser has been me, but never again.
Do I sound like Trump using the word loser? Do you really think he started using that word before anyone in the history of the world?
Tuesday, March 13, 2018
Dr. Jeckyll and Mr Hyde
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strange_Case_of_Dr_Jekyll_and_Mr_Hyde
Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde is a gothic novella by the Scottish author Robert Louis Stevenson first published in 1886. The work is also known as The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, or simply Jekyll & Hyde.[1] It is about a London lawyer named Gabriel John Utterson who investigates strange occurrences between his old friend, Dr Henry Jekyll,[2][3] and the evil Edward Hyde. The novella's impact is such that it has become a part of the language, with the very phrase "Jekyll and Hyde" coming to mean a person who is vastly different in moral character from one situation to the next.[4][5]
Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde is a gothic novella by the Scottish author Robert Louis Stevenson first published in 1886. The work is also known as The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, or simply Jekyll & Hyde.[1] It is about a London lawyer named Gabriel John Utterson who investigates strange occurrences between his old friend, Dr Henry Jekyll,[2][3] and the evil Edward Hyde. The novella's impact is such that it has become a part of the language, with the very phrase "Jekyll and Hyde" coming to mean a person who is vastly different in moral character from one situation to the next.[4][5]
Here is a different version from 1890
Saturday, March 10, 2018
Abolition of Work by Bob Black
Much like the last post, this is from the Mykel Board reading list.
I have not actually read this all the way through, but thought it was something worth considering.
https://archive.org/details/al_Bob_Black_The_Abolition_of_Work_a4
I have not actually read this all the way through, but thought it was something worth considering.
https://archive.org/details/al_Bob_Black_The_Abolition_of_Work_a4
Freaky 20th Century Sexperts
My main gripe is some people really dislike Wikipedia. This is my light Saturday morning reading, which may (probably not) lead to further study. If a Wikipedia article in not enough for you serious minded folks, it should not be and you will then move on to further studies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paedophilia:_The_Radical_Case
------------------------------------------------------
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Green_(sexologist)
"During the APA's heated debate in the early 1970s about the declassification of homosexuality as a mental illness, Green argued forcefully in favor of declassification.[13] He argued that the grounds for deciding the issue should be the "historical and cross-cultural groundings in homosexual expression, associated psychiatric features accompanying a homosexual orientation, the emotional consequences to the homosexual of societal condemnation, and behaviors of other species".[13] Green applauded the eventual APA decision while strongly criticizing the fact that the administration put it to a vote, saying that such "a shotgun marriage between science and democracy" was "ludicrous".[13]
In his work, on gender identity in children, Green used common English expressions like "sissy boy" and "tomboy" in the titles of some of his publications. His choice of terminology attracted a number of criticisms over its political correctness.[14]
In 2002, he initiated a debate in a special issue of the Archives of Sexual Behavior regarding the extent to which pedophilia should be classified as a mental disorder by the American Psychiatric Association, without impinging on the legal and law enforcement aspects. It concluded that sexual arousal to children is subjectively reported "in a substantial minority of "normal" people", and reviewed the level of social acceptance of this historically, but stated that such observations may not entail cultural or legal acceptance today.[13] The paper also raised specific concerns about the DSM-IV definition, some of which were later acknowledged by Ray Blanchard in his literature review for the DSM-5 workgroup,[15] which proposed a more general nomenclature distinction between paraphilias and paraphilic disorders; this proposal is part of the DSM-5 draft.[16] In 2010, however, Green criticized in stronger terms Blanchard's proposal to introduce hebephilia as a mental disorder in the DSM-5 (as a subtype the proposed pedohebophilic disorder). Pointing to the legal age of sexual consent in several countries of Europe, this would declare 19-year-olds engaged sexually with 14-year-olds as having a mental disorder.[17]"
---------------------------------------------
The same Richard Green was involved in a Boy Scouts discrimination case from 1998.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curran_v._Mount_Diablo_Council_of_the_Boy_Scouts_of_America
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paedophilia:_The_Radical_Case
Reception
Mainstream media
Paedophilia: The Radical Case was reviewed by the journalist Mary-Kay Wilmers in the London Review of Books,[1] the psychoanalyst Charles Rycroft in The Times Literary Supplement,[3] John Rae in the Times Educational Supplement,[4] Maurice Yaffé in New Statesman,[5] and Eric Taylor in New Society.[6] Reviewers were sharply divided. Wilmers, Rycroft and Rae were scathingly dismissive,[1][3][4] while Yaffé and Taylor were strongly supportive of the author, if not entirely of the "radical case" he had set out.[5][6]Gay media
Paedophilia: The Radical Case was reviewed by Ken Plummer in Gay News, Hubert Kennedy Books in The Advocate, and Wallace Hamilton in Christopher Street. These reviews were broadly sympathetic.[7][8][9] Jim Monk reviewed the book in The Body Politic, writing that while O'Carroll "takes great care in researching and documenting his arguments", O'Carroll's personal interest in having sex with children meant that he was not "disinterested" and his work was not academic. While Monk granted that many of O'Carroll's arguments had been made before, he credited O'Carroll with being the first to bring those arguments together into a comprehensive work, and with making a compelling case. Nevertheless, he had reservations, pointing to the possibility of heterosexual men sexually abusing young girls. Monk accepted O'Carroll's view that consensual sex does not interfere with a child's emotional or sexual maturation. Monk criticized O'Carroll's treatment of incest, writing that while O'Carroll stated he would not deal with the topic, he nevertheless implied that "sex play between parents and their children" was desirable. Monk argued in response that "father-daughter affairs" were not "healthy". Monk concluded that the book was the solution to problems facing the gay rights movement in Canada, which according to him was suffering from a feeling that its strategies were lacking.[10]------------------------------------------------------
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Green_(sexologist)
"During the APA's heated debate in the early 1970s about the declassification of homosexuality as a mental illness, Green argued forcefully in favor of declassification.[13] He argued that the grounds for deciding the issue should be the "historical and cross-cultural groundings in homosexual expression, associated psychiatric features accompanying a homosexual orientation, the emotional consequences to the homosexual of societal condemnation, and behaviors of other species".[13] Green applauded the eventual APA decision while strongly criticizing the fact that the administration put it to a vote, saying that such "a shotgun marriage between science and democracy" was "ludicrous".[13]
In his work, on gender identity in children, Green used common English expressions like "sissy boy" and "tomboy" in the titles of some of his publications. His choice of terminology attracted a number of criticisms over its political correctness.[14]
In 2002, he initiated a debate in a special issue of the Archives of Sexual Behavior regarding the extent to which pedophilia should be classified as a mental disorder by the American Psychiatric Association, without impinging on the legal and law enforcement aspects. It concluded that sexual arousal to children is subjectively reported "in a substantial minority of "normal" people", and reviewed the level of social acceptance of this historically, but stated that such observations may not entail cultural or legal acceptance today.[13] The paper also raised specific concerns about the DSM-IV definition, some of which were later acknowledged by Ray Blanchard in his literature review for the DSM-5 workgroup,[15] which proposed a more general nomenclature distinction between paraphilias and paraphilic disorders; this proposal is part of the DSM-5 draft.[16] In 2010, however, Green criticized in stronger terms Blanchard's proposal to introduce hebephilia as a mental disorder in the DSM-5 (as a subtype the proposed pedohebophilic disorder). Pointing to the legal age of sexual consent in several countries of Europe, this would declare 19-year-olds engaged sexually with 14-year-olds as having a mental disorder.[17]"
---------------------------------------------
The same Richard Green was involved in a Boy Scouts discrimination case from 1998.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curran_v._Mount_Diablo_Council_of_the_Boy_Scouts_of_America
Friday, March 9, 2018
The Burden of Communication by James Sass
http://www.satannet.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=58222#Post58222
THE BURDEN OF COMMUNICATION
If you post or respond to posts here, you are obliged to write in a manner that can be understood and responded to.
This involves form and content.
Form is spelling, grammar, and punctuation. There is no excuse for lacking these basic skills. If you have a hard time with this, try writing your post in Word or whatever word-processing program that came loaded in your computer. Most of these programs are designed to correct basic errors of spelling, grammar, and punctuation.
Content is the substance of your post. Just about any comment you can make is either a judgment or a call to action.
In the case of judgment, you are stating that you agree or disagree with a statement and your reasons for agreement or disagreement.
If you disagree with someone, it is because they are uninformed (lacking information), misinformed (based on wrong information), or their reasoning is flawed (they draw wrong or erroneous conclusions from the basic information), or they are incomplete in their analysis. If you disagree with someone the burden is on you to clearly state why. There is no point in just stating “I disagree” – that is just being mindlessly contentious. If you agree with someone and find it worth saying so, it also does not hurt to state why.
In the case of a call to action, you are stating what should be done or not be done and your reasons why.
If you can’t make the effort to be understood in the first place, Don’t be surprised when you get banned.
If you just “don’t care” if your post is understood, or if you are legible or coherent to anyone reading it, then why post here in the first place? Go do something more productive with yourself, like stick a butter knife into an electric socket.
The same goes to all the lot lice that immediately jump on every lame newcomer with petty nit-picking criticism. From what I’ve observed here, 99 times out of 100 you have nothing better to offer yourself.
Kindergarten dismissed!
If you post or respond to posts here, you are obliged to write in a manner that can be understood and responded to.
This involves form and content.
Form is spelling, grammar, and punctuation. There is no excuse for lacking these basic skills. If you have a hard time with this, try writing your post in Word or whatever word-processing program that came loaded in your computer. Most of these programs are designed to correct basic errors of spelling, grammar, and punctuation.
Content is the substance of your post. Just about any comment you can make is either a judgment or a call to action.
In the case of judgment, you are stating that you agree or disagree with a statement and your reasons for agreement or disagreement.
If you disagree with someone, it is because they are uninformed (lacking information), misinformed (based on wrong information), or their reasoning is flawed (they draw wrong or erroneous conclusions from the basic information), or they are incomplete in their analysis. If you disagree with someone the burden is on you to clearly state why. There is no point in just stating “I disagree” – that is just being mindlessly contentious. If you agree with someone and find it worth saying so, it also does not hurt to state why.
In the case of a call to action, you are stating what should be done or not be done and your reasons why.
If you can’t make the effort to be understood in the first place, Don’t be surprised when you get banned.
If you just “don’t care” if your post is understood, or if you are legible or coherent to anyone reading it, then why post here in the first place? Go do something more productive with yourself, like stick a butter knife into an electric socket.
The same goes to all the lot lice that immediately jump on every lame newcomer with petty nit-picking criticism. From what I’ve observed here, 99 times out of 100 you have nothing better to offer yourself.
Kindergarten dismissed!
Monday, March 5, 2018
Get Toxic Media Out of Your Head
Every night an audience of mostly baby boomer aged people watch
primetime news and talk shows. Of course, it is all slanted Anti-Trump and Republican Party. It is much little sound and video bytes for people, several minutes or even less than a minute. Most people will not bother to research these topics.
It is enough to make one who thinks about it all insane.
At most they will listen to what some dimwit whom listens to "edgier" programs such as Democracy Now! and NPR. Or even worse, some public service employee!
It is true that Trump says some crazy things and many (most) in the GOP are mainly concerned about property taxes.
However your average Republican party bashing person will never take the time to learn about spending and taxes nor the corruption and greed in the media. Many will also just attack your average citizen whom has conservative, right wing values (gun control, immigration, moral values).
They will go after law enforcement to arrest and criminally charge said people (whether concerning an arguement on social media or at a "peaceful" protest) and for corporations to fire these said people.
Once these activists (morons) have their way they then attack the very instituions (police and corporations) they claim to care about. They totally forget that Human Resource departments and the police are always on their sides.
Granted many of these cartoonish looking neo-nazi types are useless clowns. However, back to my main point: the media (mainstream news TV stations, newspapers, print publications, radio, the grand wide internet and Hollywood movies) will only focus on said individuals, examine to death something Trump said and avoid the real issues.
The root of these issues? I don't know where to begin with that!
However you can always avoid it all as much as you can.
Even avoid Pro-Trump social media postings!
We have to start living on our own terms and plant the seeds for tomorrow's generations. I am not here to tell you WHAT to do.
primetime news and talk shows. Of course, it is all slanted Anti-Trump and Republican Party. It is much little sound and video bytes for people, several minutes or even less than a minute. Most people will not bother to research these topics.
It is enough to make one who thinks about it all insane.
At most they will listen to what some dimwit whom listens to "edgier" programs such as Democracy Now! and NPR. Or even worse, some public service employee!
It is true that Trump says some crazy things and many (most) in the GOP are mainly concerned about property taxes.
However your average Republican party bashing person will never take the time to learn about spending and taxes nor the corruption and greed in the media. Many will also just attack your average citizen whom has conservative, right wing values (gun control, immigration, moral values).They will go after law enforcement to arrest and criminally charge said people (whether concerning an arguement on social media or at a "peaceful" protest) and for corporations to fire these said people.
Once these activists (morons) have their way they then attack the very instituions (police and corporations) they claim to care about. They totally forget that Human Resource departments and the police are always on their sides.
Granted many of these cartoonish looking neo-nazi types are useless clowns. However, back to my main point: the media (mainstream news TV stations, newspapers, print publications, radio, the grand wide internet and Hollywood movies) will only focus on said individuals, examine to death something Trump said and avoid the real issues.
The root of these issues? I don't know where to begin with that!
However you can always avoid it all as much as you can.
Even avoid Pro-Trump social media postings!
We have to start living on our own terms and plant the seeds for tomorrow's generations. I am not here to tell you WHAT to do.
Winter is Coming... to an End
Art!
Recent Photos (Stuff in the Kitchen)
Recent Youtube Videos
There are women out there for you and money to be had.
Definitely do not listen to me! Err DO listen to me but agreeing nor disagreeing will get you nowhere.
Showing my microphone MC abilities.
Showing off my new sportscoat.
Showing off my dance moves.
Sunday, February 25, 2018
Story of Civilization by Will Durant
https://archive.org/search.php?query=story%20of%20civilization%20durant&and[]=mediatype%3A%22audio%22
Checkout the audio version of the first four volumes. Archive.org also has pdf and text version, but really if you go to a library book sale or online the whole set can be had for less than $50.
Also included is an audiobook by Blaine Pascal (17th Century Mathematician hailed by Durant).
Checkout the audio version of the first four volumes. Archive.org also has pdf and text version, but really if you go to a library book sale or online the whole set can be had for less than $50.
Also included is an audiobook by Blaine Pascal (17th Century Mathematician hailed by Durant).
Tuesday, February 20, 2018
List of U.S. Presidents
The following is list of all United States Presidents names in order
of service. The list shows the US President’s name, the years they
served in office, and the presidential party to which they belong.
1 – George Washington, 1789-1797
2 – John Adams, 1797-1801, Federalist Party
3 – Thomas Jefferson, 1801-1809, Democratic-Republican
4 – James Madison, 1809-1817, Democratic-Republican
5 – James Monroe, 1817-1825, Democratic-Republican
6 – John Quincy Adams, 1825-1829, Democratic-Republican
7 – Andrew Jackson, 1829-1837, Democrat
8 – Martin Van Buren, 1837-1841, Democrat
9 – William Henry Harrison, 1841-1841(died In office), Whig
10 – John Tyler , 1841-1845, Whig
11 – James K. Polk, 1845-1849, Democrat
12 – Zachary Taylor, 1849-1850, Whig
13 – Millard Fillmore, 1850-1853, Whig
14 – Franklen Pierce, 1853-1857, Democrat
15 – James Buchanan, 1857-1861, Democrat
16 – Abraham Lincoln, 1861-1865, Republican
17 – Andrew Johnson, 1865-1869, Democrat/National Union
18 – Gen. Ulysses S. Grant, 1869-1877, Republican
19 – Rutherford B. Hayes, 1877-1881, Republican
20 – James A. Garfield, 1881(died in office), Republican
21 – Chester A. Arthur, 1881-1885, Republican
22 – Grover Cleveland, 1885-1889, Democrat
23 – Benjamin Harrison, 1889-1893, Republican
24 – Grover Cleveland, 1893-1897, Democrat
25 – William McKinley, 1897-1901, Republican
26 – Theodore Roosevelt, 1901-1909, Republican
27 – William Howard Taft, 1909-1913, Republican
28 – Woodrow Wilson, 1913-1921, Democrat
29 – Warren G. Harding, 1921-1923, Republican
30 – Calvin Coolidge, 1923-1929, Republican
31 – Herbert Hoover, 1929-1933, Republican
32 – Franklin D. Roosevelt, 1933-1945, Democrat
33 – Harry S. Truman, 1945-1953,Democrat
34 – Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1953-1961, Republican
35 – John F. Kennedy, 1961-1963, Democrat
36 – Lyndon B. Johnson, 1963-1969, Democrat
37 – Richard M. Nixon, 1969-1974, Republican
38 – Gerald R. Ford, 1974-1977, Republican
39 – Jimmy Carter, 1977-1981, Democrat
40 – Ronald Reagan, 1981-1989, Republican
41 – George Bush, 1989-1993, Republican
42 – Bill Clinton, 1993-2001, Democrat
43 – George W. Bush, 2001-2009, Republican
44 – Barack H. Obama, 2009 – 2017, Democrat
45 – Donald Trump, 2017 – Present, Republican
https://www.einvestigator.com/presidents-of-the-united-states-of-america-2/
1 – George Washington, 1789-1797
2 – John Adams, 1797-1801, Federalist Party
3 – Thomas Jefferson, 1801-1809, Democratic-Republican
4 – James Madison, 1809-1817, Democratic-Republican
5 – James Monroe, 1817-1825, Democratic-Republican
6 – John Quincy Adams, 1825-1829, Democratic-Republican
7 – Andrew Jackson, 1829-1837, Democrat
8 – Martin Van Buren, 1837-1841, Democrat
9 – William Henry Harrison, 1841-1841(died In office), Whig
10 – John Tyler , 1841-1845, Whig
11 – James K. Polk, 1845-1849, Democrat
12 – Zachary Taylor, 1849-1850, Whig
13 – Millard Fillmore, 1850-1853, Whig
14 – Franklen Pierce, 1853-1857, Democrat
15 – James Buchanan, 1857-1861, Democrat
16 – Abraham Lincoln, 1861-1865, Republican
17 – Andrew Johnson, 1865-1869, Democrat/National Union
18 – Gen. Ulysses S. Grant, 1869-1877, Republican
19 – Rutherford B. Hayes, 1877-1881, Republican
20 – James A. Garfield, 1881(died in office), Republican
21 – Chester A. Arthur, 1881-1885, Republican
22 – Grover Cleveland, 1885-1889, Democrat
23 – Benjamin Harrison, 1889-1893, Republican
24 – Grover Cleveland, 1893-1897, Democrat
25 – William McKinley, 1897-1901, Republican
26 – Theodore Roosevelt, 1901-1909, Republican
27 – William Howard Taft, 1909-1913, Republican
28 – Woodrow Wilson, 1913-1921, Democrat
29 – Warren G. Harding, 1921-1923, Republican
30 – Calvin Coolidge, 1923-1929, Republican
31 – Herbert Hoover, 1929-1933, Republican
32 – Franklin D. Roosevelt, 1933-1945, Democrat
33 – Harry S. Truman, 1945-1953,Democrat
34 – Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1953-1961, Republican
35 – John F. Kennedy, 1961-1963, Democrat
36 – Lyndon B. Johnson, 1963-1969, Democrat
37 – Richard M. Nixon, 1969-1974, Republican
38 – Gerald R. Ford, 1974-1977, Republican
39 – Jimmy Carter, 1977-1981, Democrat
40 – Ronald Reagan, 1981-1989, Republican
41 – George Bush, 1989-1993, Republican
42 – Bill Clinton, 1993-2001, Democrat
43 – George W. Bush, 2001-2009, Republican
44 – Barack H. Obama, 2009 – 2017, Democrat
45 – Donald Trump, 2017 – Present, Republican
https://www.einvestigator.com/presidents-of-the-united-states-of-america-2/
Tuesday, January 23, 2018
Chik Fil-A
Chic Fil A serves mediocre food, but fast and friendly service.
It makes me laugh that PC morons want to boycott this place and force them out of business (?).
Why because their CEO board donated to a non-profit whom are against gay marriage.
Ha ha and guess what their stock prices have gone through the roof and they now are spread out with franchises to areas such as the rural uppermidwest U.S.
Also recently some nasty chick was trying to breast feed at this "soft opening" for a location. In my opinion seeing any female breastfeed in public would be uncomfortable but tolerated. However looking at this chick she was gross looking and dressed like the typical johnny come lately social justice warrior type. A big gross joke!
I got their chicken deluxe sandwich with waffle fries. Not bad, but next time I am skipping the bun and going for chicken strips.
It makes me laugh that PC morons want to boycott this place and force them out of business (?).
Why because their CEO board donated to a non-profit whom are against gay marriage.
Ha ha and guess what their stock prices have gone through the roof and they now are spread out with franchises to areas such as the rural uppermidwest U.S.
Also recently some nasty chick was trying to breast feed at this "soft opening" for a location. In my opinion seeing any female breastfeed in public would be uncomfortable but tolerated. However looking at this chick she was gross looking and dressed like the typical johnny come lately social justice warrior type. A big gross joke!
I got their chicken deluxe sandwich with waffle fries. Not bad, but next time I am skipping the bun and going for chicken strips.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)