I have been following this story with great interest since it broke a few days ago.
The British paper "News of the World" has maintained an international reputation as being sordid and scandalous, and not unjustly so. For 168 years they muck-raked the dirt on celebrities and public figures, telling sordid tales of the worst behaviour of humanity. In recent years it's been proven that indeed the story didn't even need to be true - it just had to be salacious enough provoke shock and outrage. And that, ultimately, is what sells papers.
For so long, stories of grotesque debauchery and sexual scandals have been tolerated, simply because they have involved celebrities. People, it is considered, that are not "real", who have so much money and prestige that they do not deserve any kind of sympathy. As a result, most people who read the paper would be quite happy to have these so called "journalists" and paparazzi hounding celebrities day and night and intruding into their private lives.
This is balanced with the journalistic "code of ethics", if it could be called that. The public has a right to know and to be informed. The press will stop at nothing to get conformation on the story. And of course, sources have to be kept anonymous.
We all know now that NewsOFT ran afoul when it started to intrude into lives (through the hacking of phones and voicemail) of the families of murder victims, politicians and fallen soldiers. This compromises their integrity and ability to inform the public.
The coverage in non-Murdoch press has been extensive (take a look on the website for NewsCorp Australia and you'll find precious little coverage, typically.) This quote is particularly chilling:
"Intrusions into the lives of celebrities and political figures by London's aggressive ''red-tops'' had long been tolerated, says John Lloyd, director of the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism at Oxford University. ''They are deemed to be able to look after themselves,'' he says. ''But to hack into the private world of ordinary people who are grieving, who have been caught up in a terrorist attack - clearly, this is bad.''
"This is bad"? That's all you have to say?
News Flash: intrusions into the private life of ANYBODY: rich, famous, powerful or otherwise, is not on and certainly NOT in the public interest. Now that we've crossed the line and intruding into the lives of ordinary people, we risk becoming a constantly watched society reminiscent of Orwell's "1984". No wonder public dissent if rife in England. I, for one, don't blame them.
Murdoch's next move would be to start a Sunday edition of his other best-selling paper "The Sun". You would have to be naive to think that this new sunday paper would be too far removed from the one that has just met it's demise. A leopard can't change its spots, and history has shown that Murdoch fits this bill to a tee.
Besides, anyone with two brain cells to rub together would want to read something a bit more substantial over their museli than stories of David Beckham sleeping with his babysitter.
Monday, July 11, 2011
Saturday, July 9, 2011
Asylum seekers, part 1
Anyone who ventures into debates about immigration policy in this country are heading into very murky waters. Debates can be fierce and the fighting can often be over opinions that are ill-informed.
With the ABC airing an episode of their panel discussion program Q&A specifically on the issue of Asylum Seekers in Australia, I thought it was appropriate to clear up some basic facts that the media and it's coverage of the topic seem to miss.
Sidebar: I also want to direct this straight at the group of people that I like to refer to as the "FOWF Brigade". The FOWF Brigade are typically bogans who drive around in big cars or utes with stickers on the back expressing their narrow-minded views on various topics; their views on immigration are usually summed up in four little words: "F*** OFF WE'RE FULL".
1. It is entirely legal to ask another country for protection if your life is in danger in your own country.
This is one thing that the FOWF Brigade seem to forget. If you are being persecuted by your own government it is entirely legal for you to seek political asylum in another country, if you feel your life is at risk.
2. Arriving on a rickety boat from Indonesia is illegal.
Yes, only if you have not made appropriate clearances to enter into Australian Waters. It is also not illegal to arrive on our shores and ask for asylum either. Given that Australia is an island surrounded by water, aside from taking a plane trip, how the hell else are you going to get here? Besides, if the country you are fleeing from has restricted airspace due to it being part of a war-zone and you can't get a plane, what other option do you have?
3. When asylum seekers arrive, it is imperative and highly appropriate that we find out exactly who they are.
In a lot of cases, people will flee their homes with what little they can scrounge before, say, a bomb hits it. In that situation, there's not a lot of time to grab your birth certificate and your CV. So, by the time they get here, and they no identification, what can you do? You need to find out who they are.
We also need to find out what their story is - where they've come from, what the threat to their lives was/is, and what can be done to help them. Do they have anyone they know here? What do they hope to do once they're here? Can they support themselves and their families?
4. Detention centres are NOT bad (at least in theory).
When asylum seekers get here, we have to house them somewhere. We cannot just expect them to sleep on the street until we work out who they are. We do owe them at least some duty of care until their claims are processed. Secondly, while diseases like cholera and dysentery have been contained and vaccinated against in this country for years, we need to make sure that asylum seekers are healthy and not carrying any infectious diseases as well.
5. Asylum seekers are NOT queue jumpers.
Well, some may be. In the past, some people have been caught out. But, there are a lot of people who are genuinely seeking asylum, so by rights one cannot assume one way or another. The immigration queue is quite long, so I'm told, so I guess it's only natural that people will take an alternative route to get into Australia permanently, if they want to badly enough.
One of the major issues that seems to be the core of this debate is the conditions in which these people are forced to live, and for years at a time. I don't know why the processing of asylum claims takes so long. I don't know on what grounds an application for asylum may be rejected (which was the reason that a few people set fire to the Villawood Detention centre a few months back). However, I'd love to know the answers to some of these questions at some stage...
Xenophobia in this country is nothing new. Most of us didn't know what xenophobia was until v. Spy V. Spy issued an album with that title in 1987. But we shouldn't let the unfounded fears of a bunch of ignorant people impact on the policy decisions of the government.
More on this one later...
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
Video Hits gets Axed
So Channel 10 Australia has finally decided to axe the only music program on its network. I'm not surprised, but I am annoyed about some aspects of the reporting coverage of it.
Take a look here at the story from the Sydney Morning Herald.
I'm sure I remember the show starting on air in 1986 (I'm pretty sure that's the show where I discovered the track "Infected" by The The, which was a hit in 1986) playing the top 40 videos of the week, much like Rage on the ABC was doing at the time. Over the years it has changed its format to now include interviews and funky presenters, including one Dylan Lewis, although he is not as edgy and quirky on VH as he was back in the 1990s on the ABC.
I had to laugh when it said that VH was instrumental in assisting the careers of Australian artists like Missy Higgins and Angus & Julie Stone. Umm, I'm pretty sure that there's a think called Triple J radio that got them started somehow, especially in the case of Missy Higgins who won Triple J's Unearthed competition.
So what's the problem here? Would it be a fair assumption to assume that Australians don't consider music an art-form worthy of any serious consideration?
Who were the producers of the show marketing it to? Did they miss their audience demographic?
Are we so blase about music that we can't be bothered watching it on TV?
Has the iPod mentality reduced our consumption of music down into bite-size pieces of our own choosing, thus rendering a 2 hour music show pre-programmed by someone else redundant?
My view is that music programs on commercial TV have always been about the ultra-commercial. The ABC has been prone to this too, with Rage playing top 50 hits every Saturday morning since the show started.* However, targeting music shows on TV has always been risky simply because there's already a number of channels on PayTV who arguably do music programming better, and for longer, plus now we have the Internet, where you can just watch YouTube videos ad nauseum.
So is a music TV show on free-to-air TV really necessary? Given all that, plus the rapidly declining attention spans of viewers means that it's harder and harder to find a ratings-winning format.
For the most part, the ABC provides a tele-visual compliment to the content on radio JJJ at the expense of almost everything else. But then the ABC are not worried about ratings either...
Seeing as though Ten want to ditch the 24 hour HD sport channel OneHD, maybe they could try a 24 hour music channel and see how it stacks up...? Then again, if they've ditched Video Hits after 24 years, that idea will probably float like a brick...
* This ended about 4 years ago when ARIA, the company who issues the sales charts every week, decided they were enough of a recognisable brand name now and wanted to have their own marketable show with their name on it, and refused to give their charts to the ABC for Rage to compile the show. Now, saturday morning Rage is just filled with whatever the hell the programmers felt like selecting at the time.
Take a look here at the story from the Sydney Morning Herald.
I'm sure I remember the show starting on air in 1986 (I'm pretty sure that's the show where I discovered the track "Infected" by The The, which was a hit in 1986) playing the top 40 videos of the week, much like Rage on the ABC was doing at the time. Over the years it has changed its format to now include interviews and funky presenters, including one Dylan Lewis, although he is not as edgy and quirky on VH as he was back in the 1990s on the ABC.
I had to laugh when it said that VH was instrumental in assisting the careers of Australian artists like Missy Higgins and Angus & Julie Stone. Umm, I'm pretty sure that there's a think called Triple J radio that got them started somehow, especially in the case of Missy Higgins who won Triple J's Unearthed competition.
So what's the problem here? Would it be a fair assumption to assume that Australians don't consider music an art-form worthy of any serious consideration?
Who were the producers of the show marketing it to? Did they miss their audience demographic?
Are we so blase about music that we can't be bothered watching it on TV?
Has the iPod mentality reduced our consumption of music down into bite-size pieces of our own choosing, thus rendering a 2 hour music show pre-programmed by someone else redundant?
My view is that music programs on commercial TV have always been about the ultra-commercial. The ABC has been prone to this too, with Rage playing top 50 hits every Saturday morning since the show started.* However, targeting music shows on TV has always been risky simply because there's already a number of channels on PayTV who arguably do music programming better, and for longer, plus now we have the Internet, where you can just watch YouTube videos ad nauseum.
So is a music TV show on free-to-air TV really necessary? Given all that, plus the rapidly declining attention spans of viewers means that it's harder and harder to find a ratings-winning format.
For the most part, the ABC provides a tele-visual compliment to the content on radio JJJ at the expense of almost everything else. But then the ABC are not worried about ratings either...
Seeing as though Ten want to ditch the 24 hour HD sport channel OneHD, maybe they could try a 24 hour music channel and see how it stacks up...? Then again, if they've ditched Video Hits after 24 years, that idea will probably float like a brick...
* This ended about 4 years ago when ARIA, the company who issues the sales charts every week, decided they were enough of a recognisable brand name now and wanted to have their own marketable show with their name on it, and refused to give their charts to the ABC for Rage to compile the show. Now, saturday morning Rage is just filled with whatever the hell the programmers felt like selecting at the time.
Live cattle exports
I know I'm getting in deep with this one, however, it's worth exploring the real issues.
Australia Resumes live Cattle Exports to Indonesia
Recently, the department of Agriculture suspended live cattle exports due to mistreatment of livestock while waiting for their turn at the abattoir. The department has since allowed exports to happen, provided the exporters can vouch for the animal control measures from the moment it leaves their own stock yard right through until the cattle get the chop.
How is that supposed to be even possible? How is a beef exporter going to have the resources to track and monitor the passage and treatment of stock?
The question is, Who should be responsible for looking after the stock en route to its ultimate destination. Shouldn't couriers and other stock handlers have a duty of care to these animals?
Anyway, since when is it the seller's responsibility to ensure the buyers look after their purchases? If someone legitimately buys a gun and goes on a shooting rampage, is the owner of the gun store responsible for the deaths of the victims? I don't think so. The onus should be on Indonesia to ensure the stock they purchase is correctly looked after in accordance with international animal treatment regulations.
It turns out that whether or not Australia supplies beef to Indonesia, the Indo government wants to down-size their import quota from Australia. They want to be self-sufficient in terms of the food they produce, and that is a good sign for them and their economy. It's not real good for our exporters, who are already struggling with the extremely high value of the Australian dollar against a lot of the world's major currencies eating into their bottom line.
So what to do? It will be very interesting how this one plays out...
Australia Resumes live Cattle Exports to Indonesia
Recently, the department of Agriculture suspended live cattle exports due to mistreatment of livestock while waiting for their turn at the abattoir. The department has since allowed exports to happen, provided the exporters can vouch for the animal control measures from the moment it leaves their own stock yard right through until the cattle get the chop.
How is that supposed to be even possible? How is a beef exporter going to have the resources to track and monitor the passage and treatment of stock?
The question is, Who should be responsible for looking after the stock en route to its ultimate destination. Shouldn't couriers and other stock handlers have a duty of care to these animals?
Anyway, since when is it the seller's responsibility to ensure the buyers look after their purchases? If someone legitimately buys a gun and goes on a shooting rampage, is the owner of the gun store responsible for the deaths of the victims? I don't think so. The onus should be on Indonesia to ensure the stock they purchase is correctly looked after in accordance with international animal treatment regulations.
It turns out that whether or not Australia supplies beef to Indonesia, the Indo government wants to down-size their import quota from Australia. They want to be self-sufficient in terms of the food they produce, and that is a good sign for them and their economy. It's not real good for our exporters, who are already struggling with the extremely high value of the Australian dollar against a lot of the world's major currencies eating into their bottom line.
So what to do? It will be very interesting how this one plays out...
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
Plain packaging?
One of the big news stories that is in the face of the consumer these days is the debacle regarding plain packaging of cigarettes. I'm not about to pontificate or opine one way or another on the issue, but I think some clarification of the issues is in order.
Let's take a look at the major players here:
1. Tobacco Giants.
They don't call 'em "Big Tobacco" for nothing. They have heaps and heaps of money behind them. And they have heaps of money simply because of the demand for their product...demand that is created through the addictive nature of their product.
It's a case of simple marketing - "hook 'em in and they'll come back for more". And that's one of the problems with their product: it creates a physiological, and subsequently a psychological, dependence on it in those who use it. So the punters come back, time and time again. And it's so hard to quit, so you can either fight it, or continue to submit to your cravings. Thus the cycle continues...
2. The punters.
(and I hesitate to call smokers "users", but that's kind of what I mean). Years ago, it could be argued that people started smoking due to peer pressure and social norms, and that they were unwittingly addicted as a result. But that was before the research and drug education programs, and I guess we could forgive those who, with more knowledge could have made a more informed choice. Generation X and Generation Y smokers have no such excuse - they know the risks, it's their choice to follow that pattern. Due to the nature of the addiction, the coffers of the big tobacco corps are consistently being filled by these people, at between $16-$20 a pack.
3. The government.
The government has been put in charge of regulating the level of corporate domination and influence of big business, as well as looking after the interests of the people who voted them in. They know that smoking-related illness costs the taxpayer billions of dollars every year. They know where the source of the problem is - see point 1. And yet, the government collects billions of dollars every year in alcohol and tobacco excise, and even that has been increased in the last few years. In some cases, major parties, such as the Liberal Party of Australia and the Labor Party have been known in the past to accept funding donations from Big Tobacco.
4. The Retailers.
Due to the nature of the product and it's hold on those who use it, it is a huge seller for retailers. Even after the excise is paid, the major players still get a fair cut of the profits.
The issues:
1. The government is worried about the draining of the public purse and the stain on the health system due to smoking related illness.
2. Insurance companies don't insure smokers with life insurance policies. It's too much of a risk, as smokers are engaging in life-threatening behaviour. It's almost a forgone conclusion that a large payout would not only be expected, but inevitable...and soon.
3. The government is in a position where it wants to try and appease as many sides of the argument as possible. The anti-smoking lobby are pursuing this issue with an almost militant vigour, and are pressuring the government to make changes. They have to weigh this up with appeasing the big corporates, who are trying to protect their profit margins.
4. Plain packaging is supposed to deter people from smoking, or so we're told. The anti-smoking lobby wants there to be some kind of deterrent to prevent the take-up of smoking in the future.
5. Tobacco companies are just that - companies. They have staff whom they employ, and who need to feed their families and pay the rent. Like any company, they need to watch their bottom lines, to make sure the money keeps rolling in. Given that people are addicted to their product and are compelled to buy it, the money keeps rolling in, right? And it's extremely difficult to quit, so again the money keeps rolling in, right?
They also have another problem - older smokers are dying. How do you get new people in? Due to the dangerous nature of their product, tobacco products haven't been allowed to be advertised in the mass media for over 30 years. How many businesses do you know of that are not allowed to spruik their wares? Not many. How many products are regulated as such that they can only be sold to a select portion of the population?
6. Retailers are worried that they are going to lose sales because of the change of packaging. Retailers are already forced to store their cigarettes behind matt-black doors and drawers, so as not to appear visible. Is plain packaging going to make much difference from this angle?
There is much hot air on both sides of this debate. The anti-smoking lobby is naive to think that plain packaging is going to deter anybody more than it already does. People are hooked and they have major troubles quitting. It doesn't matter how the product is wrapped or where they source the product from - as long as they get it, then that's all that matters. Plain packaging never stops people buying meat pies in Coles, it won't stop people buying cigarettes.
The Tobacco giants are gong with this whole "Stop the Nanny State" advertising campaign. This is a load of crap. Cigarette regulation and legislation has been enforced for years, surely you're used to it by now? With a product so damaging to one's health and that causes so many other effects to society as a whole, you have to accept that regulation of your product is a given. They do have one good point in all this, however...
...they argue that plain packaging will force them to discontinue the use of their branding and trademarks. There is nothing inherently wrong with branding your product to distinguish it from a product issued by your competitors and to ensure your product is not counterfeit. The government is potentially overstepping their jurisdiction by enforcing this, as this is the entire point of the Trade Practices Act. Intellectual property rights should at least be maintained. All companies and people maintaining a brand name should be granted this right, as a bare minimum. Should this go through, it establishes a dangerous legal precedent.
Retailers who think they'll miss out on sales of cigarettes are also telling lies - people are addicted to this stuff! Are people going to reconsider their purchases due to the nature of the packaging? Of course not. Besides, Woollies and Coles have been selling products in plain packaging for years and it hasn't hurt them in the slightest. So long as people (both customers AND checkout chicks) can still read, they'll still be able to work out what's inside the packages.
I have no answers and no solutions. Packaging won't matter to someone desperate for a nicotine fix. Do big tobacco giants pull out of the Australian market, as some commentators have suggested? No, almost any tobacco market is a lucrative one - there's too much money to lose. The government doesn't want them to leave as they could create a black market and/or counterfeit import trade to occur, and they can't afford to miss out on the excise duty, especially when they can't control the supply of it.
How do you stop the take-up of smoking? Human nature is such that we engage in risk-taking behaviour in order to appear bold, daring, brave, and ultimately for acceptance. People will make stupid decisions. If there was some way to make smoking as appealing as catching a dose of the Clap, we may be onto something. But until then, the battle will rage. But at least we can keep thinking about solutions for this very complex issue.
Let's take a look at the major players here:
1. Tobacco Giants.
They don't call 'em "Big Tobacco" for nothing. They have heaps and heaps of money behind them. And they have heaps of money simply because of the demand for their product...demand that is created through the addictive nature of their product.
It's a case of simple marketing - "hook 'em in and they'll come back for more". And that's one of the problems with their product: it creates a physiological, and subsequently a psychological, dependence on it in those who use it. So the punters come back, time and time again. And it's so hard to quit, so you can either fight it, or continue to submit to your cravings. Thus the cycle continues...
2. The punters.
(and I hesitate to call smokers "users", but that's kind of what I mean). Years ago, it could be argued that people started smoking due to peer pressure and social norms, and that they were unwittingly addicted as a result. But that was before the research and drug education programs, and I guess we could forgive those who, with more knowledge could have made a more informed choice. Generation X and Generation Y smokers have no such excuse - they know the risks, it's their choice to follow that pattern. Due to the nature of the addiction, the coffers of the big tobacco corps are consistently being filled by these people, at between $16-$20 a pack.
3. The government.
The government has been put in charge of regulating the level of corporate domination and influence of big business, as well as looking after the interests of the people who voted them in. They know that smoking-related illness costs the taxpayer billions of dollars every year. They know where the source of the problem is - see point 1. And yet, the government collects billions of dollars every year in alcohol and tobacco excise, and even that has been increased in the last few years. In some cases, major parties, such as the Liberal Party of Australia and the Labor Party have been known in the past to accept funding donations from Big Tobacco.
4. The Retailers.
Due to the nature of the product and it's hold on those who use it, it is a huge seller for retailers. Even after the excise is paid, the major players still get a fair cut of the profits.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The issues:
1. The government is worried about the draining of the public purse and the stain on the health system due to smoking related illness.
2. Insurance companies don't insure smokers with life insurance policies. It's too much of a risk, as smokers are engaging in life-threatening behaviour. It's almost a forgone conclusion that a large payout would not only be expected, but inevitable...and soon.
3. The government is in a position where it wants to try and appease as many sides of the argument as possible. The anti-smoking lobby are pursuing this issue with an almost militant vigour, and are pressuring the government to make changes. They have to weigh this up with appeasing the big corporates, who are trying to protect their profit margins.
4. Plain packaging is supposed to deter people from smoking, or so we're told. The anti-smoking lobby wants there to be some kind of deterrent to prevent the take-up of smoking in the future.
5. Tobacco companies are just that - companies. They have staff whom they employ, and who need to feed their families and pay the rent. Like any company, they need to watch their bottom lines, to make sure the money keeps rolling in. Given that people are addicted to their product and are compelled to buy it, the money keeps rolling in, right? And it's extremely difficult to quit, so again the money keeps rolling in, right?
They also have another problem - older smokers are dying. How do you get new people in? Due to the dangerous nature of their product, tobacco products haven't been allowed to be advertised in the mass media for over 30 years. How many businesses do you know of that are not allowed to spruik their wares? Not many. How many products are regulated as such that they can only be sold to a select portion of the population?
6. Retailers are worried that they are going to lose sales because of the change of packaging. Retailers are already forced to store their cigarettes behind matt-black doors and drawers, so as not to appear visible. Is plain packaging going to make much difference from this angle?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is much hot air on both sides of this debate. The anti-smoking lobby is naive to think that plain packaging is going to deter anybody more than it already does. People are hooked and they have major troubles quitting. It doesn't matter how the product is wrapped or where they source the product from - as long as they get it, then that's all that matters. Plain packaging never stops people buying meat pies in Coles, it won't stop people buying cigarettes.
The Tobacco giants are gong with this whole "Stop the Nanny State" advertising campaign. This is a load of crap. Cigarette regulation and legislation has been enforced for years, surely you're used to it by now? With a product so damaging to one's health and that causes so many other effects to society as a whole, you have to accept that regulation of your product is a given. They do have one good point in all this, however...
...they argue that plain packaging will force them to discontinue the use of their branding and trademarks. There is nothing inherently wrong with branding your product to distinguish it from a product issued by your competitors and to ensure your product is not counterfeit. The government is potentially overstepping their jurisdiction by enforcing this, as this is the entire point of the Trade Practices Act. Intellectual property rights should at least be maintained. All companies and people maintaining a brand name should be granted this right, as a bare minimum. Should this go through, it establishes a dangerous legal precedent.
Retailers who think they'll miss out on sales of cigarettes are also telling lies - people are addicted to this stuff! Are people going to reconsider their purchases due to the nature of the packaging? Of course not. Besides, Woollies and Coles have been selling products in plain packaging for years and it hasn't hurt them in the slightest. So long as people (both customers AND checkout chicks) can still read, they'll still be able to work out what's inside the packages.
I have no answers and no solutions. Packaging won't matter to someone desperate for a nicotine fix. Do big tobacco giants pull out of the Australian market, as some commentators have suggested? No, almost any tobacco market is a lucrative one - there's too much money to lose. The government doesn't want them to leave as they could create a black market and/or counterfeit import trade to occur, and they can't afford to miss out on the excise duty, especially when they can't control the supply of it.
How do you stop the take-up of smoking? Human nature is such that we engage in risk-taking behaviour in order to appear bold, daring, brave, and ultimately for acceptance. People will make stupid decisions. If there was some way to make smoking as appealing as catching a dose of the Clap, we may be onto something. But until then, the battle will rage. But at least we can keep thinking about solutions for this very complex issue.
There has to be an answer somewhere...
Think Again
Welcome to my new online forum for all things that don't involve music. My music interests I currently divulge over at The Sound and The Fury Podcast. But sometimes there are a few things that I would like to share that don't fit into that category, such as views on the news of the day.
Believe me, there is so much mis-information out there in the media. as much as I am fascinated by the media, it annoys me totally that there is so many news stories that are unbalanced and biased in their reporting. I'm no expert in anything, but I intend to promote discussion about topics and issues to find a broader perspective on things.
This is not going to be site for narrow-minded, neo-conservative rants. Besides, I'm not neo-conservative. In the interests of balance, I intend to post regularly on issues in the news media that are fundamentally lacking in balance.
Hence the name of the blog..."Think Again".
The Rant starts.....
Believe me, there is so much mis-information out there in the media. as much as I am fascinated by the media, it annoys me totally that there is so many news stories that are unbalanced and biased in their reporting. I'm no expert in anything, but I intend to promote discussion about topics and issues to find a broader perspective on things.
This is not going to be site for narrow-minded, neo-conservative rants. Besides, I'm not neo-conservative. In the interests of balance, I intend to post regularly on issues in the news media that are fundamentally lacking in balance.
Hence the name of the blog..."Think Again".
The Rant starts.....
NOW!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)