I'm going to take a sabbatical from life in order to better study for the GRE, which I have on the 13th of July. See you then.
DF
Thursday, June 30, 2011
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
My Ideal World
Some would say that conditions in the world right now are worse than they have ever been, and that may be true for some things: climate change, modern war, public political scandals, etc. Those, however, did not prompt me to think about my ideal world; playing Pandemic 2 did.
The game involves you creating a disease that is supposed to eradicate the human population while the human population eventually attempts to fight back by creating a vaccine to your virus/bacteria/parasite. The disease starts in a randomly assigned country, whether it is the United States or Madagascar. At a certain level, the disease becomes noticed (though the game is flawed in that it takes a long time for a country to notice an outbreak, whereas in real life 200,000 people exhibiting unique symptoms with the same disease would be very public) and countries begin to close their borders, their ports, and their air travel. While it is a game that takes a scenario to an extreme, it is worth thinking about.
For example, would countries cut off all communication with each other upon discovery of the disease within the affected country, or would medical aid flow into the affected country? Most likely, the latter would happen. The game makes no mention of this contingency. (Eventually, everyone in all affected countries become infected unless a vaccine is developed.)
How does this lead into my grandiose portrait of an ideal world? Two simple words: International cooperation, my friend.
In my ideal world (and political conservatives will likely vilify me for this), the world has a unified government. This unified government is all-encompassing, including all countries under one united Earth umbrella. Countries reserve a degree of autonomy, much like states do within the United States. The united world government, however, remains predominant in all cases dealing with law. Having all countries under one government would improve the world by:
-Expediting international cooperation in times of duress, such as during natural disasters.
-Ensuring universal human rights for all people.
-Bolstering the economies of traditionally weaker countries.
Before I begin talking about this world's economic system, it is necessary to state that countries dedicate more money towards education and scientific research than military spending, religious spending, etc. Health is paramount, so proven carcinogens such as tobacco are gone, as well as manufactured food additives, such as high fructose corn syrup and partially-hydrogenated oils.
At first, the economy would be based on traditional trade between countries, i.e. food, transportation, etc. Eventually, as technology develops, food and products will be commonly synthesized by advanced technology, thus rendering the trade of items for profit superfluous. (Research into this is being carried out in Japan already, though not as directly as I would hope.)
Thus, the economy would no longer be based in money due to an abundance of necessary goods.
This would entail a new fundamental philosophy of all human existence: Instead of each individual doggedly pursuing an accumulation of material capital in order to live well, the value of education and pursuit of knowledge would have to replace money as the driving force of mankind.
Knowledge can be progressed by the exploration of space. Humans have yet to break the seal on the vast scores of knowledge the galaxy, let alone the universe, holds. We reside as a veritable dust particle in a mansion. There is so much to explore and learn that only generations from now will humans truly understand their place in the universe. (That is, if this future comes to fruition.)
Being an Atheist, I can only hope that my imagined future is full of Atheists; however, that's unlikely, so tolerance for all beliefs will be a key concept in this overly idealistic future. Even more fundamental concepts that should be taught are logic, rationality, and empathy. A combination of the three, with each assuming an equal role in human relations and interaction, can assure equal understanding both between humans and the world in which we live.
You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
P.S. I may have neglected to mention some things, so just leave any concerns/questions in the comments section and I'll respond forthwith.
The game involves you creating a disease that is supposed to eradicate the human population while the human population eventually attempts to fight back by creating a vaccine to your virus/bacteria/parasite. The disease starts in a randomly assigned country, whether it is the United States or Madagascar. At a certain level, the disease becomes noticed (though the game is flawed in that it takes a long time for a country to notice an outbreak, whereas in real life 200,000 people exhibiting unique symptoms with the same disease would be very public) and countries begin to close their borders, their ports, and their air travel. While it is a game that takes a scenario to an extreme, it is worth thinking about.
For example, would countries cut off all communication with each other upon discovery of the disease within the affected country, or would medical aid flow into the affected country? Most likely, the latter would happen. The game makes no mention of this contingency. (Eventually, everyone in all affected countries become infected unless a vaccine is developed.)
How does this lead into my grandiose portrait of an ideal world? Two simple words: International cooperation, my friend.
In my ideal world (and political conservatives will likely vilify me for this), the world has a unified government. This unified government is all-encompassing, including all countries under one united Earth umbrella. Countries reserve a degree of autonomy, much like states do within the United States. The united world government, however, remains predominant in all cases dealing with law. Having all countries under one government would improve the world by:
-Expediting international cooperation in times of duress, such as during natural disasters.
-Ensuring universal human rights for all people.
-Bolstering the economies of traditionally weaker countries.
Before I begin talking about this world's economic system, it is necessary to state that countries dedicate more money towards education and scientific research than military spending, religious spending, etc. Health is paramount, so proven carcinogens such as tobacco are gone, as well as manufactured food additives, such as high fructose corn syrup and partially-hydrogenated oils.
At first, the economy would be based on traditional trade between countries, i.e. food, transportation, etc. Eventually, as technology develops, food and products will be commonly synthesized by advanced technology, thus rendering the trade of items for profit superfluous. (Research into this is being carried out in Japan already, though not as directly as I would hope.)
Thus, the economy would no longer be based in money due to an abundance of necessary goods.
This would entail a new fundamental philosophy of all human existence: Instead of each individual doggedly pursuing an accumulation of material capital in order to live well, the value of education and pursuit of knowledge would have to replace money as the driving force of mankind.
Knowledge can be progressed by the exploration of space. Humans have yet to break the seal on the vast scores of knowledge the galaxy, let alone the universe, holds. We reside as a veritable dust particle in a mansion. There is so much to explore and learn that only generations from now will humans truly understand their place in the universe. (That is, if this future comes to fruition.)
Being an Atheist, I can only hope that my imagined future is full of Atheists; however, that's unlikely, so tolerance for all beliefs will be a key concept in this overly idealistic future. Even more fundamental concepts that should be taught are logic, rationality, and empathy. A combination of the three, with each assuming an equal role in human relations and interaction, can assure equal understanding both between humans and the world in which we live.
You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
P.S. I may have neglected to mention some things, so just leave any concerns/questions in the comments section and I'll respond forthwith.
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
Technological Progress
15 years ago, no one imagined that wireless networks would be everywhere and available for every laptop to connect to. Tablet computers such as the iPad were only seen on TV shows such as Star Trek. Hybrid cars were unheard of. Some say that technological progress is inevitable, but what about technological regression?
If I were to ask you to imagine what surgery would look like in the Roman Empire, you would likely think of it as a dirty process, often involving an eventual infection and possibly even amputation. This, however, was not the case.
Claudius Galenus, better known as Galen, is known to have performed surgeries that are commonplace even today, and he performed them successfully. He created sutures, repaired broken bones, and even attempted to replace a missing part of a child's skull (he was initially successful, though the child died a few years later). He knew to sterilize wounds, and contrary to whatever you may believe, he did not simply leave a person's healing to the whims of Asclepius. His knowledge was lost after the empire fell, though it was rediscovered in the Renaissance.
Running water and working sewage systems are thought of as a discovery of the industrial age, though this is grossly incorrect. Rome had running water available for the masses, and even garrisons as far as England set up irrigation systems and plumbing systems that rival those of today. After the empire fell, the middle ages was full of, well, let's say dirty water.
Among other examples, ancient Greeks and Romans used flamethrowers (though without the extreme long range of modern ones), advanced catapults (moreso than the ones built in the Middle Ages), heliocentric models of the solar system (Aristarchus), tank-like vehicles, accurate calendars and star charts, and even batteries. What happened to all of this?
The most understandable explanation is that the Library of Alexandria, the repository for knowledge during the ancient times, was destroyed and much of the literature was burned after the advent of Christianity and Islam. Thus, technological progress stopped and regressed approximately 500 years to the point where plumbing was unheard of and amulets and magic spells were used to treat sicknesses.
You might be asking yourself "so what's the point of this lecture?" I suppose my point is to demonstrate that, no matter how much you want to believe that humans have always striven for great progress, we haven't. We've followed avaricious desires to the precipice and over the edge, and we've lost so much. Who knows, if the technology and innovation created in ancient times had not been lost, there may have been colonies on the moon and Mars, and maybe we would even be exploring extrasolar planets.
Sad to think about.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
If I were to ask you to imagine what surgery would look like in the Roman Empire, you would likely think of it as a dirty process, often involving an eventual infection and possibly even amputation. This, however, was not the case.
Claudius Galenus, better known as Galen, is known to have performed surgeries that are commonplace even today, and he performed them successfully. He created sutures, repaired broken bones, and even attempted to replace a missing part of a child's skull (he was initially successful, though the child died a few years later). He knew to sterilize wounds, and contrary to whatever you may believe, he did not simply leave a person's healing to the whims of Asclepius. His knowledge was lost after the empire fell, though it was rediscovered in the Renaissance.
Running water and working sewage systems are thought of as a discovery of the industrial age, though this is grossly incorrect. Rome had running water available for the masses, and even garrisons as far as England set up irrigation systems and plumbing systems that rival those of today. After the empire fell, the middle ages was full of, well, let's say dirty water.
Among other examples, ancient Greeks and Romans used flamethrowers (though without the extreme long range of modern ones), advanced catapults (moreso than the ones built in the Middle Ages), heliocentric models of the solar system (Aristarchus), tank-like vehicles, accurate calendars and star charts, and even batteries. What happened to all of this?
The most understandable explanation is that the Library of Alexandria, the repository for knowledge during the ancient times, was destroyed and much of the literature was burned after the advent of Christianity and Islam. Thus, technological progress stopped and regressed approximately 500 years to the point where plumbing was unheard of and amulets and magic spells were used to treat sicknesses.
You might be asking yourself "so what's the point of this lecture?" I suppose my point is to demonstrate that, no matter how much you want to believe that humans have always striven for great progress, we haven't. We've followed avaricious desires to the precipice and over the edge, and we've lost so much. Who knows, if the technology and innovation created in ancient times had not been lost, there may have been colonies on the moon and Mars, and maybe we would even be exploring extrasolar planets.
Sad to think about.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
Sunday, June 5, 2011
"God is Love"
Sorry I have not posted anything in a while; I've been working on a political campaign.
I recently came across the idiom "God is Love," which I believe refers to a requited loving relationship between the biblical God and his (or it's, because why would God have a gender?) worshipers, i.e. if you promise to love God, he/she/it/them will love you in return. Instead, I began thinking about this phrase in what could be it's most literal meaning: God, or a belief in God, is in fact love.
I suppose I'll have to have a different definition of love than is typically adhered to; love, in this sense, would represent a feeling or acknowledgement of belonging and acceptance regardless of personal or physical faults, traits that are often mocked or scorned in society. The fact (as claimed by proselytizers) that God would accept a person regardless of their downfalls is a comfortable feeling, almost like being wrapped up in the arms of a lover. That someone, whether they are a supernatural deity or not, is willing to accept the totality of a person means that those who consider themselves faulty will have some chance at redemption, since God is all-forgiving and understanding (at least in some beliefs).
Thus, the feeling of embracing the notion of a God is one of love- acceptance, comfort, a jovial quid pro quo of love and forgiveness.
One would wonder whether this would set a bad precedent, i.e. if one's relationships always fail, there is always the love of the intangible God to fall back upon. Does that mean that instead of attempting to improve one's acknowledged faults, one would simply turn towards the comfort of a supernatural being? Does this negate human love in any way? Would a love (a true love instead of a superficial one that many hold) of God require a diligent and constant devotion towards maintaining the preternatural relationship? There are too many open-ended questions for my taste.
Being the ardently Socialist-Communist-Jedi-Lennonist (not misspelled) Atheist that I am, the consideration of a relationship with an omnipotent being doesn't concern me. I go about my life as anyone else- seeking comfort, warmth, love, friendship, happiness, prosperity, etc. If I do, mazel tov; if not, tough luck.
Anyway, there's my two cents on that. In other news, I need to study for the GREs. They're in a month. Hooray.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
I recently came across the idiom "God is Love," which I believe refers to a requited loving relationship between the biblical God and his (or it's, because why would God have a gender?) worshipers, i.e. if you promise to love God, he/she/it/them will love you in return. Instead, I began thinking about this phrase in what could be it's most literal meaning: God, or a belief in God, is in fact love.
I suppose I'll have to have a different definition of love than is typically adhered to; love, in this sense, would represent a feeling or acknowledgement of belonging and acceptance regardless of personal or physical faults, traits that are often mocked or scorned in society. The fact (as claimed by proselytizers) that God would accept a person regardless of their downfalls is a comfortable feeling, almost like being wrapped up in the arms of a lover. That someone, whether they are a supernatural deity or not, is willing to accept the totality of a person means that those who consider themselves faulty will have some chance at redemption, since God is all-forgiving and understanding (at least in some beliefs).
Thus, the feeling of embracing the notion of a God is one of love- acceptance, comfort, a jovial quid pro quo of love and forgiveness.
One would wonder whether this would set a bad precedent, i.e. if one's relationships always fail, there is always the love of the intangible God to fall back upon. Does that mean that instead of attempting to improve one's acknowledged faults, one would simply turn towards the comfort of a supernatural being? Does this negate human love in any way? Would a love (a true love instead of a superficial one that many hold) of God require a diligent and constant devotion towards maintaining the preternatural relationship? There are too many open-ended questions for my taste.
Being the ardently Socialist-Communist-Jedi-Lennonist (not misspelled) Atheist that I am, the consideration of a relationship with an omnipotent being doesn't concern me. I go about my life as anyone else- seeking comfort, warmth, love, friendship, happiness, prosperity, etc. If I do, mazel tov; if not, tough luck.
Anyway, there's my two cents on that. In other news, I need to study for the GREs. They're in a month. Hooray.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
I'm Useless
Another summer without employment; this has become the archetype for me. Even when I am employed, I hold jobs with little impact upon any future career path, even though I have not had a job for 2 years now. The saddest part is that I have applied for jobs/internships for which I am actually qualified, and I probably will never hear back from those companies with a decision. Needless to say, I'm irritated.
So, why did I say it if it's needless to say? Perhaps it's necessary; I need to vent my frustration towards the total lack of opportunity for me to advance myself in some desired career in life. I'd rather not become a salesman, or a manager of a Wal-Mart, or a stock broker, even though those are the jobs I found that I was most qualified for at a recent job fair I attended. A major in political science is worth about as much as the paper on which my diploma will be printed.
What am I to do if I end up with a terrible job that lands me in a cubicle? Do I do all the grunt work, accept the alienating push of the labor forced upon me just for a measly salary with little to no prospects for my future? What the hell do I do?
I'm going to take a nap.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
So, why did I say it if it's needless to say? Perhaps it's necessary; I need to vent my frustration towards the total lack of opportunity for me to advance myself in some desired career in life. I'd rather not become a salesman, or a manager of a Wal-Mart, or a stock broker, even though those are the jobs I found that I was most qualified for at a recent job fair I attended. A major in political science is worth about as much as the paper on which my diploma will be printed.
What am I to do if I end up with a terrible job that lands me in a cubicle? Do I do all the grunt work, accept the alienating push of the labor forced upon me just for a measly salary with little to no prospects for my future? What the hell do I do?
I'm going to take a nap.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
Monday, May 16, 2011
An Ideology of Logic
A person's idiosyncratic ideology is formed by their experiences and socialization in life. Typically, if someone is raised in a background of poverty, they are more likely to view the world as unfair and weighed against them than someone who was brought up in relative affluence. Ideologies are always deeply entrenched because they are essentially the identity of the person in question; to question their ideology is to question their existence.
Thus, because questioning someone's ideology is construed as a personal attack, it becomes incumbent upon the individual to analyze his own beliefs based on whether or not they are grounded in fundamentally logical principles. As one would expect, almost no one willingly analyzes the root of their beliefs in an attempt to find inherent logic, and thus when confronted with an opposing ideology, the average person finds it quizzical and, in some cases, barbaric.
As with any line of logical thought, one must always analyze the premises behind the conclusion being drawn, i.e. whether or not they are fallacious.
A simple example is one's belief in government-funded social welfare programs such as social security, medicare, medicaid, etc. A belief that these programs are necessary is not necessarily rooted in altruism for-its-own-sake as many would believe, but is instead believed to be necessary because the covenant between the electorate and the government implies that the government has a standing responsibility to give a modicum of care to those who are unable to care for themselves. Some may believe in social welfare because they are naturally altruistic (though some would argue egotism, a tangential point), or some may believe in social welfare because of the belief that all people should be given a fair chance to succeed in society; others believe that ensuring the welfare of a segment of society would embolden society as a whole.
One who believes in a notion of "rugged individualism" would dismiss social welfare as enabling poor people to become slovenly and comfortable in their lives. This ideology comes with the belief in the "self-made man" and that those who want success have the means to achieve it. Essentially, this is a belief that there is a culture of poverty, in that it is a "community" of people who seek to take advantage of the social welfare system in order to continue a life of licentiousness.
Look at these two options. The one that you disagree with is likely to elicit some kind of reaction from you, which may be in the form of a facial expression, a snort, or a feeling of anger while reading it. This is perfectly natural; you are defending your viewpoint, your world. Before reading on, however, think about the position you favor, and answer these questions: From where does your belief originate? Are there overwhelming facts to support your belief? Does your belief follow a strict set of morals? If so, how are those morals defined? Why do you believe in this set of morals, i.e. why do you believe this set of morals to be superior to another?
These are tough questions to ask oneself, and it is quite understandable. My attempt here, though possibly irrelevant, was to open your mind to opposing ideologies and understand the reasoning behind them. Once the reasoning behind an opponent's ideology is understood, one's own ideology is better understood. This occurs because you would be able to parallel the underlying premises of the two ideologies. You may find, however, that you don't agree with the premises, in which case, don't blame me for anything at all. Please. I'm just a poor college student.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
Thus, because questioning someone's ideology is construed as a personal attack, it becomes incumbent upon the individual to analyze his own beliefs based on whether or not they are grounded in fundamentally logical principles. As one would expect, almost no one willingly analyzes the root of their beliefs in an attempt to find inherent logic, and thus when confronted with an opposing ideology, the average person finds it quizzical and, in some cases, barbaric.
As with any line of logical thought, one must always analyze the premises behind the conclusion being drawn, i.e. whether or not they are fallacious.
A simple example is one's belief in government-funded social welfare programs such as social security, medicare, medicaid, etc. A belief that these programs are necessary is not necessarily rooted in altruism for-its-own-sake as many would believe, but is instead believed to be necessary because the covenant between the electorate and the government implies that the government has a standing responsibility to give a modicum of care to those who are unable to care for themselves. Some may believe in social welfare because they are naturally altruistic (though some would argue egotism, a tangential point), or some may believe in social welfare because of the belief that all people should be given a fair chance to succeed in society; others believe that ensuring the welfare of a segment of society would embolden society as a whole.
One who believes in a notion of "rugged individualism" would dismiss social welfare as enabling poor people to become slovenly and comfortable in their lives. This ideology comes with the belief in the "self-made man" and that those who want success have the means to achieve it. Essentially, this is a belief that there is a culture of poverty, in that it is a "community" of people who seek to take advantage of the social welfare system in order to continue a life of licentiousness.
Look at these two options. The one that you disagree with is likely to elicit some kind of reaction from you, which may be in the form of a facial expression, a snort, or a feeling of anger while reading it. This is perfectly natural; you are defending your viewpoint, your world. Before reading on, however, think about the position you favor, and answer these questions: From where does your belief originate? Are there overwhelming facts to support your belief? Does your belief follow a strict set of morals? If so, how are those morals defined? Why do you believe in this set of morals, i.e. why do you believe this set of morals to be superior to another?
These are tough questions to ask oneself, and it is quite understandable. My attempt here, though possibly irrelevant, was to open your mind to opposing ideologies and understand the reasoning behind them. Once the reasoning behind an opponent's ideology is understood, one's own ideology is better understood. This occurs because you would be able to parallel the underlying premises of the two ideologies. You may find, however, that you don't agree with the premises, in which case, don't blame me for anything at all. Please. I'm just a poor college student.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Painting Your Life
Every person, whether they realize it or not, has a central theme (called an invariant organizing principle in psychology) that runs throughout their life. It is not necessarily a theme in the sense of a movie, but rather it is a theme that dictates your predispositions in certain situations. These themes often show themselves in the work of artists or in the books of writers. Stephen King, for example, writes mostly of inanimate objects being the central antagonists of his books because, at a very young age, he witnessed a friend of his get hit by a train. He has stated that he doesn't remember the incident, but clearly it impacted his entire life.
So, I've come up with a little exercise to determine what theme runs throughout your unconscious processes. First, close your eyes. Actually, don't close your eyes yet because you have to read the rest of this. If you did close your eyes, shame on you. Close your eyes after reading this whole spiel. Anyway, close your eyes and allow your mind to wander for a minute or so. Once you feel that your mind is sufficiently meandering, imagine an empty, white room. The room can be of whatever shape your heart so desires since it is a representation of your mind. Once you see your room, paint the walls whatever color you feel most comfortable with. You don't have to paint a solid color; you could paint your own mural or a terrible drawing of a boat on water, whatever you so desire.
Once you've painted the walls, add pictures to the walls. They could be of family or artist's paintings, simple-framed or framed by the most elaborate scheme known to man. Once you have done that, populate the room with items you feel would suit YOUR room. This includes everything: furniture, technology, pets, a life-sized model of a stormtrooper, cars, snagglepuss, whatever. Finally, think of what people you would want in your room. It doesn't matter if they're dead, alive, fictional, or Justin Bieber.
If you've done this and can see your room clearly, congratulations! The color you painted your room best represents your overall character, with the pictures on the walls representing that which you most respect and/or treasure. The items in your room are your idiosyncrasies and unique characteristics, while the people are those you trust and/or care for the most.
There, I've just told you how to be introspective. I think you owe me 5 bucks. If this didn't work for you, there is another exercise you can do: find random images, not ones you've searched for, and write short 200-400 word stories about them. The stories should include what happened in the picture, what is happening, and what is going to happen. Write, say, 10 of them, and read them over to find a theme. Give them to friends, family, your dog to eat, whomever you so desire, and ask them to see if they could find a theme.
If that didn't work for you either, then go draw or paint something. If you lack the artistic ability to do either of those things, I'm not sure why you've been reading up to this point anyway. Stop it. Seriously, stop reading. There is nothing more for you here. If you are continuing to read this regardless of what I have previously typed, I believe that you have too much leisure time on your hands. Get a hobby. I have heard that baseball cards are becoming worthwhile again.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
So, I've come up with a little exercise to determine what theme runs throughout your unconscious processes. First, close your eyes. Actually, don't close your eyes yet because you have to read the rest of this. If you did close your eyes, shame on you. Close your eyes after reading this whole spiel. Anyway, close your eyes and allow your mind to wander for a minute or so. Once you feel that your mind is sufficiently meandering, imagine an empty, white room. The room can be of whatever shape your heart so desires since it is a representation of your mind. Once you see your room, paint the walls whatever color you feel most comfortable with. You don't have to paint a solid color; you could paint your own mural or a terrible drawing of a boat on water, whatever you so desire.
Once you've painted the walls, add pictures to the walls. They could be of family or artist's paintings, simple-framed or framed by the most elaborate scheme known to man. Once you have done that, populate the room with items you feel would suit YOUR room. This includes everything: furniture, technology, pets, a life-sized model of a stormtrooper, cars, snagglepuss, whatever. Finally, think of what people you would want in your room. It doesn't matter if they're dead, alive, fictional, or Justin Bieber.
If you've done this and can see your room clearly, congratulations! The color you painted your room best represents your overall character, with the pictures on the walls representing that which you most respect and/or treasure. The items in your room are your idiosyncrasies and unique characteristics, while the people are those you trust and/or care for the most.
There, I've just told you how to be introspective. I think you owe me 5 bucks. If this didn't work for you, there is another exercise you can do: find random images, not ones you've searched for, and write short 200-400 word stories about them. The stories should include what happened in the picture, what is happening, and what is going to happen. Write, say, 10 of them, and read them over to find a theme. Give them to friends, family, your dog to eat, whomever you so desire, and ask them to see if they could find a theme.
If that didn't work for you either, then go draw or paint something. If you lack the artistic ability to do either of those things, I'm not sure why you've been reading up to this point anyway. Stop it. Seriously, stop reading. There is nothing more for you here. If you are continuing to read this regardless of what I have previously typed, I believe that you have too much leisure time on your hands. Get a hobby. I have heard that baseball cards are becoming worthwhile again.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)