Tanker drivers' strike talks to begin next week as panic buying continues to spread
Congratulations have to go to the government for figuring out how to distract the public from their recent and various embarrassments and injecting some quick cash into their tax coffers without lifting a finger or actually having anything happen whatsoever. Just as the weather anomalies itself the right temperature to make everyone a little unhinged, our genius overlords decided to announce that come next weekend we might not be able to transport our horrible offspring to Ikea for a Saturday afternoon hellfest and like the pack animals we are, we got startled and knocked ourselves unconscious on a road sign.
This master-stroke doesn't come for free of course, as they have just handed a trump card to the tanker drivers by proving how thoroughly Britain will soak its metaphorical trousers in metaphorical shit at the mere concept of not having petrol for a few days. Now that all the idiots have started to panic-buy, that "few days" has started now - a full week before any expected action - meaning that regular people who would have done just fine buying petrol normally at the normal time they would have anyway are finding busy roads, long queues and a nagging temptation to make the queue one car longer just in case. Things are now so fucked, it actually makes sense to join the idiots. Argh, idiots.
But of course after the weekend we'll either find out that this was all pointless because the dispute has been resolved (and "yay government"), or we'll find out that it will happen again at the long weekend when everyone is extra stocked up on Super Crazy. Maybe they could add some extra tension by offering family tax credits for the first person to strangle another motorist to death on the forecourt.
Thursday, 29 March 2012
Sunday, 18 March 2012
On Kony
Like everyone else in the Western world I spent the 30 minutes required to watch the Kony 2012 video and, like most of them, I must admit to having clicked the "Like" button. Actually it was the Google +1 button, partially so that if it came to be a gigantic scam or an embarrassment to be affiliated with, nobody would have seen that I'd done it.
But then YouTube offered me the chance to share the video, just like the flashing pictures had been telling me to do, and that was a good thing because it gave me pause to think for a second. Just what was it that I really liked about the video? Apart from the whole "Africans in dire straits, only your white money can save them" thing which of course, as a melanin-challenged citizen of Mother Earth I absolutely love, don't I?
As a marketing exercise it was damned impressive but I could hear my inner cynic knocking, letting itself in, grabbing a brew and launching backwards onto my favourite chair.
But then YouTube offered me the chance to share the video, just like the flashing pictures had been telling me to do, and that was a good thing because it gave me pause to think for a second. Just what was it that I really liked about the video? Apart from the whole "Africans in dire straits, only your white money can save them" thing which of course, as a melanin-challenged citizen of Mother Earth I absolutely love, don't I?
As a marketing exercise it was damned impressive but I could hear my inner cynic knocking, letting itself in, grabbing a brew and launching backwards onto my favourite chair.
"That was a little preachy", it said.And so it came to pass in the following days that questions were raised publicly about the business practises, previous successes and general misguided nature of the Kony 2012 campaign. And then the inevitable happened - religious crusader and White Man's Burden advocate Jason Russell couldn't take the pressure and his brain decided to go wank at some cars. You have to hand it to him; even in his craziest moments, the man knows how to get shared on the Internet.
"Sure it was, but it was just the kind of viral whatchamacallit that'll get all those hip young trendsters - or 'kids', if you like - to put down their soda pops for a second and listen to something that's going on somewhere else in the world. And that Joseph Kony, he's a Bad Man."
"Oh, sure. Absolutely. We must definitely make sure to specify anywhere we criticise the Kony video that our scepticism about the content of the piece does not translate directly into a belief that there aren't enough child soldiers in Africa and that we should all just leave poor old Joe alone because he's doing stellar work. You know, just in case anyone listening happens to be a fucking idiot."
"I detect a hint of sarcasm there, inner cynic - but just think of all the awareness it's creating!"
"Yeah, mainly of this dude's charity and how amazing a person he apparently is. How much screen-time was dedicated to asking for money, showing the logos of the various organisations involved and drilling home the message that 'black people poor, you affluent and buy worthless shit anyway, so now you buy these bracelets from us'? I bet you can remember exactly what the logo for that 'TRI' charity looks like."
"Well it's like a ban the bomb symbol, but the spokes are kind of curved and there's-"
"Right. Now tell me any Ugandan's name, apart from the child they focused on."
"Umm... I don't really remember, it was all a bit of a blur. Come to think of it, I can't even remember the name of that main kid."
"Exactly, but you can very prominently recall the Jesus-like faces of White-o McSaviour and his son, Cute-so McSaviour. It's using a cheap emotional gimmick of 'My First Activism Cause' to influence impressionable people into giving money whilst enabling them to pretend they are actually stopping horrible things from happening to people far away, but done in our favourite way - without having to physically do anything about it. Click a button, Western guilt sorted, let's go to Starbucks."
"Now that's unfair, inner cynic. There was a huge call to action, with all those kids running around raising awareness in the middle of the night."
"Ah yes, the little terrorist training video at the end. Who would have thought that the path to saving the world was to waste paper by covering it in ink, hastily sticking it to the side of a building owned by somebody who has no ties to Joseph Kony, and then tossing yourself to sleep feeling real good about it while said paper catches a gust of wind and turns itself into litter?"
"A bit of litter is a small price to pay for... no, I can't defend this any more."
"All those self-proclaimed activists out on a rampage of JUSTICE - I'm sure nobody will get carried away and plaster people's houses, cars, gardens..."
"Yes, I agree with you, it's probably not a responsible instruction to be giving out."
"And besides, the video now has a millionty-twelve views so I'm not sure how much help it could possibly need!"
"All right inner cynic, I get it! You can shut up now."
Tuesday, 28 February 2012
Ongoing #13
Dereck Chisora - David Haye brawl transcript
Finally, some actual fighting in British boxing. Isn't that what everyone was asking for? It turns out that the solution was a very simple recipe of:
Finally, some actual fighting in British boxing. Isn't that what everyone was asking for? It turns out that the solution was a very simple recipe of:
- 1 aggressive tosspot of a lunk who can't spell the name "Derek" properly even when it is supposed to be his own name.
- 1 ego massage.
- 1 application of previously defeated British boxer in the same room.
Apply ego massage until he thinks he's indestructible, give him lots of publicity when he demonstrates that he is unable to control himself before the fight even begins, then watch the fun unravel. Extra bonus points for everyone involved in promoting, managing and broadcasting the violence that they want everyone to pay for condemning the behaviour of the angry, highly-trained meat-heads when, surprisingly, they show themselves up as thinking that hitting people is the answer to their problems.
'Anti-gay' book puts Gove at centre of faith school teaching row
It can't just be me who finds it ironic that the offending material which caused a complaint that Michael Gove responded to idiotically has possibly the most euphemistic title I've ever heard - and that includes both joke and non-joke gay porn titles. "Pure Manhood: How to become the man God wants you to be" apparently rails against homosexual relationships but it's clearly either a work of brilliant satire or about as convincing as a drug addict telling you that drugs are just terrible, awful things. I think that this booklet should indeed be handed out in schools, but it should be renamed to "My First Sexual Repression" and would serve as a lesson in irony.
'Anti-gay' book puts Gove at centre of faith school teaching row
It can't just be me who finds it ironic that the offending material which caused a complaint that Michael Gove responded to idiotically has possibly the most euphemistic title I've ever heard - and that includes both joke and non-joke gay porn titles. "Pure Manhood: How to become the man God wants you to be" apparently rails against homosexual relationships but it's clearly either a work of brilliant satire or about as convincing as a drug addict telling you that drugs are just terrible, awful things. I think that this booklet should indeed be handed out in schools, but it should be renamed to "My First Sexual Repression" and would serve as a lesson in irony.
Sunday, 19 February 2012
On Killing
In my mind, killing is quite a large topic. For others I can understand how it's as simple as "don't" and in my daily life that is most definitely the case. On the deeper issue however, I'm still undecided. To that end, what follows is my own reasoning through it with the hopes of coming to a conclusion of sorts. So let's begin with some basic boundaries on what we're talking about.
To start with I may as well declare that I am a supporter of assisted suicide. That probably complicates every further moral question straight away but I think this is a cut-and-dry solution to a serious problem. If somebody is in pain or nearing the end of their life and wants to "skip to the end", I feel that it's only right that this should be their choice. They didn't choose to come into the world so they might as well get a say on leaving the place. Plus there's nobody out there getting off on faking their own need for euthanasia; or at least if they are and they're successful, they can only really do it the one time. Should it ever exist, such an epidemic would be a demonstration of immediate self-correction.
For the most part (in fact all but excluding this very part right here) animals are excluded from the discussion (discussion with myself, indeed). I would disapprove heavily of the killing of any animal larger than a cockroach unless a veterinary expert had deemed it necessary. I'm not entirely sure why my mind draws the line there but if you're taking cockroaches to a vet then I have to discount you from this too. But generally animals are innocent and do not have the mental capability for deception, corruption and misdeeds, thereby get a free pass - again, unless it is the only choice due to it being irreparably ill or a psychopath.
And this is where the "don't kill humans" message gets fuzzy for me. If you have a dodgy toaster that on being requested to make some toast in fact tries to set fire to the kitchen then you hastily discard it. Perhaps if you got an engineer in to look at it then he'd fiddle with a few wires and it would be back making toast without the 'attempted arson' feature. But what if it worked for a while and then broke in the same way? The cost of one toaster isn't worth the risk of your entire family and house up in flames, so on repeated violations the engineer would eventually suggest that it isn't salvageable. A human being who consistently kills or otherwise tries to harm other human beings must be faulty on a fundamental level. With seven billion of us all hanging about the place we're not exactly on the protected species register; and frankly we can spare a few if they go wonky.
I would guess that this thinking means supporting the idea of a death penalty in our justice system, but I can't think that I really would other than in the most extreme cases. On a conceptual level, killing "feels" wrong (or at the very least I feel that it should feel wrong) but it's safe to say that nobody crowding round to put a boot into Muammar Gaddafi's corn-fed torso felt that wrongness as they dragged him out of his hiding place. I don't consider that snuffing out the life of a serial child murderer would bring us down to his/her level - they are damaged in the head, we would be mercifully delivering repair in the only form possible. However this should be applied in such few instances that it probably doesn't warrant being part of the legal system at all. Like the loaded weapon by the bedside cabinet it's a protection you afford yourself at a level of risk, given that you're not the only one who can use it.
Violent mobs occur the world over with riots, lynchings and mass brawls able to break out wherever there are humans with even the most incredibly small bones to pick. It could be a good old-fashioned tabloid-fuelled paedophile hunt or simply a wrong glance at a wrong person upgrading into chaos - group mentality can allow its members to be swept up in the moment such that they can gleefully witness horrors of phenomenal magnitude and escape unbroken. There's also the popular family outing that is public stoning, one of the most horrendous ways to die I can even comprehend (and that's taking into consideration that I can't even begin to comprehend it). Again there is an invisible mental line that results in an "us and them" situation, where us feels squeamish about things like throwing rocks at living flesh and dragging bloodied corpses through the street. Them could be right but I'm willing to take my chances with the choice I've made.
I've been known to hit a ten on the annoyance scale and on the road, the most dangerous place we regularly go to, I could easily wish death upon certain people in the seconds after they throw me some stupidity to avoid, but given the trigger and a point-blank range - even whilst still fuming from it - I would not manage to carry it out (almost certainly not). If they suddenly and mysteriously handed back their driving licence I'd be more than happy. I'd also like to think that even when faced with the prospect of mob justice for the most heinous individual imaginable, I would be simply appalled at what other people were doing to Piers Morgan.
So, I think I've got it. Brace yourself to disagree.
To start with I may as well declare that I am a supporter of assisted suicide. That probably complicates every further moral question straight away but I think this is a cut-and-dry solution to a serious problem. If somebody is in pain or nearing the end of their life and wants to "skip to the end", I feel that it's only right that this should be their choice. They didn't choose to come into the world so they might as well get a say on leaving the place. Plus there's nobody out there getting off on faking their own need for euthanasia; or at least if they are and they're successful, they can only really do it the one time. Should it ever exist, such an epidemic would be a demonstration of immediate self-correction.
For the most part (in fact all but excluding this very part right here) animals are excluded from the discussion (discussion with myself, indeed). I would disapprove heavily of the killing of any animal larger than a cockroach unless a veterinary expert had deemed it necessary. I'm not entirely sure why my mind draws the line there but if you're taking cockroaches to a vet then I have to discount you from this too. But generally animals are innocent and do not have the mental capability for deception, corruption and misdeeds, thereby get a free pass - again, unless it is the only choice due to it being irreparably ill or a psychopath.
And this is where the "don't kill humans" message gets fuzzy for me. If you have a dodgy toaster that on being requested to make some toast in fact tries to set fire to the kitchen then you hastily discard it. Perhaps if you got an engineer in to look at it then he'd fiddle with a few wires and it would be back making toast without the 'attempted arson' feature. But what if it worked for a while and then broke in the same way? The cost of one toaster isn't worth the risk of your entire family and house up in flames, so on repeated violations the engineer would eventually suggest that it isn't salvageable. A human being who consistently kills or otherwise tries to harm other human beings must be faulty on a fundamental level. With seven billion of us all hanging about the place we're not exactly on the protected species register; and frankly we can spare a few if they go wonky.
I would guess that this thinking means supporting the idea of a death penalty in our justice system, but I can't think that I really would other than in the most extreme cases. On a conceptual level, killing "feels" wrong (or at the very least I feel that it should feel wrong) but it's safe to say that nobody crowding round to put a boot into Muammar Gaddafi's corn-fed torso felt that wrongness as they dragged him out of his hiding place. I don't consider that snuffing out the life of a serial child murderer would bring us down to his/her level - they are damaged in the head, we would be mercifully delivering repair in the only form possible. However this should be applied in such few instances that it probably doesn't warrant being part of the legal system at all. Like the loaded weapon by the bedside cabinet it's a protection you afford yourself at a level of risk, given that you're not the only one who can use it.
Violent mobs occur the world over with riots, lynchings and mass brawls able to break out wherever there are humans with even the most incredibly small bones to pick. It could be a good old-fashioned tabloid-fuelled paedophile hunt or simply a wrong glance at a wrong person upgrading into chaos - group mentality can allow its members to be swept up in the moment such that they can gleefully witness horrors of phenomenal magnitude and escape unbroken. There's also the popular family outing that is public stoning, one of the most horrendous ways to die I can even comprehend (and that's taking into consideration that I can't even begin to comprehend it). Again there is an invisible mental line that results in an "us and them" situation, where us feels squeamish about things like throwing rocks at living flesh and dragging bloodied corpses through the street. Them could be right but I'm willing to take my chances with the choice I've made.
I've been known to hit a ten on the annoyance scale and on the road, the most dangerous place we regularly go to, I could easily wish death upon certain people in the seconds after they throw me some stupidity to avoid, but given the trigger and a point-blank range - even whilst still fuming from it - I would not manage to carry it out (almost certainly not). If they suddenly and mysteriously handed back their driving licence I'd be more than happy. I'd also like to think that even when faced with the prospect of mob justice for the most heinous individual imaginable, I would be simply appalled at what other people were doing to Piers Morgan.
So, I think I've got it. Brace yourself to disagree.
- Murder: bad
- Self-murder: okay, but no using it whenever you feel - it is for the avoidance of painful final moments only.
- Pre-calculated murder of entities demonstrably too evil to contribute a "net positive" to society: probably logical, except with our thoroughly-documented tendency for error and hyperbole let's not bother. By the same token, let's not supply them with steak and pornography either.
Thursday, 16 February 2012
Ongoing #12
Hate preacher freed to live near prime terror target
I don't think I've ever seen a more passive-aggressive headline than this. Why yes Daily Mail, I'm sure that is the specific purpose for which Abu Qatada has been placed where he has - to make everyone a bit nervous. The Sun goes one further than mere suggestion about proximities by assumption-ating that he "lurks in the shadow of Wembley". I bet his flat comes with complimentary bleach, fertilizer and a little trapdoor with a tunnel too.
Regardless of where they put him, it's always going to be too close to something else for anyone nearby to be comfortable with such a dick living there. Put him in central London, in full view of everyone and their big shiny buildings and it's a kick-start to his terror regime; put him in the outskirts or further away and suddenly he'd be in hiding, furtively furting an evil plan. But isn't it a little offensive to assume that because he's an extremist, he just wants to blow things up? After years of pent-up jail-house West-hating he might have more nuanced plans than the "bomby bomby kabloom" one he's being labelled with.
He may well have no plans to bring us down at all. If I was him and I saw those photographers chasing me down as I got into my ride, I would jump on that cushy media circus train straight away. I could do all the hating I wanted, write a nice bile-fuelled book and then get "papped" with no underwear on. One robe flash and I'd be a star overnight. I would then spend my time Pyrrhically by visiting London's various malls wearing progressively larger backpacks. It would sure beat Jordanian prison torture.
I don't think I've ever seen a more passive-aggressive headline than this. Why yes Daily Mail, I'm sure that is the specific purpose for which Abu Qatada has been placed where he has - to make everyone a bit nervous. The Sun goes one further than mere suggestion about proximities by assumption-ating that he "lurks in the shadow of Wembley". I bet his flat comes with complimentary bleach, fertilizer and a little trapdoor with a tunnel too.
Regardless of where they put him, it's always going to be too close to something else for anyone nearby to be comfortable with such a dick living there. Put him in central London, in full view of everyone and their big shiny buildings and it's a kick-start to his terror regime; put him in the outskirts or further away and suddenly he'd be in hiding, furtively furting an evil plan. But isn't it a little offensive to assume that because he's an extremist, he just wants to blow things up? After years of pent-up jail-house West-hating he might have more nuanced plans than the "bomby bomby kabloom" one he's being labelled with.
He may well have no plans to bring us down at all. If I was him and I saw those photographers chasing me down as I got into my ride, I would jump on that cushy media circus train straight away. I could do all the hating I wanted, write a nice bile-fuelled book and then get "papped" with no underwear on. One robe flash and I'd be a star overnight. I would then spend my time Pyrrhically by visiting London's various malls wearing progressively larger backpacks. It would sure beat Jordanian prison torture.
Sunday, 12 February 2012
Ongoing #11
Rick Santorum back in the race after sweeping wins over Mitt Romney
Normally I'd be terrified at the mere concept of enough muppets managing to coordinate their gesticulation of a pen and writing what normally constitutes their name next to "Rick Santorum" to result in even one victory for him, but on hearing this news the portion of me reserved for utterly gleeful facetiousness immediately grabbed a beer and kicked back, ready to watch the Republicans eat themselves. I don't think there's anything in the bible against self-cannibalism, so they're fine to proceed.
Rick Santorum has now won more states than previous assure-o-candidate Mitt Romney which shakes things up considerably and fragments the Republican party further, although it is worth bearing in mind that he's won exactly the kind of states whose preferred candidate would be a homophobe on steroids. Santorum himself isn't heinous and objectionable, it's just everything he says, the things he believes and the principles that he works to that make every right-thinking person want to forcefully expunge semi-digested foodstuffs out of their mouths.
Don't get me wrong here; I'm no flag-waving Obama supporter but we know what he does and while not all of it has been great, the place I live and the places that all of my friends live continue to exist and I quite like it that way. The smarmy untrustworthiness on the faces of every nearly every GOP candidate gives me no such similar assurance.
Normally I'd be terrified at the mere concept of enough muppets managing to coordinate their gesticulation of a pen and writing what normally constitutes their name next to "Rick Santorum" to result in even one victory for him, but on hearing this news the portion of me reserved for utterly gleeful facetiousness immediately grabbed a beer and kicked back, ready to watch the Republicans eat themselves. I don't think there's anything in the bible against self-cannibalism, so they're fine to proceed.
Rick Santorum has now won more states than previous assure-o-candidate Mitt Romney which shakes things up considerably and fragments the Republican party further, although it is worth bearing in mind that he's won exactly the kind of states whose preferred candidate would be a homophobe on steroids. Santorum himself isn't heinous and objectionable, it's just everything he says, the things he believes and the principles that he works to that make every right-thinking person want to forcefully expunge semi-digested foodstuffs out of their mouths.
Don't get me wrong here; I'm no flag-waving Obama supporter but we know what he does and while not all of it has been great, the place I live and the places that all of my friends live continue to exist and I quite like it that way. The smarmy untrustworthiness on the faces of every nearly every GOP candidate gives me no such similar assurance.
Sunday, 5 February 2012
On Award Shows
You'd think that I would dislike "awards season" because of the pomp and ceremony disproportionally employed for such a vacuous event. You'd think I'd dislike it because of the ignorant, grinning maws of the wealthy all primped and preened, ready to be handed a piece of metal that symbolises exclusivity while the rest of the world starves. You'd think I might object to people crying at receiving the relatively pointless recognition they've been so desperately trying to attain through years of an unhinged personality defect. You may even consider that I would be irritated by the inability of anyone who thanks a god in their speech to realise that if their deity loves everyone then he couldn't possibly have had anything to do with giving that award to them specifically. And, predictably, you'd be right.
I understand the need to party and it's nice to get all dressed up but why do we need extreme close-up analysis of every aspect of a garment that very strategically protects little but the bleached detail of Jennifer Lopez's anal passage from our eyes? Although who knows; it could be our vision that needs protection from it. Anyway, this has resulted in people inventing a job called "fashion expert" and other people giving them money to spout monosyllabic nonsense at a camera in such a fanatical manner that you wouldn't be surprised to hear that they'd broken into a celebrity's house, made off with a wardrobe's worth of party dresses and then got into a bath with them, maniacally grinding beads and sequins into every accessible cleft. No, that doesn't sound suspiciously specific.
Strangely though, it seems to come down to mathematics; I don't think my reaction would be so visceral if everyone voted together as that would at least give some statistical gravitas to the results. But not only are they splintered into every possible sub-niche but some of them are simply decided by a bunch of old men in a room. Exciting and exclusive I'm sure you'll not agree. You can go into pretty much any retirement home (especially with the right cover story, believe me) and get hours of opinion on the state of the entertainment industry. How many individual award shows does society need? Besides none, I mean. Let me rephrase the question: what would be a sensible amount of award shows to have televised and reported on by the news media? Oh dammit, same again. I'll get back to you when I have formed a question you can't answer with a wryly-raised eyebrow.
Even if I accept (and I don't) that we have all of these shows and that they're here to stay, there's still a gaping hole in the arrangement; where are the televised awards for industries that mean something like - and these are just a few examples - nursing, fire-fighting, youth-working, general humanitarianism; that sort of deal. And I definitely don't count those "bravery" ones where a bunch of people who actually did things each get an opportunity to be patronised for two minutes by the tag-team of corporate teat-sucking known as Ant and Dec. I'm continually surprised that they manage to record those shows, given how much the human body should convulse when offered a prize for nobility by a duo whose bravest act is to continue to call themselves entertainers after proudly hosting a show that is essentially about making people fellate spiders.
Somehow, whole industries will continue to be kept afloat by this bizarre parade of affluence. I have to wonder how long it will be before human evolution causes them to be shamed out of existence, but I also must worry that shame itself has already evolved to make this behaviour acceptable.
I understand the need to party and it's nice to get all dressed up but why do we need extreme close-up analysis of every aspect of a garment that very strategically protects little but the bleached detail of Jennifer Lopez's anal passage from our eyes? Although who knows; it could be our vision that needs protection from it. Anyway, this has resulted in people inventing a job called "fashion expert" and other people giving them money to spout monosyllabic nonsense at a camera in such a fanatical manner that you wouldn't be surprised to hear that they'd broken into a celebrity's house, made off with a wardrobe's worth of party dresses and then got into a bath with them, maniacally grinding beads and sequins into every accessible cleft. No, that doesn't sound suspiciously specific.
Strangely though, it seems to come down to mathematics; I don't think my reaction would be so visceral if everyone voted together as that would at least give some statistical gravitas to the results. But not only are they splintered into every possible sub-niche but some of them are simply decided by a bunch of old men in a room. Exciting and exclusive I'm sure you'll not agree. You can go into pretty much any retirement home (especially with the right cover story, believe me) and get hours of opinion on the state of the entertainment industry. How many individual award shows does society need? Besides none, I mean. Let me rephrase the question: what would be a sensible amount of award shows to have televised and reported on by the news media? Oh dammit, same again. I'll get back to you when I have formed a question you can't answer with a wryly-raised eyebrow.
Even if I accept (and I don't) that we have all of these shows and that they're here to stay, there's still a gaping hole in the arrangement; where are the televised awards for industries that mean something like - and these are just a few examples - nursing, fire-fighting, youth-working, general humanitarianism; that sort of deal. And I definitely don't count those "bravery" ones where a bunch of people who actually did things each get an opportunity to be patronised for two minutes by the tag-team of corporate teat-sucking known as Ant and Dec. I'm continually surprised that they manage to record those shows, given how much the human body should convulse when offered a prize for nobility by a duo whose bravest act is to continue to call themselves entertainers after proudly hosting a show that is essentially about making people fellate spiders.
Somehow, whole industries will continue to be kept afloat by this bizarre parade of affluence. I have to wonder how long it will be before human evolution causes them to be shamed out of existence, but I also must worry that shame itself has already evolved to make this behaviour acceptable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)