A gripe that is familiar to many: "Our relationship was great until we got married."
Why does getting married change relationships for the worse?
During each of the steps leading up to marriage - traveling together, meeting the family, living together - you are on your best behavior. You're doing all those appealing things with the goal of being deemed a partner worthy of marriage. Then you get married, so you are no longer aiming for marriage. You cease to be on your best behavior; wearing your best clothes, going to the gym, going the extra mile in every way. You have crossed the finish line, so you stop running.
Before you tie the knot, the relationship benefits from constant oneupsmanship. Your partner jogs, so you start jogging. Your partner is generous in bed, so you try to be generous in bed. You are constantly trying to keep up with your partner so that she will remain interested. It is a romantic arms race...a bit like the Cold War, only in this case the end result IS World War III.
Once you're married, the tendency is to rest on your laurels, because in theory, marriage is permanent and you're no longer competing with half the species to win your partner's heart. You think you have a monopoly on her love, and predictably, you become a worse product. You let your hair down, and in doing so, let your spouse down.
Now with divorce being so common and cheating discussed so openly, maybe people will wake up to the fact that they absolutely must try to excel in every way, or else their ladyfriend will hastily find someone who hasn't yet achieved all his goals with her. It could be that the answer to divorce is high divorce rates.
Monday, December 9, 2013
Wednesday, December 4, 2013
Why bald people don't have chips on their shoulder (only lost hairs)
Bald people seem better adjusted than fat people; far less hung up on their cosmetic shortcoming. Toupees and hairplugs exist, but the bulging lack of confidence seen in fat people seriously outweighs that of your average bald man.
I think this is because when you're a kid - the time when you're the most vulnerable, the time when you're ridiculed the most, the time that seems to haunt people forever - you have hair. You aren't branded the bald kid in gym class, the bald kid on the bus, the bald kid standing alone in the corner during the prom. The enfeebling insults kids absorb during their school years don't include names like "baldie" because no one goes bald during their school years. The insults you endure at 25 don't twist your self-image the way they do at 15, and at 15, you still have hair.
As you age, most of your peers go bald too, so there isn't the same bell curve for hair that there is for weight among school kids. Most of your peers also gain weight, but it is usually easy to distinguish between the people who were fat in school and got fatter in adulthood from the people who were thin in school and became fat as adults.
But all is not lost for our obese friends. You can lose weight as you enter adulthood and greatly upgrade your place in the cosmetic pecking order. But for bald guys, once those first few hairs abandon ship, you are officially past your prime. Better hope there are some big girls left for you to target.
I think this is because when you're a kid - the time when you're the most vulnerable, the time when you're ridiculed the most, the time that seems to haunt people forever - you have hair. You aren't branded the bald kid in gym class, the bald kid on the bus, the bald kid standing alone in the corner during the prom. The enfeebling insults kids absorb during their school years don't include names like "baldie" because no one goes bald during their school years. The insults you endure at 25 don't twist your self-image the way they do at 15, and at 15, you still have hair.
As you age, most of your peers go bald too, so there isn't the same bell curve for hair that there is for weight among school kids. Most of your peers also gain weight, but it is usually easy to distinguish between the people who were fat in school and got fatter in adulthood from the people who were thin in school and became fat as adults.
But all is not lost for our obese friends. You can lose weight as you enter adulthood and greatly upgrade your place in the cosmetic pecking order. But for bald guys, once those first few hairs abandon ship, you are officially past your prime. Better hope there are some big girls left for you to target.
Monday, December 2, 2013
Public Displays of Anger and Affection
Two things people don't like: stand-up comedy that is genuinely angry, and public displays of affection.
Plenty of comedians play angry. They throw on the angry comedian costume - leather jacket, Marlboro, imitation snarl - so the crowd knows they mean business! They really are mad about the twist-off caps on cough syrup bottles!
But it is all just a game, and the crowd knows it. That comic in the angry comic costume isn't truly angry any more than an impersonator in an Elvis costume is really Elvis. That is why they laugh; because they know the anger is all make-believe.
Comedy crowds can't handle real anger, so a comedian who shows too many flashes of the real thing usually bombs. Famously "angry" comics like Kinison found ways to codify their anger into signature moves that could signal "anger" without showcasing the authentic anger that kills the mood. Lesson from Comedy 101: Don't Callback in Anger.
People also can't stand public displays of affection. "Get a room!" is a typical taunt to couples who make their feelings too obvious. Yet those righteous "Get a room!" hecklers will pay to tearfully watch a syrupy romantic comedy about a Bedouin who falls in a sand dune and finds his true love hidden under the scorpions. But real affection offends them. They can't stand an unscripted romantic comedy happening before their eyes.
They often say love and hate are two sides of the same coin, and I say these two phenomena demonstrate that. What people find funny is an extremely intimate part of them, so maybe it makes sense they need play-acted comedy emotion the same way they need play-acted romantic emotion? At least the people on the subway who scoff at the smooching couple can say they didn't request a romantic show. What is the major malfunction of the paying comedy crowds who shrink when they catch a true glimpse of the hate side of the coin?
Plenty of comedians play angry. They throw on the angry comedian costume - leather jacket, Marlboro, imitation snarl - so the crowd knows they mean business! They really are mad about the twist-off caps on cough syrup bottles!
But it is all just a game, and the crowd knows it. That comic in the angry comic costume isn't truly angry any more than an impersonator in an Elvis costume is really Elvis. That is why they laugh; because they know the anger is all make-believe.
Comedy crowds can't handle real anger, so a comedian who shows too many flashes of the real thing usually bombs. Famously "angry" comics like Kinison found ways to codify their anger into signature moves that could signal "anger" without showcasing the authentic anger that kills the mood. Lesson from Comedy 101: Don't Callback in Anger.
People also can't stand public displays of affection. "Get a room!" is a typical taunt to couples who make their feelings too obvious. Yet those righteous "Get a room!" hecklers will pay to tearfully watch a syrupy romantic comedy about a Bedouin who falls in a sand dune and finds his true love hidden under the scorpions. But real affection offends them. They can't stand an unscripted romantic comedy happening before their eyes.
They often say love and hate are two sides of the same coin, and I say these two phenomena demonstrate that. What people find funny is an extremely intimate part of them, so maybe it makes sense they need play-acted comedy emotion the same way they need play-acted romantic emotion? At least the people on the subway who scoff at the smooching couple can say they didn't request a romantic show. What is the major malfunction of the paying comedy crowds who shrink when they catch a true glimpse of the hate side of the coin?
Wednesday, November 27, 2013
On "Decisive Elections"
The Obamacare controversy is lingering like a pre-existing condition. I've heard politicians and professional opiners say the 2012 Presidential election "settled" this controversy, meaning the discussion is over and we just have to live with whatever they give us.
Oh really? So because a politician wins, everything on his agenda should glide through unobstructed? Every election is an across the board referendum on every plan the winning politician has?
Why even have a Congress then? Why not just hold the Presidential election and let the winner unilaterally enact laws as he sees fit? If we're supposed to interpret elections this way there is no need for checks and balances.
To those now proclaiming the 2012 election "settled" Obamacare:
Would they have said the 2004 election "settled" the controversy about the Iraq War?
If the supposedly* pro-life W. Bush had outlawed abortion, would they have shrugged and said: "Oh well, I guess America has spoken! Looks like I'm carrying this one night stand souvenir to term."
Did the gay marriage advocates call it a day after Bush's "decisive" victory raised the prospect of a constitutional amendment to fortify the blockade against gay marriage? Are they giving up the fight in states where the governor has come out against it?
Keine Möglichkeit, Josef!
We have checks and balances to prevent Presidents from governing like dictators (not that it works). A presidential election is not supposed to be a rubber stamp on whatever the President feels like doing. But of course, both sides cherry pick which measures the voters "decided on." It is only a "decisive election" when there is a controversial measure you want to see become a reality.
Declaring it a "decisive election" to silence dissent sounds like a throwback to Nixon's "When
the President does it that means it is not illegal" defense. I don't even know why people are horrified by Nixon's statement. Both sides agree with it when the law is broken by the person they voted for.
Oh really? So because a politician wins, everything on his agenda should glide through unobstructed? Every election is an across the board referendum on every plan the winning politician has?
Why even have a Congress then? Why not just hold the Presidential election and let the winner unilaterally enact laws as he sees fit? If we're supposed to interpret elections this way there is no need for checks and balances.
To those now proclaiming the 2012 election "settled" Obamacare:
Would they have said the 2004 election "settled" the controversy about the Iraq War?
If the supposedly* pro-life W. Bush had outlawed abortion, would they have shrugged and said: "Oh well, I guess America has spoken! Looks like I'm carrying this one night stand souvenir to term."
Did the gay marriage advocates call it a day after Bush's "decisive" victory raised the prospect of a constitutional amendment to fortify the blockade against gay marriage? Are they giving up the fight in states where the governor has come out against it?
Keine Möglichkeit, Josef!
We have checks and balances to prevent Presidents from governing like dictators (not that it works). A presidential election is not supposed to be a rubber stamp on whatever the President feels like doing. But of course, both sides cherry pick which measures the voters "decided on." It is only a "decisive election" when there is a controversial measure you want to see become a reality.
Declaring it a "decisive election" to silence dissent sounds like a throwback to Nixon's "When
the President does it that means it is not illegal" defense. I don't even know why people are horrified by Nixon's statement. Both sides agree with it when the law is broken by the person they voted for.
It is only going to get worse. The federal government is more involved in our lives than ever, and each election raises more "issues" about our personal lives than ever before. Because we've acquiesced to this increased federal meddling, each election is going to be more shrill and "decisive." By 2020 the Presidential oath is going to be: "I do solemnly swear that I will bring a WINNER TAKE ALL approach to the Office of the President of the United States. After each of my whims becomes law I will perform end zone dances to the best of my ability. So help me Me."
*Republicans only talk the pro-life talk because they know there are millions of gullible single issue voters who will blindly support them so long as they pretend to be pro-life. The Republicans are just as hell-bent on keeping abortion legal as the Democrats, because the phony "fight against" abortion is what keeps the checks and votes coming in. Here's a bumper sticker for ya: "There is no fool like a voting social conservative fool."
Saturday, November 23, 2013
Putting a businessperson in the White House won't give us a "CEO in Chief"
Wanna hear a joke?
Unemployment is high in America.
How high is it?
It's so high even the dishonest government measurement of unemployment clocks it above 7%. Oh, and yo' mama so fat they count her as two unemployed people.
In a time of high unemployment and flagrant government oafishness like Obamacare, it isn't surprising to hear murmurings about how we "need a businessperson in office." He'll know how to get the economy going! Romney tried leaning on this, and for years Donald Trump had used it to generate publicity.
Businesspeople can't improve the government. Part of the reason businesspeople can achieve things is because they don't have to get votes. Businesspeople only have to provide products. They don't have to whisper sweet nothings in consumers' ears. You can be unlikable and still monumentally successful as long as people like your products. See Steve Jobs.
Politicians have to sugarcoat. They have to whisper sweet nothings. They have to appear likeable. Politicians themselves are the product. That means is they have to lie constantly. The "which candidate would you rather have a beer with" matters big time. In 2008, apart from the media's pornographic love affair with the symbolism of Barack, I think a big part of his prevailing is that every non-lesbian (and probably most lesbians) would rather drink with Barack than Hillary. Barack is probably an interesting enough guy to have a Guinness with. Hillary is lame enough to turn wine into seltzer.
Also, when a CEO promises a new iPhone, he actually has to deliver a new iPhone. He can't not provide one and then just claim he did. He won't have a million propagandizing media subnormals working 'round the clock to convince the nation he provided this nonexistent iPhone. People will notice the lack of a new iPhone and punish him by buying his competitors' phones.
A politician can say he's going to do something like close Gitmo and then simply not do it. Almost nothing ever happens when a politician breaks a promise. People are trained to expect broken promises from politicians (or at least politicians who aren't members of "their" party). CEOs and businesspeople don't have this luxury. If anything, folks are trained to complain vociferously to businesspeople ("the customer is always right"). Therefore, businesspeople have to follow up to some extent on their promises, or else customers and activist shareholders will topple them. See JC Penney.
Once a politician is in office, he is there for at least two years. Unlike a CEO, you're stuck with him. Sometimes you're stuck with him for four or six years, so he can go right on lying for his entire reign, and there is nothing that can be done about it. A businessperson's approval rating results in immediate profits and losses, and he can be put out of business or fired from the CEO position in a matter of months, not years. Parties of all political persuasions are always complaining about voters' short attention spans. They're right. If a guy is in office six years there is plenty of time for each storm to blow over and be forgotten. In business, even a short term storm can topple someone in no time flat. If that businessperson could count on six years of tenure, chances are his sins would be forgotten the way they are for politicians.
CEOs and businesspeople almost never have the advantage of a monopoly. Government by its very definition is a monopoly. There is one DMV. There is one police force. You can only have two Senators in each state. There is no such thing as an upstart third, fourth, or fifth Senator who can suddenly appear and immediately start taking market share. There is no limit to how many different smartphone brands there can be, which is why CEOs and businesspeople must be nimble and responsive to customers if they are to survive. Government, and its mascots in the Congress and White House, is a monopoly, and it acts like one. A politician with the greatest business background still couldn't do anything to change the clumsy, unaccoutable nature of monopolies. The only thing he could do once in office is privatize everything, and forgetting for a moment that that is impossible under our current system, what politician is going to ride in and start diluting his own power by privatizing everything? The last President to use anti-government rhetoric was Reagan, and as we all know he greatly expanded the government.
By believing a businessperson is going to fix government, market-minded people are adopting the same defective mentality as the most anti-business egalitarian: assuming if we could just get the right person in there, things would be better. Wrong. The institution itself isn't fixable. Getting a different mascot to be its face won't render it fixable.
I've heard champions of the marketplace say it is the only real democracy, the only place where you truly have a voice. The reason that is so is because it is democracy without force. Government is nothing but monopoly and force. Government is democracy without the whole "having a voice" part.
Unemployment is high in America.
How high is it?
It's so high even the dishonest government measurement of unemployment clocks it above 7%. Oh, and yo' mama so fat they count her as two unemployed people.
In a time of high unemployment and flagrant government oafishness like Obamacare, it isn't surprising to hear murmurings about how we "need a businessperson in office." He'll know how to get the economy going! Romney tried leaning on this, and for years Donald Trump had used it to generate publicity.
Businesspeople can't improve the government. Part of the reason businesspeople can achieve things is because they don't have to get votes. Businesspeople only have to provide products. They don't have to whisper sweet nothings in consumers' ears. You can be unlikable and still monumentally successful as long as people like your products. See Steve Jobs.
Politicians have to sugarcoat. They have to whisper sweet nothings. They have to appear likeable. Politicians themselves are the product. That means is they have to lie constantly. The "which candidate would you rather have a beer with" matters big time. In 2008, apart from the media's pornographic love affair with the symbolism of Barack, I think a big part of his prevailing is that every non-lesbian (and probably most lesbians) would rather drink with Barack than Hillary. Barack is probably an interesting enough guy to have a Guinness with. Hillary is lame enough to turn wine into seltzer.
Also, when a CEO promises a new iPhone, he actually has to deliver a new iPhone. He can't not provide one and then just claim he did. He won't have a million propagandizing media subnormals working 'round the clock to convince the nation he provided this nonexistent iPhone. People will notice the lack of a new iPhone and punish him by buying his competitors' phones.
A politician can say he's going to do something like close Gitmo and then simply not do it. Almost nothing ever happens when a politician breaks a promise. People are trained to expect broken promises from politicians (or at least politicians who aren't members of "their" party). CEOs and businesspeople don't have this luxury. If anything, folks are trained to complain vociferously to businesspeople ("the customer is always right"). Therefore, businesspeople have to follow up to some extent on their promises, or else customers and activist shareholders will topple them. See JC Penney.
Once a politician is in office, he is there for at least two years. Unlike a CEO, you're stuck with him. Sometimes you're stuck with him for four or six years, so he can go right on lying for his entire reign, and there is nothing that can be done about it. A businessperson's approval rating results in immediate profits and losses, and he can be put out of business or fired from the CEO position in a matter of months, not years. Parties of all political persuasions are always complaining about voters' short attention spans. They're right. If a guy is in office six years there is plenty of time for each storm to blow over and be forgotten. In business, even a short term storm can topple someone in no time flat. If that businessperson could count on six years of tenure, chances are his sins would be forgotten the way they are for politicians.
CEOs and businesspeople almost never have the advantage of a monopoly. Government by its very definition is a monopoly. There is one DMV. There is one police force. You can only have two Senators in each state. There is no such thing as an upstart third, fourth, or fifth Senator who can suddenly appear and immediately start taking market share. There is no limit to how many different smartphone brands there can be, which is why CEOs and businesspeople must be nimble and responsive to customers if they are to survive. Government, and its mascots in the Congress and White House, is a monopoly, and it acts like one. A politician with the greatest business background still couldn't do anything to change the clumsy, unaccoutable nature of monopolies. The only thing he could do once in office is privatize everything, and forgetting for a moment that that is impossible under our current system, what politician is going to ride in and start diluting his own power by privatizing everything? The last President to use anti-government rhetoric was Reagan, and as we all know he greatly expanded the government.
By believing a businessperson is going to fix government, market-minded people are adopting the same defective mentality as the most anti-business egalitarian: assuming if we could just get the right person in there, things would be better. Wrong. The institution itself isn't fixable. Getting a different mascot to be its face won't render it fixable.
I've heard champions of the marketplace say it is the only real democracy, the only place where you truly have a voice. The reason that is so is because it is democracy without force. Government is nothing but monopoly and force. Government is democracy without the whole "having a voice" part.
Monday, November 18, 2013
A Question on Sanctions
A big media topic of late has been "comprehensive immigration reform." Talking heads keep saying increased immigration means increased economic growth; more people=more potential consumers, etc.
That same media goes right along with any suggestion of sanctions and penalties for countries like Iran. OK...if more consumers means more economic growth, doesn't cutting off the potential consumers of Iran and Cuba and Burma from US output also limit economic growth?
You might retort that the average Iranian or Cuban consumer isn't particularly prosperous. The same is true of many of the immigrants who would arrive in the US via comprehensive immigration reform. It's not like the Statue of Liberty says: "Send us your posh, your one-percenters, your moneyed masses yearning to spend freely." Far from it. So if the media doesn't consider the poverty of those migrating here an impediment, the poverty of those potential consumers in Iran, Cuba, and Burma shouldn't be used as an excuse to cut them off from American markets.
Don't expect anyone on TV to raise this point. The establishment media is firmly in favor of all forms of belligerence against "rogue states," especially those containing Arabs and Persians. When it comes to Americans and the Middle East, economics takes a back seat, and practical foreign policy analysis gets thrown in the trunk.
That same media goes right along with any suggestion of sanctions and penalties for countries like Iran. OK...if more consumers means more economic growth, doesn't cutting off the potential consumers of Iran and Cuba and Burma from US output also limit economic growth?
You might retort that the average Iranian or Cuban consumer isn't particularly prosperous. The same is true of many of the immigrants who would arrive in the US via comprehensive immigration reform. It's not like the Statue of Liberty says: "Send us your posh, your one-percenters, your moneyed masses yearning to spend freely." Far from it. So if the media doesn't consider the poverty of those migrating here an impediment, the poverty of those potential consumers in Iran, Cuba, and Burma shouldn't be used as an excuse to cut them off from American markets.
Don't expect anyone on TV to raise this point. The establishment media is firmly in favor of all forms of belligerence against "rogue states," especially those containing Arabs and Persians. When it comes to Americans and the Middle East, economics takes a back seat, and practical foreign policy analysis gets thrown in the trunk.
Sunday, November 17, 2013
Five Signs a Band is out of Ideas
You never know when a band is going to run out of gas, but if you pay attention it is easy to spot the warning signs.
"We're returning to our influences."
No one "returns to their influences" when they're breezily penning pop gems. What "returning to our influences" means is we've hit a wall, so we're going to release an album of lazy, tuneless flops with either a blues or jazz tinge. Deferring to blues and jazz is smart, because you have built-in excuses for uninspired music. You can always say: Hey man, blues is supposed to be simple. It's all about the feeling! or Hey man, jazz isn't about three-minute pop songs. It's about improvisation (read: unstructured messes).
WE GET IT, you're dad owned a Howlin' Wolf LP and you spun it once or twice yourself. That's no excuse for playing the same three notes over and over and adopting the blue singer technique of scrunching your face like you just got tear gassed. If I wanted to experience your inspirations, I'd buy a Muddy Waters album and an eight ball from your coke dealer. At least have the decency to name the album Writer's Block Blues.
Unnecessary Gospel Choir
Like your girlfriend telling you she "needs more space," a gospel choir means the end is near.
Here's what happens: You're working on your next single. You can't seem to write a catchy chorus. What do you do instead? Employ 73 fat women to gratuitously repeat a random phrase. Who needs a bridge when you're backed by enough musical girth to sink a cruise ship?
And like blues or jazz, you can cop out by saying "Hey man, I grew up listening to gospel, so I've always dreamed of doing a song with a gospel choir." Sorry, but I don't accept childhood nostalgia as a "GET OUT OF CREATIVITY FREE" card. Have that church choir pray for your talent to return from the dead.
Cover Albums
It seems almost any band that makes it past four albums tries some version of this; either a full cover album or a cover EP. It never goes well. Cover albums are always presented as a stopgap between real albums, usually released just in time for the Christmas shopping season. No band has ever done a cover album and then gone on to do their best work. You don't autopilot your way through a bunch Dylan covers when you've got a Sergeant Pepper inside you. I have purchased just one cover album: Guns N' Roses' The Spaghetti Incident? (all cover albums should have the word incident in the title). It was bad enough to scare me away from ever buying a cover album again. I should probably thank Axl for that lesson in tough love.
Covering a song that was already a big hit without really changing it
This warning sign is so blatant elaborating on it almost seems redundant. So you've got nothing in the tank and you need a hit. Quick, cover a song that is already market tested! Notice they never cover an obscure song. No, it is always the band's biggest hit. Limp Bizkit didn't cover a deep album cut from The Who. They went straight to "Behind Blue Eyes". Covering an established radio staple is a clever move, because through sheer habit fans will toss a few clams in your direction for reminding them of a song they liked much better the first time around. It is like picking up a woman at a bar simply because you remind her of an ex she wants to get back together with. Hopefully, he doesn't look like Fred Durst.
Going Country
"We're returning to our influences."
No one "returns to their influences" when they're breezily penning pop gems. What "returning to our influences" means is we've hit a wall, so we're going to release an album of lazy, tuneless flops with either a blues or jazz tinge. Deferring to blues and jazz is smart, because you have built-in excuses for uninspired music. You can always say: Hey man, blues is supposed to be simple. It's all about the feeling! or Hey man, jazz isn't about three-minute pop songs. It's about improvisation (read: unstructured messes).
WE GET IT, you're dad owned a Howlin' Wolf LP and you spun it once or twice yourself. That's no excuse for playing the same three notes over and over and adopting the blue singer technique of scrunching your face like you just got tear gassed. If I wanted to experience your inspirations, I'd buy a Muddy Waters album and an eight ball from your coke dealer. At least have the decency to name the album Writer's Block Blues.
Unnecessary Gospel Choir
Like your girlfriend telling you she "needs more space," a gospel choir means the end is near.
Here's what happens: You're working on your next single. You can't seem to write a catchy chorus. What do you do instead? Employ 73 fat women to gratuitously repeat a random phrase. Who needs a bridge when you're backed by enough musical girth to sink a cruise ship?
And like blues or jazz, you can cop out by saying "Hey man, I grew up listening to gospel, so I've always dreamed of doing a song with a gospel choir." Sorry, but I don't accept childhood nostalgia as a "GET OUT OF CREATIVITY FREE" card. Have that church choir pray for your talent to return from the dead.
Cover Albums
It seems almost any band that makes it past four albums tries some version of this; either a full cover album or a cover EP. It never goes well. Cover albums are always presented as a stopgap between real albums, usually released just in time for the Christmas shopping season. No band has ever done a cover album and then gone on to do their best work. You don't autopilot your way through a bunch Dylan covers when you've got a Sergeant Pepper inside you. I have purchased just one cover album: Guns N' Roses' The Spaghetti Incident? (all cover albums should have the word incident in the title). It was bad enough to scare me away from ever buying a cover album again. I should probably thank Axl for that lesson in tough love.
Covering a song that was already a big hit without really changing it
This warning sign is so blatant elaborating on it almost seems redundant. So you've got nothing in the tank and you need a hit. Quick, cover a song that is already market tested! Notice they never cover an obscure song. No, it is always the band's biggest hit. Limp Bizkit didn't cover a deep album cut from The Who. They went straight to "Behind Blue Eyes". Covering an established radio staple is a clever move, because through sheer habit fans will toss a few clams in your direction for reminding them of a song they liked much better the first time around. It is like picking up a woman at a bar simply because you remind her of an ex she wants to get back together with. Hopefully, he doesn't look like Fred Durst.
Going Country
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)