As you know, I am no fan of contemporary society in most respects, and have spent a good deal of time trying to figure out what its main flaw is. Recently, though, a commencement speaker hit on a point which I think explains a lot of the craziness going on today. See what you think.I refer in this case to a WSJ article by Carl McCoy, who lambasts a lot of the advice regularly offered to college graduates this time of year. You know the drill: shoot for the stars, discover yourself, fifty-three other shallow platitudes, and in this particular instance, "do what you love." McCoy takes real issue with this phrase. There's nothing wrong with trying to find a career in something you enjoy, he points out; but it's a serious mistake to think that you can always pursue such enjoyment and make good money from it and flatter yourself that what you're doing is just as important as anyone else's job. As the writer puts it:
Some will soon go on to better jobs, but many will stay in [their] 'day jobs' for years, waiting for their big break, waiting to be discovered--or simply waiting to find out what exactly it is that they truly love....As someone who has tried living as a starving artist, I can attest that there's nothing romantic or noble about being impoverished in pursuit of doing what you love.He suggests that college graduates reverse the process, finding a line of work they're capable at and then feeling a sense of purpose and accomplishment from that, rather than finding something they love first.
Good advice, I think. But then, I like seeing meaningless catchphrases get dissected and debunked like that. More importantly, this has a lot to say about conservatism versus liberalism in general.
Despite the many turns it has taken, liberalism has always had a strong element of self-expressionism within it, especially when directed against bourgeois society, aka "The Man." Being in touch with one's emotions and personal fulfillment was just as important to, say, Rousseau in the 18th century as it is to New Ager hippies today. Yes, the Left is very collectivist, but in this respect it's also radically individualist: A liberal, especially a young liberal, has a strong urge to reject any traditional obligations to family or society, with the expectation that someone else (i.e., the state) will come in to pick up the tab.
Contrast this with conservatism. A healthy degree of individualism can be found on the Right, of course. But rather than egotism, it encourages channeling one's personal ambitions and energies into activities that increase the common good and the well-being of society in general. This is one reason why conservatives are often so unfriendly toward posturing "artistes"--it's just hard to see what they're doing as necessary to the functioning of that society.
Anyway, broadly speaking, this clash of personal prescriptions is what's going on the WSJ article I began with. While not completely ruling out personal passion, McCoy definitely places "constructive" occupations like medicine or teaching above others which, though not useless, involve a high degree of self-love.
This point isn't too fleshed out, of course, and there's a lot of wiggle room. But it does kind of get at the fundamental difference between the essentially emotional basis of liberalism and the more practical nature of conservatism. And it applies to other aspects of our culture as well. In particular, this emphasis on personal expression and such is, in my opinion, a lot of what drives the current obsession with self-esteem and, in turn, the anti-bullying witch hunts. There are lots of other things also going on, naturally; this is just one lens through which to view things. But I do think it's an important one.
Any thoughts?
53 comments:
Love is all you need.
I do agree that "do what you love" is a rather generic and unclear thought that probably gets interpreted in rather meaningless ways... especially in an age of self-esteem where most people love only themselves. This is truly the age of narcissism right now.
That said, I think there is a solid basis to what this phrase was originally meant to imply, which is "Find a career that is satisfying to you." In my experience, there is nothing more destructive to a person than being in a job they hate just because they are chasing money or significance or peer pressure.
In this regard, I tend to side with Ayn Rand (or at least my interpretation of her) -- everyone has something they are passionate about and at which they excel. We should encourage people to find those things and set them free to do them rather than trying to encourage people to do what everyone else has always done.
What if what you "love" is power...pure unadulterated power in its most abusive form? That's the problem I have always had with the pablum commencement speakers spew. Graduates need to be slapped in the face in order to face reality. I doubt all the crap they've been fed since Head Start about how "special" and "unique" they all are does them any flippin good once they are in the real world. If they didn't have someone, parents usually, who "speaks truth to power" that the real world could give a shit about how special and unique they are, then they will be in for a rude awakening once they leave the warm, liberal bosom of university life where they were coddled and encouraged.
With that said, I don't think a commencement speech by some well-known person is going to change their outlook. By that point, they're pretty well screwed up, especially if they have gone to a university where liberalism reigns supreme. So....go ahead, tell them how great and individualistic each one of them is (as they look around at everyone dressed identically).
They should be told...."Work hard, keep improving yourself, your education doesn't stop here at this point, love your family and look at life with a healthy dose of skepticism, as someone is always trying to sell you something."
Either way, I doubt many graduates will remember what was said at their graduations.....I sure as hell can't remember who, or what was said at mine over 30 years ago!
well, good morning, Rav. Let me first say, I didn't expect to be here able to comment this morning. Old Jed was scheduled for a heart valve replacement yesterday, but I have long been prone to kidney stones. I had a very nasty attack Monday with two E.R. trips followed by lithotripsy Tuesday afternoon. Haven't been in much shape to read or post, and have had to re-schedule the heart surgery. BUT, I am blessed the stone thing didn't happen on route to N.C. or worse, after the heart surgery. That would have been a catastrophic complication, so blessings are strange.
That said, I'm not sure I'm able to give your question the reply it deserves, but my response would be not unlike Andrew's comment. You should try and find a career that not only pays you a decent living, but that you find stimulating and enjoy. It is indeed rare to be able to get paid for doing what you love. I forget who said {sic} "I've been poor, and I've been rich, and all in all, rich is better." It is hard to be poor in our society. Anyway, glad to be back at this blog, although in another few weeks, I will need to pay the piper.
Well Jed, good morning to you too, and I'm glad you didn't get hit with such a double whammy. Someone's looking out for you, I think.
I think a career with decent pay and enjoyable work is probably what most people shoot for. Teaching history will never make me very rich, but it's useful work and has certain rewards if you do it right. Good to have you back, and here's hoping the upcoming heart surgery goes all right.
Dear Beatles: Apparently it wasn't all the four of you needed. Rimshot!
I've heard the expression both ways, but there is a world of difference between "Do what you love" and "Love what you do." I wonder if the latter expression actually precedes the other?
Andrew, true, and I don't think anyone would entirely reject the "do what you love" idea. The writer of this article clearly isn't suggesting slaving away in a cubicle just for money and others' approval. Rather, I think he's attacking the idea that society ought to validate every choice one of these young grads makes, in employment or elsewhere. And he doesn't really call out specific professions, beyond ridiculing the innumerable folks who think they're going to make it in Hollywood or the artistic world. So like I said, there's some necessary wiggle room in the critique.
Self-esteem....yeah. That's one of the more annoying concepts I was subjected to in grade school. In my experience, it makes kids fragile rather than stable, since it inevitably gets torn down for one reason or another. The best course is just to not have any, which is what I do.
So Patriot, personally, how do you feel? ;-)
I've attended a bunch of commencement ceremonies, either for myself or my friends, and invariably the addresses make my eyes roll back in my head. They're just not very good. As you say, they tend to reiterate the notion that each grad is a "special snowflake" who ought to be flattered and treasured. I know too many college graduates to feel that way.
And I don't think it's often even intentional; most commencement speakers just want to say something dramatic and memorable, and that leads them to spout whatever emotional cliché. If they gave the advice you suggest, that would be better in the long run, but that wouldn't be quite as striking. Oh well; we have to trust that the grads figure these things out for themselves in time. Usually they do.
tryanmax, as the Mad Hatter once said, it's like the difference between "I eat what I see" and "I see what I eat."
I don't know if "Love what you do" precedes what "Do what you love," but in practice, it should.
T-Rav, You would be surprised how many people slave away in cubicles just because they think it will get them money or approval. My whole life I've run into people who are doing thing they hate either because they think it will make them rich and they can quit or because "it was expected." That's a very unhappy live ultimately. And the ones who set themselves free very quickly discover how much happier they are.
The problem with the "self-esteem" school is that it tells kids that they should feel proud of themselves despite having no basis to feel proud. That ultimately makes it hard for them to become successful because it wipes out their understanding of cause and effect. And once they hit the real world, were the only thing that matters is success -- in any field, they find themselves ill-equipped to handle reality. And by success, I don't mean "get rich," I mean things like making sure your patient survives or that the car you design works or that customers respond to what you create. The world doesn't condone failure, yet the self-esteem movement preaches that you are a success just for trying.
Jed, Glad to hear you're ok! :)
best wishes, Jed!
Most don't remember the commencement speakers, let alone their words, but this concept (and most of the commencement sap) is the culmination of all of the years of "participation education" that these now-adults have experienced.
Self-esteem and self-worth are not equal.
I have yet to figure out "what I love", but I have made myself integral to each job I've had, done more than asked when what I'm asked is too little for my peace of mind, and been missed when I've left. I haven't loved every job - some I didn't even like, but gotta eat.
I am now at another crossroads (although my roads aren't exactly meeting like Four Corners) where I have to figure out my next steps. I honestly have no clue what I am doing next (except for finishing that evil thesis and graduating, come hell or highwater, in December). I'll figure it out. I might have to something else I don't love. I might figure out that I love whatever I find to do next.
But that's being a grown-up [I hope] and not thinking that someone else needs to figure it out for me, or make a path for me.
rlaWTX, I think you find what you love by figuring out the things about which you have a passion and then finding fields that address those and for which you have some skill. In my experience, the people who love their jobs are people who love the underlying thing the job does and then they have a high motivation to be really good at it.
For example, a lot of the engineers I've met are really happy because they love the problem solving aspect... they like to know what makes things word. The mechanics I know who are happy love cars and working with cars. The writers I know love words and playing with words. The lawyers who are happy go into parts of the law that either give them what they want personally or cover an area of the law they feel strongly about. Each of these people have found careers that mesh with their skills and with things they care about. And each of these people would do these things for free.
The people who hate their jobs are people who never see the purpose in what they do or who don't have the skill set to do it well or who see their jobs as a paycheck.
TennJ - Please get well really soon!
If I did "what I loved, I woudl be sitting all day in front of the TV or on a beach sipping fruitty alchoholic beverages. I had my "dream job" in my 20's and 30's. lots and lots of fun, but all that "fun" came with very little reward like " covering my meager existance". An opportunity presented itself while I was between Blisses, and I took it.
Look, people take jobs for many reasons. The real point is try not overlook opportunities, just. to have paycheck
There is something I do want to point out. Two flaws in McCoy's thinking...
Flaw One: One of the assumptions underlying his argument is that we should approve or disapprove of other people's job choices. I think that's a real mistake. People are unique and we should never assume that what is right for one person is right for another.
Flaw Two: McCoy, like a lot of conservatives, seems to assume that being an actor or an artist is somehow less worthy than being a farmer or engineer. I think that's fundamentally wrong. I would suggest that the average actor has a lot more impact on society than the average accountant or farmer or marketing manager. And ultimately, I think that attitude hurts conservatism because it discourages conservatives from going into fields like acting, writing and journalism, which are the very fields that define our culture and America itself.
Breaking news....So I am at LAX (it's kinda like when Andrew "goes to Denver" only with wine...;-) ) Obama just landed/and took off (??). IT appears that he was just at LAX to pick up Mayor Villagarosa and then on to Santa Monica Airport to park Marine ONe so he can attend a Hollywood fundraiser. It's good to be king...
Somewhere in all of that the President of China landed, but was not met by the President of the US. BTW, Michelle snubbed the wife of the China Pres. and decided to stay in DC. China is not pleased and frankly neither am I. THat is her job...to meet heads of state.
End of News report...
Bev, LOL! "Going to LAX." :)
The Chinese shouldn't complain. They're better off not dealing with Madame O.
Andrew, they say that self-esteem is the primary trait of my "echo boomer"/"millennial" generation, due to the parents being disenchanted with success and teaching the kids that effort was all that mattered. One more thing to lay at the feet of the baby boomers....
And it's a very ephemeral thing, too. I doubt I could prove it, but I've always suspected that the emphasis on it is responsible for a lot of the periodic "bullying" suicides we hear about, especially among the youth. It's not hard to have your self-esteem damaged, and if you're led to believe that defines who you are, it's not hard to imagine someone wanting to kill themselves. Okay, I'll stop since this is getting kind of dark.
Bev, did you tell the First Family we all say hi? Or....something else? ;-)
rla, fortunately I was able to figure out early on just what I wanted to do. Teaching history was something I seemed to have an aptitude for, and I enjoy it, so there you go. That said, I can't say I've had a job whose every aspect was unpleasant to me. Working in a store, for example, isn't something I'd want to do for the rest of my life, but I liked it while I was doing it. And I wouldn't have minded becoming an accountant, even though that's almost completely opposite from the humanities; I even thought about switching my major at one point.
The most important thing, I think, is to take some pride in your work, no matter what it is, and that can make it its own reward.
And good luck deciding what to pursue next. Especially if it involves your thesis--those things can be monstrous.
The problem with pithy advice like "do what you love" isn't that it's bad, it's that it's almost bereft of meaning--or rather, people bandy it about without consideration of its full implications.
As with my earlier observation, I've heard "do what you love" used interchangeably with "love what you do" even though they mean vastly different things. Clearly, not everyone is thinking about what these mean.
Also, the broad nature of the statement has the ironic effect of sounding very specific. "Do what you love" leads most people to consider only that which they love the most. Hence the pursuit of piña coladas on the beach. "Do something you love" better enforces the broadness of the approach.
A more useful bit of advice might be "do what you're good at" which for most people would likely be synonymous with what they love. This advice attaches nicely to "love what you do" in that not everyone necessarily thinks they love that which they excel at. Bringing the two ideas together encourages examining why one is good at a thing, and they may well discover it is because they love it.
Granted, in some cases one might have a genuine aversion to what they excel at. I am a case-in-point; all manner of math is intuitive to me, but it remains a chore all the same. But it is rare that a person only excels in one thing. I also excel as an artist (and am gainfully employed as such). Ironically, my math skills actually bolster my designs. My only wish is that people would have stopped trying to encourage me to pursue a math career despite where my obvious interest lie.
But all that will be achieved by telling someone that the thing they love isn't worthwhile is alienation. More important than whether "do what you love" is good or bad advice is making sure that pithy remark isn't the beginning and end of the conversation.
Just as important as doing what you love is figuring out how that thing fits in with what everyone else loves to do. There's a lot embedded in that recommendation, but it may be best summed up by the band My Chemical Romance lyric: "You've got to be what tomorrow needs."
Of course, that doesn't carry us much further than the place we began. How do you know what tomorrow needs? It's an ongoing process wrought with uncertainty. In the face of that uncertainty, it's probably best to pick something you enjoy and excel at which other people also find useful and pursue it. But that's not very pithy, is it?
No. Try not. Do... or do not. There is no try.
Andrew, as for "Flaw One," I agree that it's not really our place to approve or disapprove of people's job choices; whether or not McCoy's saying that is unclear. I think he's really trying to caution graduates that only doing the kind of work they want to do isn't a good idea, especially if it entails passing up better job opportunities. But who knows.
As for "Flaw Two," I think it's pretty clear that he does, but here's the thing--one on one, you're right that one actor has a lot more pull than one farmer or one doctor. Collectively, however, the latter are much more important to the functioning of society than the former, which is the tack McCoy's taking here. And yes, that is how a lot of other conservatives feel, and yes, that can be regrettable at times; but if I'm right in how I described conservatism's vision of a well-ordered society in my post, there is a certain logic to it. And the stereotype Hollywood and Broadway have isn't likely to change that preference conservatives have for their own lines of work.
I think that conservatives generally don't look down on job choices in the arts - I think we tend to look down on those who think that their job choices in the arts DESERVE the highest compensation from someone - and if they aren't getting it in the free market, then govt should make up for that (NEA) and that their job choices in the arts are inherently better or give them automatic expertness in all things.
Or maybe that's just me.
T-Rav, I don't think Andrew is arguing that farmers and engineers aren't important to the functioning of society. But the fact is that bread and bridges only affect the culture when they are not there.
Soviet infrastructure did not collapse because everyone decided to become artists. It's because their culture became so screwed up that their leaders perceived those who made society function as the problem. They were driven from their farms and executed!
Short of going Galt, if conservatives want to maintain influence in the culture, they need to maintain a visible presence. That means that books and movies are just as vital to maintaining the society as are food and roads.
rlaWTX, while I agree that nobody likes an entitled snob, I disagree that that is the limit to conservative disdain. Being a graphic artist (f.k.a. commercial artist) I have encountered many self-described conservatives who look down on my work as "unimportant."
rlaWTX, I don't think that's right. When I used to visit BH, I saw it all the time there (and I hear it a lot on talk radio and even in real life with the conservatives I know). There is a steady stream of comments that suggest that it's somehow not a "real" job to be an actor and that no real conservatives would go into the arts... that's something lazy liberals do. Even when it's more positively phrased, it still comes out as "get a real job, don't waste your life trying to be an actor" or "do something valuable instead" (i.e. not something valueless like being an actor.
The funding issue is something else entirely.
T-Rav, I think that all these jobs are important for the functioning of society. We need bridges and roads and food. But we also need dreamers. Some of them become inventors and give us iphones and the internet. Others start their own businesses and do everything from fixing our appliances to selling us conveniences we never knew we needed until they came along. Hollywood (et al.) serve a different function -- they entertain. And in the process, they both reflect and define out culture. We ignore that or reject it at our own peril of being shut out of defining our country and our futures.
And my point is really this. Our society works so well precisely because we let people make up their own minds about what they want to do. And most people eventually gravitate toward things that interest them and, in the process, they make this country great. I think it's a mistake to tell kids that they should stick to the beaten path because the beaten path is usually the best way to end up in a job that was "last generation" and will soon vanish. (Especially with conservatives now denigrating education so heavily as well.)
Politically speaking, I think this also handicaps conservatives by keeping their kids out of the very industries where we need more conservatives.
I'll give you an example. As a lawyer, I can tell that the power of lawyers is vastly underestimated. Lawyers dominate the world... you just don't know it because it's all done in the background. Yet, conservative after conservative not only told me (and all my friends) "why do you want to go into law... are you some kind of liberal?" but they routinely denigrate the profession, thereby telling kids "don't be a lawyer!" The end result is that the profession very much has been drifting to the left year after year as conservatives shy away from it. The result is that liberals become the ones making the laws. Ditto on Hollywood.
And while I agree with your take on the problems of "do what you love", I think McCoy also feeds the negative side by suggesting it certain professions are not worthy.
P.S. T-Rav, When you become a professor, I think you'll see exactly what I mean. When I meet people and tell them I'm a lawyer, I can automatically identify the ideology of most of them. Liberals almost always say, "Oh wow, you must do a lot of cool things. I hope my kids grow up to be lawyers." Conservatives, on the other hand, half-jokingly make some comment about lawyers destroying the world, then make some comment about how we need fewer lawyers and then assure me that they know I'm a good one but the rest certainly aren't. It's a stark contrast that rarely varies.
I suspect you'll find something similar once you start telling people, "I'm a professor."
Beatles: Love is all you need.
I'll take love hippy liberals every time over jack booted progressives.
T-rav - I would like to personally thank Our Dear Leader for shutting down ALL ground AND air traffic in the Greater Los Angeles so he could attend a fundraiser.
You're welcome, BevfromNYC.
Oh and this whole spying on the internet thing is overblown.
Bev, that's just the kind of guy he is. And remember, he's attending that fundraiser for the people.
Andrew, perhaps I should clarify. I'm making a distinction here between "society" and "culture." Now, I am completely agreed that actors, writers, etc. are crucial to the building and maintenance of culture (just like professors are). And in the long run, they're better for society too, in that the creativity they inspire usually leads to the advancement of everyone in many respects. However, where mere society is concerned, as the day-to-day functioning of people, that's where the farmers, doctors, engineers, etc. are far more important, because they have the productive capacity that allows society (or rather the members of society, which comes to the same thing) to physically survive and thus make cultural and other activities possible to begin with. So artists and other "dreamers" are important for one, less so for the other (though even then, far from useless).
As to how I'll be received by liberals and conservatives, I'm already prepared for the scenarios you describe. I really cannot say that any conservative I have ever met has denigrated the profession (at least to my face); it won't matter to me if they do, though, because from my viewpoint whatever biases they have have been earned by the behavior of many of those in the ivory tower. Red-staters may have some suspicion of academia, but not for no reason.
Yoda, aren't you supposed to be dead? And like some kind of spiritual guide to Luke Skywalker now? Or is that just your non-CGI self?
rla, that's definitely not just you. I'm sure some conservatives do go beyond that position and denigrate the arts in general, but I honestly haven't heard a lot of contempt for actors/musicians/artists as such. Conservatives, like everyone else, like varying kinds of cultural activity; I think that what the Right really reacts against is the stereotypical image of an avant-garde "artiste." You know, the guy with spiked hair, tattoos, and lots of piercings, or alternately some kind of hipster, who does "trendy" art or music or whatever. Which of course is just an image, and we do need to look past that more, but that doesn't make conservatism "anti-arts" anymore than it makes it "anti-intellectual."
Totally OT: I thought of Andrew (and my crazy, lib cousins in Salida) when I saw this...
http://frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/sane-colorado-wants-to-secede-from-crazy-colorado-to-form-north-colorado/
rlaWTX, LOL! I'm all for breaking off from Denver!
The problem out here is that outside of the Denver/Boulder area, the rest of Colorado is rather libertarian-conservative, but the Denver metro area has gotten as large as the rest of the state population-wise. Also, the GOP out here is nuts. And when they aren't busy knifing each other in the back, they're busy turning off voters.
Maybe the whole rest of the state can secede from Denver metro? I'm sure the ex-California urbanites wouldn't mind being their own state--until it inevitably goes under.
Well said, T-Rav!
Afterall, unlike cousin Eddie in the film, Vacation, we can't ALL hold out for management (assuming management or being the head cheese is what one loves).
Personally, I would love to be king of the world but I'm not holding my breath. No one recognizes how great a king I would be, sadly.
Therein lies the rub.
Perhaps all I need is a better agent who would love being my agent for free.
T-Rav, I say take off and nuke the place from orbit... it's the only way to be sure. ;P
Actually, I think the state would happily secede from Denver or "allow" Denver to secede from us rubes.
What's unfortunate is that this isn't a state that should be blue, but it's getting bluer because the GOP is just that asinine. Coloradans have always been live and let live (libertarian conservative), yet the GOP here is hardcore so-con. Even worse, they've shown no desire to talk about anything except gays and abortion. Those aren't issues that matter to people here. What matters are things like water rights, roads, taxes, guns, the distribution of the budget. Yet, those are things the GOP doesn't talk about.
Moreover, they in-fight like crazy and they bloody each other in every primary and then the losers end up running as independents just to spite the guy who won the primary.
They are so out of touch that GOP candidates are starting to lose in places like Colorado Springs (El Paso County) which is one of the most Republican districts in the country. And you can't find hardly anyone under 35 who doesn't basically despise the Colorado GOP.
So the Democrats keep winning and pushing the state further left. And future generations are getting bluer and bluer because there is no acceptable alternative to the Democrats.
BTW, the GOP here has always been about extremes. Before the 1990s when the socons moved in (they came with Focus on the Family), there GOP was busy trying to permanently ban tax hikes. The idea was popular at first, but I think ultimately went too far and led to the first Democratic wave.
Grrr. Sorry to hijack your thread, but let me say this to Tom Tancredo, whose only policy seems to be "get Tom Tancredo a job"... YOU, Sir are the reason Hickenlooper is governor and YOU, Sir are the reason the Democrats have got all the whacko crap they got since 2010. It's your fault... no... one... else's you fricken narcissist!
Ben, I think some of us would be happy to elect you king of the world. As long as we get lots of perks, some "power behind the throne," and....oh, wait, that's not really an elected position, is it? Er, maybe you could find some wealthy investors and lots of mercenaries and stage a coup at the U.N.? :-)
So, Andrew, how do you really feel? :-P
Knowing as I do very little about Colorado politics, except that Tancredo has always seemed a little crazy, I'll let you have your rant. Meanwhile, if there's ever an opportunity to secede from Denver or nuke it from orbit, I suggest you do. ;-)
When the guy Tancredo backed in the primary lost, Tancredo jumped into the race as a third party candidate and ensured that the Democrat would win.
As for nuking never... uh... no comment... nope, not working on that at all... nope.
As a COMPLETELY unrelated aside, if you happen to have any spare plutonium, can I borrow it?
As long as there's thread hijacking going on, does anyone get BBC America? There's this show on called In the Flesh, which seems like True Blood but with zombies instead of vampires. I don't recommend it; it looks kind of dumb. Like we said earlier, the zombie genre is pretty played out. No real reason to bring it up, just Friday night stream-of-consciousness writing.
I haven't been to BBC America in awhile, so I haven't heard of it. But someone the other day said "We are at Peak Zombie", as in "Peak Oil." I thought that was pretty funny and probably true. It's all downhill from here.
Andrew, the rods are just for research, right? Or maybe for the microwave oven? Okay, I'll send you some in the mail. It'll be the package wrapped in lead.
T-Rav, Uh, yeah... my microwave is running slow.
"nuke the place from orbit"
do we have that list complete yet?
Nope, not yet. Feel free to make suggestions. :)
Post a Comment