I often wonder when people talk about being normal, what exact measure of normality they are measuring against. I mean what's normal to me might not be normal to you or that person taking a sneak peak at these words behind you right now (made you look!). Anyway, back to my point... normality. You might wonder why I'm talking about what I see is the fallacy of normality... well it's just that a few things have happened recently that made me think. Just two of them are:
1. A group called Schools Out want primary educators to have specific information taught in primary schools about lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender families.
2. Cerrie Burnell, the new Cbeebies presenter sparked some negative responses from parents worried that her disability would scare children or that the BBC had taken equal opportunities too far.
While these instances are completely unrelated, I think they share a core fundamental - they are both instances where people are reacting to what they see as an affront to their normality. Schools Out is confronting the presentation of the traditional family as normal in schools (as that doesn’t fit in with their notion of the regular) and those parents took offence to what they saw as an affront to the normality they had presented to their children.
It just seems to me that so many people are so obsessed with reshaping the world to fit in with their personal definition of normality (there are times when this is justified, but I'll leave this for another post). But the thing with your definition of normality is that it's yours… everyone’s idea is going to vary to at least some degree.
But what's so wrong with being different? What's wrong with having your own unique outlook, experience, views or even physicality? Now I don't want you thinking that I don't believe abnormal outlooks and behaviour exists. There is a base level of normality that we all work to and some people dwell beneath that. Some fly so far below that line they're practically pond skimming the surface of sanity. (Relationships with life sized silicon sex dolls - hello people. Put the over sized Barbie down!) But for the most part if the expression of your alternate outlook doesn't harm anyone (including yourself), what's the big deal. So a BBC presenter has one arm? So what... is she a good presenter? So primary schools don't teach about alternative family units - how about we stick to teaching our children how to read, write and count first? Let's leave the talk of sexual preferences until they reach secondary school and if that's too late for you, you as a parent play a more active role in educating your child.
Ultimately normality is a fallacy because we are all different; we should be celebrating those differences not trying to eradicate them, amalgamate them or hide them away. We're different races and sexes. We've had different upbringings, shared different experiences, have different preferences. We have different dreams, different goals and different plans on how to realise them. And you know what, that's ok because we share one fundamental element - our humanity. It's the one undeniable truth that enables us to be different, while all pretty much being the same. And if we're all the same, then we're not that different at all really.
The fallacy of normality
Sins of the father...(or mother for that matter)
Now, the fact that I've only just heard about the Chris Brown-Rhianna incident could indicate that I've spent the last three weeks living in some semi catatonic state amongst nomadic goats in the highest hills of East Africa, or it could just be indicative of my interest in the celebrity culture that’s seems to have the majority of people between the ages of 13 and 40 practically salivating at the prospect of finding out who John Mayer is sleeping with next. Sure I'll sneak a look at 'Flava of Love' as readily as the next guy (or even watch a whole episode of Run's House - his final message is always worth it) but when it comes to staying up to date with what famous people are doing, save their actually field of work, I usually steer clear of their shenanigans. So when the reports of problems between Chris Brown and Rihanna first surfaced, I really didn't pay much attention. I'm not even going to get drawn into the details surrounding the case because I think we all know what's alleged to have happened and plus the gossip sites have gone into overdrive with all sorts of nonsense. For example, from www.inquisitr.com, I found the following:
Sources allegedly close to Brown allege that the fight leading to the domestic violence incident occurred because Rihanna gave Chris Brown herpes.
And how did Rihanna end up with an STD to begin with? Claims are that she picked it up from Jay-Z!
I mean what the heck, how do you even begin to come up with something like that?! Sources, what sources? The only source that could possibly come up with that was probably made by Heinz (ok, bad joke I admit it freely). But after some digging and fact checking on less ridiculous sites, I came across quotes from Chris Brown admitting that, between the ages of seven to thirteen, he and his mother had both been the victims of domestic abuse at the hands of someone close to both of them. It got me thinking about how our experiences as children stay with us into our adult existences.
People often describe children as sponges, absorbing the information around them consciously and subconsciously. Usually this serves us well as it helps us to develop. It gives us the opportunity to pick up a number of skills that would take considerably more effort to pick when we are older. If you think about it you can trace so much of yourself to the things you witnessed or heard as a youngster - views on different races, different sexes, how you treat strangers, even your own self worth. Traced back to a time when you were aware of everything and nothing at he same time.We internalize so much that we're not aware of until a situation presents us with a chance to react. But I think this Chris Brown case shows what can happen if the things you witness in your childhood, therefore what you internalize, are less than positive. That's why I think hurt people hurt or those with absent fathers are more likely to be absent fathers themselves. Or how 13 year old father Alfie Patten who is one of nine and his 15 girlfriend who is one of five (indicating that both their sets of parents had children at a young age, maybe even in their teens) find themselves one more teenage couple raising a child in Britain? Everything is cyclic and if an issue is passed from parent to child, it's going to keep being passed down until someone breaks the chain.
Now I don't want you thinking that I'm excusing abhorrent behaviour purely because of what people have gone through in their youth, but what I am saying is there is usually a reason why people do certain things. Unless we have the self awareness or the introspective nature to discover negative issues (large or small) left over from childhood and address them, we're are never going to know how or why they influence our everyday decisions or how to stop that negativity. Making us all susceptible to our very own Chris Brown moment (obviously not literally).
Sources allegedly close to Brown allege that the fight leading to the domestic violence incident occurred because Rihanna gave Chris Brown herpes.
And how did Rihanna end up with an STD to begin with? Claims are that she picked it up from Jay-Z!
I mean what the heck, how do you even begin to come up with something like that?! Sources, what sources? The only source that could possibly come up with that was probably made by Heinz (ok, bad joke I admit it freely). But after some digging and fact checking on less ridiculous sites, I came across quotes from Chris Brown admitting that, between the ages of seven to thirteen, he and his mother had both been the victims of domestic abuse at the hands of someone close to both of them. It got me thinking about how our experiences as children stay with us into our adult existences.
People often describe children as sponges, absorbing the information around them consciously and subconsciously. Usually this serves us well as it helps us to develop. It gives us the opportunity to pick up a number of skills that would take considerably more effort to pick when we are older. If you think about it you can trace so much of yourself to the things you witnessed or heard as a youngster - views on different races, different sexes, how you treat strangers, even your own self worth. Traced back to a time when you were aware of everything and nothing at he same time.We internalize so much that we're not aware of until a situation presents us with a chance to react. But I think this Chris Brown case shows what can happen if the things you witness in your childhood, therefore what you internalize, are less than positive. That's why I think hurt people hurt or those with absent fathers are more likely to be absent fathers themselves. Or how 13 year old father Alfie Patten who is one of nine and his 15 girlfriend who is one of five (indicating that both their sets of parents had children at a young age, maybe even in their teens) find themselves one more teenage couple raising a child in Britain? Everything is cyclic and if an issue is passed from parent to child, it's going to keep being passed down until someone breaks the chain.
Now I don't want you thinking that I'm excusing abhorrent behaviour purely because of what people have gone through in their youth, but what I am saying is there is usually a reason why people do certain things. Unless we have the self awareness or the introspective nature to discover negative issues (large or small) left over from childhood and address them, we're are never going to know how or why they influence our everyday decisions or how to stop that negativity. Making us all susceptible to our very own Chris Brown moment (obviously not literally).
Change is underrated...
You know what I’m tired. As I sit at my computer, the noise of the keyboard beneath my hands creating a symphony of words that translate into the sentences you read - I am tired. Not physically tired. Not even emotionally tired; tired of the ever apparent stagnation that surrounds me. Why is it that so many things have changed in recent months, yet so much seems to have stayed the same. Obama gets into the White House on the promise of change and bipartisanship, yet nearly every Republican in the house objected his economic stimulus plan. HBOS just recently received £17 million from tax payers to ensure the bank’s survival but suddenly, due to their merger with the Lloyds Banking Group, another tax payer funded bail out is probably going to be needed. There's even another Friday the 13th movie being released (we've already had Halloween and the Texas Chainsaw Massacre)!
Seriously am I living in the Tardis where time and space continually repeat themselves in some annoying Central Perk feedback loop? Honestly, I liked Friends when it was on the first, second or even fifth time around but did that show not end like over four years ago – why is it still on TV? Wouldn’t any one who wanted to watch episodes for the 19th time already have the DVDs... why punish the rest of us with Monica and the rest running around like it's 1994 and no one of even the remotest hint of ethnicity lives in New York city? "Could it BE any more tiresome?"
Anyway, back to my point... I guess the big things don't change until you address the little things. Sick of Friends reruns - change the channel. Hate sloppy remakes of classic 70's slasher movies - don't buy a ticket. Sick of the banks getting tax payer's money - demand something is done differently. They say that one man (or woman) can make a difference. I don't agree with that and not just as it was said in reference to a guy who had been bitten by a radioactive spider, could walk up walls and shoot webbing from his wrists. I think it takes more than one person to make a difference, but it doesn't take more than one person to inspire the chain reaction that ultimately leads to a new path. The thing about change, real change, is it's a personal journey that can start with the most innocuous of choices. All it takes is the smallest decision to do something. A single action, reaction or moment of inaction can start us on a path to success, failure or indifference. For example a teenage Barack Obama decided to go to Chicago after college and become a community organiser, a small decision that has ultimately lead him to the White House.
So instead of bemoaning the current predicament, like I've been doing for the entirety of this piece, maybe we should be looking to effect positive change in our lives and the lives of those closest to us. In our attitudes, our shared experiences and our communities. Starting with an alternative ingredient to bring about a new end product... because change is progress and progress is truly living. Without progress we might as well all be seated in front of another Friends rerun for the 20th, 21st, 22nd time... Are they on a break, aren't they on a break - oh the suspense!
Seriously am I living in the Tardis where time and space continually repeat themselves in some annoying Central Perk feedback loop? Honestly, I liked Friends when it was on the first, second or even fifth time around but did that show not end like over four years ago – why is it still on TV? Wouldn’t any one who wanted to watch episodes for the 19th time already have the DVDs... why punish the rest of us with Monica and the rest running around like it's 1994 and no one of even the remotest hint of ethnicity lives in New York city? "Could it BE any more tiresome?"
Anyway, back to my point... I guess the big things don't change until you address the little things. Sick of Friends reruns - change the channel. Hate sloppy remakes of classic 70's slasher movies - don't buy a ticket. Sick of the banks getting tax payer's money - demand something is done differently. They say that one man (or woman) can make a difference. I don't agree with that and not just as it was said in reference to a guy who had been bitten by a radioactive spider, could walk up walls and shoot webbing from his wrists. I think it takes more than one person to make a difference, but it doesn't take more than one person to inspire the chain reaction that ultimately leads to a new path. The thing about change, real change, is it's a personal journey that can start with the most innocuous of choices. All it takes is the smallest decision to do something. A single action, reaction or moment of inaction can start us on a path to success, failure or indifference. For example a teenage Barack Obama decided to go to Chicago after college and become a community organiser, a small decision that has ultimately lead him to the White House.
So instead of bemoaning the current predicament, like I've been doing for the entirety of this piece, maybe we should be looking to effect positive change in our lives and the lives of those closest to us. In our attitudes, our shared experiences and our communities. Starting with an alternative ingredient to bring about a new end product... because change is progress and progress is truly living. Without progress we might as well all be seated in front of another Friends rerun for the 20th, 21st, 22nd time... Are they on a break, aren't they on a break - oh the suspense!
Who is he?
So I just got through reading Dreams From My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance written by President Obama. I don't think I need to tell any of you how good it was and if you haven't read it, get it on your book list without delay.What I will say about it, is I don't think anyone has articulated the experience trying to unify two cultures as clearly as he. It made me think back to my youth. My experiences growing up and feeling like I didn't really belong in either of my cultures... so with my mind travelling back to my teenage years, I wrote my first poem in almost three years... here goes:
Who is he?
Who is he?
The son of of an African immigrant, that's what he calls himself,
comprised of elements of entities he barely understands.
A name with meanings he can no longer pluck from the memories of his lost heritage,
and a language who's words and tones leave him frozen, unsure of what direction he is being pointed.
Constantly searching for an answer to a question eve n more foreign to him than his place in this western world.
"Who am I really?"
Who is he?
The son of an African immigrant, that's what they call him,
In their eyes a swirling stereotype to be misunderstood and feared.
They see his walk as lacking in true purpose, yet so full of arrogance,
He's one of us through documentation only - a paper thin association.
"Who does he think he is? Really!"
Who is he? He's the son of an African immigrant.
As unsure of himself and his world is unsure of him.
Trying to unite two histories, just for the chance at one destiny,
terrified his fraudulent duality is one well placed question away from discovery.
Who is he? He's the son of an African immigrant.
Who is he?... He is me
An open letter to Carol Thatcher or your average Daily Mail reader
Dear Mrs. Thatcher,
Do you know, when I sat down to write this letter it was supposed to be a thoughtful piece of correspondence on racial tolerance, the importance of circumstantial context and above all an semi investigation into the mentality of someone who could possibly have innocently compared a black tennis player to a childhood toy.
But as my fingers strike the keys of my laptop and deep fury is bubbling inside me. One which is rising from the pit of my soul and hijacking each and everyone of the neural pathways that carry information from my brain to the tips of my digits. There's a battle raging between my thoughts and my heart, and the heart is winning, convincingly. Overriding the intellectual response I want to give and causing me to give in to my desire to react emotionally. Luckily through my years of writing I have learnt to channel my feelings, so this will be no mere rant.
Mrs. Thatcher, I am angry and what follows is an analysis of that anger and your part in it's creation.
1. You offended me
Whatever the intention behind the statement made in the Green Room, you caused offence. You offended the people within ear shot and you offended me and you offended any other person that chooses to take offence. The term Golliwog has a history attached to it, a history of disparaging remarks against people of another race, this in itself means the word is loaded. A racial slur is a racial slur and just because a golliwog was once a childhood toy based on the Black Minstrel Show it soon became a way in which to hurt the feelings of fellow human beings. A person of your generation would know how this word was and still is used, so why you would choose to use it is beyond me, but I digress.
2. Your arrogance
While you using the term golliwog made me angry, your reaction to the response has added the paraffin to the proverbial flame. Why can you not just accept that while you didn't mean to, you insulted a large number of people, of all races. Accept it, say you didn't mean to cause offence, say you're sorry and move on. But the subconscious arrogance that you feel justifies you in this case just won't let you, will it? I mean anyone who is upset that you compared/called a black man a golliwog just didn't understand the humour and shouldn't be offended. That’s fine but if I was to say that you wouldn't look out of place on one of those Crystal Meth before and after adverts showing the results of years of drug abuse and you look like at any given moment your face is about to cave in on itself like a crème brulee baked by a blind paraplegic chef with arthritis in their neck, you might take offence but then I'd just say you don't get it. Can you see what I'm getting at???
3. The right wing media and their bullshit
Why is it that when something racially charged happens, the right wing media immediately try and pass the event off as a joke. Is the whole world full of comedians? Are we all just walking around telling each other jokes? I don't understand. While situations like the Prince Harry incident are unfortunate, you can at least explain that the prince and his Asian colleague, as with all friends, have an understanding of what is acceptable within the bounds of their relationship and what is not. But for the most part, in incidents like yours Mrs. Thatcher or that of Ron Atkinson, or the Shilpa Shetty affair in the Celebrity Big Brother house, the right wing media always tries to turn the remark or action into a bit of friendly banter or worse turn the aggressor into the victim. But while painting the situation into a case of a joke misunderstood, they are in fact insinuating that people who take offence have no sense of humour - I'm sorry I reject that argument, I have a fantastic sense of humour, in fact, I'm the funniest person I know... I'll tell you joke to prove it:
Person 1: Knock knock...
Person 2: Who's there...
Person 1: A Stu...
Person 2: A Stu who???
Person 1: A Stupid old woman who still thinks racially slurs are acceptable in this day and age and who should really learn to keep her archaic descriptive terms to the privacy of her own home!
See, I'm a regular stand-up comedian!
4. Small mindedness
Seriously, admitting a mistake is not the end of civilization, it's not the liberal left taking over and it certainly isn't the end of England. She got sacked, get over it. So why is it that when someone makes an error in judgement, whether the cause of that error is subconscious racism, ignorance or just plain stupidity that some people get up in arms and claim that freedom of speech has been impeded. Here's the problem with that rational is that if you and the rest of your Daily Mail reading regiment want to bleat on about the right to make racially charged comments and then protect them with the blanket of freedom of speech, then you have to accept that people who are offended by said comments have the freedom to speak out against them - that's the whole point of freedom of speech.
I guess that's all I have to say on the matter Mrs. Thatcher, and I feel I have wasted enough time on you and your actions. I should spend my time and effort engaging with people who actually matter... but I just had to tell you how I felt.
Yours
Mofoluwaso Merriman-Johnson (or if that's too hard to pronounce, just call me Golly!)
Do you know, when I sat down to write this letter it was supposed to be a thoughtful piece of correspondence on racial tolerance, the importance of circumstantial context and above all an semi investigation into the mentality of someone who could possibly have innocently compared a black tennis player to a childhood toy.
But as my fingers strike the keys of my laptop and deep fury is bubbling inside me. One which is rising from the pit of my soul and hijacking each and everyone of the neural pathways that carry information from my brain to the tips of my digits. There's a battle raging between my thoughts and my heart, and the heart is winning, convincingly. Overriding the intellectual response I want to give and causing me to give in to my desire to react emotionally. Luckily through my years of writing I have learnt to channel my feelings, so this will be no mere rant.
Mrs. Thatcher, I am angry and what follows is an analysis of that anger and your part in it's creation.
1. You offended me
Whatever the intention behind the statement made in the Green Room, you caused offence. You offended the people within ear shot and you offended me and you offended any other person that chooses to take offence. The term Golliwog has a history attached to it, a history of disparaging remarks against people of another race, this in itself means the word is loaded. A racial slur is a racial slur and just because a golliwog was once a childhood toy based on the Black Minstrel Show it soon became a way in which to hurt the feelings of fellow human beings. A person of your generation would know how this word was and still is used, so why you would choose to use it is beyond me, but I digress.
2. Your arrogance
While you using the term golliwog made me angry, your reaction to the response has added the paraffin to the proverbial flame. Why can you not just accept that while you didn't mean to, you insulted a large number of people, of all races. Accept it, say you didn't mean to cause offence, say you're sorry and move on. But the subconscious arrogance that you feel justifies you in this case just won't let you, will it? I mean anyone who is upset that you compared/called a black man a golliwog just didn't understand the humour and shouldn't be offended. That’s fine but if I was to say that you wouldn't look out of place on one of those Crystal Meth before and after adverts showing the results of years of drug abuse and you look like at any given moment your face is about to cave in on itself like a crème brulee baked by a blind paraplegic chef with arthritis in their neck, you might take offence but then I'd just say you don't get it. Can you see what I'm getting at???
3. The right wing media and their bullshit
Why is it that when something racially charged happens, the right wing media immediately try and pass the event off as a joke. Is the whole world full of comedians? Are we all just walking around telling each other jokes? I don't understand. While situations like the Prince Harry incident are unfortunate, you can at least explain that the prince and his Asian colleague, as with all friends, have an understanding of what is acceptable within the bounds of their relationship and what is not. But for the most part, in incidents like yours Mrs. Thatcher or that of Ron Atkinson, or the Shilpa Shetty affair in the Celebrity Big Brother house, the right wing media always tries to turn the remark or action into a bit of friendly banter or worse turn the aggressor into the victim. But while painting the situation into a case of a joke misunderstood, they are in fact insinuating that people who take offence have no sense of humour - I'm sorry I reject that argument, I have a fantastic sense of humour, in fact, I'm the funniest person I know... I'll tell you joke to prove it:
Person 1: Knock knock...
Person 2: Who's there...
Person 1: A Stu...
Person 2: A Stu who???
Person 1: A Stupid old woman who still thinks racially slurs are acceptable in this day and age and who should really learn to keep her archaic descriptive terms to the privacy of her own home!
See, I'm a regular stand-up comedian!
4. Small mindedness
Seriously, admitting a mistake is not the end of civilization, it's not the liberal left taking over and it certainly isn't the end of England. She got sacked, get over it. So why is it that when someone makes an error in judgement, whether the cause of that error is subconscious racism, ignorance or just plain stupidity that some people get up in arms and claim that freedom of speech has been impeded. Here's the problem with that rational is that if you and the rest of your Daily Mail reading regiment want to bleat on about the right to make racially charged comments and then protect them with the blanket of freedom of speech, then you have to accept that people who are offended by said comments have the freedom to speak out against them - that's the whole point of freedom of speech.
I guess that's all I have to say on the matter Mrs. Thatcher, and I feel I have wasted enough time on you and your actions. I should spend my time and effort engaging with people who actually matter... but I just had to tell you how I felt.
Yours
Mofoluwaso Merriman-Johnson (or if that's too hard to pronounce, just call me Golly!)
It's snow wonder I'm pi$$sed!
Ok, so the title of this post is a little cheesy - ok, it's down right Stilton-esq and could have a place in one of the red top fish and chip carriers masquerading as newspapers. But I couldn't help it, I'm am thoroughly annoyed.
As I sit here and type, the world outside my window has come to a complete standstill and with it my ability to comprehend exactly why. I mean snow isn't exactly a new phenomenon; the freezing of water particles as they travel through to upper atmosphere has been happening since, well, the ice age and probably before! Yet all it takes is a few inches (and let's be honest it's not like we're talking feet here) and nothing works. The entire bus network - closed. The tube network - almost completely crippled. The trains - once about as unreliable and a 19th century pregnancy test have been rendered as useful as a Zimbabwean electoral vote by the snow.
What I can't get my head around are two major thoughts that keep swirling around my mind like the now outside my window
1. Britain has never been a tropical country!
I mean if cold weather was a relatively new thing to the United Kingdom, I might be able to put into perspective or even deal with the fact that the facilities in this country can't handle the cold. But it's not. It has been cold, will stay cold and get colder (if the North Atlantic Drift temperature drops any more). Seriously was everything designed in the height of summer while the engineers sipped on chilled lemonade? But then again, nothing seems to work at 100% when the weather is warm either, so I guess that theory's out the proverbial window. How a cold country counts on a transport system that fails in cold weather and continue to do nothing about it is beyond me. It's like letting a narcoleptic drive you home at night time!
2. How come everyone else can handle it?
USA, Canada, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland... just a few of the countries around the world that manage to survive the 'game changing' occurrence of snow settling on the ground. If they can handle it why can't we? Even if we don't create our own solutions to the problems is it not an idea to pilfer some of their initiatives that keep the country moving in times of adverse weather? The government was quick to call over former New York Mayor Rudy Guiliani to teach the Met police about the three strikes code of practice. Oh I forgot, politicians only take the really crappy ideas and implement them (Identity cards anyone?), silly me.
I don't really know what I am trying to say here, short of things need to be sorted, and someone needs to sort them. Although, I guess I might be being a little harsh, I mean if the country hadn't ground to a halt under the enormous weight of one foot of snow, I wouldn't be at home writing this when I was supposed to be working. And 'The thoughts of an afro-legoman' would have remained as empty as they have done for months. I guess I shouldn't complain at all then, but what fun would that be?
As I sit here and type, the world outside my window has come to a complete standstill and with it my ability to comprehend exactly why. I mean snow isn't exactly a new phenomenon; the freezing of water particles as they travel through to upper atmosphere has been happening since, well, the ice age and probably before! Yet all it takes is a few inches (and let's be honest it's not like we're talking feet here) and nothing works. The entire bus network - closed. The tube network - almost completely crippled. The trains - once about as unreliable and a 19th century pregnancy test have been rendered as useful as a Zimbabwean electoral vote by the snow.
What I can't get my head around are two major thoughts that keep swirling around my mind like the now outside my window
1. Britain has never been a tropical country!
I mean if cold weather was a relatively new thing to the United Kingdom, I might be able to put into perspective or even deal with the fact that the facilities in this country can't handle the cold. But it's not. It has been cold, will stay cold and get colder (if the North Atlantic Drift temperature drops any more). Seriously was everything designed in the height of summer while the engineers sipped on chilled lemonade? But then again, nothing seems to work at 100% when the weather is warm either, so I guess that theory's out the proverbial window. How a cold country counts on a transport system that fails in cold weather and continue to do nothing about it is beyond me. It's like letting a narcoleptic drive you home at night time!
2. How come everyone else can handle it?
USA, Canada, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland... just a few of the countries around the world that manage to survive the 'game changing' occurrence of snow settling on the ground. If they can handle it why can't we? Even if we don't create our own solutions to the problems is it not an idea to pilfer some of their initiatives that keep the country moving in times of adverse weather? The government was quick to call over former New York Mayor Rudy Guiliani to teach the Met police about the three strikes code of practice. Oh I forgot, politicians only take the really crappy ideas and implement them (Identity cards anyone?), silly me.
I don't really know what I am trying to say here, short of things need to be sorted, and someone needs to sort them. Although, I guess I might be being a little harsh, I mean if the country hadn't ground to a halt under the enormous weight of one foot of snow, I wouldn't be at home writing this when I was supposed to be working. And 'The thoughts of an afro-legoman' would have remained as empty as they have done for months. I guess I shouldn't complain at all then, but what fun would that be?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
