Do you collect anything?
I've never been much of a collector. I'm too random and a bit of a magpie, frankly. Very few physical things capture my attention for extended periods. I had the worst sticker-book in the fifth grade, because I just couldn't be arsed with it after awhile, even though I loved it at the start...
Every surface in our house is covered in tumbling piles of books, although we aren't technically "collectors" in the sense that you won't find hardly a valuable volume among them and our "collection" has no rhyme or reason. We're just book pack-rats, really.
The closest thing I have to a valuable collection by design is my music stuff, although a big part of what I'd collected was lost in a flood a few years back. And considering all the work and energy and money I'd put into finding and collecting it all, I found it surprisingly easy to let go without much regret at its ruin.
Question of the Day
Quote of the Day
"I recognize that history cannot predict the future with absolute certainty. I understand that. But history does remind us that there are lessons applicable to our time. And we can learn something from history."—Your Idiot President, during a speech today at the Veterans of Foreign Wars National Convention in which he got so much history wrong, it hurt Maha Biggerbox's (sorry!) brain and provoked Steve to comment drolly, "It’s no secret that the president doesn’t know what he’s talking about, but today makes clear that his speechwriters are as confused as Bush is." Also see: C&L.
Nation of Dummies
[Redux. And again.]
Most US adults in the dark about world politics:
Two-thirds of US adults admit to being in the dark about political issues outside the United States, and only a third are well-versed in US politics, the results of a poll published Tuesday showed.Hmm. Anyone else thinking there might be some pretty significant overlap among the one-third who are "well-versed" in domestic and global politics? Gee.
One reason for the knowledge gap is lack of interest, according to the poll.It's pretty amazing how consistently somewhere between one-quarter and one-third of the US population proves themselves to be useless fucking gobshites.
"Well over half (57 percent) say they do not like learning about political issues in other countries," and 32 percent expressed a lack of interest for homespun politics, the Harris Poll group said.
Speaking of which, one in four American adults read no books at all in the past year. Wev.
People Look Strange When You're a Stranger...
You are pretty darn strange. You're quirky and odd, and definitely not normal. But that's great--it makes you an interesting person. You aren't exactly as strange as they come, but congratulations on being quite unique!
How Strange Are You?
Quizzes for MySpace
c/o the wonderful weirdos at Alternate Brain.
Iraq: Operation My-God-Is-Better-Than-Yours
You would think that after being caught cross-handed in an evangelical fundraising video, the folks at the Pentagon would give some thought to not having anything further to do with the church. Not bloody likely:
Last week, after an investigation spurred by the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, the Pentagon abruptly announced that it would not be delivering "freedom packages" to our soldiers in Iraq, as it had originally intended.This shit is getting more insane as time goes on. We have men and women out in the desert who are dying for no reason whatsoever, and the best the Pentagon can do is get Stephen Baldwin's group to send over materials to try to help the occupied population embrace Jeebus and play apocalyptic video games. Freedom package, my arse.
What were the packages to contain? Not body armor or home-baked cookies. Rather, they held Bibles, proselytizing material in English and Arabic and the apocalyptic computer game "Left Behind: Eternal Forces" (derived from the series of post-Rapture novels), in which "soldiers for Christ" hunt down enemies who look suspiciously like U.N. peacekeepers.
I love how these fundies simply don't know what to do with themselves when other people's beliefs differ from their own. I rejoice in the fact that it really bugs the shit out of them, so much so that they need to find a way to win. What I love the most is how Michael Weinstein will always be there to call them on the carpet.
Normally, I would be thinking of contacting Congress to introduce some obvious, yet necessary, legislation to prohibit evangelizing within, and on behalf of, the Department of Defense. Then again, maybe I'll mull that over.
Wednesday Conchords
Another splendiferous episode from the Conchords crew, with an extra delicious dose of Mellie goodness. And in excellent news, HBO has picked up the show for a second season. Woot! Judging by HBO's history, that season should start airing sometime around 2041 or so. Give or take a decade.
As always, a music snippet to whet your whistle is followed by the entire episode in three parts, below.
The Gospel According to Barry, Part 1
I finally picked up Barry Glassner's The Gospel of Food last night, and I started reading before bed, expecting to get about 10 pages in before I conked out.
I read 174 pages. I have no idea what time it was when I finally forced myself to put it down, but it was no earlier than 2 a.m. And, although I probably could have lasted a bit longer, I deliberately stopped before the "What Made America Fat?" chapter, because I didn't want to be sleepy for that. (Also, frankly, I didn't want to have my enjoyment of the rest of it trashed if Glassner isn't as critical of the "obesity" hysteria as I hope he is -- though I have faith that he regards it with a satisfyingly critical eye, at least.)
Can I just TELL YOU how much I love Barry Glassner? I don't even know what to say about the first 174 pages of this book; I just want to quote them all. In lieu of that, I will encourage you as strongly as possible to buy it. Even if it all goes to hell in the fat chapter, the first 174 pages are worth the money.
What I love about Glassner's writing -- and I devoured The Culture of Fear just as quickly a few years ago, right after I saw him interviewed in Bowling for Columbine -- is that he really seems to prize reason above all else. That doesn't mean he's unemotional or narrowly focused; he believes, for instance, that it is reasonable to enjoy the sensual pleasure of eating. (And he's goddamned right.) It just means that his apparent agenda is to advance the cause of critical thinking, not any specific point of view. And that is why I stayed up until 2 a.m. reading him.
So Glassner cops to being a card-carrying member of the Slow Food movement and describes some meals he's had at ungodly expensive restaurants in utterly porny detail, but he never allows his preferences to give way to snobbery. He refuses to demonize processed food or fast food, choosing instead to take a thorough look at the many pros and cons of both, the real people (often highly trained chefs) who produce the recipes, and the real reasons why people choose them over fresh, whole foods. (Progressives who act as if everyone who makes that choice is an ignorant dupe of Big Food -- or even simply too poor to have other options -- take a well-deserved licking for their [okay, our] presumptions here.) He also acknowledges that those amazing, memorable meals he's had at fine restaurants have most often been when he was in the company of a powerful critic the staff spotted -- when he's dined at the same places as an average (albeit monied) Joe, the experience has been far less thrilling. Food can be a mindblowing art form, but even those willing and able pay top dollar don't necessarily have access to the highest expressions of it. Verrrry interesting.
Glassner also untangles a lot of food mysteries I've wondered about -- such as the meaning of labels like "organic," "fresh," and "natural" (not much, in every case) -- without ever taking a gotcha tone one way or another. He acknowledges that, personal health-wise, something marked "organic" is unlikely to be much better for you than its non-organic counterpart (in fact, the best alternative might come from a small farmer who does farm organically but can't afford to jump through the hoops required to earn an "organic" label), and that the organic movement is infected with a lot of "New Age blather and inferior food." BUT, he says, even huge suppliers like Organic Valley demonstrate "obvious sincerity about the social and ethical commitments of their company." An Organic Valley product may not be substantially better for you, but it's better for the farmers who are protected from price fluctuations, the people who live near those farms and aren't exposed to pesticides, and the animals who have much better living conditions before, um, being slaughtered. So there are plenty of good reasons to buy organic, even if they're not the reasons why most consumers actually make that choice.
"Natural" on the other hand, is pretty much a load of crap (which I was just thinking the other night while examining Al's Sprite can, which simultaneously claimed to contain "all natural flavors" and "no fruit juice"). One example is "natural" vanilla, which comes from the bean, and "artificial" vanillin, which comes from wood pulp. Both come from perfectly natural ingredients and are practically indistinguishable chemically, but only one is allowed the "natural" label. On the other hand, for a food to be labeled "natural," it only has to have 51 percent "natural" components, and the taste usually comes from the 49% of artificial crap anyway.
As for "fresh," in addition to finally explaining to me how we came to have supersweet fresh pineapple year-round, starting about 15 years ago (hardcore chilling and the addition of previously stored fruit juice to balance the flavor), Glassner makes a point that occasionally gets some play in the media but is really not said enough:If these sorts of wordplays and legalistic shenanigans [to earn a "fresh" label] seem absurd, so are the public's misconceptions that motivate food companies to sell their processed foods as fresh in the first place. Frozen and canned fruits and vegetables tend to be at least as nutritious as their fresh counterparts, but most food shoppers imagine otherwise. Consumers are largely unaware of contemporary techniques for flash-freezing and canning that retain micronutrients that are often lost during the packaging and shipping of fresh produce. The levels of many vitamins decrease dramatically in fresh fruits and vegetables within several days after they have been harvested and refrigerated.
And you know, I knew all that, but I still feel mildly guilty when I turn to my trusty bag of (organic!) frozen veggies for dinner or berries for a smoothie, instead of using the real thing. I buy frozen mostly because I inevitably waste fresh stuff; I'd love to be the kind of person who goes to the market every day and buys exactly what I need for dinner that night, but, um, I'm not. So even if I only buy one apple and one green pepper and one zucchini when I go to the store, I can be sure at least one of those will rot before I use it. (And don't get me started on heads of broccoli/cauliflower/lettuce or, the worst offenders, bunches of herbs. WHO THE HELL CAN USE 50 HANDFULS OF CILANTRO BEFORE IT GOES BAD? I'm not opening a Mexican restaurant here; I'm making six fucking tacos!) Frozen fruits and veggies allow me the freedom to cook what I feel like when I feel like it -- and to say "Screw it, let's go out" without feeling guilty about those peppers that are getting squishy in the crisper. But then, there's always that niggling guilt about how I'm copping out, compromising my culinary integrity and possibly my health -- and above all, being a Bad Fatty. I must earn my right to be unapologetically fat by eating only raw, fresh, organic foods!
That kind of thinking is what Glassner calls "The Gospel of Naught" -- the idea that we should all be eating as little as possible, with as little enjoyment (and as much effort) as possible, for optimum health. (He specifically goes after Walter Willett within the first few pages. Heh.) This leads to incredible misconceptions about what kind of nutrients human beings actually need to consume.For one of his studies, Paul Rozin [a psychologist at UPenn] presented the following scenario to a diverse sample of Americans: "Assume you are alone on a desert island for one year and you can have water and one other food. Pick the food that you think would be best for your health." Seven choices were offered: corn, alfalfa sprouts, hot dogs, spinach, peaches, bananas, and milk chocolate.
If you guessed that hot dogs and milk chocolate are the closest of those foods to being nutritionally complete, you get a gold star. Fewer than 1 in 10 of Rozin's subjects picked one of those.In response to another set of questions, half of Rozin's respondents said that even very small amounts of salt, cholesterol and fat are unhealthy. More than one in four believed that a diet totally free of those substances is healthiest, when of course, they are crucial nutrients for human health. Without them, we could not survive.
Emphasis mine. The "Gospel of Naught" has trained us to "see pleasurable and healthy eating as mutually exclusive." And that's a problem for our health, on a lot of levels. Not only does it keep a shocking number of people from realizing that fat and salt are necessary parts of a healthy diet, but -- as Glassner explains on the very first page -- some studies have shown that enjoying your food makes you get more nutrients out of it. He talks about one study in which groups of Thai and Swedish women were given Thai food, Swedish food, and some other food "that was high in nutrients but consisted of a sticky, savorless paste." The Thai women absorbed more iron when eating the Thai food, which the Swedes thought was too spicy; the Swedes absorbed more iron when eating traditional Swedish food the Thai women found unappealingly bland; and neither group absorbed much iron when eating the pasty shit.
How weird is that? And what could it mean, if it were found to be true on a larger scale? Is the "French paradox" really a result of better portion control, or is it a result of the French enjoying their fucking food? Citing another study of Rozin's, Glassner writes:Among the findings: the French view food as pleasure, while Americans worry about food. Asked what words they associate with chocolate cake, the French chose "celebration" and the Americans chose "guilt." Asked about heavy cream, the French selected "whipped"; Americans chose "unhealthy."
I know which camp I'd rather be in.
All right, I could go on and on, but I don't want to wreck the whole book for you. Go buy it. Meanwhile, I'm off to read what Glassner has to say about fat. I expect there will be more gushing tomorrow.
Speaking of Protestors…
Maybe PM Harper can see if he can borrow a copy of President Bush's Combating Protestors for Dummies:
A White House manual that came to light recently gives presidential advance staffers extensive instructions in the art of "deterring potential protestors" from President Bush's public appearances around the country.
Among other things, any event must be open only to those with tickets tightly controlled by organizers. Those entering must be screened in case they are hiding secret signs. Any anti-Bush demonstrators who manage to get in anyway should be shouted down by "rally squads" stationed in strategic locations. And if that does not work, they should be thrown out.Ooh, poor widdle delicate pwesident! Is our legitimate, legal, and patrifuckingotic dissent sullying your beautiful wee mind? We're sowwy!
But that does not mean the White House is against dissent -- just so long as the president does not see it. In fact, the manual outlines a specific system for those who disagree with the president to voice their views. It directs the White House advance staff to ask local police "to designate a protest area where demonstrators can be placed, preferably not in the view of the event site or motorcade route."
The "Presidential Advance Manual" was released under subpoena to the ACLU, who have filed a lawsuit on behalf of Jeffrey and Nicole Rank, two protestors "arrested for refusing to cover their anti-Bush t-shirts at a Fourth of July speech at the West Virginia State Capitol in 2004." The t-shirts had "Bush" crossed through on the front and "the back of his shirt said 'Regime Change Starts at Home,' while hers said 'Love America, Hate Bush.' Members of the White House event staff told them to cover their shirts or leave, according to the lawsuit. They refused and were arrested, handcuffed and briefly jailed before local authorities dropped the charges and apologized."
Nice. Meanwhile, my new favorite White House fuck-knuckle, Tony Fratto, refused to comment on the manual "because it is an issue in two other lawsuits." Ongoing investigation, bitchez.
[Image via Think Progress.]
Oh God
14 U.S. troops die in Iraq copter crash:
A Black Hawk helicopter went down Wednesday in northern Iraq, killing all 14 U.S. soldiers aboard, the military said, the deadliest crash since January 2005.I'm just sick. Absolutely sick to my stomach.
...The military said initial indications showed the UH-60 helicopter experienced a mechanical problem and was not brought down by hostile fire, but the cause of the crash was still under investigation.
...Wednesday's deaths raised to at least 3,721 members of the U.S. military who have died since the Iraq war started in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count.
Bush on the SPP
As Chet mentioned yesterday, Bush is up in Canada meeting with Canadian PM Stephen Harper and Mexican President Felipe Calderon, who are also meeting as a group with "a council of corporate executives from each of the countries" which is advocating "broader coordination across North America, from regulatory standards to emergency planning."
Bush was asked specifically about the SPP, and the "growing number of people in each of your countries who have expressed concern about the Security and Prosperity Partnership." His response was to treat it all like a big conspiracy theory and note that he was "amused by" and finds "quite comical" the disparity between "reality and what some people are taking on TV about."
Question: As you three leaders meet here, there are a growing number of people in each of your countries who have expressed concern about the Security and Prosperity Partnership. This is addressed to all three of you. Can you say today that this is not a prelude to a North American union, similar to a European Union? Are there plans to build some kind of superhighway connecting all three countries? And do you believe all of these theories about a possible erosion of national identity stem from a lack of transparency from this partnership?
Bush: [inaudible] We respect, um, each other's sovereignty, um—you know, there are some who would like to frighten our fellow citizens into believing that, um, relations, um, between us are harmful for our respective peoples. I just believe they're wrong. I believe it's in our interests to trade; I believe it's in our interests to dialogue; I believe it's in our interests to work out common problems [condescending chuckle] for the good of our people. And I-I'm amused by some of the, some of the speculation, uh, some of the old, uh, you can call 'em political scare tactics—you been in politics as long as I have, you get used to that kinda technique, where you lay out a conspiracy and then force people to try to prove it doesn't exist. That's just the way some people operate. Um, I'm here representin' my nation, I feel strongly, uh, that the United States, um, is a force for good. And I feel strongly that, uh, by working with our neighbors we can be a stronger force for good. And, um, so I appreciate that question, I-I-I-I'm amused by the difference between what actually takes place in the meetings and what some are trying to say takes place. It's quite comical, actually. When you realize the difference between reality and what some people are talking on TV about.
-----------------------
Hmm. I can't imagine where he acquired his familiarity with "political scare tactics."
Someone who's "been in politics as long as" he has ought to also know by now that "speculation" and "conspiracy" are inevitable when government operates in secrecy. But, strangely, it hasn't made him any more inclined toward openness. Huh. Figure that.
I'd also like to note that there were hundreds of demonstrators protesting the meeting, who were tear-gassed by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. And upon hearing about the protests, PM Harper's response was: "A couple hundred? It's sad."
Birds of a feather.
[Thanks to Petulant for the video.]
Why We Love Keira
...in addition to the fact that we love her endlessly as the girl in Love Actually who deftly handles the realization that her hub's best mate's indifference is self-preservation and as the fiery Lizzie Bennet who gives whatfor to Mr. Darcy in the rain and even, god help us, as Domino.
Because, when asked about the Chanel perfume advert at left, and specifically what were presumed to be air-brushed boobies, she said, bluntly: "Those things certainly weren't mine. …I don't have any tits."
And because, when there was yet more to be said, she said it: "Somebody goes, 'Gosh, you're pretty.' Thanks. I've got good genes! OK, I'm on the cover of a magazine but somebody else does the hair, and the make-up, and airbrushes the fuck out of me—it's not me, it's something other people have created."
(And, yes, I know there are constant reports that she is anorexic, but considering in candid papz shots not at ritualized post-starving celebrations premieres / award shows, she generally looks like a healthy young woman—as opposed to, say, this—and bearing in mind that I always see pictures of her walking everywhere, which is what you do in London, instead of taking limos everywhere, I'm disinclined to let the accusations preempt a commendation of her forthrightness about the beauty illusion. YMMV.)
Good Fucking God
A rather alarming find by Digby:
If President Bush copied Julius Caesar by ordering his army to empty Iraq of Arabs and repopulate the country with Americans, he would achieve immediate results: popularity with his military; enrichment of America by converting an Arabian Iraq into an American Iraq (therefore turning it from a liability to an asset); and boost American prestiege [sic] while terrifying American enemies.The piece, which was posted by the conservative group The Family Security Foundation, Inc. and authored by a contributing editor to their website (and from which that's only a small excerpt), is entitled, I shit you not, Conquering the Drawbacks of Democracy. You can't make this stuff up.
He could then follow Caesar's example and use his newfound popularity with the military to wield military power to become the first permanent president of America, and end the civil chaos caused by the continually squabbling Congress and the out-of-control Supreme Court.
President Bush can fail in his duty to himself, his country, and his God, by becoming “ex-president” Bush or he can become “President-for-Life” Bush: the conqueror of Iraq, who brings sense to the Congress and sanity to the Supreme Court. Then who would be able to stop Bush from emulating Augustus Caesar and becoming ruler of the world?
FamilySecurityMatters.org is, by the way, evidently a front group for the conservative Washington think tank Center for Security Policy, among whose members can be found senior members of the Bush administration (and my fuckwit of a governor). Additionally, Dick Cheney "was an early member of Center's Board of Advisors (which is now called the National Security Advisory Council)."
A group affiliated with members of the administration right up to the vice president himself are advocating Bush becoming "President for Life" of the country. Anyone concerned about that at all, by any chance…?
[H/T Jill.]
Long, Straight, Curly, Fuzzy, Snaggy, Shaggy, Ratty, Matty: Hair!
Last week, Kate posted about the asshole Glamour editor who haughtily sniffed that "political" hairstyles like afros, dreadlocks, twistouts, etc. aren't appropriate for the workplace, and in comments I mentioned that Pam has written some great posts on the issue of hair (like this one, for instance) and has catalogued her own "Hair Journey."
Yesterday, Pam posted an interview she did in 2005 with Heather Barnes of Hair Stories, who was working on a documentary about women and hair. It's just fantastic.
Aulelia at Charcoal Ink also writes a lot about hair; this is one of my favorite posts of hers on the subject, in which she wonders how her hair can affect someone else to the point where they're compelled to comment negatively on it. Aulelia has also documented her "Natural Hair Journey."
And of course because I wouldn't be me unless I were a broken record, I'll link to A Girl Like Me again, which I hope by now every Shaker has watched at least three times.
Memoriez!
Shaker Christine mentioned in comments of my post The Bush Economy that "there's a 93% increase in foreclosure notices this month over the same time period last year and 9% increase over the previous month." Which is, sadly, true—and if you'd like to depress yourself, you can read all about it here, and how the problem is being complicated by "lagging home sales and flat or decreasing home prices" which make it "more difficult for homeowners who fall behind on payments to sell their homes and clear the debt."
And for a double-dose of depressitude, then head on over to see Richard Blair, who notes: "In all of the hand wringing about the sub-prime mortgage market implosion negatively impacting financial markets in general (and homeowners tied to those mortgages, in particular) , not one pundit has mentioned the delayed impact of the bankruptcy bill." Oh yeah—remember that? And the 18 Democratic Senators and 31 Democratic Representatives along with practically the entirety of the GOP who voted for it?
Yeah.
Double-Dog Dare
If Pat Leahy hasn't already had an aneurysm from the White House telling him to piss off after his repeated tough talk, the fourth branch of government will certainly get that blood pumping furiously:
Vice President Cheney's office acknowledged for the first time yesterday that it has dozens of documents related to the administration's warrantless surveillance program, but it signaled that it will resist efforts by congressional Democrats to obtain them.Translation: I've got the ditto paper sheets for tomorrow's history quiz right here, but you can't have it.
Yea, sure. Contempt. Wev. I hope the folks in Congress are enjoying this little game while their perceived usefulness goes down the shitter like teh wet frenzy. Same goes for the White House, frankly. A lame duck playing school bully with a stoned collective. Yes, I know I should vent vile vitriol to the veep, but it's gotten boring. The government has turned into this boring and annoying show that has jumped the shark years ago and needs to have its remaining episodes yanked so as to put something new in the time slot.
Ideas, anyone?
Blog Note
HaloScan is being funny again, and every time it gets glitchy like this, people complain about losing comments, so I wanted to give you a little hint: If you hit Publish and get an error message, right-click and hit "Back" instead of refreshing or figuring your comment's just been lost. Most of the time, if you hit Back, the text you've input will still be there and you can just hit Publish again.
I also recommend, if you've spent a long time on a comment, copying it before you hit Publish, just in case.
Also, I wanted to let you know, because a few people have asked lately, that we're still working on getting our dedicated server set up, and will hopefully be back soon. Sorry it's taking awhile, and thanks so much for your patience and your willingness to hang with us wherever we are. Your support is hugely appreciated, Shakers.
The Bush Economy
It's unprecedented for sure. But that's, um, not always a good thing.
Americans earned a smaller average income in 2005 than in 2000, the fifth consecutive year that they had to make ends meet with less money than at the peak of the last economic expansion, new government data shows.So, ya know, if you're not feeling that Bush Boom we've been hearing so much about, that's probably why—because you're still living on less money than you were five years ago.
…Total income listed on tax returns grew every year after World War II, with a single one-year exception, until 2001, making the five-year period of lower average incomes and four years of lower total incomes a new experience for the majority of Americans born since 1945.
While incomes have been on the rise since 2002, the average income in 2005 was $55,238, still nearly 1 percent less than the $55,714 in 2000, after adjusting for inflation, analysis of new tax statistics show.The Bush administration, sympathetic as always, says, "Not our problem, douchebags." Or, technically: "[With] the significant wrenching hits that our economy took in 2001 and 2002…no one should be surprised that what a bubble economy created in the late 1990s and 2000, where economic data were skewed, would take some time to recover." Thank you, White House Spokesman Tony Fratto, for taking the time to create a new way of saying "Clenis!" + "9/11 changed everything" = "fuck you." Very refreshing!
Anyway…so yeah. The fact that Americans' incomes "remained lower in 2005 than five years earlier helps explain why so many Americans report feeling economic stress despite overall growth in the economy." What's more, there's this other little problem of, in addition to having less money generally, a large swath of Americans who "are also paying a larger share of their health care costs and have had their retirement benefits reduced, adding to their out-of-pocket costs." Ouch. Less money that needs to go further, and you end up feeling pretty quickly like butter scraped over too much bread, as our friend Bilbo would say.
If, however, you were among the Americans making more than $1 million a year, otherwise known as "the less-than-a-quarter-of-1-percenters," your income probably grew! Turns out that not only did your numbers grow "by more than 26 percent, to 303,817 in 2005, from 239,685 in 2000," but you also "received 62 percent of the savings from the reduced tax rates on long-term capital gains and dividends that President Bush signed into law in 2003." Wow. Good for you!
You're not really passing that windfall on to the rest of us, though, if you know what I mean—so get trickling! Trickle-down economics only works if there's trickling!
[Robert S. McIntyre, the director of Citizens for Tax Justice] said the tax savings at the top, combined with lower average incomes after five years, “shows that trickle down doesn’t work.”Huh. Fancy that. I never would have guessed.
More from Lambert, Attaturk, Steve M., and Oliver Willis.
