Another Sabbatical!

(Photo courtesy: Dr. Arun Sharma)

You might be thinking: so this guy posts right after a month only to announce that he is taking another sabbatical? Jeez!

Well, not quite a sabbatical in the literal sense! I am moving to my new abode for the next 3 years, this week! So my Internet privileges are suspended till I get a fixed land line connection there and get a new ADSL connection thence!

To cut to the chase, I shall be able to post only when I get a net connection which shall take a month or thereabouts!

So if you have been reading regularly, stick around! I shall have absolutely new experiences to narrate once I begin again, (or so I hope!)

Who knows? I might even be back sooner than that!

Manbearpig is real.......I am serriall !!

For those of you who are unfamiliar with the title of this post, I'd suggest that you have a look at the following clip:

Or the following clip:

Now do you get it?

The documentary film "An Inconvenient Truth" created quite a stir amongst the elite intelligentsia in the West when it was released. Former VP of the US, Al Gore has highlighted something very poignant said the "enlightened ones".

So Al Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change managed to bag the coveted Nobel Peace Prize for their efforts!

Hey! Gore managed to get one even before his illustrious boss, Bill Clinton! Kudos to Mr. Gore!

And we Indians can't help tom-toming the fact that an Indian scientist R.K. Pachauri was heading the IPCC when it was awarded the prize! Some of our "intellectuals" would rather claim that it is Dr. Pachauri and not the organization that he headed that was awarded the prize! (The Nobel Prize Certificate mentions only Gore and IPCC, though!)

And to project ourselves as "responsible" Indians, the media is abuzz with environmental messages, programs, activism and what not!

The common man must forgo one hour of power supply everyday to do his bit for the environment they say; for only then he is green, or earth-conscious, if you will!

Hey! My city gets 8 hour power-cuts everyday! So that must mean I am the most earth conscious amongst them all, huh?

What irks me the most in all this debate is the selective morality being paraded as responsible behavior!

Since times immemorial the Indian farmer, worker, laborer and the academic have known this fact for a certainty that excessive use of fossil fuels, non-renewable sources of energy and rapid industrialization at the cost of the forest cover has only one destined outcome: the earth screwed up for good!
The elite has always chosen to disregard the "uneducated" bourgeoisie middle and lower class thought as something very passé!

Now that the West has recognized the same, all of a sudden it is gospel and one dare not deny it!



Suddenly "organic farming" is the way to go! Oblivious to the fact that the Indian farmer has been advocating for the increased use of natural fertilizers and manure even during the Green Revolution boom brought about by chemical farming, the new age greens would rather buy organic foods certified by the West! The same was unthinkable before, for then organic meant crops grown using manure and compost, and that was filthy, wasn't it? Now that the West endorses the same and calls it "organic", it is suddenly trendy and the right way to go!


The launch of the Tata Nano car gave many of the elite intelligentsia "nightmares". They claim that the affordable, fuel-efficient, low-emission, small car is going to ruin the environment in a big way! But what I (and many like me) would disagree on, is the thought behind this apparent concern!

To quote an excerpt from Wikipedia on this issue:
The ecology focused German newspaper die tageszeitung feels that such concerns are "inappropriate" as the Tata Nano has lower emissions compared to the average Volkswagen, and that developing countries shouldn't be denied the right to motorized mobility when industrialized countries should be looking to reduce their emissions and usage of cars.



And Swaminathan A. Aiyar of the Swaminomics fame, wrote the following in his article:

"RK Pachauri, head of the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change, is getting nightmares because of the Nano, Tata's Rs 1 lakh car. Sunita Narain of the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) says that it isn't the Nano by itself but cars overall that give her nightmares. The villains in my nightmares are neither the Nano nor cars overall, but stupid government policies that subsidise and encourage pollution, adulteration and congestion.

Sanctimonious greens call the Nano disastrous because of its affordability— millions more will now clog roads and consume more fossil fuel. This is elitism parading as virtue. Elite greens own cars, but cannot stand the poorer masses becoming mobile, since the consequent congestion will eat into the time of the elite!

More logical would be a protest against big cars that use more space and fuel, or highly polluting old cars. Instead, green hypocrites aim at a new car with the lowest cost, best mileage and least emissions.

The Nano will not burden us with too many cars. India has very few cars per person by world standards. London and New York have ultra-high car densities, yet have clearer air than Delhi. Our problem is too many bad policies, not too many cars."

Well, you decide! When we have no qualms on allowing major fuel vampires -- Formula -1 cars to race in India in the near future just to cash in on the sports and tourism boom, it smacks of elitism when we deny the access to affordable personal transportation to the common man!

None of the "elite intelligentsia" bat an eyelid on the recent trend of expensive, high-end luxury cars making inroads into the Indian markets. No! That is celebrated as a sign of the booming development of the Indian economy and the arrival of "Brand India" if you will.
Nobody bothers about the environment when a Toyota Landcruiser or a Mitsubishi Pajero is imported by the conscious greens. (Apparently, these beasts consume a lot less fuel than a tiny Nano, huh?)


I can recall another anecdotal incident similar to this.

Low cost carriers were introduced in India by a hitherto unknown company called Air Deccan in 2003. It was not a new concept; but was heavily borrowed from the same introduced by the US carrier Pacific Southwest Airlines way back in 1949. But it was welcomed with open arms by the common man. There were consequences. Low-cost carriers posed a serious threat to traditional "full service" airlines, since the high cost structure of full-service carriers prevents them from competing effectively on price - the most important factor among most consumers when selecting a carrier.

Within months, some of the major luxury carriers suffered losses and decided to either float their own no-frills airlines, or cut back on the luxury component in their regular domestic flights to cut fare costs! Suddenly, the rustic dhoti-clad villager was finding it possible to fly like the well-suited babus down in the city; and due to the fare cuts in the luxury airliners, he, too, could fly business class!

And this was anathema to the elite intelligentsia; within a year, there were protests and awareness campaigns being floated around! Suddenly, it dawned on the elite that excessive use of airlines increased the levels of pollution and greenhouse gases and what not! People were discouraged from switching over to airlines from their usual modes like trains and buses for the sake of the environment!

What bull, I ask you!

Which is worse, 50 to 100 passengers flying one way in a luxury Boeing Dreamliner, or even the Concorde (now defunct), or 200 passengers flying both ways in a low cost flight with the same amount of fuel? (The concerned greens would say the latter, of course!)

Thankfully, the will of the masses prevails and the low cost airlines are here to stay! And if that gives the concerned greens nightmares, Tough!





With due thanks to Peter Casier for the following comic:

Endgame: Practicality shall always rule over empirical morality!

It is Original.......................................LY COPIED!!

Stepping out of "el broodosphere" this week to mention an incredible find!

All of us know that the great Indian "music directors" of the 80's and 90's have been "inspired" innumerable times to create "original" hit music! The list of these "greats" like Nadeem-Shravan, Anand-Milind, Anu Malik, Pritam are known to one and all!

Did you know that there are others in the foray and that one can't really blame these new generation "maestros"? For all that they are doing is emulating what their predecessors, the eternal greats have done throughout history!

Do the names SD Burman, RD Burman, OP Nayyar, (to mention a few) ring a bell?

Uh-Oh, I have committed sacrilege! I have pointed the finger at some of the greatest composers that Indian cinema has known! How can one even dare to (let alone think of doing so) accuse the greats?

Well, before spamming the hell out of me with brickbats and vitriol, give an ear to the following:

1) SD Burman [Chalti Ka Naam Gaadi (1958)]:

Hum The Woh Thi

taken originally from Tennesse Ernie Ford's song from the year 1957:

The Watermelon Song

2) RD Burman [Sholay (1975)]:

Mehbooba

taken originally from Demis Roussoss' song from the year 1974:
Say You Love Me

3) OP Nayyar [CID]:

Yeh Hai Bombai Meri Jaan

taken originally from the following track composed in 1863:

My Darling Clementine

(Hey, even Huckleberry Hound sings the same track!)

Little wonder then, the present generation continues to tread on the footsteps of their elders who pioneered in this art! So is imitation really the sincerest form of flattery?

And there are a whole lot of others, (possibly every name you can think of in the Indian film industry) who have achieved greatness and received immense adulation through their "inspired genius'. And this is not limited to the Hindi filmdom (or the grotesque term associated with it -- "bollywood"), every regional language has its share!

At least the eternal greats of the yesteryears only lifted a few tones; the same cannot be said of the present crop!

Coming to the find: the above material has been painstakingly researched by a dude named S.Karthik, whose website ItwoFS.com, I managed to chance upon as I was webscaping! He lists out most of the composers of the yesteryears and the present from all parts of the Indian film industry with their "inspired tracks" and the original ones with citations!

The guy is so good that, even one of the music reviewers of rediff.com directly copied one of his reviews and credited it as her own! Although rediff has taken down the review, Karthik still hosts the same on his site to prove his point!

Be sure to give this site a thorough read!



Endgame: Now, now, it is never like me to just highlight our vagaries and shy away! The Greeks have copied Indian film music, too! And that too, steadily and verbatim between the years 1954 to 1968. (And you thought that only Communist USSR loved Hindi Movies back then?) Here is the interesting article that should be an eye-opener of sorts:
Hindi Films of the 50s in Greece: The Latest Chapter of a Long Dialogue

The copy is the original is the copy is the original.........!!

For the love of God!

The western world minces no words in denouncing India as a superstitious, backward nation still living in the past! Here is an interesting but sorry incident that highlights how progressive the western world is:

US girl dies as parents choose prayer over docs!

For those of you who'd rather know the gist of it instead, here it goes! In the most advanced nation on the earth, the US of A live some of the most "pious" of people on earth (or so they would call themselves!) These zealots (Is that a harsh word? Read the actual news article above and then decide!) would choose to avail of all the luxuries and amenities that civilization and advances in modern science provide without any qualms; they are people who can be dismissed as everyday normal people or so you'd think; except when it comes to availing the services of modern medicine!

Oh no, no, no, no! Seeking medical care for them is blasphemous! Letting their kith and kin die for want of medical care: that is A-Okay, but allowing medical personnel to intervene that is against God in their eyes! Believing or not believing in the Theory of Evolution is a different matter, but this one really takes the cake! (Although I would like to take up that topic at this time, those are better left for another day!)

So in this present case: this poor 11-year old with Type I Diabetes Mellitus paid for her parents' faith with her life! These "faithful" people felt that prayer alone shall cure their girl and hence denied her access to medical care! (And only last week, we had begun a discussion on parenting; and now this happens!)

For those of you who share beliefs with the parents in the present case: Snap out of it!

Diabetic Ketoacidosis is a major life threatening complication of Type I DM, which if treated promptly is manageable, completely controllable and kills routinely if left untreated! Do not leave your kid, your relative, or your friend in dire straits by refusing them access to medical care! Do not let your "faith" blind you! Miracles are called miracles for a reason: they don't occur commonly in everyday lives!

And if this contradicts with your faith, there is saying that goes something like this: God helps those who help themselves! And praying alone is not an act of helping oneself: it is more of putting the entire responsibility on God, and shirking one's share of the work!

About half a decade back, the superlative legal drama "The Practice" telecast a shocking episode involving a similar incident: the episode entitled "The Cradle Will Rock".

That episode left me with fair amount of disbelief to see faith blind people so strongly! Who would have thought that five years thence, I'd see it played in real life!

For those of you who have seen it, you know what I am talking about; for those of you who haven't, go search the net, or go to your local DVD store but watch it somehow!

Never thought reel to real would be so eerily similar!

And Indians are termed backward! Wow!

This comic fits the scenario: doesn't it?
[With due thanks to Vineet Gupta!]

Fourth instalment of digressing beyond the point of sanity!

(With inputs from Danish Ahmad!)

Prologue
The ABO blood grouping system was discovered by Karl Landsteiner an Austrian Physician in 1902 and classified in 1909. Now you might think what is so important about this discovery? For what is commonplace to know these days was an important breakthrough in transfusion medicine that revolutionized wartime medical care; which was then prone to the vagaries of trial and error where transfusion was concerned. In a nutshell the ABO blood grouping involves two major antigens [3 major ones, if you include H antigen actually, but let us try to keep this one simple!] The AB blood group is unique in the fact that it is not that there are some cells expressing A antigen and others expressing B; it is not a mixture of two types of red cells. Both A and B antigens are expressed simultaneously by the RBCs of the person inheriting this blood group. Hence creating a new identity of AB.
Such a person is referred to as a universal recipient for he can accept blood from both groups A and B as well as AB and O.
Aah! I just can't resist disseminating some knowledge in the process! So here goes!

Blood groups are inherited from both parents. The ABO blood type is controlled by a single gene with three alleles: i, I^A, and I^B. The gene encodes a glycosyltransferase—that is, an enzyme that modifies the carbohydrate content of the red blood cell antigens. The gene is located on the long arm of the ninth chromosome (9q34).

I^A allele gives type A, I^B gives type B, and i gives type O. I^A and I^B are dominant over i, so ii people have type O, I^AI^A or I^Ai have A, and I^BI^B or I^Bi have type B. I^AI^B people have both phenotypes because A and B express a special dominance relationship: codominance, which means that type A and B parents can have an AB child. A type A and a type B couple can also have a type O child if they are both heterozygous (I^Bi,I^Ai) The cis-AB phenotype has a single enzyme that creates both A and B antigens. The resulting red blood cells do not usually express A or B antigen at the same level that would be expected on common group A₁ or B red blood cells. Hence as I said, a new blood group with a distinct identity despite having both antigens!

Simply put, AB is not simply A + B.

So much for the Biology lesson!

Coming to the focus of our topic:



Marriage: A license for sex or an institution of social security?


Marriages are made in heaven or so they say in fables, huh?

Real life is pretty darn different!

With live-in relations, perpetual friends and those with benefits mushrooming up, are marriages passè these days?
Does the modern generation view marriage in the traditional sense? What do you think has changed and why?
With divorce rates in the US and other developed nations skyrocketing, is the institution failing?

Although I may not know all the answers (and I don't certainly claim to know any, if at all), this is my take on the issue!

The evolution of mankind from nomadic tribal savages to a "civilized" society is often attributed to the social hierarchy and organization that has evolved through the years. The considerations for forming a family as a unit has evolved from a matter of survival for the prehistoric man (wherein the survival of his people depended on the ability to bear and rear offspring in a protective environment); to a matter of economics and religion in the 20th century to a matter of choice and defiance in the 21st!

Marriage has always been the "right" thing to do! All other forms of relationships have been frowned upon by the society irrespective of the cheerful exterior that the so-called liberal societies may want to put up with the changing times! It has enjoyed social, legal and religious sanctions since times immemorial!

Socially, it is encouraged for the formation of a family unit, for the sustenance of a community; the social security afforded is too hard to give a miss! Legally, the legitimacy conferred on any relationship is unparalleled to that granted to a marriage: there are a whole set of legal eagles specializing in all the aspects related to it! And religion, (how can one ignore that?), has always given canonical decrees as to why it is the primary goal of every human being. There are a large number of "sins" associated with all other forms of human interaction with the opposite sex! It is the holy duty of every man to marry and populate the earth with people of his religion; without a man, a woman is incomplete and vice-versa; and it is through this man attains salvation, and so on and so forth!

The considerations for marriage have changed with time as well: just cohabitation; to union of two families, clans, tribes and nations; to meeting of two minds, as the modern day Bohemian might say!

Old timers would swear by their traditional practices in preserving the social order and that it is the right thing for the gen-x to emulate!

What surprises me the most is the fact despite modern science highlighting the dangers of consanguineous marriages, the practice has social and legal sanction in many parts of the world! People would rather marry their own cousins rather than marry outside their caste, creed, religion, class, color and race! [And they call this the 21st century!] These very people would cry fate, curse doctors and bitch about their lot when genetic diseases come calling; but fail to see the folly in their actions and continue to defend their actions on the pretext of preserving "culture and religion".

And should a couple decide to challenge the social norms in a legal manner, the vigilantes come in hordes to unleash tribal justice in an effort to make their case exemplary to the would-be couples who might ever dare to follow suit! From social boycotting, to religious discrimination, to the extremes of honor killings in the most feudal of societies, anything to "preserve tradition": family pride if you will!

Not that I have anything against the institution of arranged marriages (so long as it gives the couple the choice to opt out during courtship, if the need arises), the notion that parents alone know what's best is difficult for me to stomach, if it is to be applied at all junctures!

Let's face it, it is you and your better half that has to live out the days to the end (for your parents aren't going to be around forever), so lest you both are compatible at an intellectual level, the marriage is a sham! And unless there is intellectual fulfillment and growth in a union, the union fails once the physical attraction fades ( and that it does!). Each partner then craves for and looks towards other sources and thence begins the final dissolution!
It is one thing in life wherein if you compromise, you'll have only yourself to blame later on!

But this is not to say that all marriages borne out of "love" are successful! For "love" (blinding lust, more often than naught, actually) literally is blind; the challenges of living a real marriage and the trials it throws up in your face require more resilience than one imagines during the "love phase"! So unless the attraction is greater than skin deep and the compatibility quotient is as high, the love fizzles out to lead to chaos!

What mature adults fail to realize despite their "maturity" and "years of experience" is that a successful marriage requires the couple to work hard at it! There is no star-crossed partner or soulmate in the real world and things never are really perfect (far from it, actually!)

One of the primary reasons for marriage in the earlier times (even today in many cases) was: (you guessed it!) Sex! Whether it be through the arranged route or otherwise, the social sanction for sex that it affords, was the prime motivator in most cases, as premarital sex was a taboo (and still is in many parts of the world!). So, in this process, couples hastily entered into a union without anticipating the future of the same once sex became a routine and the interest dwindled away!
The social structure till the better part of the 20th century focused on a conservative household where the parents were never contradicted and "family prestige" kept failing marriages together. However, the marital asphyxia that slowly built up never left anybody really happy (despite the claims to the contrary), such that the marriage lasted only because of social needs rather than a personal or an intellectual need for it!
(The old timers would still count this as a merit of their way of life and in some ways, it was! At least it left fewer kids with broken households!)

A related quote goes something like this: The saddest words in life begin with "I should have..." (Related or not, I just wanted to stuff it in!)

With the erosion of the conservative mindset from many parts of the society and greater awareness triggered by greater exposure to education and the media (or failing value system as the elders would put it), the ability to tolerate the marital asphyxia waned away faster than expected in many communities around the world and the "family prestige" factor failed miserably to keep families together! The result: 1 in 2 marriages in "civilized" nations end up knocking the doors of a legal eagle!

But with an increasingly liberal society allowing for social experimentation, the trend now is to test the Ferrari before you invest a great deal in it!

(Isn't that the most crass comparison you have ever heard?)

The new age social norm of live-in relationships, friends with benefits are the gen-x's way of trying to make the right choice! The USP is that if you live together, cohabit together and assess each other for compatibility, the road ahead is paved smooth and slick for a long term commitment. Sounds perfect on paper, right? In many ways, it is! But the flaw lies in the assumption that a marriage is very much like the above! Suffice to say, any intimate relationship other than a marriage is usually a situation of power without accountability or partnership without commitment! (Some idiots treat even a marriage the same way!)

Now even in this scenario, people are driven by the primeval instincts instead of weighing certain facts in context!

A good marriage begins as a good and lasting friendship instead of good sex (although a good fling begins with the latter!). A friendship wherein both the partners are matched at a resonating frequency at the level of their minds; where each one not only understands the needs (emotional, intellectual or otherwise) of the other, but knows how to meet them and knows what to do, if one can't, at some or the other point in life! When you can trust your spouse as your confidante instead of keeping secrets from them (to keep them happy), you know you are in for the long haul!

The ritual of the "first night" needs to be put in the cold storage for eternity! You should get to be friends first and leave the physical part for a later date! The perception of pleasure and satisfaction is a function of the brain; so if your minds resonate, the sex shall be good (whether adequate or not)! But the extreme levels of enthusiasm, lack of anatomical knowledge and understanding of human physiology, prevalence of myths perpetuated by friends and the media, the numerous taboos associated and the inexplicable levels of "non-communication" that persist between couples leads them to indulge in the ritual anyway!
And consequently, the coffers of quacks and self-proclaimed "sexologists" (or a genuine medical doctor, if at all) are filled by anxious and distraught couples over a myriad of issues ranging from performance anxiety, frigidity, vaginismus, dyspareunia, impotence, to frankly bad sex! And another legal eagle may find new clients suddenly citing "irreconcilable differences"!

Whereas in a good marriage, the couple ought to be comfortable enough with each other to frankly discuss the above issues and reach decisions to iron them out emotionally, medically or surgically as the case maybe! But majority of the people love the sweet taste of denial and procrastinate till hell freezes over and then one fine day reach to the conclusion that they'd rather cry over spilt milk!

Kids can soothe a burnt marriage! There are many cases where the family rejuvenates with the birth of a child who ushers in a new wave of change; and more seriously a new ray of hope in a family on the brink! Many a couple have stayed together for the sake of their kids and rediscovered the bond that drew them closer in the first place and made newer ones in the process!

If you know and realize that you have kids for your desire of parenting and not for the kid's sake, you shall always put their interests first! And in the process stay together; for no child deserves a broken home whatever the reason that either spouse may state as a lame defense! Any child when born is equal to every other one out there and deserves to have a complete home with a caring mother and a loving father; so why should he/she bear the brunt of the follies of his/her parents?
No matter what the new-age "gurus" and the "relationship experts" (who know nothing better than to make small talk on every other gasbag of a daytime talk-show) might claim, the impact of a good divorce is not necessarily better than a bad marriage once the family unit involves children!

Broken homes scar children for life! They end up growing without a complete family unit to fall back on. (Although single parenting is en vogue in the west these days, the concept is still not a hit so far as the child's perspective is concerned!) Having seen their parents (who every child looks up to as the role models in the beginning) fail miserably in a relationship, their take on relationships in life is very skewed from the onset! The emotional needs of every child require the presence of both parents, individually and together, at different stages of life! The positive influence that parents can have on their kids diminishes in broken homes, as part of it is derived from the authority that a parent gains from the child when he perceives them to be an ideal! When a kid perceives his parents to be a failure in social relationships, the tendency to rebel and defiance follows suit!

(Jeez! I should be discussing that in another post; here I go rambling again out of context!)





Epilogue

So how does the lengthy and irrelevant biology lesson figure in this Valium of a discussion?

As discussed the AB-blood type is not simply a mixture of A and B type cells but entirely new entity that retains both the antigens and thus has characteristics of both and yet a completely unique identity emerges. The marrow in this case propagates further cells bearing the distinct dual antigens
Similarly, the key essence of a marriage is the evolution of a common ego from the merging of two distinct ones without either of them losing their individual identity in the new entity that takes shape in the process! The success of the family then lies in the defense, nurturing and progress of this common ego that represents the family!

However as the complexities of human relationships increase, the basic factors that define a marriage are being ignored and superficial factors are being flouted as causes for togetherness as well as for separation!

The real truth is that whenever one ego overshadows the other there is darkness cast over the landscape of a marriage!

Problem of the Week

You have grown up in an everyday neighborhood nothing out of the ordinary. You have grown up with the same friends that you have known from your childhood. Many of them are still your best buds. One of them is your best mate, who'd give the shirt off his back to help you out if the need arises! You grow in to adulthood, find different spheres of the work and well, lose track of each other over time and then meet up one day out of the blue!


Scenario 1: Your friend is slightly apprehensive of meeting you. Your inquiry of his sudden bashfulness reveals that his preferences in life have changed! And that he tells you that he is gay and has known this for some time now. Although he has no attraction towards you and regards you as his brother, he has a tough time telling you all this. He has not revealed the same to his family and doubts if he'd ever find the courage to do that! For the rest, he is still your old prankster of a friend whose company gladdens your heart!

Now,

1) Having heard the innermost secret of your friend, do you look at him in a different light?
2) Would you consider that nothing has changed as far as you and he are concerned? Would your behavior change in any way?
3) Given that he has trouble confronting his family about this, would you help him through this and in the process ease his fears or would you let sleeping dogs lie and let him deal with it of his own accord? Which of the above two actions do you think would actually help him?

Scenario 2: Your friend is slightly apprehensive of meeting you. Your inquiry of his sudden bashfulness reveals that he has contracted HIV-AIDS. He has not revealed this to anyone else!

Now,

1) What would be your first reaction?
2) What are the chances that you'd judge him even before hearing his side of the story?
3) Would the mode through which he contracted the deadly disease affect your response?

4) Let us say he is straight and he contracted the disease through a casual one-night-stand,
or let us say he is gay and he contracted the disease through a blood transfusion during surgery. Would your response in both the situations be the same or different? What it had been the other way around in both the situations?
5) How would you help him cope up with this situation? More importantly, would you?

You have been warned!

The upcoming post is insanely long! It is a reflection of the chaotic thoughts coursing through my mind over the last 3 months! They are raw and uncensored!

The views that I am about to express are repetitive, boring and preachy to the core, but they are poignant nevertheless! So feel free to not read them as always!

Posting by Wednesday 26 March 2008!