The airline war against passengers keeps heating up.
In response to
the ever-increasing time it takes to board an airplane these days as
passengers haul to overhead bins bag after bag more than the airline
allowance, Delta Air Lines plans to pre load carry-on bags above
passengers’ seats on some flights. Yep! It's so bad those sometimes 45
minute or more board times, that now they want to see if the flight
attendant can stow our carry-on faster and more orderly than we.
It's a good idea, but only if Delta enforces the number and size limits
for a carry-on baggage. They most often do not currently do so. One
need only watch a plane boarding today to see passengers carrying three
over sized bags on board, and be allowed to do so, in order to evade the
standard, stupid luggage fees we all now seem to accept as part of the
flying experience. I can stow my legally allowed carry on myself,
Delta. Just enforce the carry-on rules you now ignore, and we won't
need to have airline employees act as porters.
Slow boarding creates delays, which mean missed connections, unhappy
customers and extra costs for the airlines. The fight for overhead
baggage space is almost violent these days.
The fault is that airlines are afraid to insist boarding passengers
bring on only the allowed amount of luggage. Rather than offend and
lose business, they let the inconsiderate and selfish passenger create
havoc at boarding time. Every extra minute that a plane stands idle at
the gate adds significant costs for the airline. About 1 in 4 U.S.
flights already runs at least 15 minutes late, causing many missed
connections and changes in flights to accommodate those who missed
their flight because someone wanted to bring four bags on board for the
overhead bins.
My first question to Delta of it's "Early Valet" service would be, "Do
I have to pay extra to have my carry-on stowed for me?" Stupid
question, I guess. Surely passengers will be hit with another "extra"
fee in the form of having their bags placed in overhead bins. Could
this experiment by Delta be just another way of cleverly installing
another extra fee? Probably so. The airline says it only wants to see
if its own workers can load the bins faster than passengers, but more
likely it ants to see if this can be another new fee that passengers
will not object to vigorously. Once an airline creates a new fee to rob
passengers, there is furor and dissent. But gradually, the passenger
shrugs his or her shoulders and accepts it as a normal cost of flying.
Get ready for this kind of charge being another normal one for flying.
Sigh. I think it might be better to just forget about flying and
instead to more often travel where one can do so without the airlines
getting us there.
How are you?Tod
Sunday, June 14, 2015
Wednesday, June 10, 2015
That Nonsense That The Rich Are Evil
One political tactic President Obama and his political party
have
embraced over the past six years, demonizing the economically
successful person, is starting to wear thin with some of the targets of
their wrath. The premise taken by the left wing in politics is that
those who are successful are evil and those who have failed
economically are "victims" of "the rich" who allegedly keep them from
rising economically. Personal responsibility, the biggest attribute a
person must have in a capitalist system, is forgotten and blaming the
successful for the failure of others is the replacement. It's a cheap,
dishonest view that unfortunately wins votes. Obama frequently cites
the "99%" (non wealthy) as victims of those who are successful. He
embraced the class warfare narrative so successfully that most left
leaning politicians use it routinely to pander to their voting base.
The result is those who are economically successful (Obama calls them all "the rich") are publicly excoriated, blamed for others failures and forced to go into a form of exile where they try to hide their affluence. But one of those super wealthy people who worked hard and used his ability to become successful is finally fighting back. Billionaire hedge fund manager Leon Cooperman is sick of disingenuous politicians criticizing him for being rich, and would prefer that his success story be held up as "an example" to be followed. "I think that my life should be used as an example to the 99% of what could be achieved," said in a recent taping for the capitalist groupie television program "Wall Street Week". "These youngsters can see what can be accomplished with some hard work.
"To tell the 99% they are being screwed by the 1% is just wrong," said Cooperman, who is valued at $3.7 billion.
Good for him! In this age of entitlement, an age in which the individual thinks that society is responsible for his or her welfare, a jolt of reality is a good thing. Hillary Clinton has decided to campaign on the rich are evil mode too. It's preposterous when one looks at Clinton's own bank statements. Bashing Wall Streeters and the rich is part of Hillary's strategy of remaking her image to appear more sympathetic to middle class voters, while also appealing to left-wing Democrats. But how insincere that is! Hillary and Bill Clinton have earned hundred's of millions of dollars on speaking fees alone. A one hour speech by Hillary goes for about $300,000. Hillary fails to mention her own wealth when demonizing the wealthy.
So are voters just plain stupid in not seeing the shallowness of the issue, the falsity of it, the insincerity of politicians who campaign on it? Apparently that or they like being pander to. Income inequality, or concerns of a rising wealth gap between the rich and everyone else, has become a hot topic on the campaign trail for both the left leaning Democratic and some right wing Republican candidates who don't want to be left behind by the voters in the ruse.
Cooperman grew up poor in the Bronx as the child of immigrant parents. He was the first one in his family to attend college and he worked hard for his success. But I guess that doesn't comfort the voter who is mired in poverty because of his or her own negligence to achieve more.
The result is those who are economically successful (Obama calls them all "the rich") are publicly excoriated, blamed for others failures and forced to go into a form of exile where they try to hide their affluence. But one of those super wealthy people who worked hard and used his ability to become successful is finally fighting back. Billionaire hedge fund manager Leon Cooperman is sick of disingenuous politicians criticizing him for being rich, and would prefer that his success story be held up as "an example" to be followed. "I think that my life should be used as an example to the 99% of what could be achieved," said in a recent taping for the capitalist groupie television program "Wall Street Week". "These youngsters can see what can be accomplished with some hard work.
"To tell the 99% they are being screwed by the 1% is just wrong," said Cooperman, who is valued at $3.7 billion.
Good for him! In this age of entitlement, an age in which the individual thinks that society is responsible for his or her welfare, a jolt of reality is a good thing. Hillary Clinton has decided to campaign on the rich are evil mode too. It's preposterous when one looks at Clinton's own bank statements. Bashing Wall Streeters and the rich is part of Hillary's strategy of remaking her image to appear more sympathetic to middle class voters, while also appealing to left-wing Democrats. But how insincere that is! Hillary and Bill Clinton have earned hundred's of millions of dollars on speaking fees alone. A one hour speech by Hillary goes for about $300,000. Hillary fails to mention her own wealth when demonizing the wealthy.
So are voters just plain stupid in not seeing the shallowness of the issue, the falsity of it, the insincerity of politicians who campaign on it? Apparently that or they like being pander to. Income inequality, or concerns of a rising wealth gap between the rich and everyone else, has become a hot topic on the campaign trail for both the left leaning Democratic and some right wing Republican candidates who don't want to be left behind by the voters in the ruse.
Cooperman grew up poor in the Bronx as the child of immigrant parents. He was the first one in his family to attend college and he worked hard for his success. But I guess that doesn't comfort the voter who is mired in poverty because of his or her own negligence to achieve more.
Oh, No! Not Another Test....
Recently Mira Hu, a 16-year-old student from Arcadia
High
School said
she had enough of testing and academic pressure. After her mom dropped
her off at Arcadia High School in Canada to take the SAT that every
high school senior expecting to enter college must take, Mira did
something, I think, to slap the studious Asian American culture right
in
the face. Mira not only skipped the test, she disappeared completely to
parts unknown. Wow! The ancient Chinese test Gods will surely seek
revenge against Mira.
But what Mira has done should in fact happen more among, not only all those super smart and studious types that live in Silicon Valley, but with average ordinary dolts like me. I find it refreshing that the first high profile case of "I don't care about your tests or your Ivy League plans, mom" is from a super high academic, Asian community in the wealthy Silicon Valley area. Give that girl a scholarship for creative arts...or something. I like her style, if not the fact that she may have carried her protest too far by running away from home. Her Tiger Mom is not gonna like this whole scene.
Anyway, after she disappeared from school test taking demands, Mira Hu sent a message to her brother indicating that she was running away because she was overwhelmed by school and the exam. Chinese and other Asian immigrant parents routinely pressure their kids to study, study, study. Outside interests and activities are so discouraged that the little one become a little computer, for which Tiger Mom and Tiger Dad are extremely grateful. After all, how can an immigrant earn widespread social class and respect if their children among them is not the next genius at Stanford or MIT?
Too, such study fanaticism is an on-going problem in many Asian countries, one which mom and dad take with them and embellish when arriving in the U.S. There have been cases in which a number of suicides here by kids were the result of too much pressure to do well in school and to please Tiger Mom and Tiger Dad. It's an odd cultural clash with the often lazy, empty headed native born parented kids of the U.S. Second generation (of both Asian and non Asian families) are slacking too much and Asian immigrant kids are cracking the books too much and becoming little geniuses but with little personality or private interests compared to the doltish slacker kids found everywhere in America.
I suspect Mira wants to be a slacker because the pressures of being the Chinese immigrant kid are too much for her to be something in-between the too (what we used to call "normal"). It's sad when just being a kid isn't possible today for all kids, that kids can't choose on their own how much study is enough, and that too many kids can't find joy in life because of it.
But what Mira has done should in fact happen more among, not only all those super smart and studious types that live in Silicon Valley, but with average ordinary dolts like me. I find it refreshing that the first high profile case of "I don't care about your tests or your Ivy League plans, mom" is from a super high academic, Asian community in the wealthy Silicon Valley area. Give that girl a scholarship for creative arts...or something. I like her style, if not the fact that she may have carried her protest too far by running away from home. Her Tiger Mom is not gonna like this whole scene.
Anyway, after she disappeared from school test taking demands, Mira Hu sent a message to her brother indicating that she was running away because she was overwhelmed by school and the exam. Chinese and other Asian immigrant parents routinely pressure their kids to study, study, study. Outside interests and activities are so discouraged that the little one become a little computer, for which Tiger Mom and Tiger Dad are extremely grateful. After all, how can an immigrant earn widespread social class and respect if their children among them is not the next genius at Stanford or MIT?
Too, such study fanaticism is an on-going problem in many Asian countries, one which mom and dad take with them and embellish when arriving in the U.S. There have been cases in which a number of suicides here by kids were the result of too much pressure to do well in school and to please Tiger Mom and Tiger Dad. It's an odd cultural clash with the often lazy, empty headed native born parented kids of the U.S. Second generation (of both Asian and non Asian families) are slacking too much and Asian immigrant kids are cracking the books too much and becoming little geniuses but with little personality or private interests compared to the doltish slacker kids found everywhere in America.
I suspect Mira wants to be a slacker because the pressures of being the Chinese immigrant kid are too much for her to be something in-between the too (what we used to call "normal"). It's sad when just being a kid isn't possible today for all kids, that kids can't choose on their own how much study is enough, and that too many kids can't find joy in life because of it.
Friday, June 5, 2015
D-Day
Another anniversary of D Day
has arrived. I won't go
through the specifics of the event, but simply write that D Day
(Decision Day) was the turning point of W.W. II and the end of the Nazi
attempt to expand into other nations and practice some very inhumane
doctrines there. There are few survivors, civilian or military, of W.W.
II, and as a result few people today note it or think about the
slaughter that came about in the world's greatest conflict (per
casualty numbers). That is a shame. Our technology and conveniences
have robbed us of appreciation of and about previous eras that can
instruct us well even today.
Much of the world saw that war as a reluctant crusade to exterminate the horrors and threats of Nazism and as a result, there were few people who protested fighting Germany and her allies because the evil was clear to all. Today such clarity in the evil arena is not what it used to be. With modern communication, and the protests and restraints on government that go with those protests, it is hard to imagine countries being able to mobilize such a great war again. That's the good news. No doubt, for example, the west would have long ago attacked Muslim countries in response to their support of Islamic terrorists if this were the era of the 40's rather than the 2000's. The public today would instantly oppose a war of that kind today and freeze their governments from executing such a war. It's a nice restraint to have in preventing a foolish rush to judgment..
The bad aspect of this is that renegade nations and groups sheltered by them, as in Iran and many Muslim nations, feel less pressure to behave fairly knowing that an attack on them today is unlikely. In a sense, W.W. II was the last world war to be fought in a conventional way. Such a world wide conflict will be highly unlikely to happen again. And that has a bad connotation as well as the good one I mentioned. That is, nations now may act badly and aggressively against others with much less fear that they will be challenged and stopped in their acting out.
War should always be a last answer. Humans lose lives needlessly in them for wars are most often nothing more than temporary territorial changes. The humans who experience war return from those conflicts physically or emotionally injured, and the civilian population loses much as well. The carnage of D day and W.W. II should be a good reminder to us of that.
Much of the world saw that war as a reluctant crusade to exterminate the horrors and threats of Nazism and as a result, there were few people who protested fighting Germany and her allies because the evil was clear to all. Today such clarity in the evil arena is not what it used to be. With modern communication, and the protests and restraints on government that go with those protests, it is hard to imagine countries being able to mobilize such a great war again. That's the good news. No doubt, for example, the west would have long ago attacked Muslim countries in response to their support of Islamic terrorists if this were the era of the 40's rather than the 2000's. The public today would instantly oppose a war of that kind today and freeze their governments from executing such a war. It's a nice restraint to have in preventing a foolish rush to judgment..
The bad aspect of this is that renegade nations and groups sheltered by them, as in Iran and many Muslim nations, feel less pressure to behave fairly knowing that an attack on them today is unlikely. In a sense, W.W. II was the last world war to be fought in a conventional way. Such a world wide conflict will be highly unlikely to happen again. And that has a bad connotation as well as the good one I mentioned. That is, nations now may act badly and aggressively against others with much less fear that they will be challenged and stopped in their acting out.
War should always be a last answer. Humans lose lives needlessly in them for wars are most often nothing more than temporary territorial changes. The humans who experience war return from those conflicts physically or emotionally injured, and the civilian population loses much as well. The carnage of D day and W.W. II should be a good reminder to us of that.
Passports
My passport will expire in 9 months. It's not a
problem for me now,
but by the end of the year I will have to renew....if I can remember to
do so. The only reason I know about the expiration date of my passport
is because I read a newspaper story about passport fraud. We don't
often think about our passports. But that article reminded me to see
if my passport is near to the date it will expire. My guess on
expiration (in 2016) was correct. I guess a great number of people
forget to renew their passport before expiration. And there are those
who renew theirs in time but who can't use it because some nations
require that a passport must be valid for at least 3- 6 months before
entrance is allowed into their country.
The whole subject of passports is complicated and too involved for me. There are passports that counterfeited, passport mistakes that doom one to sit in an airport rather than board an airplane, there's the passport picture of a person that doesn't match his or her appearance because of that 30 kilo weight gain since the last issuance of the passport. It goes on and on. many years ago while in a communist country my passport was taken from me by the police there (International law says that in most nations a passport and the passport user must never be separated from each other when the foreigner has his passport checked by the country's police). Did you know that some small Pacific island nations, in order to raise money, sell anyone one of their passports? And what about the value of a passport? Are all passports equal in value?
No! That short answer is because passports are rated as more powerful if they allow the traveler to go to more countries without also obtaining a visa for travel in the visited country. Nations have travel arrangement/treaties that allow visa wavers. The three nations that have the most powerful passports allow their citizens to travel to 173 nations, visa free. Those three are Finland, Sweden and the United Kingdom. The U.S. is next with 72 visa free travel destinations. A nation like North Korea doesn't allow any travel outside itself, which makes passports irrelevant there. But among those nations that do allow foreign travel, the following (unpleasant and dictatorial) nations have the least powerful passports; Afghanistan, Iran, Somalia, Pakistan, and Nepal. The worst nations make their citizens spiritual as well as physical prisons.
Every nation issues different types of passports. The Diplomat passport, for example, bestows special privileges to the user that you, me and other peasants of the world won't get. We get the "tourist" or "ordinary" passport, because....well....we are ordinary One passport type you never want to have to obtain is the emergency passport, issued when you stupidly lose your passport or have yours stolen.
In general, passport holders in North America and Europe have the most freedom of travel, while passport holders in Africa, the Middle East and South Asia have the least. This proves the "life is not fair" proposition all humans learn at some early point in life. On that note, I suggest you check to see if you can find your passport and whether or not it is still valid. Happy traveling to you!
The whole subject of passports is complicated and too involved for me. There are passports that counterfeited, passport mistakes that doom one to sit in an airport rather than board an airplane, there's the passport picture of a person that doesn't match his or her appearance because of that 30 kilo weight gain since the last issuance of the passport. It goes on and on. many years ago while in a communist country my passport was taken from me by the police there (International law says that in most nations a passport and the passport user must never be separated from each other when the foreigner has his passport checked by the country's police). Did you know that some small Pacific island nations, in order to raise money, sell anyone one of their passports? And what about the value of a passport? Are all passports equal in value?
No! That short answer is because passports are rated as more powerful if they allow the traveler to go to more countries without also obtaining a visa for travel in the visited country. Nations have travel arrangement/treaties that allow visa wavers. The three nations that have the most powerful passports allow their citizens to travel to 173 nations, visa free. Those three are Finland, Sweden and the United Kingdom. The U.S. is next with 72 visa free travel destinations. A nation like North Korea doesn't allow any travel outside itself, which makes passports irrelevant there. But among those nations that do allow foreign travel, the following (unpleasant and dictatorial) nations have the least powerful passports; Afghanistan, Iran, Somalia, Pakistan, and Nepal. The worst nations make their citizens spiritual as well as physical prisons.
Every nation issues different types of passports. The Diplomat passport, for example, bestows special privileges to the user that you, me and other peasants of the world won't get. We get the "tourist" or "ordinary" passport, because....well....we are ordinary One passport type you never want to have to obtain is the emergency passport, issued when you stupidly lose your passport or have yours stolen.
In general, passport holders in North America and Europe have the most freedom of travel, while passport holders in Africa, the Middle East and South Asia have the least. This proves the "life is not fair" proposition all humans learn at some early point in life. On that note, I suggest you check to see if you can find your passport and whether or not it is still valid. Happy traveling to you!
Thursday, June 4, 2015
Hamburgers
I just discovered that May was National Hamburger
Month, and
that at
the end of May, May 28th, it was National Hamburger Day. Hamburgers
were not first cooked in the U.S. (they started in Germany but the
first burgers on buns were American) , but for anyone who has ever had
a hamburger outside of the U.S. it's usually not a tasty experience.
The fast food chains, mostly American but also their foreign
counterparts, are what an American will find in other countries. They
are not what a true hamburger is about. It's not wonder that some
snooty foreigners lift their eyebrow and express disdain for the all
mighty burger. They don't know the taste of a real hamburger.
Americans eat almost 50 billion burgers a year, which is the equivalent of three burgers a week for every person in the United States. That's too much for me. If I have one every two weeks I am satiated, but what I dislike is the trend for burger sellers to add so much "junk" to the burgers they serve. You name the topping and it has probably been put on top of a hamburger. That, in my view, is what has given some foreigners a bad reputation for hamburgers. The worst trend is the so-called spicy burger. All that spice isn't good for a burger. Burgers should be eaten al natural. Besides, people who love hot sauces and other sources of heat probably don't even taste the meat. Maybe they should just drink their hot sauce straight from the bottle and leave the dead cow meat alone.
I like to cook my own hamburgers and the way I do it is simple and in keeping with letting the meat carry the taste. I like a burger seared at high heat on both sides, cooked medium are and I want my burger with a high fat content ( 20% is best) and served on a bun that holds the burger with onions that have been sautéed in butter. That's it. No spicy seasonings (just salt) no vegetables other than those onions...simple, basic burger in which the meat carries the day. I never buy any meat except beef and try to cover the taste with condiments. Even better is a barbecued burger. The charcoal gives it a special taste when the cook doesn't overcook the burger.
Here are some burger toppings that make me want to run and hide: Gouda cheese, bacon (put bacon on your burger and you should be put in prison) panchetta, avocado, ketchup, lettuce wrap instead of a bun, French Fries, Brussels sprouts, peanut butter, chard, salsa, spinach and artichoke dip, pickles, chilies, mushrooms. egg............Ah, just about anything other than those sautéed' onions.
And then there are those crazy people who want double or triple burgers. Why don't they just eat a steak. Bigger is not definitely not better with hamburgers. I could go on about the noble burger but I think I'll leave you and eat one instead.
Americans eat almost 50 billion burgers a year, which is the equivalent of three burgers a week for every person in the United States. That's too much for me. If I have one every two weeks I am satiated, but what I dislike is the trend for burger sellers to add so much "junk" to the burgers they serve. You name the topping and it has probably been put on top of a hamburger. That, in my view, is what has given some foreigners a bad reputation for hamburgers. The worst trend is the so-called spicy burger. All that spice isn't good for a burger. Burgers should be eaten al natural. Besides, people who love hot sauces and other sources of heat probably don't even taste the meat. Maybe they should just drink their hot sauce straight from the bottle and leave the dead cow meat alone.
I like to cook my own hamburgers and the way I do it is simple and in keeping with letting the meat carry the taste. I like a burger seared at high heat on both sides, cooked medium are and I want my burger with a high fat content ( 20% is best) and served on a bun that holds the burger with onions that have been sautéed in butter. That's it. No spicy seasonings (just salt) no vegetables other than those onions...simple, basic burger in which the meat carries the day. I never buy any meat except beef and try to cover the taste with condiments. Even better is a barbecued burger. The charcoal gives it a special taste when the cook doesn't overcook the burger.
Here are some burger toppings that make me want to run and hide: Gouda cheese, bacon (put bacon on your burger and you should be put in prison) panchetta, avocado, ketchup, lettuce wrap instead of a bun, French Fries, Brussels sprouts, peanut butter, chard, salsa, spinach and artichoke dip, pickles, chilies, mushrooms. egg............Ah, just about anything other than those sautéed' onions.
And then there are those crazy people who want double or triple burgers. Why don't they just eat a steak. Bigger is not definitely not better with hamburgers. I could go on about the noble burger but I think I'll leave you and eat one instead.
The Spreading Emoji
The U.S.A. Today on line newspaper that I browse
regularly had a filler
of sort today that represents why culture today is headed downhill. It
was an emoji match game. That would be those crazy smiley faces and
other emotional responses some people use in place of real language. I
know it is a filler and has no effect on what is the news, but this
thing was on the front page of the U.S.A. newspaper. If you have time
to waste and are interested, here's the link to the "test".
http://www.usatoday.com/pages/interactives/emoji-match-game/
When playing the game you will read the following....."What does your emoji use say about the country you live in — and what could your country's emoji use say about you? A new study by Swift Key, a company that develops mobile keyboards, analyzed more than a billion emoji used by speakers of 16 languages around the world between October 2014 and January 2015. See if you can predict the results."
My first observation is a question. Why would we want to know this? Just thinking about the trivialization of language that such such silliness has encouraged makes me want to make a sad emoji face. And strangely, emoji's started in a place of education and culture, Japan. That they spread all over the internet makes me have another sad emoji expression when I think of Japan. The use of Emoji Icons has been so prevalent that people don't think twice about sending these icons of happy, angry or sad expressions. They just insert it in their messages when most of the time, they aren't even really feeling that happy, angry or sad.
Secondly, how am I suppose to react to a text message accompanied with these icons? Does it matter? And why does the sender think I know the meaning of those icons?
Those things should be a rarely used amusement, not a regularly used irritant. There is a certain lack of sincerity I feel when someone uses too many of them. A simple insertion of Emoji Icons can seem to be a substitution for thought and feeling in the message. Emoji icons are the reality TV of writing, cute but vapid and without substance. If the cutsie "lol" and "brb" nonsense we first endured when chatting on line were not bad enough, the emoji might be the death knell to communication.
Finally, is the rise and popularity of the emoji reflective of the decline in precision in our communication, both in writing and verbally, or is it just a reflection of how lazy we have become? I vote for both. Gee, I wish I could find an emoji that would illustrate that(imagine an emoji here).
When playing the game you will read the following....."What does your emoji use say about the country you live in — and what could your country's emoji use say about you? A new study by Swift Key, a company that develops mobile keyboards, analyzed more than a billion emoji used by speakers of 16 languages around the world between October 2014 and January 2015. See if you can predict the results."
My first observation is a question. Why would we want to know this? Just thinking about the trivialization of language that such such silliness has encouraged makes me want to make a sad emoji face. And strangely, emoji's started in a place of education and culture, Japan. That they spread all over the internet makes me have another sad emoji expression when I think of Japan. The use of Emoji Icons has been so prevalent that people don't think twice about sending these icons of happy, angry or sad expressions. They just insert it in their messages when most of the time, they aren't even really feeling that happy, angry or sad.
Secondly, how am I suppose to react to a text message accompanied with these icons? Does it matter? And why does the sender think I know the meaning of those icons?
Those things should be a rarely used amusement, not a regularly used irritant. There is a certain lack of sincerity I feel when someone uses too many of them. A simple insertion of Emoji Icons can seem to be a substitution for thought and feeling in the message. Emoji icons are the reality TV of writing, cute but vapid and without substance. If the cutsie "lol" and "brb" nonsense we first endured when chatting on line were not bad enough, the emoji might be the death knell to communication.
Finally, is the rise and popularity of the emoji reflective of the decline in precision in our communication, both in writing and verbally, or is it just a reflection of how lazy we have become? I vote for both. Gee, I wish I could find an emoji that would illustrate that(imagine an emoji here).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)