Wednesday, 31 March 2010

30 months at most until The Big One hits...

Did someone say something about Mayans and 2012?
Dire warnings from Porter Stansberry:
The big problem we face right now is the Treasury has moved more than half of our total debt into the very short end of the yield curve. It did this to minimize interest expense. But as a result, we'll have to "roll over" roughly $4 trillion in the next 30 months. That's in addition to funding another $3 trillion or so in additional annual deficits. It's an interesting question, whether or not we can actually do this. We cannot do it if China stops buying massive quantities of Treasury bonds.

And as of today, China is a net seller of Treasury debt. If we can't fund our debts in the bond market, the Federal Reserve will be forced to monetize our deficits by buying Treasury bonds. If that happens, inflation will soar and the price of gold will double or triple almost overnight.(emphasis mine)


Anyone who lives within their means suffers from a lack of imagination.
- Oscar Wilde

Move slow.

Tuesday, 30 March 2010

Yes, we're all individuals!

We're half awake in a fake empire

Pondering the right of might

Following on from my mention the other day of Might is Right (MIR), I was wondering what it all implied. The author seems to be saying that it is all very well that a proportion of the population is governed by leaders. But, and this is crucial, only if these leaders are the strong. That is, the warriors, the best and brightest. The brave and ruthless, those who pursue power, gold and women, who conquer.
We all know that we are not "ruled" by the best and brightest. As Celente says, they couldn't lead me across the street. And they are cowards. We haven't had a leader who's actually faced the heat of battle since Eisenhower and Churchill.
But these venal people may be the most ruthless, in a sociopathic sense. They use others, they use the power of religion and symbols and secret networks to get what they want. And what they want is everyone else dead, or controlled.
If you can't see the invisible hand, but only the invisible boot, then this is how you would think. That is, seeing the world in a zero sum way: if I take some pie, that's less for someone else.
Another word for ruthless yet cowardly people is bullies. Why are we allowing ourselves to be bullied?
Plato said: "One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors."
Now, I'm pretty suspicious of Plato, being as he was the one to come up with the idea of the philosopher king in the first place. But is he right here? I think he may have it backwards. Politics is a loathsome beast, and it mainly means sophistry and deceit - lies. It would strike many thinking people that one of the penalties for engaging in politics is that you end up being governed by your superiors. That is to say, democracy is a sham and a lie, as stated in MIR.
I wonder how this relates to women? They go for status, for sure, but what about when the elites are the weak and venal?
There's something interesting going on here. Because the elites, although they dominate in a sense, tend to inbreed and fuck themselves up, eventually. Then there's the fact that the men most likely to mate these days are convicts, serial killers and criminals. Especially with the welfare state as it is, so there's no need for beta males at all.
Perhaps the self-regulating thing, then. We're in a cycle. The beta male genes will be weeded out, so we'll have a planet of alphas who start to turn the world into what it ought to be, which is a world of conflict and the truest type of meritocracy - that is rising or falling by your true merits.

Jeremy Scahill

Good man. On New Orleans and a window to the future:

and Blackwater:

There's 70,000 private contractors in Afghanistan. There's 40,000 troops.
Full stop.

It's not a conspiracy

"I'm not inclined to believe in conspiracies. As anyone who's tried to get three friends to agree on a movie or a dinner knows, it's hard to get even such a small number of people on the same page on something as simple as that – much less hatching plans to take over the world."
Doug Casey

The 25 minutes or so spent interviewing John Perkins is probably the most eye-opening part of Zeitgeist: Addendum. Perkins denies the existence of a conspiracy, because he sees the US as a corporatocracy, in which there is no need for a plot, as politicians like Dick Cheney—who first was a self-professed "public servant" congressman, Secretary of Defense then served as the head of a construction company Halliburton before becoming Vice President—are alleged to be working under the same primary assumption as corporations: that maximization of profits is first priority, regardless of any social or environmental cost.

Yes - that's just it, and what so many miss who do see the wrongness going on. That's one of the things holding up public understanding of this mess: It's not a conspiracy, in the sense that its a deliberate machination of a small number of people, whether it's Jews, masons, the Bilderberg group, or whoever. It's simply the reverse of Adam Smith's "invisible hand" - an invisible fist, or boot, if you like. It's what happens when, instead of the free market or anarchy, you have government, or protection rackets, or myths, or obfuscation and widespread deceit. And these in turn come about when you disarm the mass of people. Turns out you can do it by deceit rather than violence - et voila! Snakes at the top, rather than great men and warriors.

How do we reverse the invisible boot? We re-arm, starting with information, health and strong networks. And the real biggie: courage. For standing aside and watching an evil go on, without intervening, is arguably a greater evil than that which is directly being acted out.


They make a desolation and call it peace.

Aaaand, it's gone

Male pride

Do men dress with such pride, care and swagger anymore?

Al Qaeda, aka Toilet Bowl

Turns out that "Al Qaeda" is not really a terrorist group but a database of international mujaheddin and arms smugglers used by the CIA and Saudis to funnel guerrillas, arms, and money into Soviet-occupied Afghanistan:

"The truth is, there is no Islamic army or terrorist group called Al Qaida. And any informed intelligence officer knows this. But there is a propaganda campaign to make the public believe in the presence of an identified entity representing the 'devil' only in order to drive the TV watcher to accept a unified international leadership for a war against terrorism. The country behind this propaganda is the US . . ." -- Former British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook

"Ana raicha Al Qaeda" is colloquial for "I'm going to the toilet". A very common and widespread use of the word "Al-Qaeda" in different Arab countries in the public language is for the toilet bowl.

Which is actually kind of funny.

The revolution is not being televised

It's worth watching Zeitgeist for a number of reasons. Whether you accept all of it or not, it will make you think. It's like the previously-touted Fall of the Republic, perhaps even better.
It's made up of 3 separate parts. Part 1 details the rise of religion, and is eye-opening. Part 2 is a kind of Loose Change thing, casting doubts on the official 9/11 story. But it's more convincing than Loose Change because it omits some of the more sloppy elements of said film, and doesn't bombard you with statements. Part 3 concerns the Fed.
When you take the 3 parts together, there is scope for tying them together in some way. For example, it could have explained how the elite evolved, as a kind of parasitic class that used superstition (at first), then religion, via all sorts of symbols, as a form of control.


I'm friends with an accountant who has told me some harrowing things, but none more so than what he has to say about charities. Most of the time, he says, he will see an organisation registered as a charity and know exactly what's going on. Most of these organisations are set up by criminals, and all of them are criminal in one way or another.
Look, they're tax-avoidance vehicles, pure and simple. There's no altruism, at least not at the top. They sucker in idealists to work for them at the bottom, and rake it in.
Charity these days is big business, and trendy too. But it's deeply wrong.
DK has written about this to an extent, but my point goes further than saying that some charities are fake because they take public money. They're all fake. End of story. As Milton Friedman has said, why is it inherently better to give money to charity that you could have used to better your own position, or that of your family? Or to invest in a worthy enterprise?
Let's put it this way. In the UK, charities reclaim the tax at the basic 20% rate, which due to the way the numbers work means they get 25% more than you donate (e.g. you give £50, the charity gets £62.50). Now, you might ask, whose money is that topping up the donation?
Why, it's the taxpayer, isn't it? And do you think it might be an open invitation to criminals and government cronies? The number of charities in the UK has exploded since New Labour took power. The people who benefit from this laugh at the masses who practice charitable giving.
And perhaps rightly so, because philanthropy is fine. Charity is not - it is too close to pity, and pity is a form of contempt. Charity is a religious concept, a synthetic one. As I wrote before, too many have dispensed with generosity in order to practice charity.

Angus Laundrettes

It was on one of my regular strolls through the West End of London that I yet again considered the conundrum that is the Aberdeen & Angus Steak House chain. It's a series of restaurants taking up prime real estate that is yet so bad that Jay Rayner, the restaurant critic of The Observer, has described it as having “the mass appeal of herpes but none of the laughs”.
Indeed, it is almost laughably bad, even looking in from the outside. Tacky, red, and empty.
If this doesn't say money-laundering, I don't know what does. I mean, the biggest lies are always dangled right in front of people noses. Even the KFC at Leicester Square has closed down. Yet the ASHes remain.
Did a little research on this, but didn't find much, just this:

The man behind the 23-strong chain, one Ali Shah, failed to respond to interview requests (he is notoriously media shy). One restaurant expert argued that the chain survived by catering for undiscriminating tourists (which didn't explain the apparent paucity of customers), while another suggested that it was all down to a cheap long-term deal on the premises (for which he had no proof).

In 2003 it was then reported that they had gone into administration. But then:

A Google search subsequently revealed that not only was the Aberdeen and Angus Steak House back - with fresh online reviews from customers complaining about everything from the use of tinned mushrooms to waiters clearing tables before meals had finished - but had been so for five years!

The startling development seems to have been covered by only two publications, one of which was The Estates Gazette, which explained in April 2003 that “a newly created private firm controlled by Noble Organisation, a Gateshead-based amusement arcade operator, had cherry-picked the most prominent Central London sites in the Aberdeen Steak House chain”.

Newly-created private firm? You don't say?

I hit the phones, although it quickly became evident that the Noble Organisation, a family firm best known for owning the Brighton Pier, would make Ali Shah seem as shy as Russell Brand. I rang one of the restaurants and was informed by an Eastern European voice that he was forbidden to give out the head office phone number. Another restaurant gave a contact number, but it was connected to a fax.

I left a message for David Biesterfield on his voicemail and he called back several hours later.

“Do you handle the Aberdeen and Angus Steak House?”


“How's business?”

“We are upgrading and refurbishing the restaurants.”

“Great. I'm interested in writing about the brand for The Times. Could you give me an idea how it manages to survive, given the - erm - obvious challenges?"

“We're not ready to talk just yet about that particular business.”

And that was the end of the conversation.

So let me get this straight. No attempt at publicising or marketing, no explanation, the most extraordinary secrecy. Does it sound like a free market operation? Or corporatocracy? I'd like to think that it's "honest" money laundering, ie a genuinely private company avoiding the government's theft. But it's too big, too blatant, and has all the usual signs of corporatism.
Naturally there's a deafening silence from the media, and even the reporter above ends with a glib, lame "joke", intended to undermine everything she just said:

But it was when I put the phone down and once again began to wonder whether I should extend my research into paying the firm a visit as a diner that I had a revelation. The Aberdeen and Angus Steak House's longevity is surely due to the low-level but perpetual trade of journalists, all trying to work out how on earth it survives. Think about it. It's the only possible explanation.

Of course, if she had said it's a fraud, an accounting shell, and come up with evidence, she may have ultimately lost her job.

More support for fats

Go keto:
In recent years, evidence has come from another quarter of the influence of diet on resistance to infection. I refer to the observations of Helmholz40 and Clark 41 on the curative effect of a ketogenic diet in many cases of urinary infection. It is true that the effectiveness of this therapy is regarded as depending on the actual excretion of ß-oxybutyric acid (Fuller42), and the acid reaction of the urine, but it would be surprising to me if these cereal-free and high vitamin A-containing diets commonly given to such patients had not the power of raising the resistance of the body to infection, apart from the ketogenesis they produce. Evidence of this nature ought to be examined and the use of such diets extended to other forms of infection than those of the urinary tract. The curative effect of diets devoid of cereal and rich in fat-soluble vitamins on dental caries (M. Mellanby and Pattison) has already been referred to (p. 25). It may prove that the best form of diet for combating sepsis is a combination of high vitamin qualities, especially of high fat-soluble vitamin content, with low cereal and a definite ketogenic action.

Friday, 26 March 2010

Might is right

You have to read this. Cover to cover. I don't know if it's libertarian, or what. But it strikes a chord that goes all the way through.

Courage, I say! Courage, not goodness, is the great desideratum — courage that requires neither tin horns, nor calcium lights, nor brass bands, nor shouting multitudes to call it into effective action.

But courage that goes its way ALONE, as undauntedly as when it marches to ‘victory or death’ amid the menacing stride of armed and bannered legions. Courage, that has made up its mind to conquer or — perish!

The EU must die

Amen to that. Even if Farage is still, ultimately, a politico.

Why the US is finished pt 3

Last Sunday the USA effectively socialised about one-fifth of their economy. Here's Peter Schiff ripping the idea to shreds. By the way, it's not exactly surprising that, since Americans are now more unhealthy than at any other time, the government wants a piece of the healthcare action.

Wednesday, 24 March 2010


John Myers:
So there doesn’t appear to be enough gold to satisfy demand, at least not at these prices. But there certainly has been an avalanche of money. Consider this: in the past half century the above ground levels of gold have doubled. Meanwhile M3, a broad measure of money, has risen from $300 billion to $10 trillion. In other words, there is twice the amount of gold as there was in 1960. But there are 30 times more dollars.

All of which leads me to think that Wall Street has it picture perfect once again; perfectly wrong. The real bubble is with paper assets. The only silver lining in any of it is that it will blow Wall Street to smithereens—right where it belongs.

I like that. Blow Wall Street to smithereens. And it will. We're approaching the end of an age, and you can help by buying gold. Personally I use bullionvault, but there are many ways of doing it. It will go to $2000, but it could go much, much further once the corrections start to happen.

Tuesday, 23 March 2010

Friday, 19 March 2010

We have nothing to lose but our fun

Just read another interview with the incomparable Doug Casey, about "fun."
Now this is a matter which is perhaps closest to my heart, and I think really encapsulates everything else that is going on in the new world order of things.
Alcohol, tobacco, firearms, sex, drugs, rock n roll. Are there any more glorious six terms in the world? It's pretty much the antithesis of Celente's Harvard, Princeton, Yale, bullets, bombs, banks.
It is these things that make life worth living, along with food. And yet they are regulated, taxed, "educated" against, banned or otherwise pushed underground.
It's a big subject, and I admit it's making me angry just writing this. But I'd like to start with smoking.
Because I suspect that it is not bad for your health. And I know for sure that it should not be banned anywhere.

L: What would you say to people who don't want to breathe other people's smoke? Isn't it a violation of their rights when a smoker fills the air with fumes they don't want to breathe?

Doug: It might be, but it might not. It's a matter of property rights. If someone comes into your house and blows smoke in your face, that certainly is a violation of your rights. But if you're in a restaurant or airplane and the owners are okay with smoking, no one is violating your rights. You have the right to leave or fly another airline, but you don't have a right to impose your personal air quality standards on others, in their places. In these types of situations, it's not the smoke that's the problem, it's unclear property rights.

And I like what he says a bit before that:

It seems like all these chimpanzees get a new meme in their heads, and that becomes the new way it is. Fashion totally overrules principle.

So the smoking ban is a way of pushing bar and pub owners around, and generally undermining freedom, like They do, with a pseudo-scientific idea backing it up, that it's bad for you, and bad for those around you.

Ah yes, the science. Now, I'm reluctant to get into this, because even if they released mustard gas the government would have no business banning them. In fact, if they released mustard gas the government would be making a killing selling them to the CIA and the Taliban. They have no business banning anything.

But I'm becoming more and more aware of a gap in any persuasive evidence that smoking causes lung cancer, or any illness. Diet and food, yes. Smoking? Show me the evidence. Given that we spent 100,000 years in the palaeolithic era sucking up cooking fire fumes, and that the most successful of our ancestors did this most often, I have a hard time with a few lit sticks being a big deal.

There is a caveat to this. I suspect that because of the intervention of government with their regulations and so on into the tobacco industry, it has created large conglomerates (discussed here) and perverse incentives which have decreased the quality of the cigarettes. They add ammonia and god knows what else, in order to get tobacco into the blood stream quicker, and make them burn faster. This is why I smoke roll-ups.

Anyway, there's a great online book by Lauren Colby which is worth a read, and contains a few gems:

There is an Internet News Group devoted to smoking (alt.smokers). Recently, a participant called the Office of Smoking or Health, in an effort to find out how the government arrives at its estimate of 450,000 annual smoking related deaths. After repeated calls to different individuals within the government, it turned out that nobody really knew how the figures are compiled.
Quite frankly, I do not know whether there is a risk to smoking, or not. I do know that "risk" is not the same as causation. Philosophers, from Plato to Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, have been fascinated with the word "cause", and have written many learned treatises on the subject. My great grandfather was working on a bridge construction site in 1927, when a careless driver jostled him. My great-grandfather became startled, lost his balance, and fell through a hole in the bridge. Not being able to swim, he drowned in the river below. Was the cause of death (a) drowning; or (b) the actions of the careless driver; or (c) the loss of balance; or (d) the existence of the hole in the bridge flooring; or (e) not being able to swim?
In this book, I have shown that the case for a smoking/lung cancer connection is by no means proven. Certainly, there is no case whatever for a connection between ETS (second hand smoke) and any disease, nor is there are any case for a connection between cigar and pipe smoking and lung cancer. The case for a connection between cigarette smoking and lung cancer rests on the slim reed of a science called epidemiology. But all epidemiological studies, predicated as they are on statistics, are subject to so many co-factors and confounding factors as to be subject to innumerable different interpretations.
You may want to refer to this page also, which refers to sources that indicate smoking may alleviate or help prevent Parkinson's, TB, skin cancer, breast cancers, Alzheimer's, schizophrenia, and others. I'm not saying these claims are "right" either, just that they are hypotheses just as valid as "smoking is bad for you."

A word on that last hypothesis. As Karl Popper has said, a good hypothesis is one that can be falsified. The above hypothesis has been falsified. Take a look at the list of the ten longest-lived people ever, in the world. The top two smoked for most of their lives. And if more information was available (I don't have time to research them all) you would probably find that 5 or 6 of the others also did.

So this falsifies the theory that smoking is bad for you. Well, some may say that they would have lived longer than that if they had not smoked. But that doesn't really wash, does it? We've had billions of attempts at creating long-lived people, and these are the best we've come up with. End of story.

I wouldn't mind if it were just commonly wrongly assumed that cigarettes were bad for you - because they would then have more of an edgy, sexy image, and that would benefit me. But it's that Big Government thing again, sucking all reason to live from our bones. And, scarily, it's happening all over the world.

Thursday, 18 March 2010

Why China won't rule the world pt 3

Still there are people going on about China - even guys like like Jim Rogers who should know better. Celente puts it well here. Their per capita income ranks below Albania's, somewhere around the 100th mark. They're a totalitarian travesty:

Cool Aid?

Another good one from Dalrymple, who, like me, is baffled by the belief that foreign aid is a "good thing":
The New York Times on March 10 quoted a United Nations report to the effect that aid given to Somalia was not reaching the people most in need of it, that is to say the malnourished and the starving.
I would not be telling you the truth if I said that, when I read the news, you could have knocked me down with a feather. Can there be anyone left in the world who thinks that aid will go only, or even mainly, to the people most in need of it? By comparison with such a belief, faith in Father Christmas is a model of rational expectation. At least the presents arrive, even if Father Christmas doesn’t.
...It is therefore not in the least surprising that aid to Somalia is not reaching the neediest; it would be very surprising, indeed it would be absolutely astonishing, if it were. Neither is it surprising, however, that it should be reported as if it were surprising (unsurprising news not being news). For otherwise, the fact that aid does not reach the neediest would be a threat to our sense of power, our feelings of omnipotence. How could a few lousy uneducated Somalian gunmen be thwarting our infinite benevolence?
Same goes for charity as a whole. As Camus said, "Too many have dispensed with generosity in order to practice charity."
But that's another story.


For all those who think that the housing boom was caused by a "shortage of housing":
With boom times returning to WA, the housing market is once again overheating. The median house price in Perth is now $512,000, according to the December quarter figures from Australian Property Monitors, putting it beyond the reach of any new homeowner without substantial savings or parental support.
It is not difficult to pinpoint the cause of this price escalation.

During the second half of last year, new lots approved for building in Perth and Peel were running at an annual rate of under 9000. This is extraordinarily low. Even in the mid 2000s, when supply was being far outpaced by demand, annual new lot releases were running at more than 15,000.
The reasons for this were shown to lie squarely with the Government's land-starvation policy. The Government just won't allow enough blocks to be developed for housing, thereby preventing competition from driving down prices.

This has stemmed from unfounded fears of the high cost of providing new infrastructure, a mania for central planning and groundless opposition to urban sprawl in a State that has more natural bush and farmland than anywhere else in the world.

Government resistance to allowing land to be used for housing has also been abetted by ministerial dreams of creating a compact city with teeming inner suburbs populated by bohemian theatregoers and by downright contempt for new-homebuyers' preference for McMansions on individual lots.
OK, so we have Western Australia. The most remote least populated area on earth, barring the two poles. All that land, just waiting to be put to use.
But they're not allowed.
So yes, there is a shortage of houses. And no doubt, the government might spin that and say, look, we're going to build a bunch of new houses! In urban areas, so we can all be bohos! But, as with the Credit Crunch and every other damn thing, they were the cause of the problem in the first place. They created a shortage of houses. And they will make it worse with their so-called fixes.

State jobbies

More brilliance from the Daily Mash:

THE majority of the UK workforce do not really know what they are supposed to be doing while they are at the office, according to new research.

The Institute for Studies found that 64% of employees turn up and sit at a computer and then stay there until it feels like it is okay to leave.

Roy Hobbs, a person who turns up most days from Hatfield, said: "I think I'm supposed to be head of, I dunno, some personnel bullshit thing.

"Or maybe team leader, or assistant product supervisor. Fuck knows. To be honest, I can't remember what it said on the advert.

"A couple of years ago I filled in some form, told the normal amount of lies during a 30 minute interview, they said something about pensions and then I went for a couple of pints."

He added: "I get a lot of emails from someone called Tony who goes on about purchasing or something and sometimes asks me about my kids. I forward them to someone called Ian. Or I ignore them.

"Otherwise I just type the names of random dangerous animals into Google. I think it's going well."

Ah, non-jobs. Kind of reminds me of North Korea. That's nice, isn't it?

Cake returns

From The Daily Mash:

Schools urge government to make drug slightly more expensive and a lot more dangerous
"We're only trying not to help," says National Association of Head Teachers

Pretty much sums up my views on drugs, including the Brass Eye-ish hysteria over mephedrone.

Ayn Rand Land

I've never got Ayn Rand, and "followers." To fully disclose, I have not read her, so what I have heard is second-hand. But I've read enough libertarian literature to get what she is about.
And why have I not read her? I started one (The Fountainhead), but it was badly-written, verbose and boring. And for me, that says all I need to know about her. It was self-absorbed, not really interested in the reader. Is that then "noble selfishness?"
Anyway, she supposedly venerated "capitalist" types like railroad owners (railroad owners?!) and CEOs of big corporations. Greed is good, altruism is bad, therefore these guys are heroes.
There's just one problem: Corporations have nothing to do with free markets! Never had, never will. Railroads were built through private funding? No, it was the taxpayer. They were just another piece of state apparatus. I wrote about this before, and it seems to be an idea that needs to be repeated over and over until people start getting it. Worlds such as those described by Rand are not capitalism. It's fascism. The merger of state and corporate powers.
A real free market would look something like a street market: lots of individual stalls, few brands or big hitters. But it would be busy, bustling, self-regulating and - well - happy, and sad, and messy, aspirational, and full of intent.
Dalrymple wrote about Rand, and although his criticism is not the same as mine, he still gets the same kind of vibe from her and her cultish followers. This appatrently led to quite a few hysterical comments. Hardly surprising, as they are a confused bunch. And not libertarians, at all.

ICANN do it

This is interesting:

Canon Inc. announced today that it will begin the acquisition process for the top-level domain name ".canon," based on the new generic Top Level Domain (gTLD) registration system.

The non-profit organization ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers), which maintains and regulates the Internet's addressing system, has rigorously evaluated the current gTLD string of characters' societal value, utilization purpose, and use in an organization's operations. At its International Public Meeting held in June 2008, however, ICANN approved the relaxation and liberalization of the new gTLD system adoption rules.

And they go on to say:

The new gTLD system is expected to allow a company name, brand name, geographic region, or service type to be used as a gTLD within website and e-mail addresses.

This could change the game further, in a good way too. ICANN is at last allowing some flexibility to the system, and it can only be a good thing.

School's Out

From Personal Liberty:

Public schools today are crime-ridden, unhealthful places where children are exposed to sex, drugs and diseases and taught a sanitized version of American history and a loyalty to and dependence on big government, according to James Ostrowski in his book, Government Schools Are Bad For Your Kids.

Actually, I've got nothing against sex or drugs, except that most drugs these days are pale shadows of what they should be (because they're illegal), and I suspect that most kids at school don't get enough sex - the alphas will be getting it all (see Roissy). But the dependence on Big Government is real, and will kill all that is worth preserving in the human spirit.

It ought to be mentioned that it's not just government schools. All schools in this country have to conform to a curriculum. They're all subsidiaries then really, pumping out the same propaganda.

Homeschool your kids. If you love them at all, homeschool them. Find a way.

RIP Alex Chilton 1950-2010

Tuesday, 2 March 2010

King of the World

Possibly the best song ever produced. Listen to it LOUD.

Monday, 1 March 2010