Tuesday, 27 April 2010
Black Dog Fact Mix
The Black Dog FACT MixTracks:
01. Purity Device – The Thought Police (Bitten By The Black Dog)
02. The Black Dog – Tunnels Ov Set (Autechre Remix)
03. The Black Dog – Dada Mindstab (Live Mix)
04. The Black Dog – Future Delay Thinking (Live Mix)
05. Grievous Angel – Billy Preston (Bitten By The Black Dog)
06. The Black Dog – Floods (Surgeon Remix)
07. The Black Dog – Siiiipher (Bass Soldier Remix)
08. The Black Dog – Northern Electronic Soul (Claro Intelecto Remix)
09. The Black Dog – CCTV Nation (Redshape Remix)
10. The Black Dog – CCTV Nation (Slam Remix)
11. The Black Dog – Skin Clock (Silicon Soul Remix)
12. The Black Dog – Train By The Autobahn (8 Mile Remix by Rob Hood)
13. LFO – LFO (Bitten On The Sly By The Black Dog)
14. Slam – Azure (The Black Dog’s Corned Beefy Remix)
Download
You should always know in which corner you celebrate your goal!
Croatian footballer Tomislav Bosec celebrates his goal in front of the antagonistic fans and gets the answer...
or as the Croatian says:
"Na utakmici 26.kola Prve HNL između Zadra i Intera, Tomislav Bosec je nakon što je postigao pobjednićki gol za Inter, išao ga je proslaviti, no na krivoj tribini, na kraju je dobio samo šamar od jednog navijaća Zadra."
Greetings
Hi. I just wanted to say hello to y'all with this first post. Mona invited me to blog w/ you, so I'm going to give it a shot. I'll probably lurk for a short time until I get a feel for this thing.
Monday, 26 April 2010
This is...frightening (Thanx Stan?)
Wanna see what you're friends are liking on the internet at the moment?
Of course you do!!!
http://likebutton.me
(Actually my son just went into the html and if you log out of FB, nothing happens)
http://likebutton.me
(Actually my son just went into the html and if you log out of FB, nothing happens)
Net filter patronises the digital generation
Illustration: Robin Cowcher
Would somebody please not think of the children. At least not while we are discussing internet censorship. This may sound like an odd request given that, historically, almost all censorship debates have pivoted around children and the need to protect them. But moral panics and fear-mongering campaigns concerning "the helpless children" often muddy what could otherwise be rational, evidenced-based debates.
And there is no easier way to get an otherwise progressive, reasonable parent to endorse an illogical, anti-democratic censorship regime than by appealing to (and exploiting) their deep-seated fears concerning their children.
But here's the thing. Censorship debates over child safety have little to do with actual flesh and blood children. If they did then they would acknowledge and include the voices and views of young people and they would recognise the competencies and strengths that children bring to online interactions.
After all, while children may be vulnerable to certain elements of the internet, they are typically more digitally savvy than the rest of us, precisely because they have grown up with the World Wide Web.
But conservative moralisers rarely acknowledge this. Instead they tend to hinge their arguments on the patronising, victimised view of children as inherently vulnerable and corruptible. Even worse, by using the figure of the innocent child as a political pawn to advance their own agenda, conservatives are guilty of exploiting children.
And when you think about it, it is a cunning move because anyone who disagrees with the censorship plan is instantly cast as being anti-child welfare, or worse, pro-paedophilia. But this only silences and skews debate.
As someone who lobbies fiercely for the rights of survivors of sexual assault and young people in general, I can say that the best way to protect children is to stop talking about them as though they are vulnerable Oliver Twist-type caricatures awaiting corruption by the big bad world. Instead, we should start talking with our children and empowering them by building on their strengths and by providing them with practical tools to negotiate the online world.
And here is the sad reality. The proposed censorship plan is not going to stop paedophilia or child exploitation. This is because most paedophilia is committed by a person who is known to the child and who has direct access to the child — most often this is a family member.
Similarly most of the illegal pornographic content on the internet is actually being transmitted through decentralised, peer-to-peer networks and these networks will continue to operate irrespective of the proposed filter.
In short, Senator Conroy's proposed censorship plan is not going to succeed in what it has been designed to achieve. It will be an expensive, unpopular mistake.
It is important, though, that we continue to have conversations about children, pornography and unwanted sexual advances.
In recent years the stereotype of the trenchcoat-clad paedophile who lurks around public parks armed with lollies and other enticing sweets has been replaced by the equally cliched image of the internet-addicted paedophile who trolls chatrooms looking for vulnerable children.
There is no question that sexual predators use the internet to groom potential victims. There is also no question that paedophiles are using the internet to network and to share resources as well as the hideous tips and techniques they use.
But when talking to young people about online interactions, it is important that we keep in mind the fact that the most frequent unwanted sexual advances made against young people online, are actually being made by their peers.
As adults we often dismiss such advances as being harmless sexual socialisation and flirtation. But there is no reason to assume that it is easier for young people to negotiate and deflect the unwanted advances made by peers compared to those made by strangers — no matter how calculating those strangers are. It is also problematic to assume that those advances are not experienced as intimidating and coercive, simply because they are being made by their peers.
On the contrary knowing how to negotiate a sexual advance made by a peer or a friend may be far more difficult than telling a complete stranger to back off.
Fear of rejection, fear of ostracism within peer networks, and fear of appearing prudish make it very difficult for young people to navigate the complex social dynamics that frame their online lives.
While it's important that we remain vigilant about adult sexual offenders then, it is also important that we acknowledge the wide range of experiences that young people have, and that we do not ignore certain behaviours simply because those behaviours don't conform to out stereotyped views of what sexual offences look like.
It is also important that we don't demonise the internet. For young people everywhere online communication and social networking sites form an important part of social identity construction and it's not realistic to simply ban children from connecting and communicating online.
The answer, as usual, is that we should talk with young people, listen to their concerns and allow them the space to think through and reflect on their own experiences. Navigating internet traffic and sexual encounters is never easy, but that's precisely why we need to start young by arming children and teens with as much age-appropriate information as possible. Most importantly, it's vital that hysteria and panic is replaced by education and reasoned discussion.
Nina Funnell @'The Age'
'Merely a man of letters'
On April 14, 1976, Denis Dutton and Michael Palencia-Roth, both editors of Philosophy and Literature, along with their colleague, Lawrence I. Berkove of the University of Michigan – Dearborn, interviewed Jorge Luis Borges at Michigan State University, where he was visiting professor for the winter term. The transcript below contains the central and substantive portions of that conversation, which was conducted in English. It has recently been re-edited for greater detail and accuracy from a newly digitized version of the 1976 recording. This Philosophy and Literature interview is made available online here for the first time. You may listen to an MP3 file of the original conversation HERE. Listening time is just over fifteen minutes.
Denis Dutton: Why don’t you tell us about some of the philosophers who have influenced your work, in whom you’ve been the most interested?
Jorge Luis Borges: Well, I think that’s an easy one. I think you might talk in terms of two: those would be Berkeley and Schopenhauer. But I suppose Hume might be worked in also, because, after all, of course Hume refutes Berkeley. But really, he comes from Berkeley — even if Berkeley comes from Locke. You might think of Locke, of Berkeley, and of Hume as being three links in an argument. But when somebody refutes somebody else in philosophy, he’s carrying on the argument.
Michael Palencia-Roth: Where would Schopenhauer come in?
Borges: Schopenhauer is very different from Hume. Of course, Schopenhauer had his idea of the Will. That is not to be found in Hume. But of course in the case of Berkeley it is different. I suppose he thought of God as being aware of all things all the time, I mean if I don’t get him wrong. If we go away, does this room disappear? No, it doesn’t, of course, because God is thinking about it.
Now, in the case of Schopenhauer, I was rereading Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung, The World as Will and Idea, and I was rather taken aback, or rather baffled I should say, or puzzled by something that keeps on recurring in Schopenhauer. Of course it may have been a slip of the pen, but as he goes back to it, and as he was a very careful writer, I wonder if it is a slip of the pen. Well, for example, Schopenhauer begins by saying that all this, the universe, the stars, the spaces in between, the planets, this planet, those things have no existence, except in the mind which perceives them — no?
MP-R: Yes.
Borges: But then, to my surprise — and I suppose you can explain this to me, since you are philosophers and I am not — what Schopenhauer says is that all those things have no existence except in the brain. And that the universe — I remember these words, I don’t think I’m inventing them now — “ist ein Gehirnphänomen,” that the world is a cerebral phenomenon. Now, when I read that I was baffled. Because, of course, if you think of the universe, I suppose the brain is as much a part of the external world as the stars or the moon. Because the brain after all is a system of — I don’t know — of visual, of tactile, perceptions. But he keeps on insisting on the brain.
MP-R: Yes.
Borges: But I don’t think, for example, that Bishop Berkeley insists on the brain, or Hume, who would have insisted on the mind, consciousness….
DD: People sometimes say that they see Berkeley in stories like “Orbis Tertius.”
Borges: Yes, I suppose they do. Well, of course. But in that story I was led by literary means also.
DD: How do you distinguish the literary from the philosophical means in that story? Could you explain that?
Borges: Oh, well, yes, I’ll explain very easily…. Encyclopedias have been, I’d say, my life’s chief reading. I have always been interested in encyclopedias. Well, I used to go to the Biblioteca Nacional in Buenos Aires — and since I was so shy, I felt I could not cope with asking for a book, or a librarian, so I looked on the shelves for the Encyclopædia Britannica. Of course, afterwards, I had that book at home, by my hand. And then I would pick up any chance volume and I would read it. And then one night I was richly rewarded, because I read all about the Druses, Dryden, and the Druids — a treasure trove, no? — all in the same volume, of course, “Dr–.”
Then I came to the idea of how fine it would be to think of an encyclopedia of an actual world, and then of an encyclopedia, a very rigorous one of course, of an imaginary world, where everything should be linked. Where, for example, you would have, let’s say, a language and then a literature that went with the language, and then a history with it, and so on. Then I thought, well, I’d write a story of the fancy encyclopedia. Then of course that would need many different people to write it, to get together and to discuss many things — the mathematicians, philosophers, men of letters, architects, engineers, then also novelists or historians. Then, as I needed a quite different world from ours — it wasn’t enough to invent fancy names — I said, why not a world based on, let’s say, Berkeleyan ideas?
DD: A world in which Berkeley is common sense instead of Descartes?
Borges: Yes, that’s it. Then I wrote that story, “Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius” that day, which has attracted many readers. And of course, the whole thing was based on the theory of idealism, the idea of there being no things but only happenings, of there being no nouns but only verbs, of there being no things but only perceptions.…
Lawrence I. Berkove: “Tlön” is a good example of one of your stories where, however the story ends, the reader is encouraged to continue applying your ideas.
Borges: Well, I hope so. But I wonder if they are my ideas. Because really I am not a thinker. I have used the philosophers’ ideas for my own private literary purposes, but I don’t think that I’m a thinker. I suppose that my thinking has been done for me by Berkeley, by Hume, by Schopenhauer, by Mauthner perhaps.
MP-R: You say you’re not a thinker…
Borges: No, what I mean to say is that I have no personal system of philosophy. I never attempt to do that. I am merely a man of letters. In the same way, for example that — well, of course, I shouldn’t perhaps choose this as an example — in the same way that Dante used theology for the purpose of poetry, or Milton used theology for the purposes of his poetry, why shouldn’t I use philosophy, especially idealistic philosophy — philosophy to which I was attracted — for the purposes of writing a tale, of writing a story? I suppose that is allowable, no?
DD: You share one thing certainly with philosophers, and that is a fascination with perplexity, with paradox.
Borges: Oh yes, of course — well I suppose philosophy springs from our perplexity. If you’ve read what I may be allowed to call “my works” — if you’ve read my sketches, whatever they are — you’d find that there is a very obvious symbol of perplexity to be found all the time, and that is the maze. I find that a very obvious symbol of perplexity. A maze and amazement go together, no? A symbol of amazement would be the maze.
DD: But philosophers seem not content ever to merely be confronted with perplexity, they want answers, systems.
Borges: Well, they’re right.
DD: They’re right?
Borges: Well, perhaps no systems are attainable, but the search for a system is very interesting.
MP-R: Would you call your work a search for a system?
Borges: No, I wouldn’t be as ambitious as all that. I would call it, well, not science fiction, but rather the fiction of philosophy, or the fiction of dreams. And also, I’m greatly interested in solipsism, which is only an extreme form of idealism. It is strange, though, that all the people who write on solipsism write about it in order to refute it. I haven’t seen a single book in favor of solipsism. I know what you would want to say: since there is only one dreamer, why do you write a book? But if there is only one dreamer, why could you not dream about writing a book?
DD: Bertrand Russell once suggested that all the solipsists ought to get together and form a solipsist association.
Borges: Yes, he wrote very cleverly about solipsism. And so did Bradley in his Appearance and Reality. And then I read a book called Il Solipsismo by an Italian writer, where he says that the whole system is a proof of the egoism, of the selfishness of this period. That’s idiotic. I’ve never thought of solipsism in that way.
MP-R: How do you think of solipsism?
Borges: Well, I suppose that solipsism is unavoidable.
MP-R: Avoidable or unavoidable?
Borges : I should say, it’s unavoidable in a logical way, since nobody can believe in it. It is a bit like what Hume says of Berkeley: “His arguments admit of no refutation and produce no conviction.” Solipsism admits of no refutation and produces no conviction….
DD: Do you think that it is possible then for a story to represent a philosophical position more effectively than a philosopher can argue for it?
Borges: I have never thought of that, but I suppose you’re right, Sir. I suppose you — yes, yes, I think you’re right. Because as — I don’t know who said that, was it Bernard Shaw? — he said, arguments convince nobody. No, Emerson. He said, arguments convince nobody. And I suppose he was right, even if you think of proofs for the existence of God, for example — no? In that case, if arguments convince nobody, a man may be convinced by parables or fables or what? Or fictions. Those are far more convincing than the syllogism — and they are, I suppose. Well, of course, when I think of something in terms of Jesus Christ. As far as I remember, he never used arguments; he used style, he used certain metaphors. It’s very strange — yes, and he always used very striking sentences. He would not say, I don’t come to bring peace but war — “I do not come to bring peace but a sword.” The Christ, he thought in parables. Well, according to — I think that it was Blake who said that a man should be — I mean, if he is a Christian — should be not only just but he should be intelligent ... he should also be an artist, since Christ had been teaching art through his own way of preaching, because every one of the sentences of Christ, if not every single utterance of Christ, has a literary value, and may be thought of as a metaphor or as a parable.
DD: What do you think ultimately, then, separates the philosophical from the literary temperament, if they share these things in common?
Borges: I suppose a philosopher goes in for a rigorous way of thinking, and I suppose a writer is also interested in narratives, he’s telling tales, with metaphors.
MP-R: Can a narrative, especially a short narrative, be rigorous in a philosophical sense?
Borges: I suppose it could be. Of course, in that case it would be a parable. I remember when I read a biography of Oscar Wilde by Hesketh Pearson. Then there was a long discussion going on about predestination and free will. And he asked Wilde what he made of free will. Then he answered in a story. The story seemed somewhat irrelevant, but it wasn’t. He said — yes, yes, yes, some nails, pins, and needles lived in the neighborhood of a magnet, and one of them said, “I think we should pay a visit to the magnet.” And the other said, “I think it is our duty to visit the magnet.” The other said, “This must be done right now. No delay can be allowed.” Then when they were saying those things, without being aware of it, they were all rushing towards the magnet, who smiled because he knew that they were coming to visit him. You can imagine a magnet smiling. You see, there Wilde gave his opinion, and his opinion was that we think we are free agents, but of course we’re not….
But I would like to make it clear that if any ideas are to be found in what I write, those ideas came after the writing. I mean, I began by the writing, I began by the story, I began with the dream, if you want to call it that. And then afterwards, perhaps, some idea came of it. But I didn’t begin, as I say, by the moral and then writing a fable to prove it.
Denis Dutton: Why don’t you tell us about some of the philosophers who have influenced your work, in whom you’ve been the most interested?
Jorge Luis Borges: Well, I think that’s an easy one. I think you might talk in terms of two: those would be Berkeley and Schopenhauer. But I suppose Hume might be worked in also, because, after all, of course Hume refutes Berkeley. But really, he comes from Berkeley — even if Berkeley comes from Locke. You might think of Locke, of Berkeley, and of Hume as being three links in an argument. But when somebody refutes somebody else in philosophy, he’s carrying on the argument.
Michael Palencia-Roth: Where would Schopenhauer come in?
Borges: Schopenhauer is very different from Hume. Of course, Schopenhauer had his idea of the Will. That is not to be found in Hume. But of course in the case of Berkeley it is different. I suppose he thought of God as being aware of all things all the time, I mean if I don’t get him wrong. If we go away, does this room disappear? No, it doesn’t, of course, because God is thinking about it.
 |
Jorge Luis Borges, mid-1970s |
MP-R: Yes.
Borges: But then, to my surprise — and I suppose you can explain this to me, since you are philosophers and I am not — what Schopenhauer says is that all those things have no existence except in the brain. And that the universe — I remember these words, I don’t think I’m inventing them now — “ist ein Gehirnphänomen,” that the world is a cerebral phenomenon. Now, when I read that I was baffled. Because, of course, if you think of the universe, I suppose the brain is as much a part of the external world as the stars or the moon. Because the brain after all is a system of — I don’t know — of visual, of tactile, perceptions. But he keeps on insisting on the brain.
MP-R: Yes.
Borges: But I don’t think, for example, that Bishop Berkeley insists on the brain, or Hume, who would have insisted on the mind, consciousness….
DD: People sometimes say that they see Berkeley in stories like “Orbis Tertius.”
Borges: Yes, I suppose they do. Well, of course. But in that story I was led by literary means also.
DD: How do you distinguish the literary from the philosophical means in that story? Could you explain that?
Borges: Oh, well, yes, I’ll explain very easily…. Encyclopedias have been, I’d say, my life’s chief reading. I have always been interested in encyclopedias. Well, I used to go to the Biblioteca Nacional in Buenos Aires — and since I was so shy, I felt I could not cope with asking for a book, or a librarian, so I looked on the shelves for the Encyclopædia Britannica. Of course, afterwards, I had that book at home, by my hand. And then I would pick up any chance volume and I would read it. And then one night I was richly rewarded, because I read all about the Druses, Dryden, and the Druids — a treasure trove, no? — all in the same volume, of course, “Dr–.”
Then I came to the idea of how fine it would be to think of an encyclopedia of an actual world, and then of an encyclopedia, a very rigorous one of course, of an imaginary world, where everything should be linked. Where, for example, you would have, let’s say, a language and then a literature that went with the language, and then a history with it, and so on. Then I thought, well, I’d write a story of the fancy encyclopedia. Then of course that would need many different people to write it, to get together and to discuss many things — the mathematicians, philosophers, men of letters, architects, engineers, then also novelists or historians. Then, as I needed a quite different world from ours — it wasn’t enough to invent fancy names — I said, why not a world based on, let’s say, Berkeleyan ideas?
DD: A world in which Berkeley is common sense instead of Descartes?
Borges: Yes, that’s it. Then I wrote that story, “Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius” that day, which has attracted many readers. And of course, the whole thing was based on the theory of idealism, the idea of there being no things but only happenings, of there being no nouns but only verbs, of there being no things but only perceptions.…
Lawrence I. Berkove: “Tlön” is a good example of one of your stories where, however the story ends, the reader is encouraged to continue applying your ideas.
Borges: Well, I hope so. But I wonder if they are my ideas. Because really I am not a thinker. I have used the philosophers’ ideas for my own private literary purposes, but I don’t think that I’m a thinker. I suppose that my thinking has been done for me by Berkeley, by Hume, by Schopenhauer, by Mauthner perhaps.
MP-R: You say you’re not a thinker…
Borges: No, what I mean to say is that I have no personal system of philosophy. I never attempt to do that. I am merely a man of letters. In the same way, for example that — well, of course, I shouldn’t perhaps choose this as an example — in the same way that Dante used theology for the purpose of poetry, or Milton used theology for the purposes of his poetry, why shouldn’t I use philosophy, especially idealistic philosophy — philosophy to which I was attracted — for the purposes of writing a tale, of writing a story? I suppose that is allowable, no?
DD: You share one thing certainly with philosophers, and that is a fascination with perplexity, with paradox.
Borges: Oh yes, of course — well I suppose philosophy springs from our perplexity. If you’ve read what I may be allowed to call “my works” — if you’ve read my sketches, whatever they are — you’d find that there is a very obvious symbol of perplexity to be found all the time, and that is the maze. I find that a very obvious symbol of perplexity. A maze and amazement go together, no? A symbol of amazement would be the maze.
DD: But philosophers seem not content ever to merely be confronted with perplexity, they want answers, systems.
Borges: Well, they’re right.
DD: They’re right?
Borges: Well, perhaps no systems are attainable, but the search for a system is very interesting.
MP-R: Would you call your work a search for a system?
Borges: No, I wouldn’t be as ambitious as all that. I would call it, well, not science fiction, but rather the fiction of philosophy, or the fiction of dreams. And also, I’m greatly interested in solipsism, which is only an extreme form of idealism. It is strange, though, that all the people who write on solipsism write about it in order to refute it. I haven’t seen a single book in favor of solipsism. I know what you would want to say: since there is only one dreamer, why do you write a book? But if there is only one dreamer, why could you not dream about writing a book?
DD: Bertrand Russell once suggested that all the solipsists ought to get together and form a solipsist association.
Borges: Yes, he wrote very cleverly about solipsism. And so did Bradley in his Appearance and Reality. And then I read a book called Il Solipsismo by an Italian writer, where he says that the whole system is a proof of the egoism, of the selfishness of this period. That’s idiotic. I’ve never thought of solipsism in that way.
MP-R: How do you think of solipsism?
Borges: Well, I suppose that solipsism is unavoidable.
MP-R: Avoidable or unavoidable?
Borges : I should say, it’s unavoidable in a logical way, since nobody can believe in it. It is a bit like what Hume says of Berkeley: “His arguments admit of no refutation and produce no conviction.” Solipsism admits of no refutation and produces no conviction….
DD: Do you think that it is possible then for a story to represent a philosophical position more effectively than a philosopher can argue for it?
Borges: I have never thought of that, but I suppose you’re right, Sir. I suppose you — yes, yes, I think you’re right. Because as — I don’t know who said that, was it Bernard Shaw? — he said, arguments convince nobody. No, Emerson. He said, arguments convince nobody. And I suppose he was right, even if you think of proofs for the existence of God, for example — no? In that case, if arguments convince nobody, a man may be convinced by parables or fables or what? Or fictions. Those are far more convincing than the syllogism — and they are, I suppose. Well, of course, when I think of something in terms of Jesus Christ. As far as I remember, he never used arguments; he used style, he used certain metaphors. It’s very strange — yes, and he always used very striking sentences. He would not say, I don’t come to bring peace but war — “I do not come to bring peace but a sword.” The Christ, he thought in parables. Well, according to — I think that it was Blake who said that a man should be — I mean, if he is a Christian — should be not only just but he should be intelligent ... he should also be an artist, since Christ had been teaching art through his own way of preaching, because every one of the sentences of Christ, if not every single utterance of Christ, has a literary value, and may be thought of as a metaphor or as a parable.
DD: What do you think ultimately, then, separates the philosophical from the literary temperament, if they share these things in common?
Borges: I suppose a philosopher goes in for a rigorous way of thinking, and I suppose a writer is also interested in narratives, he’s telling tales, with metaphors.
MP-R: Can a narrative, especially a short narrative, be rigorous in a philosophical sense?
Borges: I suppose it could be. Of course, in that case it would be a parable. I remember when I read a biography of Oscar Wilde by Hesketh Pearson. Then there was a long discussion going on about predestination and free will. And he asked Wilde what he made of free will. Then he answered in a story. The story seemed somewhat irrelevant, but it wasn’t. He said — yes, yes, yes, some nails, pins, and needles lived in the neighborhood of a magnet, and one of them said, “I think we should pay a visit to the magnet.” And the other said, “I think it is our duty to visit the magnet.” The other said, “This must be done right now. No delay can be allowed.” Then when they were saying those things, without being aware of it, they were all rushing towards the magnet, who smiled because he knew that they were coming to visit him. You can imagine a magnet smiling. You see, there Wilde gave his opinion, and his opinion was that we think we are free agents, but of course we’re not….
But I would like to make it clear that if any ideas are to be found in what I write, those ideas came after the writing. I mean, I began by the writing, I began by the story, I began with the dream, if you want to call it that. And then afterwards, perhaps, some idea came of it. But I didn’t begin, as I say, by the moral and then writing a fable to prove it.
****
This ends the recorded portion of the conversation with Borges, though that conversation began earlier and also continued for several minutes more in the room, as well as later over lunch.In fact I am very, very happy!
SageFrancisSFR Last night I did a short set @ the Prospector in LBC. Upon entering the club I went to the restroom. A guy was in there. I apologized &...
SageFrancisSFR I waited for him to get out. Once he got out he asked me if I was gay. He was all mad I saw him standing at a urinal. So I said "yes"
Result! Virginia Revokes Hitler-Saluting License Plate
Virginia Revokes Hitler-Saluting License PlateThe Virginia DMV recalled this now-infamous racist Ford F-150 license plate after negative buzz on the web pointed out the coded pro-Hitler message. Seriously, Virginia, you needed the Internet to realize this guy might be racist?
See previous post
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
