Anyone who is complaining about the gridlock in Washington D.C. right now needs to understand an important fact: it is the voters who put these folks in office.
But who put them up for election? The ones with the money, of course. One of the most vital aspects of any modern day campaign is the "war chest". Who has the most money for advertising? Who can spread the cash around?
It is like any advertising campaign for a product or service. A beverage can taste like malted battery acid, but if that company puts out clever and frequent advertising, and gets some important folks to say that the product is great, then people will buy. It is the crowd mentality at work.
Now, apply the same idea to elections. Whoever is the loudest; whoever puts the "product" out there; whoever gets the famous people to back them - that is who wins the election because of the crowd mentality.
On top of that, primary elections appeal to the most fervent of each political party, as the middle-of-the-road voters don't cast a ballot until the big elections. That's how you end up with candidates like Rick Perry and Michelle Bachman getting the attention that they get. It isn't that they will do what is best for everyone, but they are the ones who appeal to the extremists of their party.
Don't tell me that I have to vote to complain. My candidate is ignored in human elections, and I watch the news and wonder if the members of the U.S. Congress can even agree to discuss the thermostat level.
Money talks...advertising sells...and the voters end up choosing the lesser of two evils...or the greater. In any case, they get what someone else pays for.
Monday, September 26, 2011
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
Tragedy in Reno
I have always had a problem with air shows. Oh, I like airplanes well enough (except when I am white knuckling my way through turbulence), and I think some of the old prop driven aircraft are amazing. But I have issues when planes traveling hundreds of miles per hour are flashing by grandstands of people. It is a recipe for disaster, and that recipe was served up in Reno last week.
Granted, accidents do happen. People are killed on highways every day. People slip and fall in their homes. But in general, society takes certain precautions to try to prevent such accidents. We have laws for seat belt use and for speed limits. We put rails on stairways and tell our kids not to run with scissors. And yet, we place grandstands alongside runways as modified aircraft go streaking by overhead, passing within feet of each other and the ground. Then we stare in shock as accident after accident takes place.
How about we use some common sense when it comes to air shows. You want to have air shows? Fine. Have them. Just keep them away from populated areas and make sure that the grandstands are quite a distance away from where the event is taking place. Trust me, the planes are in the sky, so people will be able to see them.
A number of people are dead in Reno, Nevada. I have friends in Reno, and am very glad that none of them were there that day watching this tragedy. I am sad, however, to think that this terrible event could have been averted; if only common sense ruled.
Granted, accidents do happen. People are killed on highways every day. People slip and fall in their homes. But in general, society takes certain precautions to try to prevent such accidents. We have laws for seat belt use and for speed limits. We put rails on stairways and tell our kids not to run with scissors. And yet, we place grandstands alongside runways as modified aircraft go streaking by overhead, passing within feet of each other and the ground. Then we stare in shock as accident after accident takes place.
How about we use some common sense when it comes to air shows. You want to have air shows? Fine. Have them. Just keep them away from populated areas and make sure that the grandstands are quite a distance away from where the event is taking place. Trust me, the planes are in the sky, so people will be able to see them.
A number of people are dead in Reno, Nevada. I have friends in Reno, and am very glad that none of them were there that day watching this tragedy. I am sad, however, to think that this terrible event could have been averted; if only common sense ruled.
Friday, September 09, 2011
Memory ... (Not from Cats)
I'm reading a book right now called "Moonwalking With Einstein". It's all about memory, and how human society has moved away from the need to memorize things internally.
It's really fascinating and quite true. In the days before books, humans had to memorize information that needed to be passed on. It was vital. Now, we trust that everything is available at a moment's notice, and because of that, we find that we memorize less, and our ability to memorize falters.
I have to present parts in French. What does that have to do with memory? Well, my ability to memorize anything except useless trivial information is bad; terrible, in fact. So, add to that the need to actually speak in French, and I find myself reading everything from the printed page rather than speaking extemporaneously. I hate that. And I hate that I have to search for every piece of info...every scripture...every magazine tidbit that I need instead of being able to recall it with ease.
Unfortunately, I have finished 70% of the book (according to my Kindle) and am no closer to improving my memory. Oh, I have learned a lot about how memory works and how there are some memory pros out there who compete in freakish contests of memory, but I haven't learned the tricks myself.
And yet I find myself meditating on the benefits of having a trained memory. Imagine being able to quote scripture (in English or French) with book, chapter, and verse as easily as you might order lunch. Imagine being able to give a 30 minute talk from memory, without looking at notes. Imagine remembering the name of the person you have met at work no fewer than 20 times. (Guilty..)
We live in a society where we value convenience, and are completely satisfied with having snippets of information spoon-fed to us rather than a deep understanding of a subject. We prefer 30 second bursts of info rather than an intense "digging into" a matter. I'm as guilty of this as anyone, as my ADD causes me to flit from one subject to another like a bee buzzing around a garden. It's annoying, and it causes me to worry about what my memory will be like in 20 years...heck, in 5 years!
The time has come. It is time to begin the search for memory. It is time to learn something extraordinarily useful. From never needing a shopping list, to not needing to consult my iPhone for someone's number, to remembering how long I've been married (kidding!!), the training of my memory seems to be a noble undertaking. So, after doing a bit more moonwalking with Doctor Albert, I think I'll get down to it. Mnemonics is something that requires effort. Maybe that effort will reward me in other ways. I just hope I remember to study.
It's really fascinating and quite true. In the days before books, humans had to memorize information that needed to be passed on. It was vital. Now, we trust that everything is available at a moment's notice, and because of that, we find that we memorize less, and our ability to memorize falters.
I have to present parts in French. What does that have to do with memory? Well, my ability to memorize anything except useless trivial information is bad; terrible, in fact. So, add to that the need to actually speak in French, and I find myself reading everything from the printed page rather than speaking extemporaneously. I hate that. And I hate that I have to search for every piece of info...every scripture...every magazine tidbit that I need instead of being able to recall it with ease.
Unfortunately, I have finished 70% of the book (according to my Kindle) and am no closer to improving my memory. Oh, I have learned a lot about how memory works and how there are some memory pros out there who compete in freakish contests of memory, but I haven't learned the tricks myself.
And yet I find myself meditating on the benefits of having a trained memory. Imagine being able to quote scripture (in English or French) with book, chapter, and verse as easily as you might order lunch. Imagine being able to give a 30 minute talk from memory, without looking at notes. Imagine remembering the name of the person you have met at work no fewer than 20 times. (Guilty..)
We live in a society where we value convenience, and are completely satisfied with having snippets of information spoon-fed to us rather than a deep understanding of a subject. We prefer 30 second bursts of info rather than an intense "digging into" a matter. I'm as guilty of this as anyone, as my ADD causes me to flit from one subject to another like a bee buzzing around a garden. It's annoying, and it causes me to worry about what my memory will be like in 20 years...heck, in 5 years!
The time has come. It is time to begin the search for memory. It is time to learn something extraordinarily useful. From never needing a shopping list, to not needing to consult my iPhone for someone's number, to remembering how long I've been married (kidding!!), the training of my memory seems to be a noble undertaking. So, after doing a bit more moonwalking with Doctor Albert, I think I'll get down to it. Mnemonics is something that requires effort. Maybe that effort will reward me in other ways. I just hope I remember to study.
Friday, September 02, 2011
Modern Movie Musicals
I admit it. I like musicals and am secure in my man-hood, so leave my man card alone. I'm a big fan of Gene Kelly - Singin' In The Rain is a masterpiece - and I could probably watch Gigi several times a month.
Recently, the cinema has touched a bit on a sort of rediscovery of musicals. There is a problem, however. Casting crews, in their infinite cluelessness, have decided to go with big name stars rather than people who can sing and/or dance. I can give you two examples in particular.
The Phantom of the Opera - I'm not a big fan of this musical. I think the lyrics are insipid and it harkens back to the Umbrellas of Cherbourg in that all of the dialog seems to be set to music...and I mean ALL of it. I can excuse that, as I did with the Umbrellas. What I cannot forgive, however, is that the folks responsible for casting thought that the title role of the Phantom could be handled by Gerard Butler, who readily admitted that - wait for it - he could not sing. "That's okay," they said. "We will teach you, because you look so darn good!" Alas, they could not teach him, and his singing was only a bit more pleasant than a jackhammer running non-stop when you have a migraine.
Mamma Mia! - I'm no ABBA fan, by any stretch. But when I saw this musical performed at our community center theater by the off-Broadway touring company, I had a great time. The singing was fantastic, the acting was great, and I found myself laughing frequently and smiling incessantly as I left the theater. Then came the film, and the overpowering sensation that I had just been sentenced by Dick Chaney to a fate worse than waterboarding. I won't go into too many details here, as my psychiatrist says it isn't healthy. In the name of all that is decent, who thought that Pierce Brosnan was a singer? His idea of making something better is to sing it louder. In reality, it just sounds as though the lion has reached the jugular of the poor antelope and is finishing it off in an agonizing fashion. Colin Firth? Really? Mister Darcy? Christine Baranski and Amanda Seyfreid were the only saving glories of this film, and they didn't do enough to pull it out of the pit that the casting directors ... well ... cast it into. (sorry about that)
What is the point of this tirade? Can't you guess? If you want to make a musical into a movie, for heaven's sake grab the actors who performed it successfully on stage! Or at least grab a performer who has proven their chops in the required skill set.
Now.... rumor has it that the next musical to be made into a movie is one of my favorites: Les Miserables. A fantastic musical with great songs, it could be magnificent. However, that depends on the cast. Two names have leaked out, and I'm torn.
First off is Anne Hathaway as Fantine. While not THE most important role in the musical, it is important. My question is: can she sing at all? I've never heard her, and Fantine's songs are meant to be extraordinarily powerful and moving. I just think that Anne may not be up to it, but I'm willing to wait and see.
The most important role, by far, is that of Jean Valjean. The rumor here gives me hope. The lead is to be played by an actor who has been very successful in film, extremely successful doing voices in animated film, and has been wildly successful as a ... here we go ... Broadway performer! That actor is: Hugh Jackman! Yes! Actor, singer, dancer...he moves with grace and can play a variety of roles, of which Jean Valjean could easily be one. Is his voice powerful enough? If it is strong enough to star in The Boy From Oz and Oklahoma!, I'm sure it is. Finally, someone has it right. Let's just hope that the other choices are as good.
Musicals can succeed. Just grab the actors and actresses who have shown the ability to carry a show on stage before you put it on film.
Recently, the cinema has touched a bit on a sort of rediscovery of musicals. There is a problem, however. Casting crews, in their infinite cluelessness, have decided to go with big name stars rather than people who can sing and/or dance. I can give you two examples in particular.
The Phantom of the Opera - I'm not a big fan of this musical. I think the lyrics are insipid and it harkens back to the Umbrellas of Cherbourg in that all of the dialog seems to be set to music...and I mean ALL of it. I can excuse that, as I did with the Umbrellas. What I cannot forgive, however, is that the folks responsible for casting thought that the title role of the Phantom could be handled by Gerard Butler, who readily admitted that - wait for it - he could not sing. "That's okay," they said. "We will teach you, because you look so darn good!" Alas, they could not teach him, and his singing was only a bit more pleasant than a jackhammer running non-stop when you have a migraine.
Mamma Mia! - I'm no ABBA fan, by any stretch. But when I saw this musical performed at our community center theater by the off-Broadway touring company, I had a great time. The singing was fantastic, the acting was great, and I found myself laughing frequently and smiling incessantly as I left the theater. Then came the film, and the overpowering sensation that I had just been sentenced by Dick Chaney to a fate worse than waterboarding. I won't go into too many details here, as my psychiatrist says it isn't healthy. In the name of all that is decent, who thought that Pierce Brosnan was a singer? His idea of making something better is to sing it louder. In reality, it just sounds as though the lion has reached the jugular of the poor antelope and is finishing it off in an agonizing fashion. Colin Firth? Really? Mister Darcy? Christine Baranski and Amanda Seyfreid were the only saving glories of this film, and they didn't do enough to pull it out of the pit that the casting directors ... well ... cast it into. (sorry about that)
What is the point of this tirade? Can't you guess? If you want to make a musical into a movie, for heaven's sake grab the actors who performed it successfully on stage! Or at least grab a performer who has proven their chops in the required skill set.
Now.... rumor has it that the next musical to be made into a movie is one of my favorites: Les Miserables. A fantastic musical with great songs, it could be magnificent. However, that depends on the cast. Two names have leaked out, and I'm torn.
First off is Anne Hathaway as Fantine. While not THE most important role in the musical, it is important. My question is: can she sing at all? I've never heard her, and Fantine's songs are meant to be extraordinarily powerful and moving. I just think that Anne may not be up to it, but I'm willing to wait and see.
The most important role, by far, is that of Jean Valjean. The rumor here gives me hope. The lead is to be played by an actor who has been very successful in film, extremely successful doing voices in animated film, and has been wildly successful as a ... here we go ... Broadway performer! That actor is: Hugh Jackman! Yes! Actor, singer, dancer...he moves with grace and can play a variety of roles, of which Jean Valjean could easily be one. Is his voice powerful enough? If it is strong enough to star in The Boy From Oz and Oklahoma!, I'm sure it is. Finally, someone has it right. Let's just hope that the other choices are as good.
Musicals can succeed. Just grab the actors and actresses who have shown the ability to carry a show on stage before you put it on film.
Monday, August 29, 2011
Guilty of Liking Kids Movies
I'm guilty. I admit it. These days I seem to prefer movies that are "made for kids". You'll notice the quotation marks. That's because the really good "kids" movies have a lot of stuff in there for the "used-to-be-kids" like me. There is so much crap out there that passes itself off as entertainment, but it all tends to look like sex, violence, and dirty jokes. What's left after you throw those into the bin are some pretty good kids films that entertain me every time I watch. I'd like to list a few for you here.
Cats Don't Dance: I included this one first for the sole reason that I watched it again yesterday. Anyone who has any knowledge of the heyday of Hollywood and the old MGM musicals will love this. Scott Bakula does the speaking and singing voice of Danny, the "song and dance cat". He is paired up with Jasmine Guy, who does the speaking voice of his love interest / antagonist Sawyer, and Natalie Cole does the singing voice. Interestingly, the dance routines relied on a very special technical adviser: Gene Kelly in the last bit of work he did before he died. This is just a joyful and fun movie that people should give a chance. I never get tired of it.
Flushed Away: Not going to go into as much detail on this one. Let's just say Hugh Jackman as a rat (watch for him deciding if he should wear a Wolverine costume at the beginning...HA!) who gets flushed down the toilet...hence the title. Toads, puns galore, and singing slugs. What more could you ask?
Others to watch without my detailed reviews:
The Emperor's New Groove
MegaMind
Cars
Shrek
Nonanimated
Support Your Local Sheriff (James Garner could do comedy...that's for sure)
There are certainly more to add...but it's Monday, and I don't have a lot of time. I may amend this list in the comments section, and readers (all 2 of you, I think), are welcome to add your own ideas.
Cats Don't Dance: I included this one first for the sole reason that I watched it again yesterday. Anyone who has any knowledge of the heyday of Hollywood and the old MGM musicals will love this. Scott Bakula does the speaking and singing voice of Danny, the "song and dance cat". He is paired up with Jasmine Guy, who does the speaking voice of his love interest / antagonist Sawyer, and Natalie Cole does the singing voice. Interestingly, the dance routines relied on a very special technical adviser: Gene Kelly in the last bit of work he did before he died. This is just a joyful and fun movie that people should give a chance. I never get tired of it.
Flushed Away: Not going to go into as much detail on this one. Let's just say Hugh Jackman as a rat (watch for him deciding if he should wear a Wolverine costume at the beginning...HA!) who gets flushed down the toilet...hence the title. Toads, puns galore, and singing slugs. What more could you ask?
Others to watch without my detailed reviews:
The Emperor's New Groove
MegaMind
Cars
Shrek
Nonanimated
Support Your Local Sheriff (James Garner could do comedy...that's for sure)
There are certainly more to add...but it's Monday, and I don't have a lot of time. I may amend this list in the comments section, and readers (all 2 of you, I think), are welcome to add your own ideas.
Thursday, August 25, 2011
Apple (and Jobs) - Love it or Hate It
With the announcement of Steve Jobs' retirement from Apple, I thought it appropriate to discuss an observation I have made about Apple products: There is no middle ground.
I'll bet that if you asked 100 people their feelings about Apple products, there would only be about 5 that hover in the "no opinion" category. The rest would be either "love" or "hate". I think I can understand why.
For many years, Mac users had the image of being bearded, suspender-wearing "better than you" types who had the money to pay for what PC users claimed was a worse product. That was, of course, an image. How many schools had their first computer labs consist of all Apple products? Mine did.
Fast forward to what I like to call the "wholesale change in thinking". No, it wasn't the clamshell, bright-colored iBook laptop or the all-in-one iMac with no CD drive. What changed everything was the iPod. (That and iTunes.) How many people just HAD to have one once they became the be-all and end-all of mp3 players? No other player came close to the style, the ease of use, the ease of downloading, etc., etc. Once folks had their iPod, then the iMac or iBook wasn't that big a leap. As Microsoft released ever-buggier operating systems and the MacOS became sleeker and virtually uncrashable, the tide turned. Fast forward again to the introduction of the iPad. Honestly now...how many of you made jokes about the name when it was first announced? Honestly, I said! And yet...HP had to pull its version of the tablet after a bit more than a month because it just couldn't compare to the iPad2.
The tide has turned, and yet the battle goes on. But this time, the battle isn't between Microsoft and Apple. No, Microsoft has been virtually vanquished (which no one thought would happen). Instead, the new battle is Apple vs. Google. Who is winning? I have no idea, but the same "us vs. them" attitude is on display in this new battle. Apple users swear by their products, while Android users revile Apple. Frankly, I can see the positives in both systems. I'm an Apple user, and I really love how all of the products just simply work; no muss, no fuss...they just work together. That's what I like. My friend loves his Android products because he can customize them however he wants. That's cool. More power to him. Despite those differences, we are, indeed, friends.
Still...I see him leering over my iPad2. A year from now?
He will be assimilated...
I'll bet that if you asked 100 people their feelings about Apple products, there would only be about 5 that hover in the "no opinion" category. The rest would be either "love" or "hate". I think I can understand why.
For many years, Mac users had the image of being bearded, suspender-wearing "better than you" types who had the money to pay for what PC users claimed was a worse product. That was, of course, an image. How many schools had their first computer labs consist of all Apple products? Mine did.
Fast forward to what I like to call the "wholesale change in thinking". No, it wasn't the clamshell, bright-colored iBook laptop or the all-in-one iMac with no CD drive. What changed everything was the iPod. (That and iTunes.) How many people just HAD to have one once they became the be-all and end-all of mp3 players? No other player came close to the style, the ease of use, the ease of downloading, etc., etc. Once folks had their iPod, then the iMac or iBook wasn't that big a leap. As Microsoft released ever-buggier operating systems and the MacOS became sleeker and virtually uncrashable, the tide turned. Fast forward again to the introduction of the iPad. Honestly now...how many of you made jokes about the name when it was first announced? Honestly, I said! And yet...HP had to pull its version of the tablet after a bit more than a month because it just couldn't compare to the iPad2.
The tide has turned, and yet the battle goes on. But this time, the battle isn't between Microsoft and Apple. No, Microsoft has been virtually vanquished (which no one thought would happen). Instead, the new battle is Apple vs. Google. Who is winning? I have no idea, but the same "us vs. them" attitude is on display in this new battle. Apple users swear by their products, while Android users revile Apple. Frankly, I can see the positives in both systems. I'm an Apple user, and I really love how all of the products just simply work; no muss, no fuss...they just work together. That's what I like. My friend loves his Android products because he can customize them however he wants. That's cool. More power to him. Despite those differences, we are, indeed, friends.
Still...I see him leering over my iPad2. A year from now?
He will be assimilated...
Monday, August 22, 2011
Movies vs. Television: My Entertainment Dollars
As a typical resident of the United States, and not one of the upper 2% who have the vast majority of wealth, I have a limited budget for entertainment. And let's face it, there are literally hundreds of forms of recreation just begging (symbolically and literally) for my money. Some of this entertainment is not in my "moral wheelhouse", so we can discount that right off the bat. (Sorry strip clubs...you're out.) Other forms are not in my physical realm or in the realm that I consider sane, so things like bungee and BASE jumping are gone, too.
I have friends and relatives who go for rock climbing. Good for them. I'm sure it's jolly good exercise. I'll pass.
For the sake of this blog entry, I have decided to limit the fields of entertainment to two, with a surprise third entry at the end. Let's begin with the cinema or, to put it in normal language, the movies. There is a huge glut of films to choose from. Some of these are rated "R", and these fall out of my moral wheelhouse as well, so let's just eliminate those. What's left? Violence, sex, stupidity (see Hollywood Hot Tub for example), and children's films (which may also include violence, sex, and stupidity, but of a different sort). Frankly, the stuff out there right now doesn't thrill me. I have trouble laying out over $10 for something that isn't worth my time and effort to go see. Cars 2? Cute, but I can see that on DVD. I'm in no rush to go out to see it with a bunch of screaming kids. Captain America? Meh. I might see that on DVD, but it feels like another "super American soldier" kind of flick (see GI Joe). How about the new film, The Help? Chick flick, for sure. Brownie points from the wife if I go see it, but the man card goes right in the bin. Still, I wouldn't mind seeing it, but I find myself in the same boat with this one as others; I can watch it on DVD 4 months from now and be just as happy with my choice.
Let's move to television, then. Here's where I find some quality stuff that I like. Granted, there is crap out there, too. (Jersey Shore...take a bow...off a cliff) And yet, if you have read my blog before, you'll know that I sing the praises of shows like Doctor Who, Top Gear, Leverage, Eureka (r.i.p.), and Psych. Good fun, and well-written shows are worth it to me. And yet, I am paying Comcast / Xfinity / XMen / XRay about $150 per month for television and internet! I am beginning to doubt my sanity and conservative spending ways! This is why it is a choice between movies and television, and not choosing both of them. Television is no longer 3 channels plus UHF for free. It costs money - every month.
So here's the third option, and mock me if you will: video games. I know, I know...childish and wasteful of precious time. But aren't movies and television in the same category? Let' s imagine that one buys a PlayStation system for around $250. If you buy a game for $60, that seems like a lot of money. But ask yourself how many hours of play you can get for $60! You get 4 hours of bowling for the same price. 5 theater tickets run more than $60. Video games begin to seem like a bargain!
In the end, there is one final option: read a book. Some say that readers like Kindle have ruined the book industry. I disagree. If it makes reading convenient and enjoyable, so be it. Just make sure that authors get paid for their work. We can save a few trees while still getting people involved in good stories.
Just leave the Harlequin Romances alone.
I have friends and relatives who go for rock climbing. Good for them. I'm sure it's jolly good exercise. I'll pass.
For the sake of this blog entry, I have decided to limit the fields of entertainment to two, with a surprise third entry at the end. Let's begin with the cinema or, to put it in normal language, the movies. There is a huge glut of films to choose from. Some of these are rated "R", and these fall out of my moral wheelhouse as well, so let's just eliminate those. What's left? Violence, sex, stupidity (see Hollywood Hot Tub for example), and children's films (which may also include violence, sex, and stupidity, but of a different sort). Frankly, the stuff out there right now doesn't thrill me. I have trouble laying out over $10 for something that isn't worth my time and effort to go see. Cars 2? Cute, but I can see that on DVD. I'm in no rush to go out to see it with a bunch of screaming kids. Captain America? Meh. I might see that on DVD, but it feels like another "super American soldier" kind of flick (see GI Joe). How about the new film, The Help? Chick flick, for sure. Brownie points from the wife if I go see it, but the man card goes right in the bin. Still, I wouldn't mind seeing it, but I find myself in the same boat with this one as others; I can watch it on DVD 4 months from now and be just as happy with my choice.
Let's move to television, then. Here's where I find some quality stuff that I like. Granted, there is crap out there, too. (Jersey Shore...take a bow...off a cliff) And yet, if you have read my blog before, you'll know that I sing the praises of shows like Doctor Who, Top Gear, Leverage, Eureka (r.i.p.), and Psych. Good fun, and well-written shows are worth it to me. And yet, I am paying Comcast / Xfinity / XMen / XRay about $150 per month for television and internet! I am beginning to doubt my sanity and conservative spending ways! This is why it is a choice between movies and television, and not choosing both of them. Television is no longer 3 channels plus UHF for free. It costs money - every month.
So here's the third option, and mock me if you will: video games. I know, I know...childish and wasteful of precious time. But aren't movies and television in the same category? Let' s imagine that one buys a PlayStation system for around $250. If you buy a game for $60, that seems like a lot of money. But ask yourself how many hours of play you can get for $60! You get 4 hours of bowling for the same price. 5 theater tickets run more than $60. Video games begin to seem like a bargain!
In the end, there is one final option: read a book. Some say that readers like Kindle have ruined the book industry. I disagree. If it makes reading convenient and enjoyable, so be it. Just make sure that authors get paid for their work. We can save a few trees while still getting people involved in good stories.
Just leave the Harlequin Romances alone.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
