There is a saying that you do not beat New Zealand — you just get more points than them at the final whistle.
Tim Worstall, “About next week’s rugby”, TimWorstall.com, 2013-11-10
November 10, 2013
QotD: The New Zealand rugby team
Comments Off on QotD: The New Zealand rugby team
Alison Bechdel on the revived popularity of the “Bechdel Test”
You’d think, with all the social advances in equality for women over the last few decades that our media would more directly reflect that equality … but you’d be wrong. Quite some time ago, Alison Bechdel outlined a quick test you could use to determine whether a book or movie treated women as real people or just as foils for males:
The Bechdel test is used to identify gender bias in fiction. A work passes the test if it features at least two women who talk to each other about something other than a man. Commentators have noted that a great proportion of contemporary works fail to pass this threshold of representing women. The test was originally conceived for evaluating films, but has since been applied to other media.
Pretty low hurdle, yet a vast number of books and movies fail to meet even this minimal standard. Recently a Swedish theatre chain decided to use the Bechdel Test to evaluate the movies they were showing (with Bechdel’s blessing), which has revived interest in the test itself. Bechdel talks about this on her blog:
I said sure, that sounds awesome, go for it.
So they did, and the Guardian ran an article about it on Wednesday. Which prompted a flurry of emails from radio programs who wanted to talk to me. I spoke to Marco Werman at PRI’s The World, and got to join in his conversation with Ellen Tejle, the director of the participating cinema in Stockholm. I also did a background interview with the NPR program Here and Now.
Yesterday I got a lot of other requests from other media outlets but I’m ignoring them. I feel bad about this. There seems to be something fundamentally wrong about not seizing every possible chance for publicity — if not for myself, then at least for the brave Swedish cinema consortium, not to mention the cause of women everywhere.
But inevitably in these interviews I say simplistic things, or find myself defending absurd accusations — like that the formal application of the Test by a movie theater is somehow censorious.
I have always felt ambivalent about how the Test got attached to my name and went viral. (This ancient comic strip I did in 1985 received a second life on the internet when film students started talking about it in the 2000′s.) But in recent years I’ve been trying to embrace the phenomenon. After all, the Test is about something I have dedicated my career to: the representation of women who are subjects and not objects. And I’m glad mainstream culture is starting to catch up to where lesbian-feminism was 30 years ago. But I just can’t seem to rise to the occasion of talking about this fundamental principle over and over again, as if it’s somehow new, or open to debate. Fortunately, a younger generation of women is taking up the tiresome chore. Anita Sarkeesian, in her Feminist Frequencies videos, is a most eloquent spokesperson.
Comments Off on Alison Bechdel on the revived popularity of the “Bechdel Test”
November 9, 2013
Virginia Postrel on the persistence of glamour
At the Daily Beast, Virginia Postrel argues that far from being dead, glamour is still a powerful force in our lives:
In a world that prizes transparency, honesty, and full disclosure, the very idea seems out of place. Glamour is an illusion that conceals flaws and distractions. It requires mystery and distance, lest too much information breaks the spell. How can its magic possibly survive in a world of tweeting slobs?
But glamour does in fact endure. It is far more persistent, pervasive, and powerful than we realize. We just have trouble recognizing it, because it has so many different incarnations, many of which have nothing to do with Hollywood or fashion.
Glamour isn’t just a style of dress or a synonym for celebrity. Like humor, it’s a form of communication that triggers a distinctive emotional response: a sensation of projection and longing. What we find glamorous, like what we find funny, depends on who we are.
One person who yearns to feel special finds glamour in the image of U.S. Marines as “the few, the proud,” while another dreams of getting into the city’s hottest club and yet another imagines matriculating at Harvard. For some people, a glamorous vacation means visiting a cosmopolitan capital with lots to do and see. For others, it means a tranquil beach or mountain cabin. The first group yearns for excitement, the second for rest. All of these things are glamorous — but to different people.
Comments Off on Virginia Postrel on the persistence of glamour
Why Cordarrelle Patterson isn’t getting more playing time
In a long two-part post at Cover 32, Arif Hasan explains why in spite of all his talent, Vikings wide receiver Cordarrelle Patterson isn’t seeing as many snaps as fans think he should:
A markedly different picture than the year before, Vikings fans have noted that one of their favorite receivers hasn’t been able to see the field, partially due to the talent ahead of him on the depth chart. The vaunted first-round receiver has only taken 150 snaps of the 563 snaps the Vikings had taken as of Week 10.
But with such a significant investment, it seems odd that they can’t play him more regularly — especially as he finally hauled in the first receiving touchdown of his professional career.
At the same time, it might be asking too much. Fans see a significant move to grab an impact wide receiver — knowing that the Vikings were weak at the position — and assume he’ll be able to contribute right away.
But coming into the draft, it was well-known that Patterson may have been the least-NFL ready of the incoming crop of receivers. Eric Galko at Optimum Scouting argued that this defined Patterson as a prospect in his scouting guide:
The enigma of Patterson is the fact that, while successful and productive in his first season in the SEC, he still remains both highly unrefined as a receiver and his own worst enemy at times … Tremendously gifted with limitless upside but an equally unrefined skill set, Patterson grades out as a mid-to-late 1st round draft choice.
ESPN’s Mel Kiper also came to the same conclusion, claiming that Patterson “is extremely raw as a receiver in terms of route-running and reading coverages on the fly. There are questions about how much of an offense he can absorb right away, and his hands have been inconsistent on tape.”
In part 2, Arif looks at the pro and con for getting Patterson more touches this season:
Like most everything in football, it’s a difficult question to answer despite its relative simplicity, although it ultimately comes down to a question of philosophy. There’s a good chance that increasing his snap count from where it stands now doesn’t substantially increase the Vikings’ chance of winning a particular game and could even hurt it given his limited potential contribution versus the other receivers on the roster.
On the other hand, it’s hardly a question that playing him will help him acclimate to time in the NFL, as nothing can replace in-game experience for player development and evaluation. It’s entirely possible that Patterson may end up as a “kick-returner only” like so many other athletically gifted receiver prospects but he is by no means consigned to that fate.
It isn’t enough to think that Patterson can get away with his preternatural physical talent. Every receiver to enter the Hall of Fame did so with incredible technical precision — even Randy Moss, who has often been maligned as a poor route runner because of his dominance as a deep threat. Much of Moss’ games and many of his best years were built on the back of his technical ability and incredible intelligence at his position.
“Bullet” Bob Hayes and Don Maynard, incredible athletes for their day, were also more technically refined than they were given credit for — and Maynard didn’t start consistently dominating the NFL until late in his career. There are dozens of smaller skills receivers need to master to even get on the field, much less make an impact, so it’s impossible to understate the importance of developing these skills — without them, the receiver will simply take up space on the field or be used as bait for interceptions.
In other Vikings wide receiver news, Jerome Simpson has apparently been arrested for DWI this morning. As Simpson has already been the subject of league discipline for earlier lapses, this may mean a significant punishment (suspensions, fines, etc.) is in his immediate future.
Comments Off on Why Cordarrelle Patterson isn’t getting more playing time
Contemplating a smaller US military
As Robert Heinlein wrote, “The most expensive thing in the world is a second-best military establishment, good but not good enough to win”, which is both obviously true and not very helpful when you are looking at the biggest, best-equipped military force in human history. Since the end of the Cold War, there really has only been one country with a right to the term “superpower” (and for the Soviet Union, in retrospect it was more of a courtesy title anyway). The world still stands in the military shadow of the US Army, US Navy, and US Air Force.
But even superpowers have to face economic reality at some point, so it’s time to consider just how big the US military forces need to be to accomplish US goals. In The Atlantic, Eric Schnurer wonders if the defence budget can be trimmed without endangering national security:
Since protecting citizens’ lives is the first duty of government, public-safety functions are usually the last to feel the effects of tightened budgets. This is especially true at the federal level, where cuts to the defense budget are generally portrayed as assaults on the nation’s very existence. There are a variety of reasons to tread softly on any sort of defense cuts: You only get to err by under-defending the country once. The battlefield edge today, and even more so in the future is a product of advanced — and expensive — technologies. Those who put their lives on the line for the rest of us deserve the best equipment and protective gear, and the most reasonable pay and benefits, that we can afford.
But does that mean that we cannot cut the defense budget without short-changing national security? To hear some tell it the answer is “no.” But the Defense Department is part of the same government that most Americans abjure for its inefficiency, waste, and fraud. In fact, you can find just about everything that’s wrong with government in the defense budget. Oklahoma Republican Senator Tom Coburn, no liberal, has derided the Pentagon as the “Department of Everything” for its wide-ranging activities.
Of all the services that critics complain the Pentagon needlessly duplicates—from schools and rec centers to scientific research and grocery stores — the most expensive is health care. Ten percent of the Pentagon’s non-war budget — $53 billion—goes to health care. As with civilian health care, savings are achievable here but face implacable opposition from military retirees. But as no less a military enthusiast than John McCain said last year on the Senate floor, “We are going to have to get serious about entitlements for the military just as we are going to have to get serious about entitlements for nonmilitary.”
Comments Off on Contemplating a smaller US military
November 8, 2013
This week in Guild Wars 2
My weekly Guild Wars 2 community round-up at GuildMag is now online. Gathering the links for this round-up was made much more tedious due to some technical issues involved in the switch from one ISP to another. In the confusion, I lost the first draft of the column and had to re-construct it (unfortunately, it’s likely some links didn’t get back into the final version). Next week’s content update will involve even more Toxic elements, hopefully with slightly more distinctive names for the achievements (Toxic this, Toxic that, and Toxic the other get a bit repetitive), plus there’s the usual assortment of blog posts, videos, podcasts, and fan fiction from around the GW2 community.
Comments Off on This week in Guild Wars 2
Al Stewart at the Royal Albert Hall, October 15th, 2013
Published on 16 Oct 2013
Al Stewart YOTC Classic Album concert. Extended version of this classic song with Al mixing up the words for fun
Comments Off on Al Stewart at the Royal Albert Hall, October 15th, 2013
Vikings beat Washington 34-27
This game was supposed to be a re-run of the last meeting between the two teams, where RGIII put on a clinic and made the Vikings look unco-ordinated and ineffective. The Vikings were so banged-up coming into this game that they had more injured players than inactive spots, so they officially had three active quarterbacks and nose tackle Letroy Guion was announced as active but didn’t even suit up for the game.
The game started in suitably inept fashion, after Washington kicked away from Cordarrelle Patterson (that’s a sign of respect for the kick returner, when you really don’t dare let him attempt a return), as Christian Ponder threw an interception to close out the first “series”. The defence didn’t show up for the first few plays of Washington’s drive, but held just enough to force a field goal. Someone must have messed with Musgrave’s playcard because he actually allowed Patterson to score a touchdown (his first receiving TD) during the first half. Amusingly, it was also Ponder’s first TD pass to a wide receiver this season.
Early in the game, the Vikings displayed a certain unfamiliarity with the exotic art of tackling:
How many tackles have the Vikings missed tonight?
— chipscoggins (@chipscoggins) November 8, 2013
Tackling still a foreign concept to both professional football teams playing tonight.
— Arif Hasan (@ArifHasanDN) November 8, 2013
If there's a worse tackling team in the NFL than the #Vikings, I'd like to know who it is. #TNF
— The Daily Norseman (@DailyNorseman) November 8, 2013
By the end of the first half, the score was Redskins 24, Vikings 14. RGIII had had an impressive statistical line completing 16 of 21 passes for 179 yards and three touchdowns (140.7 rating).
An unexpected development in this game was the emergence of tight end John Carlson. Much had been expected of Carlson when he was signed last season, but injuries kept him off the field and he didn’t make much of his limited opportunities after that. It was a running joke with the fanbase whenever Carlson got the ball, it would be for a two yard gain on third-and-five. With Kyle Rudolph out for 4-6 weeks with a broken foot, Carlson stepped up nicely, scoring his first touchdown as a Viking in the third quarter on a 28-yard reception.
Ponder was injured on what was initially ruled as a touchdown run, but overturned on review. Matt Cassel came in for the hand-off to Adrian Peterson for the go-ahead score. Aside from the early interception, Ponder had a pretty good outing, completing 17 of 21 passes and two touchdowns for a 113.1 rating. He was reported to have a separated left (non-throwing) shoulder and has an outside chance of being back for the next game.
In what many fans dreaded, the game came down to the final Washington drive … where the Vikings defence has given up scoring drives far too often this season. The Redskins moved the ball down to the eight yard line, but were unable to score. For some reason, the Vikings used two timeouts during that last drive, but Washington couldn’t capitalize on the extra chances the Vikings provided.
Despite the win, a few fans were upset that this will move the Vikings down the draft order for 2014. The Daily Norseman‘s Christopher Gates strongly disagrees with those fans:
The idea of “tanking” a season and the logic behind it, insomuch as you can call it “logic,” is something that I find to be completely idiotic. It has never made any sense, it doesn’t make any sense now, and it won’t make any sense going forward. I’m sure that we’ve had this discussion before, and I was hoping that it would be a while before we’d have to have it again, but this is the situation we’re in right now. Let me explain why the idea of “tanking” a season is stupid.
The first part of this is quite simple … you are not going to get a group of professional athletes, led by professional coaches, to simply give up and stop attempting to win football games. That’s not how it works. You’re talking about a group of individuals that have excelled at this profession their entire lives, and then asking them to do something that goes completely against the way they’ve been programmed all these years. Think about this … every single college football player in America was a star in high school. Every single professional football player in America was a star in college. They’ve built their entire lives around being the best of the best at what they do. And you really think they’re going to be receptive to someone saying, “Yeah, you know, if you could just go out there and maybe not try as hard in this game, that would be pretty awesome. We’re playing for draft position, you know.” Yeah … I have my doubts.
[…]
Yes, I understand that the consensus is that the Vikings would be looking for a quarterback. Believe me, I’ve heard all the Teddy Bridgewater blah blah Marcus Mariota yadda yadda Johnny Manziel blah blah Tajh Boyd yadda yadda and whoever else. But, as Ted touched on in his Stock Market Report, who’s the Andrew Luck-esque “lock” out of those guys to be the next big thing? As far as I can tell, there isn’t a “sure thing” in the bunch. Quite frankly, nobody in the draft is a “sure thing.” There never has been. Seriously, do you realize that there were San Diego Chargers fans back in 1998 that thought that their team got the better half of the Peyton Manning/Ryan Leaf derby? Or that there were Oakland Raiders fans in 2007 that were psyched about the idea of drafting JaMarcus Russell? Because there were.
We’ve heard all the hype about how the quarterback class of 2014 is shaping up to be a very strong one, and as I’ve said, this team probably needs to go in a different direction at quarterback. Is there anyone worth “tanking” a season for? Not that I see. And if you do “tank” for a guy, what if he comes in and ends up being more Todd Blackledge than John Elway? Well, then, you cry about it and scream for him to get benched and hope that your team “tanks” for the next alleged big thing, I guess. Then again, we treat all our quarterbacks that way in Minnesota, with the crying and the screaming for them to be benched and all … maybe my perspective is just tainted.
Comments Off on Vikings beat Washington 34-27
November 7, 2013
Children and the early industrial revolution
Wendy McElroy talks about the plight of poor children in the early days of the industrial revolution in Britain:
Parish workhouses existed in Britain long before the Industrial Revolution. In 1601, the Poor Relief Act paved the way for parish officials to collect property taxes to provide for the “deserving poor.” In 1723, the Workhouse Test Act was passed to prevent false claims of poverty. Any able-bodied person who wished to receive poor relief was expected to enter a workhouse; its harsh conditions would presumably act as a deterrent. About the same time as the Industrial Revolution (circa 1760-1840), attitudes toward the poor underwent their own revolution. The Napoleonic Wars (1803-1815) not only bled Britain of money; they also created a flood of injured and unemployable men who returned from battle. Those men had families who were plunged into poverty. Between 1795 and 1815 the tab for Britain’s poor relief quadrupled. Meanwhile, the cost of mere subsistence soared because of political machinations such as the Corn Laws, a series of trade laws that artificially preserved the high price of grains produced by British agriculture. Many people could not afford a slice of bread.
But sympathy for the poor was in short supply. Historian Gertrude Himmelfarb’s definitive book The Idea of Poverty chronicles the shift in attitude toward the poor during that period; it turned from compassion to condemnation. An 1832 government report basically divided the poor into two categories: the lazy who sucked up other people’s money and the industrious working poor who were self-supporting. The Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834 instructed parishes to establish “Poor Law Unions” with each union administering a workhouse that continued to act as a deterrent by ‘virtue’ of its miserable conditions. Correctly or not, statesman Benjamin Disraeli called the act an announcement that “poverty is a crime.”
Pauper children were virtually imprisoned in workhouses. And nearly every parish in Britain had a “stockpile” of abandoned workhouse children who were virtually sold to factories. Unlike parents, bureaucrats did not view poor children as loved or otherwise valuable human beings. They were interchangeable units whose presence was a glut on the market because there would always be another poor child born tomorrow. Private businessmen who shook hands with government did not have clean fingers, either. Factory owners could not force free-labor children to take dangerous, wretched jobs but workhouse children had no choice and so they experienced the deepest horrors of child labor. The horror was not because of the free market or capitalism; those forces, along with the family, were among the protectors of children. Child laborers were victims of government, bureaucracy and businessmen who used the law unscrupulously.
Comments Off on Children and the early industrial revolution
Astounding historical ignorance … or is he just trolling?
You’d have to go a long way to match the degree of ignorance that the Washington Post‘s Richard Cohen admits to in this article:
I sometimes think I have spent years unlearning what I learned earlier in my life. For instance, it was not George A. Custer who was attacked at the Little Bighorn. It was Custer — in a bad career move — who attacked the Indians. Much more important, slavery was not a benign institution in which mostly benevolent whites owned innocent and grateful blacks. Slavery was a lifetime’s condemnation to an often violent hell in which people were deprived of life, liberty and, too often, their own children. Happiness could not be pursued after that.
Steve McQueen’s stunning movie 12 Years a Slave is one of those unlearning experiences. I had to wonder why I could not recall another time when I was so shockingly confronted by the sheer barbarity of American slavery. Instead, beginning with school, I got a gauzy version. I learned that slavery was wrong, yes, that it was evil, no doubt, but really, that many blacks were sort of content. Slave owners were mostly nice people — fellow Americans, after all — and the sadistic Simon Legree was the concoction of that demented propagandist, Harriet Beecher Stowe. Her Uncle Tom’s Cabin was a lie and she never — and this I remember clearly being told — had ventured south to see slavery for herself. I felt some relief at that because it meant that Tom had not been flogged to death.
No modern American — working in the media — could possibly be so ignorant, so he must be trolling. H/T to Julian Sanchez for the link.
Comments Off on Astounding historical ignorance … or is he just trolling?
Some guidelines on not getting arrested
In The Atlantic, Mike Riggs pulls some potentially useful advice from a book by a former FBI and police officer:
Dale Carson is a defense attorney in Jacksonville, Florida, as well as an alumnus of the Miami-Dade Police Department and the FBI. So he knows a thing or two about how cops determine who to hassle, and what all of us can do to not be one of those people. Carson has distilled his tips into a book titled Arrest-Proof Yourself, now in its second edition. It is a legitimately scary book — 369 pages of insight on the many ways police officers profile and harass the people on their beat in an effort to rack up as many arrests as possible.
“Law enforcement officers now are part of the revenue gathering system,” Carson tells me in a phone interview. “The ranks of cops are young and competitive, they’re in competition with one another and intra-departmentally. It becomes a game. Policing isn’t about keeping streets safe, it’s about statistical success. The question for them is, Who can put the most people in jail?”
Which would make the question for you and me, how can we stay out of jail? Carson’s book does a pretty good job of explaining — in frank language — how to beat a system that’s increasingly predatory.
[…]
If police want to hassle you, they’re going to, even if you’re following the above tips as closely as possible. What then? Every interaction with a police officer entails to contests: One for “psychological dominance” and one for “custody of your body.” Carson advises giving in on the first contest in order to win the second. Is that belittling? Of course. “Being questioned by police is insulting,” Carson writes. “It is, however, less insulting than being arrested. What I’m advising you to do when questioned by police is pocket the insult. This is difficult and emotionally painful.”
Winning the psychological battle requires you to be honest with cops, polite, respectful, and resistant to incitement. “If cops lean into your space and blast you with coffee-and-stale-donut breath, ignore it,” Carson writes. Same goes for if they poke you in the chest or use racial slurs. “If you react, you’ll get busted.” Make eye contact, but don’t smile. “Cops don’t like smiles.” Always tell the truth. “Lying is complicated, telling the truth is simple.”
Comments Off on Some guidelines on not getting arrested
Rick Mercer on the plight of injured veterans
Comments Off on Rick Mercer on the plight of injured veterans
Harper’s convention speech – no wonder he ignored the senate scandal
In Maclean’s, Paul Wells explains why Stephen Harper decided not to say anything substantive about the senate scandal in his big speech at the Conservative convention. In short, it would be all drawbacks and no benefits to say any more than he did:
Some commentators hoped Harper would use his speech to the Conservatives to explain why any of this makes sense. Perhaps we should not be surprised that Harper decided not to rise to that challenge.
The Prime Minister’s twists and turns on the Senate affair would break a snake’s back. There is no explaining them. In the insane hypothesis that Harper had tried to explain them in Calgary, the first question we would have asked afterward is why he waited from May until November to do it. So essaying an explanation now would not really have helped. It’s just a mess, a sinkhole of judgment whose radius is very much larger than the distance between Harper’s office and the one Wright used to occupy. As another former Harper spokesman once said, more than a decade ago and in very different circumstances, “This turd won’t polish.”
So why bother? For a man whose goal is to endure as prime minister long enough to change the country, this question would have occurred to Harper very early. One can imagine him thinking something like this:
“I could try to explain away the behaviour of my appointees and the zigzags in my own response to it. I could spend the next few months talking about the terrible judgment of my plutocrat fixer-in-chief and my TV-star Senate appointee. I could air, in public, questions that will probably be tried in courts of law later, and make spotting the contradictions a national parlour game.
“Or I could talk about some other stuff.”
Easy to see why he decided to talk about other stuff.
The other big talking point of the convention was how the Conservatives kept the press cordoned off from pretty much any opportunity to talk to delegates or cover any of the events. The press collectively found themselves held in the same contempt that so many of them express for the Tories in general and Harper in particular:
Reporters were cooped up in a filing room without potable water or free WiFi. Three of the convention’s four halls were closed to reporters for the duration, and when we ventured past an imaginary line on the floor of the fourth, volunteers in blue pushed us back. After his speech, Harper and his band played classic-rock hits at a casino next to the convention centre; reporters were barred.
In its details, this cheerful contempt was an extension and refinement of the treatment Harper used to reserve for the press corps. As late as 2011, I could walk around on the floor of a Conservative party convention at leisure and unharassed. The Conservative party had meetings to decide how much further to tighten the cordon sanitaire, appointed staffers to enforce it who might have been given other tasks. A few Harper supporters will be delighted to hear we were denied our “perks,” as if water and freedom of association are luxuries. Here again, Harper was just being Harper. It’s worked for him for nearly a decade. He won’t stop now.
Comments Off on Harper’s convention speech – no wonder he ignored the senate scandal
November 6, 2013
“Dear Mayor Ford: among our living national treasures”
David Warren explains why Toronto’s Mayor Rob Ford had to exist:
… every left-thinking person in the Greater Parkdale Area had been teased to apoplexy by the contemplation of this gentleman. This because he was: 1. fat, 2. colourful, 3. rightwing &, 4. freely elected by a large margin over some gay leftwing establishment darling. (Some other reasons have accumulated since then.)
Turns out, the police have recovered some video in which — it is alleged — our peerless mayor is shown doing crack with local low-life. Whether smoking or snorting or otherwise ingesting, we do not know, & neither apparently does our splendid mayor, who now says he was actually too drunk to remember the occasion. Dear Mayor Ford: among our living national treasures.
[…]
Quite frankly, we tried mayors who were not crackheads. They didn’t work out. Also, the last one didn’t drink enough. That’s why we elected Ford. He’s doing great: slashing through the city bureaucracy & privatizing everything he can. He even holds the civic unions in subjection: not one has dared to strike. And ho, he’s trying to build subways. Anyone who has attempted to ride a trolley across this town will understand our need to tunnel. So what is the problem?
As our good, excellent mayor told his Police Chief: bring on your video! Ford says he’s curious to see it himself, & that the rest of Toronto would surely also like a chance to catch it on YouTube.
Gentle reader knows I am a traditionalist in most things, & a loyal Canadian. Our very first prime minister, Sir John A. Macdonald, was a magnificent drunkard, who managed to hold office for nearly twenty years. There is an Arabian Nights of anecdotes that our primly officious historians have been too shy to tell. Verily, half of Macdonald’s Cabinet were awash most evenings, & the debates in Parliament were enlivened thereby. Almost all the damage ever done to this country was by sobersides.
Update: Take it away, Taiwanese animators!
Comments Off on “Dear Mayor Ford: among our living national treasures”
