Facebook.
Essentially everyone has one, whether it's for "work" or your friends physically forced you into one or you just love wasting hours of time on Tetris and Jetman, nearly everyone I know (in all my white, middle class, urban glory) has got a Facebook. When they don't, the average reaction is shock, horror, and fear, because wow someone doesn't have Facebook and how do they keep in touch/what do they do in their spare time and they're probably an alien/OMG they R not trendy. So yeah, Facebook is ridiculous in that you can spend hours simply scrolling through pages, stalking and information downloading as your brain is at the OFF switch, but as of, well, right now according to mine, but others may be further ahead, Facebook has reached its highest level of ridiculous-ness.
Facebook is starting trends. No, not like the whole "thong well above waistline so that it looks painful" trend, trends that are specifically formatted for Facebook and that in a sweeping fashion deteriorate your friends list as each person succumbs to the awesome power that it electronic peer pressure. Facebook has become the silent killer of social independence.
Applications can probably be blamed as the beginning of what will come to be known as the Facebook-Assertive Social Trend Movement, otherwise known as FAST-Move., a term that I will have no problem taking full credit with its coinage. Applications were a secret kind of peer pressure, because in order to be your average nosey self and see exactly what your friends results on quizzes were, or write snarky, but "honest" comments about them, you needed to add the same application. Before long, your page was polluted with boxes, the smog of the applications hiding your Wall from those who just wanted to say, "hey, wassup?".
Then the applications thing died off; people got tired of it. We all kept our favorites and staggered out into the light of the screen left blank by the vacation of the boxes.
Recently, "25" has taken over. First it was just one person filling it out - they tagged their friends. Not to be outdone, their friends all boasted 25 "interesting" things about themselves. Soon every time you logged on someone had creted a new 25 note and ANOTHER 25 people had been tagged. The competition of coming up with a witty title sprang up, as people declared "Oh, sigh, I guess I'll do it too". Really, how many people can write 25 original things about themselves? Facebook's answer: a lot. Finally, it's starting to die down, it's just the peope being 'ironic' and filling it all out with false answers (who takes 45 minutes just to do that, I ask you?!) and those that log on maybe once a month finally getting around to publishing their own note.
Now, Facebook has gone one step further. Mr. Men and Little Miss. Remember those books from our childhoods? My favorites were always Little Miss Bossy, Little Miss Chatterbox, and Little Miss Quick... hmm. Revealing. Well, these loveable little nonsense characters have made a huge comeback. As Facebook's latest trend. People have begun to post them as their profile pictures, tagging their friends as whichever Mr. Man or Little Miss they find them to be. It's only happend to a few on my friends list so far, but I foresee it coming through and knocking out the friends list once again.
Facebook has become the YouTube of this year - people are no longer going to become famous because of what hilarious videos they come up with for YouTube, but because of what trends they start on Facebook, or something that has not yet been invented for Facebook. The power this one website has is both ridiculous and terrifying.
Oh, and as for myself, I broke and wrote my only 25 things, in a non-ironic way. However, I REFUSE to make a ridiculous profile picture. At least, maybe not this week.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Friday, February 20, 2009
Touchdown
The Obama-Rama came to Canada yesterday. For approximately six hours, but it hit and inspired everyday folk to dress in "gangsta" attire sporting none other than the badass Prez himself, emblazoned across their chests, trademark smile and all. The chains and the leather jackets slightly distracted from this, but nonetheless there he was.
He was also at the side of one Mr. Stephen Harper, walking down the halls of Canada's own parliament building, signign the guestbook, and then disappearing behind closed doors, most likely to plot the end of hunger, poverty, and corruption. Simultaneously.
I watched all this on an hour flight, most people around me had also tuned in to watch the new President stand beside a man either deemed "genius" or "corrupt evil tyrant" by some. Personally, I think Harper is smart, savvy, and logical, which is exactly what the country needs in a time of economic crisis. No, I don't agree with all of his policy, but I don't think he'll have the time to get to some point of it with the big R ahead of us. It was interesting, though, to see Obama, a man hailed as the answer to prayers and the image of the "new" America, next to a man who has been compared to Darth Sidius in various photo-edits. There were smiles and photo-ops, and I couldn't help but notice (of course) their respective attires.
First off, how many blue ties can one man own? I find the Republican v. Democrat system of the US not only limiting in a political sense, but also in dress. Republicans have their shiny red ties to rep. their party, while Democrats are always, ALWAYS found in a blue tie. I've been following Obama's campaign for a while, and each time he speaks it's a different blue tie. It must get incredibly boring.
Then there's Harper, who is reputedly styled and fed people-skills by his lovely wife. She has great subliminal messaging sense, because his tie was red, white, and orange. Just kidding. It was red, white, and blue. Showing his support for the US? I think that Canada doesn't have to worry about that. The whole world knows that were this a prison, we would be the collar-wearing, skulking bitch of the States. Or a more PG analogy: were this ancient Greece we'd be busy slathering the US in olive oil and feeding it grapes. It's a great political gesture to wear the colors of the visiting nation, but do you think that Harper dons yellow, red and blue when receiving a visit from the Mongolian consulate? Probably not. He also probably does not receive regular visits from Mongolian diplomats, but you get the point.
I am all for Obama, I think a country that is so supposedly "great" needs a great man to be in charge of it, but it shocks me that Canadians support him so much. A large part of his platform was originally to slowly remove Canadian products from the US - the Made in American Clause. Or something like that. The point is that Obama's focus may not help Canada out all that much. In fact, in this lovely time of Recession, it may royally screw us. The States is our greatest trade partner, by far, and if they start looking elsewhere to fulfill their needs, we're going to take a hit. A big one. Like Mickey Rourke in The Wrestler style.
In the long run, I think something like that would help Canada. We've been mooching off the States long enough. We have a great reputation as peacemakers but a terrible reputation as push-overs because of our relationship with the US. Obama is loved not for his politics, but by his charisma when it comes to Canadians. He has a 90% approval rating here, but do you really think the everyman has looked up his policies? And if that's true then how many Americans have actually paid attention to his politics?
Obama walking beside Harper is a beautiful sight - it inspires hope for a lot of Canadians who love Obama and want to see him work with us, and Canadians who want to have faith in their OWN government. The only worry I have is that people will focus too much on the picture, and not on the politics. Government should be held responsible, and the only way to do that is to look behind the smiles and handshakes.
He was also at the side of one Mr. Stephen Harper, walking down the halls of Canada's own parliament building, signign the guestbook, and then disappearing behind closed doors, most likely to plot the end of hunger, poverty, and corruption. Simultaneously.
I watched all this on an hour flight, most people around me had also tuned in to watch the new President stand beside a man either deemed "genius" or "corrupt evil tyrant" by some. Personally, I think Harper is smart, savvy, and logical, which is exactly what the country needs in a time of economic crisis. No, I don't agree with all of his policy, but I don't think he'll have the time to get to some point of it with the big R ahead of us. It was interesting, though, to see Obama, a man hailed as the answer to prayers and the image of the "new" America, next to a man who has been compared to Darth Sidius in various photo-edits. There were smiles and photo-ops, and I couldn't help but notice (of course) their respective attires.
First off, how many blue ties can one man own? I find the Republican v. Democrat system of the US not only limiting in a political sense, but also in dress. Republicans have their shiny red ties to rep. their party, while Democrats are always, ALWAYS found in a blue tie. I've been following Obama's campaign for a while, and each time he speaks it's a different blue tie. It must get incredibly boring.
Then there's Harper, who is reputedly styled and fed people-skills by his lovely wife. She has great subliminal messaging sense, because his tie was red, white, and orange. Just kidding. It was red, white, and blue. Showing his support for the US? I think that Canada doesn't have to worry about that. The whole world knows that were this a prison, we would be the collar-wearing, skulking bitch of the States. Or a more PG analogy: were this ancient Greece we'd be busy slathering the US in olive oil and feeding it grapes. It's a great political gesture to wear the colors of the visiting nation, but do you think that Harper dons yellow, red and blue when receiving a visit from the Mongolian consulate? Probably not. He also probably does not receive regular visits from Mongolian diplomats, but you get the point.
I am all for Obama, I think a country that is so supposedly "great" needs a great man to be in charge of it, but it shocks me that Canadians support him so much. A large part of his platform was originally to slowly remove Canadian products from the US - the Made in American Clause. Or something like that. The point is that Obama's focus may not help Canada out all that much. In fact, in this lovely time of Recession, it may royally screw us. The States is our greatest trade partner, by far, and if they start looking elsewhere to fulfill their needs, we're going to take a hit. A big one. Like Mickey Rourke in The Wrestler style.
In the long run, I think something like that would help Canada. We've been mooching off the States long enough. We have a great reputation as peacemakers but a terrible reputation as push-overs because of our relationship with the US. Obama is loved not for his politics, but by his charisma when it comes to Canadians. He has a 90% approval rating here, but do you really think the everyman has looked up his policies? And if that's true then how many Americans have actually paid attention to his politics?
Obama walking beside Harper is a beautiful sight - it inspires hope for a lot of Canadians who love Obama and want to see him work with us, and Canadians who want to have faith in their OWN government. The only worry I have is that people will focus too much on the picture, and not on the politics. Government should be held responsible, and the only way to do that is to look behind the smiles and handshakes.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
"Personal" Statements
Isn't it amazing all the great qualities you have when you need to live someplace/do something/meet someone. Lavalife, housing, what's the difference, really? I mean, both require a complete focus on good traits, false smiles, and being on your best behavior.
However, it's not always a cake-walk to create a persona of oneself that is just so damn perfect.
And that's where your friends come in. They have no problem making huge exaggerations about your character, or discussing your many (HA!) triumphs... all of which may actually be true. At this point there is a distinction made between online dating sites and housing applications, because with the former, many people are fully able to liken their high school basketball team to being "a nationally ranked athlete" or playing in a garage band made up of thinning hair and bad backs to being "brooding, and musically gifted".
Searching for a mate seems to activate the very human tendency toward "positive self-thought" which is, unlike Freud's idea of repression, our most powerful defense mechanism. In categorizing ourselves (usually privately) as a step up from nearly everybody else, we are keeping ourselves happy and therefore productive and healthy. So, when you convince yourself that, yes, that tragically good-looking person was staring at you because they are irrevocably in love with you, it's basically so you don't kill yourself from despair. Some may find this depressing, I find it fascinating. The idea that we find ourselves good at sports/intelligent/attractive/whatever is mostly just our mind keeping us positive so that we can keep going through our daily life in a healthy, normal fashion.
Alright, so we think highly of ourselves to avoid suicide, and when it comes to finding a mate we have absolutely no problem elevating ourselves, consoling ourselves when nothing happens with a new prospect (I won't explain this one here - pick up He's Just Not That Into You or see the movie), so how come people have such a problem thinking highly of themselves when it comes to something actually important?
Housing applications, scholarships, personal essays for university entrance - it becomes so difficult to speak highly of our achievements, our good qualities, and our education. We're trained from childhood not to brag about these things, so when it comes time to talk ourselves up in a positive fashion, we falter. At the same time, we've been trained to find Ms. Right and Mr. Perfect - now can you imagine if THOSE two got together? - at any cost. Making ourselves more attractive is encouraged, displaying our positive qualities overtly is not. Funny, huh? I find it's always better to get friends to write about you - for both. Friends won't exaggerate about you, even if it means you getting laid. Friends will also be honest about just what a spectacular person you are and have been and perhaps will be in the future for various applications.
Aren't friends great?
However, it's not always a cake-walk to create a persona of oneself that is just so damn perfect.
And that's where your friends come in. They have no problem making huge exaggerations about your character, or discussing your many (HA!) triumphs... all of which may actually be true. At this point there is a distinction made between online dating sites and housing applications, because with the former, many people are fully able to liken their high school basketball team to being "a nationally ranked athlete" or playing in a garage band made up of thinning hair and bad backs to being "brooding, and musically gifted".
Searching for a mate seems to activate the very human tendency toward "positive self-thought" which is, unlike Freud's idea of repression, our most powerful defense mechanism. In categorizing ourselves (usually privately) as a step up from nearly everybody else, we are keeping ourselves happy and therefore productive and healthy. So, when you convince yourself that, yes, that tragically good-looking person was staring at you because they are irrevocably in love with you, it's basically so you don't kill yourself from despair. Some may find this depressing, I find it fascinating. The idea that we find ourselves good at sports/intelligent/attractive/whatever is mostly just our mind keeping us positive so that we can keep going through our daily life in a healthy, normal fashion.
Alright, so we think highly of ourselves to avoid suicide, and when it comes to finding a mate we have absolutely no problem elevating ourselves, consoling ourselves when nothing happens with a new prospect (I won't explain this one here - pick up He's Just Not That Into You or see the movie), so how come people have such a problem thinking highly of themselves when it comes to something actually important?
Housing applications, scholarships, personal essays for university entrance - it becomes so difficult to speak highly of our achievements, our good qualities, and our education. We're trained from childhood not to brag about these things, so when it comes time to talk ourselves up in a positive fashion, we falter. At the same time, we've been trained to find Ms. Right and Mr. Perfect - now can you imagine if THOSE two got together? - at any cost. Making ourselves more attractive is encouraged, displaying our positive qualities overtly is not. Funny, huh? I find it's always better to get friends to write about you - for both. Friends won't exaggerate about you, even if it means you getting laid. Friends will also be honest about just what a spectacular person you are and have been and perhaps will be in the future for various applications.
Aren't friends great?
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Everyone's Got an Ipod
That's the response, isn't it? When someone reveals that they don't have an ipod/Facebook/lap-top/you name it? I mean, the little white ear-buds do seem to be everywhere, but I had one of those epiphany type moments today as I breezed past a homeless man offering me a flower for some sort of charity with my five dollar coffee in hand and entered into a loud, overly-fragrant orgy of purchasing (otherwise know as a department store).
In reality, no, everyone does not have an ipod. Everyone does not have a home. Everyone does not have food. Everyone does not have water. It's really sad when we get to the point where we live in this little bubble in which everything's ok... so long as we refuse to acknowledge any problems, or justify our cold fronts. For example, immediately after my epiphany I thought to myself "Well, I volunteer" and the rational part of my brain went "Yes, ___, helping white, middle class young girls feel comfortable with themselves because their minds have been poisoned by the media that they're over-exposed to as a result of having five TVs in their over-large house, is a worthy cause". I do believe that helping these young kids is a good thing to do, I think that low self-esteem and all its problems among young girls is a social problem, and I'm obviously exagerrating over the characteristics of these girls. It's just that one can't justify something like denying that there are people who need help, on our streets, that we breeze by every day.
The media does a great job at helping us to "turn the other cheek" portraying the homeless as drug-ridden or crazy or criminals. But not everyone on the street is like this, and even if they were does that mean that they don't deserve the essentials? That they aren't human enough? I have a theory that if everyone above the poverty line (who wasn't one of those "shell" families) gave five-dollars to various organizations working to help these people, or donated one hour of their lives every week to working with the homeless the problem would be remedied. But that will never happen, and homelessness will always be an issue, even in societies of Communism. It is a fact of life, and, in some sociological views, a necessary part of society. Without the poor we could not have the rich and without the rich we could not have a successful economoy. But without a heart we would not be human and without humanity there would be no service.
It's very sad to see people sitting out in the cold, begging, people who once upon a time could have shopped on that very street. People who no one really thinks of as "people" anymore. We just walk by them, and they blend a little further in to the background. I know that there will never be a solution to people's disregard of the poor, but I do believe that everyone has the power to make a difference in at least one person's life. I was not that person today, and I am ashamed of that. The man walking ahead of me who put the apple in a homelessman's hat as he held a sign - "Food?" - was, and that makes me a little more optimistic.
In reality, no, everyone does not have an ipod. Everyone does not have a home. Everyone does not have food. Everyone does not have water. It's really sad when we get to the point where we live in this little bubble in which everything's ok... so long as we refuse to acknowledge any problems, or justify our cold fronts. For example, immediately after my epiphany I thought to myself "Well, I volunteer" and the rational part of my brain went "Yes, ___, helping white, middle class young girls feel comfortable with themselves because their minds have been poisoned by the media that they're over-exposed to as a result of having five TVs in their over-large house, is a worthy cause". I do believe that helping these young kids is a good thing to do, I think that low self-esteem and all its problems among young girls is a social problem, and I'm obviously exagerrating over the characteristics of these girls. It's just that one can't justify something like denying that there are people who need help, on our streets, that we breeze by every day.
The media does a great job at helping us to "turn the other cheek" portraying the homeless as drug-ridden or crazy or criminals. But not everyone on the street is like this, and even if they were does that mean that they don't deserve the essentials? That they aren't human enough? I have a theory that if everyone above the poverty line (who wasn't one of those "shell" families) gave five-dollars to various organizations working to help these people, or donated one hour of their lives every week to working with the homeless the problem would be remedied. But that will never happen, and homelessness will always be an issue, even in societies of Communism. It is a fact of life, and, in some sociological views, a necessary part of society. Without the poor we could not have the rich and without the rich we could not have a successful economoy. But without a heart we would not be human and without humanity there would be no service.
It's very sad to see people sitting out in the cold, begging, people who once upon a time could have shopped on that very street. People who no one really thinks of as "people" anymore. We just walk by them, and they blend a little further in to the background. I know that there will never be a solution to people's disregard of the poor, but I do believe that everyone has the power to make a difference in at least one person's life. I was not that person today, and I am ashamed of that. The man walking ahead of me who put the apple in a homelessman's hat as he held a sign - "Food?" - was, and that makes me a little more optimistic.
The Hoe Train.
I'm not even attempting to sensor this one. Should a member of the Hoe Train read this, recognize that it's about them, figure out my identity and subsequently egg my door, well, it would be a freaking miracle. Kinda like the time I saw them studying...
Anyways, I came to name this particular group of people the Hoe Train because of one fateful night as they walked past... in a straight line of orange... dressed similarly in varying degrees of sluttiness. It was great. And it wasn't that I hadn't noticed them before, I mean, every high school has them. The ones with the perma-tans and blonde hair, the straight teeth and matching boys. They wear the tights, the Uggs, the too-big sweaters. At one point they wore the head-to-toe lululemon. What's weird is that they stick out like a sore thumb on a University campus. And it's creepy - er than it was in high school. Sometimes, I have time telling them apart, you'll turn around and they all look the same. It's a little Stepford Wives for my taste.
When I signed on for this whole university experience thing I thought I was rid of the creepy lookalikes, of the reminder that no, you will never be able to pull off those shoes, and of the "blondes". I thought that they corralled them all into things called "sororities" and "fraternities". I was half right.
What I don't get is making friends with people who are just like you. What's the fun in that? So that every time you look up you immediately know what you look like that day? I'm not sure what the appeal is, but I'm much more into this thing called diversity. In fact, I find that I am repelled by people too similar to me - it's boring. I thought the point of going away to school was to meet new people, to try things you haven't before, to be different. Not to duplicate your life (and possibly yourself, this could just a be a long-winded way of describing the Hoe Train's cloning process...). During a discussion with the Nicknamer she brought up the anxiety that one day one of them would melt in her slouchy leather boots and from her puddle would arise two more copies, ready to achieve world domination through zombie brainwashing.
Anyways, I came to name this particular group of people the Hoe Train because of one fateful night as they walked past... in a straight line of orange... dressed similarly in varying degrees of sluttiness. It was great. And it wasn't that I hadn't noticed them before, I mean, every high school has them. The ones with the perma-tans and blonde hair, the straight teeth and matching boys. They wear the tights, the Uggs, the too-big sweaters. At one point they wore the head-to-toe lululemon. What's weird is that they stick out like a sore thumb on a University campus. And it's creepy - er than it was in high school. Sometimes, I have time telling them apart, you'll turn around and they all look the same. It's a little Stepford Wives for my taste.
When I signed on for this whole university experience thing I thought I was rid of the creepy lookalikes, of the reminder that no, you will never be able to pull off those shoes, and of the "blondes". I thought that they corralled them all into things called "sororities" and "fraternities". I was half right.
What I don't get is making friends with people who are just like you. What's the fun in that? So that every time you look up you immediately know what you look like that day? I'm not sure what the appeal is, but I'm much more into this thing called diversity. In fact, I find that I am repelled by people too similar to me - it's boring. I thought the point of going away to school was to meet new people, to try things you haven't before, to be different. Not to duplicate your life (and possibly yourself, this could just a be a long-winded way of describing the Hoe Train's cloning process...). During a discussion with the Nicknamer she brought up the anxiety that one day one of them would melt in her slouchy leather boots and from her puddle would arise two more copies, ready to achieve world domination through zombie brainwashing.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Videogames get all the credit.
And Marilyn Manson.
Aren't those the things that we're trained to believe make kids today inherently violent? That train them to grab their guns, go to school and shoot the bullies? One would think. Or, at least they would if they're a Micheal Moore fan (Bowling for Columbine, anyone?). I am not. I have, however, seen all of his films. Each one (aside from his very first, which no one really remembers or seems to care about - "Roger and Me", check it out) just proves to me that a hypocritical, slightly idiotic American with a vendetta against "the Man" and a video-camera is actually The Worst Idea. Worse than taking a[n alcoholic] drink every time the word 'love' is said in Moulin Rouge (a 2.47 min song has the word 22 times). Micheal Moore, to me, represents most people - people who are taught and raised to point fingers, often in the wrong directions. These people are usually hypocritical. For example, Micheal Moore lives in Manhattan and sends his kid to an expensive private school. So much for helping "the little guy" in Flint, huh? As much as he argues against the system, he buys right into it.
So, back to my point, which, ironically, was one made by Mr. Moore himself.
If anyone is familar with the work of Cormac McCarthy they'll know that as much as he is a fantastic writer, his books are inherently violent and gory, albeit in a very poetic fashion. This, however, does not change the fact that they are probably more violent than any song by a metal artist or videogame created in Silicon Valley. Take Blood Meridian for example - 330 pages of nothing but scalping, shooting, stabbing, necrophelia, you name it. And it was a novel for my university level English class. Now, I know that when people talk about the effects of violence, they are mostly referring to the effects it has on children, but are not all people impressionable? Can't everyone be desensitized, brainwashed, and so on? The last time I checked, yes, they could. So, if at the same time critics are condemning the latest Grand Theft Auto for encouraging rape and violence, why do they not at the same time turn to the grear American authors and question their writing? Why are the minds of kids going into high school questioned and the effects of heavy metal music taken into account, but not literature? It's a double standard of our culture, it would seem. Aristotle's theory of catharsis can be used here - that we visualize violence in order to live out our own urges.
In the end I think that Cormac McCarthy had something right with Blood Meridian - I think that people, while not necessarily inherently violent, are fascinated by violence and the nature of some people to give in to that baser instinct. (Hasn't everyone fantasized about punching someone in the jaw at least once?). It's this fascination that causes people to both retain violent outlets, and point the finger.
Aren't those the things that we're trained to believe make kids today inherently violent? That train them to grab their guns, go to school and shoot the bullies? One would think. Or, at least they would if they're a Micheal Moore fan (Bowling for Columbine, anyone?). I am not. I have, however, seen all of his films. Each one (aside from his very first, which no one really remembers or seems to care about - "Roger and Me", check it out) just proves to me that a hypocritical, slightly idiotic American with a vendetta against "the Man" and a video-camera is actually The Worst Idea. Worse than taking a[n alcoholic] drink every time the word 'love' is said in Moulin Rouge (a 2.47 min song has the word 22 times). Micheal Moore, to me, represents most people - people who are taught and raised to point fingers, often in the wrong directions. These people are usually hypocritical. For example, Micheal Moore lives in Manhattan and sends his kid to an expensive private school. So much for helping "the little guy" in Flint, huh? As much as he argues against the system, he buys right into it.
So, back to my point, which, ironically, was one made by Mr. Moore himself.
If anyone is familar with the work of Cormac McCarthy they'll know that as much as he is a fantastic writer, his books are inherently violent and gory, albeit in a very poetic fashion. This, however, does not change the fact that they are probably more violent than any song by a metal artist or videogame created in Silicon Valley. Take Blood Meridian for example - 330 pages of nothing but scalping, shooting, stabbing, necrophelia, you name it. And it was a novel for my university level English class. Now, I know that when people talk about the effects of violence, they are mostly referring to the effects it has on children, but are not all people impressionable? Can't everyone be desensitized, brainwashed, and so on? The last time I checked, yes, they could. So, if at the same time critics are condemning the latest Grand Theft Auto for encouraging rape and violence, why do they not at the same time turn to the grear American authors and question their writing? Why are the minds of kids going into high school questioned and the effects of heavy metal music taken into account, but not literature? It's a double standard of our culture, it would seem. Aristotle's theory of catharsis can be used here - that we visualize violence in order to live out our own urges.
In the end I think that Cormac McCarthy had something right with Blood Meridian - I think that people, while not necessarily inherently violent, are fascinated by violence and the nature of some people to give in to that baser instinct. (Hasn't everyone fantasized about punching someone in the jaw at least once?). It's this fascination that causes people to both retain violent outlets, and point the finger.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
