It used to be that only the strong survive. But with shifting career dynamics and an increased tendency towards client service-oriented professions, it appears that the new skill to survive is not so much strength, but charm.
With the exception of the public service, job security is practically non-existent. In fact, it's not even desired by the new generation of workers; most young people want and expect to change jobs every 2-3 years, and in some cases, will also change cities. They are more virtual, more mobile and their focus is not security and wealth, but the elusive quality of happiness and loving what they do. Some look for more meaning, while others look for more fun, and others look for maximum mobility so that they can globetrot while picking up a paycheque instead of a back pack.
The good news is that they have plenty of options. The shift from robotic assembly line style professions means that there is more freedom to provide special services that a machine cannot; from the barista who sprinkles just the right amount of cinnamon into your dolce latte to the personal trainer who helps you get to the ideal weight, specialized client-service oriented professions are on the rise. The potential rewards include flexibility, adaptability and the all-important being your own boss.
The potential pitfalls? Low wages, no security, high risk, and potentially, crippling debt. But here's the difference maker: charm. The ability to sell yourself and be a true entrepreneur. The more that a person can talk themselves up and their skills, the bigger their potential revenue. While it's a well-known fact that people who present themselves better at interviews are more likely to get jobs, the charm factor can be the difference between wage slave and savvy businessperson. Smart use of social media and the old-fashioned recruiting in person can result in a far more lucrative and satisfying career than a 9 to 5 desk job.
While it's important to be able to actually deliver on the promised service, it appears that the promise is just as important now as the service itself. While parents used to tell their children to become doctors and lawyers, nowadays, more parents are telling their children to learn a trade so that they can't be fired. Trade school or law school, we should all add one more to the list: charm school. An old-fashioned meet and greet means a lot more than it used to and we should all be ready with a smile and some confidence.
Friday, July 6, 2012
Wednesday, June 13, 2012
I Hate Yoga
This is personal. Yes, I hate yoga. It's one of those things that I try to explain to people and somewhere in the process of doing so, I sputter with rage, at which point, the person listening usually stops in order to dismiss me as a nonsensical anti-inner peace doofus. So here goes my final attempt to clarify my position without the rage part.
First, yoga as a philosophy and yoga as we know it today are two very different things. The original yoga philosophy dates back millions of years ago with Buddhist monks in Nepal. It's the simplified notion known today as mind over matter, but its practice is much more complex and painful. The principle is that your mind and spirit should be able to overcome any and all outlying forces surrounding it, and through this practice, find inner peace outside of your physical self. This is the principle of walking over hot coals without feeling pain, staying warm in a snowstorm with no jacket, staying cold in sweltering heat with no shade. It's endurance. It's overcoming outside forces through inner strength and discipline. This philosophy accepts pain as a natural and powerful force and encourages pain to be a part of one's daily life.
This has absolutely nothing to do with stretching or pretending to be a tree. Stretching, breathing, tree-posing are all good for you in their own way. But they are not yoga. The yoga that we know today has been whittled down, simplified, and packaged as part of a lifestyle brand. This lifestyle brand doesn't come cheap; it requires expensive top of line ethical clothing, large expensive studios, and weekly commitments to classes, classes and more classes.
Yoga brands have managed to create a need in society. This need has been spurred on by the idea of our hectic lifestyles and how disconnected we are from ourselves and nature. This is a need that could be met by simply taking a walk outside with your cell phone turned off. It doesn't require studio space, an instructor, a fancy mat made of bamboo, $80 seaweed pants, soft music and organic tea. Finding the disconnect is a choice and it's a matter of not allowing society pressure you into thinking you need things you don't or that you need to live a life you don't want to live.
Perhaps the most ironic part of this is the fact that many yogies tend to believe that they are doing just that by taking up yoga: making a choice to disconnect and reconnect with their inner self. But by buying into the yoga lifestyle which has been marketed so well to the public, you are not living an alternative life, you are conforming to exactly what the brands want you to do. And it's a lucrative business. So lucrative, in fact, that yoga has celebrity endorsements and has been seen as a hallmark of an ideal, vibrant California cool lifestyle. And that's another source of my frustration with it.
This isn't to say that the quest for inner peace is silly or useless. This is just to say that the yoga brand is probably not the best vehicle for achieving it. If inner peace comes truly from within, turn everything off for a few hours and reflect quietly. You might be surprised at what comes to you. And it won't be seaweed pants.
First, yoga as a philosophy and yoga as we know it today are two very different things. The original yoga philosophy dates back millions of years ago with Buddhist monks in Nepal. It's the simplified notion known today as mind over matter, but its practice is much more complex and painful. The principle is that your mind and spirit should be able to overcome any and all outlying forces surrounding it, and through this practice, find inner peace outside of your physical self. This is the principle of walking over hot coals without feeling pain, staying warm in a snowstorm with no jacket, staying cold in sweltering heat with no shade. It's endurance. It's overcoming outside forces through inner strength and discipline. This philosophy accepts pain as a natural and powerful force and encourages pain to be a part of one's daily life.
This has absolutely nothing to do with stretching or pretending to be a tree. Stretching, breathing, tree-posing are all good for you in their own way. But they are not yoga. The yoga that we know today has been whittled down, simplified, and packaged as part of a lifestyle brand. This lifestyle brand doesn't come cheap; it requires expensive top of line ethical clothing, large expensive studios, and weekly commitments to classes, classes and more classes.
Yoga brands have managed to create a need in society. This need has been spurred on by the idea of our hectic lifestyles and how disconnected we are from ourselves and nature. This is a need that could be met by simply taking a walk outside with your cell phone turned off. It doesn't require studio space, an instructor, a fancy mat made of bamboo, $80 seaweed pants, soft music and organic tea. Finding the disconnect is a choice and it's a matter of not allowing society pressure you into thinking you need things you don't or that you need to live a life you don't want to live.
Perhaps the most ironic part of this is the fact that many yogies tend to believe that they are doing just that by taking up yoga: making a choice to disconnect and reconnect with their inner self. But by buying into the yoga lifestyle which has been marketed so well to the public, you are not living an alternative life, you are conforming to exactly what the brands want you to do. And it's a lucrative business. So lucrative, in fact, that yoga has celebrity endorsements and has been seen as a hallmark of an ideal, vibrant California cool lifestyle. And that's another source of my frustration with it.
This isn't to say that the quest for inner peace is silly or useless. This is just to say that the yoga brand is probably not the best vehicle for achieving it. If inner peace comes truly from within, turn everything off for a few hours and reflect quietly. You might be surprised at what comes to you. And it won't be seaweed pants.
The Rich Bitches of Metropolis
There is an explosion of reality tv shows based around the lives of the rich and notorious of the world. There are the famous for being famous ones, like the Kardashians. There are the ones that claim to be 'real' with titles like the Real Housewives of something or other, with their latest addition in Vancouver, Canada, much to the country's shame. Then there are the ones that cater to awful cultural stereotypes of the stinking rich like Shahs of Sunset.
Their common thread is that everyone in these shows are just awful. Petty, vapid, dim-witted and downright mean are just a few of their key characteristics. They ride in limos, wear obnoxious clothing, drink profusely and go to lavish events. For some viewers, it's a whole new world that they can only imagine, an occasion to take a peak behind the velvet rope. For others, they delight in the spectacle of Chardonnay throwing and verbal abuse slung out by mean-spirited and often drunk rivals.
Our fascination as a society with the rich is an enduring tradition which hasn't changed much since the days the plebes created farces of the rich in public theaters. It's also been thought that the rich were naturally different than everyone else, depending on which side of the Fitzgerald-Hemingway debate you're on. Fitzgerald: the rich are very different from you and I. Hemingway: yes. They have more money.
In North American culture, the rich represent an ideal, one which is thought to be accessible to all through hard work and smarts. This principle is quickly eroding in the face of inheritance, entitlement, celebrity for the sake of celebrity and the ever-increasing gap between the very rich and the very poor. There is a point in every civilization's history when the rich move away from being the top of the social pyramid which contributes largely to the whole of society to a parasitic, useless class which produces little and takes too much. This large gap is usually one of the first tipping points of the breakdown of civilization into decline.
So while the majority of us delight in seeing the rich auto-destruct on prime time television, we should be careful to consider what this actually means for our civilization. We think we're witnessing the top 1% eat each other; but they're taking us with them.
Their common thread is that everyone in these shows are just awful. Petty, vapid, dim-witted and downright mean are just a few of their key characteristics. They ride in limos, wear obnoxious clothing, drink profusely and go to lavish events. For some viewers, it's a whole new world that they can only imagine, an occasion to take a peak behind the velvet rope. For others, they delight in the spectacle of Chardonnay throwing and verbal abuse slung out by mean-spirited and often drunk rivals.
Our fascination as a society with the rich is an enduring tradition which hasn't changed much since the days the plebes created farces of the rich in public theaters. It's also been thought that the rich were naturally different than everyone else, depending on which side of the Fitzgerald-Hemingway debate you're on. Fitzgerald: the rich are very different from you and I. Hemingway: yes. They have more money.
In North American culture, the rich represent an ideal, one which is thought to be accessible to all through hard work and smarts. This principle is quickly eroding in the face of inheritance, entitlement, celebrity for the sake of celebrity and the ever-increasing gap between the very rich and the very poor. There is a point in every civilization's history when the rich move away from being the top of the social pyramid which contributes largely to the whole of society to a parasitic, useless class which produces little and takes too much. This large gap is usually one of the first tipping points of the breakdown of civilization into decline.
So while the majority of us delight in seeing the rich auto-destruct on prime time television, we should be careful to consider what this actually means for our civilization. We think we're witnessing the top 1% eat each other; but they're taking us with them.
Art Lesson
There has been an outpouring of shock and rage over the burning of a $100,000 Birkin bag for the sake of 'art' by Tyler Shields and his girlfriend, Francesca Eastwood. If that last name sounds familiar, it's because Francesca is the daughter of Clint Eastwood, a well-known artist in his own right for having acted and directed in great films. Sadly, he has not made an effort to educate his own daughter on what makes art, or else she wouldn't have agreed to participate in such a silly venture.
The argument that is being used by her boyfriend artist is that material wealth is worthless and destructible and by destroying it himself, he is demonstrating this point to the masses. It's a sort of 'everything burns, nothing lasts' art philosophy that can be used, intelligently enough, to demonstrate our own mortality. The impermanence of people and things within the world, etc.
Here's the main problem with this artistic statement: it's not art to destroy. It's art to de-construct, it's art to re-configure, but it is not art to destroy things. In fact, the very premise of art is to create something, something out of nothing, that is indicative of skill, perception, reflection and often hard work. Art is supposed to teach us something about ourselves or serve as a mirror reflection of our society in a way that is subtle, disturbing or even skewed. Any idiot can light something on fire and burn it.
Assuming that Shields is a true artist and believes in his message, there are other ways to bring this point to the world. It's difficult, however, to believe anything he might want to say on this subject, considering that he is viewing it from a perch of unbelievable privilege. With a famous girlfriend and access to God knows how many riches, Shields is far from being an objective source of a rather simplistic message.
There is no originality in destruction of expensive things for the sake of art. There is no originality in the message that material wealth, like life, like beauty, is fleeting in this world. Shields could put his considerable resources towards something important in his self-development and his career. He could take that $100,000 and put himself through art school. He needs it.
The argument that is being used by her boyfriend artist is that material wealth is worthless and destructible and by destroying it himself, he is demonstrating this point to the masses. It's a sort of 'everything burns, nothing lasts' art philosophy that can be used, intelligently enough, to demonstrate our own mortality. The impermanence of people and things within the world, etc.
Here's the main problem with this artistic statement: it's not art to destroy. It's art to de-construct, it's art to re-configure, but it is not art to destroy things. In fact, the very premise of art is to create something, something out of nothing, that is indicative of skill, perception, reflection and often hard work. Art is supposed to teach us something about ourselves or serve as a mirror reflection of our society in a way that is subtle, disturbing or even skewed. Any idiot can light something on fire and burn it.
Assuming that Shields is a true artist and believes in his message, there are other ways to bring this point to the world. It's difficult, however, to believe anything he might want to say on this subject, considering that he is viewing it from a perch of unbelievable privilege. With a famous girlfriend and access to God knows how many riches, Shields is far from being an objective source of a rather simplistic message.
There is no originality in destruction of expensive things for the sake of art. There is no originality in the message that material wealth, like life, like beauty, is fleeting in this world. Shields could put his considerable resources towards something important in his self-development and his career. He could take that $100,000 and put himself through art school. He needs it.
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
Tuning Out?
People don't tune in weekly to shows anymore. It's the simple reality. As the networks reveal which shows are getting the axe and continue to spin more tried and trite reworks of past successes and spinoffs, it's clear that tv is not what it used to be. There was a time, and it wasn't quite that long ago, when people would tune in every week to one particular show. You couldn't move them from that couch on Monday between 7-8. You didn't even answer the phone. TV was kind of a big deal.
But people don't schedule their lives around tv much anymore. There's so much other stuff to do and On Demand as well as time shifting has made it possible for us to watch when we want to, rather than when it's on. Downloading and internet tv are also popular options. It's not just the time commitment that becomes the issue, but the choice.
Reality tv is ratings gold and for many reasons: it's cheap, gossip-worthy, and doesn't require a large emotional or neurological investment. Drama is often too involved and too, well, dramatic. Comedy is rarely funny. The threat of the axe also deters us from loving shows too much. And then there are the shows themselves.
Let's use the example of one of this year's most compelling dramas, Awake. Awake is a highly intelligent drama about an LA-based detective who loses his wife or son in an accident and is living 2 parallel realities in which each is alive. The 2 realities are so clearly separate that he has a different police partner and a different psychologist in each. The show's first few episodes were breathtakingly captivating. It made you tremble for more and wonder so hard that your brain hurt.
But here are the problems with the show:
It's almost too smart for its own good- Let's admit it. The premise is gimmicky and faulty because in order for the show to work, the premise has to work everytime, which means that the character can't ever commit to 1 reality. While this is compelling on the surface, it's utterly unrewarding to the viewer, because they will never get close to the 'truth'. The search for the truth is what keeps us interested in the show; but getting there will destroy the show, much in the same way that romantic tension keeps shows alive until the two main characters actually get together.
Grieving is a bad storyline- There's only so much grieving that viewers will watch before it overwhelms them. By not allowing the story to advance much beyond 'mom misses son' and 'son misses mom' while 'dad misses both', makes all the characters fall flat. An emotional connection is nearly impossible with either son or mother, made all the more complicated by the fact that the detective is not close to either. He is the absentee father, mostly at work on a case, rather than at home bonded to his family. His bonds with both seem superficial and only his grief for them seems real. It's not good viewing.
One of these things just doesn't belong- There are 2 stories competing for Detective Britton's attention right now, the grieving one in which he might become a grandparent or move, and the second much more interesting one of the police force's conspiracy to kill him. The problem is that they are almost incompatible. The news of the show's cancellation next season seems to have prompted the creators to concentrate on the police conspiracy, leaving both crash victims out of the storyline. The show, if it gets picked up again by an interested fanbase, will have to decide which it's going to be: family drama or police drama.
Which brings us back to the problems with tv. If a series is going to demand a high level of emotional investment and tolerance for non-answers from its viewers, at some point, it has to offer a reward. Remember LOST? Beyond two brilliant seasons, LOST was an epic disappointment, confusing viewers, story spinning out of control and finally losing all credibility with a cryptic and inane finale. Viewers don't want to ride that ride anymore.
But people don't schedule their lives around tv much anymore. There's so much other stuff to do and On Demand as well as time shifting has made it possible for us to watch when we want to, rather than when it's on. Downloading and internet tv are also popular options. It's not just the time commitment that becomes the issue, but the choice.
Reality tv is ratings gold and for many reasons: it's cheap, gossip-worthy, and doesn't require a large emotional or neurological investment. Drama is often too involved and too, well, dramatic. Comedy is rarely funny. The threat of the axe also deters us from loving shows too much. And then there are the shows themselves.
Let's use the example of one of this year's most compelling dramas, Awake. Awake is a highly intelligent drama about an LA-based detective who loses his wife or son in an accident and is living 2 parallel realities in which each is alive. The 2 realities are so clearly separate that he has a different police partner and a different psychologist in each. The show's first few episodes were breathtakingly captivating. It made you tremble for more and wonder so hard that your brain hurt.
But here are the problems with the show:
It's almost too smart for its own good- Let's admit it. The premise is gimmicky and faulty because in order for the show to work, the premise has to work everytime, which means that the character can't ever commit to 1 reality. While this is compelling on the surface, it's utterly unrewarding to the viewer, because they will never get close to the 'truth'. The search for the truth is what keeps us interested in the show; but getting there will destroy the show, much in the same way that romantic tension keeps shows alive until the two main characters actually get together.
Grieving is a bad storyline- There's only so much grieving that viewers will watch before it overwhelms them. By not allowing the story to advance much beyond 'mom misses son' and 'son misses mom' while 'dad misses both', makes all the characters fall flat. An emotional connection is nearly impossible with either son or mother, made all the more complicated by the fact that the detective is not close to either. He is the absentee father, mostly at work on a case, rather than at home bonded to his family. His bonds with both seem superficial and only his grief for them seems real. It's not good viewing.
One of these things just doesn't belong- There are 2 stories competing for Detective Britton's attention right now, the grieving one in which he might become a grandparent or move, and the second much more interesting one of the police force's conspiracy to kill him. The problem is that they are almost incompatible. The news of the show's cancellation next season seems to have prompted the creators to concentrate on the police conspiracy, leaving both crash victims out of the storyline. The show, if it gets picked up again by an interested fanbase, will have to decide which it's going to be: family drama or police drama.
Which brings us back to the problems with tv. If a series is going to demand a high level of emotional investment and tolerance for non-answers from its viewers, at some point, it has to offer a reward. Remember LOST? Beyond two brilliant seasons, LOST was an epic disappointment, confusing viewers, story spinning out of control and finally losing all credibility with a cryptic and inane finale. Viewers don't want to ride that ride anymore.
Wednesday, May 16, 2012
Tax the Fat
The old motto used to be 'tax the rich.' It would be nice if that motto still stood. But a new motto appears to be taking its place, which is that of 'tax the fat.' The argument is much simpler to make to the public. There's an obesity problem in North America and this represents a serious pulic health issue, therefore, taxes should be imposed on the sale of fatty items, in the same vein as the taxes imposed on tobacco products and alcohol. But one look at the numbers on this issue makes it much less clear.
A study conducted in American middle schools indicated by the numbers that the increase in sales of fatty foods in schools did not result in an increase in obesity among the students. The results were so surprising to a team of scientists that they initially believed their results were wrong and delayed publication of their findings. It seems that other factors, such as neighbourhoods and home life, may be a bigger contributor to shaping eating habits and healthy attitudes.
Similar research supports this notion. What happens in the home and the attitudes towards one's health and body may be more important than the availability of junk food. Research also points to the fact that messaging is ineffective within the home if it's not supported by action; 'do as I say and not as I do' has never been a good parenting model. Just as education is often affected by parents (those with higher degrees are more likely to have children with higher degrees), health is also learned and best learned through real life examples.
The lesson here may be that if children are going to do better, their parents must do better. It is up to them to provide good healthy habits. Their children are not the 'victims' of slick marketing by food companies. Health is all about choices and while education can go a certain way, as well as limited access, it is ultimately up to us to decide what we consume or don't consume. A 20% tax on junk food won't stop determined midnight hamburger runs. Taxation on tobacco is generally ineffective in curbing smoking; it will be much the same for pop and chips.
Junk food alone is not the enemy of good health. It's attitudes and lifestyle choice. By showing people the benefits of a healthy, active lifestyle, people will be more inclined to improve themselves rather than through taxation and shaming. The benefits are numerous: improved sleep, strength, stamina, increased energy levels, better concentration, boosted ego and just looking great in clothes.
If the government wants more effective policies for public health than taxation, it need look no further than simple and cost-effective solutions. Bring gym class back to schools. Bring back the milk program for children. Let nutritionists into the schools with Canada's Health Guide. Build more community centres with active programming like dance classes and basketball. Subsidize local farming. It could all be so simple.
A study conducted in American middle schools indicated by the numbers that the increase in sales of fatty foods in schools did not result in an increase in obesity among the students. The results were so surprising to a team of scientists that they initially believed their results were wrong and delayed publication of their findings. It seems that other factors, such as neighbourhoods and home life, may be a bigger contributor to shaping eating habits and healthy attitudes.
Similar research supports this notion. What happens in the home and the attitudes towards one's health and body may be more important than the availability of junk food. Research also points to the fact that messaging is ineffective within the home if it's not supported by action; 'do as I say and not as I do' has never been a good parenting model. Just as education is often affected by parents (those with higher degrees are more likely to have children with higher degrees), health is also learned and best learned through real life examples.
The lesson here may be that if children are going to do better, their parents must do better. It is up to them to provide good healthy habits. Their children are not the 'victims' of slick marketing by food companies. Health is all about choices and while education can go a certain way, as well as limited access, it is ultimately up to us to decide what we consume or don't consume. A 20% tax on junk food won't stop determined midnight hamburger runs. Taxation on tobacco is generally ineffective in curbing smoking; it will be much the same for pop and chips.
Junk food alone is not the enemy of good health. It's attitudes and lifestyle choice. By showing people the benefits of a healthy, active lifestyle, people will be more inclined to improve themselves rather than through taxation and shaming. The benefits are numerous: improved sleep, strength, stamina, increased energy levels, better concentration, boosted ego and just looking great in clothes.
If the government wants more effective policies for public health than taxation, it need look no further than simple and cost-effective solutions. Bring gym class back to schools. Bring back the milk program for children. Let nutritionists into the schools with Canada's Health Guide. Build more community centres with active programming like dance classes and basketball. Subsidize local farming. It could all be so simple.
A Job's a Job?
The Canadian government, in the midst of massive cuts to federal programs and layoffs of the public service, is introducing changes to its Employment Insurance policies which would force those who are on EI to take jobs that they may otherwise refuse. The government is attempting to re-define the rights of workers on EI; the rights of the productive, middle-income earners who turn the national economy, freshly released from their secure, steady employment by the same government looking to make efficiencies. This basically means that the government has cut the economy off at its knees by taking employment away from the most consistent sources of consumer revenue; average Canadians.
Instead, these well-educated and experienced workers will be asked to fill regional labour gaps in jobs that they would refuse based on their high skill set, low wages or unacceptable working conditions. The Finance Minister has stated that a job is a job and that people should do what needs to be done, using his own example of driving cabs and refereeing hockey to get by in his youth.
While it's refreshing to see people acknowledge that all forms of employment are respectable, it glosses over the fact that it's not always acceptable. Young professionals who are not eligible for early retirement packages are being squeezed out of their positions so that the government can save millions on what it considers public service ineffiencies. Among these savings are pensions and benefits for workers, the kind of security that only the public service offers in exchange for office work.
The days of the plum jobs are gone, with no benefits or security to speak of. That much has been made clear through this round of cuts and with the general feeling around the world, with fragile economies and austerity measures. While this may be a simple fact of life, is it really a better option to force people into jobs that they don't want?
Forget the fact that these jobs are often sweaty, uncomfortable, physically taxing, exhausting and don't even begin to pay the bills. There's a reason they are hard to fill. Filling in labour gaps with forced employees is never a good business model. Production and morale levels will be low; logic states that return on investment will be low as a result. This measure will hurt instead of help the current labour market by filling it with bitter overqualified workers who can no longer afford their mortgages.
And let's not forget another essential point: forced labour is, by definition, slavery. Government-mandated participation in the labour market of its choice is coming pretty close to that mark.
Instead, these well-educated and experienced workers will be asked to fill regional labour gaps in jobs that they would refuse based on their high skill set, low wages or unacceptable working conditions. The Finance Minister has stated that a job is a job and that people should do what needs to be done, using his own example of driving cabs and refereeing hockey to get by in his youth.
While it's refreshing to see people acknowledge that all forms of employment are respectable, it glosses over the fact that it's not always acceptable. Young professionals who are not eligible for early retirement packages are being squeezed out of their positions so that the government can save millions on what it considers public service ineffiencies. Among these savings are pensions and benefits for workers, the kind of security that only the public service offers in exchange for office work.
The days of the plum jobs are gone, with no benefits or security to speak of. That much has been made clear through this round of cuts and with the general feeling around the world, with fragile economies and austerity measures. While this may be a simple fact of life, is it really a better option to force people into jobs that they don't want?
Forget the fact that these jobs are often sweaty, uncomfortable, physically taxing, exhausting and don't even begin to pay the bills. There's a reason they are hard to fill. Filling in labour gaps with forced employees is never a good business model. Production and morale levels will be low; logic states that return on investment will be low as a result. This measure will hurt instead of help the current labour market by filling it with bitter overqualified workers who can no longer afford their mortgages.
And let's not forget another essential point: forced labour is, by definition, slavery. Government-mandated participation in the labour market of its choice is coming pretty close to that mark.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)