Amazon.com Widgets
I’m not mad.  Really.

About Ramblings of a Hopeless Khowaga

Welcome to my Web site. My name is Chris, and I’ll be your host. I live in Austin, Texas, with my partner, Ray, and our child dog, Mocha. You can read more about me, learn 100 random things about me, and if you’re wondering what the heck a khowaga is, click here. Feel free to browse, read, and leave comments!

Tag: ‘Wikipedia’



Confessions of an Arabic Learner

Friday, December 11th, 2009

The other day whilst trying to set up an appointment to discuss a project with our associate chair, she mentioned casually that she couldn’t meet one afternoon because she was supposed to be on Wisconsin Public Radio.

“Really?  Why?”
“I’m … not actually sure,” she said.  “They want to talk about learning Arabic?”

Well, the interview is now online, and it’s quite the doozy.  For those not inclined to listen to the whole 54 minutes, the first five will do it — it’s long enough to establish the following:

  1. The woman doing the interview is a complete idiot.
  2. The woman doing the interview did absolutely no research on how to pronounce the name of the book that she’s supposedly basing the entire interview around (“Al-Kitaab fi ta’alum al-’arabiyya” — she shortens it to “Al-Kitaab,” which means “the book” and would be pronounced as a mashup of the two common English words “kit” and “tab” as they are pronounced by Americans.  Not only can she not do this, she actually changes the way she pronounces it over the course of the hour several times).
  3. The woman doing the interview clearly did not ask one of her interviewees, Mahmoud al-Batal, how to pronounce his name, as she consistently pronounces it wrong (and, again, her pronunciation changes over the course of the hour) — which, I’m sorry, is a horribly egregious error.  I’ve had people make sure they’re pronouncing MY name correctly before, and my name is pretty damned easy.
  4. The goal of the interview is to make learning Arabic sound as difficult as humanly possible.  Whether this was the stated goal or not, I don’t know, but I was alternately amused and astonished by her inability to move beyond the fact that Arabic is read and written from right-to-left (and also to find out exactly why this is — including, if possible, assigning personal blame for it).

My favorite part of the hour is that you can practically hear the two interviewees looking at each other and trying to nonverbally work out how to respond without calling the interviewer a complete moron.

Anyway, for those who are so inclined, here are some reflections about learning Arabic that I’d like to share.  This is based not only on my knee jerk reaction to this interview, but from the 16 years of experience I’ve had being a white guy learning and speaking Arabic and responding to  questions from those who do not.

Things that are not actually difficult about learning Arabic as a foreign language.

1. The alphabet (more correctly in this case, it’s an abjad).  Arabic has an actual alphabet.  Each letter stands for a specific consonant sound.  It’s not written in characters.  Once you learn the alphabet–which took about three weeks when I started, but that’s because Arabic 101 only met twice a week–it’s a non-issue, and you don’t have to revisit it ever again unless you decide to take up a language that uses the same alphabet but has more letters (Persian, Urdu, and Malaysian, for example), in which case you’ll have to learn the new letters.  It’s really not that hard.

2. Arabic is always written in cursive — even when it’s printed or typed.  It was bewildering the first time that my Arabic instructor, having taught us the letters a, l, k, t, and b (ا ل ك ت ب) put them all together to form “alktab” (al-kitaab, الكتاب), “the book”.  You stare at it for about 10 seconds, and then it clicks.  By the end of the first class of 101, this is not an issue anymore.  I’ve done this with 6th graders.  They can get it.  It’s really not that hard.

Explaining this to Hollywood, on the other hand, is another story.  I’ve lost count of the number of times that I’ve seen Arabic text in the background that doesn’t connect — which, frankly, renders the text unreadable.  Most recently, some characters on the show “FlashForward” traveled to Hong Kong looking for Shohreh Aghdashloo (who must be desperate for work), and stopped by an Iranian restaurant she was known to frequent.  The restaurant’s sign was in English and Persian (written with the Arabic alphabet) … and the Persian letters didn’t connect.

I also once saw improperly formed Arabic tatooed on a guy in a Sean Cody video.  Poor guy.

3. Sounds that aren’t in English. Once you learn how to say them properly, you get over it.  However, contrary to popular belief, there are actually four H sounds in Arabic, and only one of them sounds like forming a spit ball.  The alphabet is fully phonetic — every letter has one sound.  And it’s always the same sound.  Unlike English.  Contemplate, if you will, the utter uselessness of the letters c and x sometime — both simply replicate sounds produced by other letters — x has no unique functions (it can be represented as “eks”), and c’s only unique function is in the syllable “ch” as in “choose”.  K and q aren’t as differentiated as they ought to be — as in, for example, the Arabic ك  and ق

4. Reading and writing from right to left. Although our interviewer gets hung up on this, it’s probably the biggest non-issue of them all.  It just is.

5. The lack of a “be” verb. There is no verb “to be” in Arabic (it’s a Semitic language quirk — there isn’t one in Hebrew, either).  “be” is implied.  To say you’re a student, you say, انا طالب, which is literally “I student.”  The “am” is implied.

Things that are more difficult about learning Arabic as a foreign language.

1. The non-writing of vowels. Like every other Semitic language out there (except, apparently, Amharic, which at some point gave in), along with a number of other languages that use abjads, vowels — specifically short vowels — are not written.  Normally this isn’t such a problem, however, to continue with our example, let’s look at ktb — كتب.  It could be “kutub” (books), it could be “kataba” (he wrote), or it could be “kutiba” (it was written).  You have to figure it out from context, which is a bit of an advanced skill.

2. The lack of cognates with English. The running joke when learning Spanish is that you can add “o” to the end of an English word and make it a Spanish word.  It’s usually not true, but it’s based on the number of cognates between the two languages — words that are similar enough in form and meaning that speakers of one can understand the other.  In Arabic, however, you can’t add “al-” to the front of an English word and make it correct — it’s kind of a crutch that the non-fluent but advanced speakers can use when speaking to a bilingual crowd so as not to break stride — I’ve thrown English words in when I don’t know the Arabic ones — but it doesn’t work in casual conversation.  The only cognates you’re likely to find are ones that were English to begin with: al-internet.  al-kumbyootir.  ad-dimuqraasiya. at-tiknuluujiya.

3. The lack of a “be” verb.  Where the lack of the be verb gets tricky is in the way the language has compensated for it — while there is not a verb for “to be,” there IS what my first Arabic instructor went to very great pains to make sure that we all understood was definitely NOT a verb for “to not be.”  Similarly, there is a not-verb for “to have been.”  Never mind that both look, smell, sound, and function like verbs in every other way, except, of course, for the fact that they’re not verbs.  Dammit.

4. There are no irregular verbs in Arabic. There are 500 regular verbal patterns, 495 of which only apply to one verb each.

5. Broken plurals. Similarly, there are lots of patterns for pluralizing words … and many of them are really irregular.  Grad students like to sit around and make up broken plurals for English to amuse themselves, which is how we decided a few years ago that the plural of “Bi-otch” is “Bowatchaa’”

6. Diglossia.  This is probably the biggest challenge for the learner of Arabic as a foreign language.  “Arabic” — the language that is taught in a classroom, is often Modern Standard Arabic, a constructed high language based on the language of the Qur’an (but not necessarily mutually intelligible with it).  It is grammatically rigid, nuanced, and eloquent.  It is not, however, what people speak in their daily lives.  Countries, regions, cities all have their own dialects that are based on MSA, but have been influenced over the centuries by other factors.

The Egyptian dialect–the one I’m the most familiar with–contains both words of Turkish origin (from the four centuries of Ottoman rule) as well as words of Coptic origin (Coptic is the language of the Egyptian Christian church, and is descended from the ancient Egyptian language).  In fact, I have a book on my shelf that outlines the number of words in Egyptian Arabic that can be traced back to the days of the pharaohs.  The Moroccan dialect, by contrast, contains a lot of words that haven’t been used since the medieval period in other parts of the Arab world, as well as a lot of Berber and French.

When I first arrived in Egypt as an undergrad, I had two years of Modern Standard under my belt and found myself unable to communicate with another living soul.  Those who could speak Modern Standard usually tired of hearing me struggle and would switch to English, which they usually spoke better than I could speak Arabic.

New textbooks now introduce dialect early on — as well they should.  I couldn’t even agree with people — I’d been taught to use the formal na’am, while most people in the eastern Mediterranean actually say aywa.

A few thoughts to throw out there — Arabic is definitely a challenging language, but the things that most people get hung up on aren’t even an issue.  Get over the squiggly letters and the right-to-left, oh interviewers of the world!

And, for God’s sake, quite trying to figure out whose fault it is … yeesh.

Morbid Newshound

Tuesday, June 2nd, 2009

For the past two days, I’ve been completely spellbound by the unfolding mystery of what happened to Air France 447.

There’s something of the locked-room mystery about the tale: passengers board a flight on a late autumn evening in Rio de Janeiro.  Among their numbers are the presidents of major corporations, doctors, lawyers, cabinet ministers, and, for a dash of complete exoticism, a handsome young prince, fourth in line to the Brazilian throne (never mind that the monarchy was abolished in the 1890s). The plane takes off, bound for Paris.  Dinner is served, the lights are dimmed.  Everything is routine.

Four hours into the flight, the plane passes over the northeastern coast of Brazil, heading for international waters.  The pilots report to Brazilian air traffic control that they’re passing out of their jurisdiction, and, as is usual when passing into an area that’s not covered by radar, they report the time that they expect to cross in to Senegalese airspace.  Some time later, the pilot reports thunderstorms and severe turbulence.  Then … nothing.  The plane never arrives in Senegalese airspace.  Calls fly back and forth between Recife and Dakar — no one can see the plane.  It never shows up on radar screens in Casablanca or Tolouse.  With the exception of a few automated messages received on a maintenance computer in Paris indicating that something has gone horribly, terribly wrong, the plane has, quite literally, disappeared.

There’s a compelling story in here, even if we try to fictionalize it.  But it’s not fiction, it really happened.  And, like lots of people everywhere, I want to know more.  Am I morbid?  Why?

There is, of course, the fear factor.  I’ve spent a good deal of time on airplanes, including ones that cross the ocean.  In less than a month, I’ll be flying transatlantic again–I’ve lost count, but I think this trip will be number 15 or 16.  I want to know what happened to AF 447 because I want some sort of reassurance that it’s not likely to happen on any flight I’m planning to take in the near future.

And then there’s the morbid part: what would it have been like to be on that plane?  *shivers*

For the past two days, I’ve spent a bit of time regularly checking updates as reported by the foreign media — back and forth between the Brazilian papers Folha do Sao Paolo and O Globo, the French newspaper Le Monde, and the message boards on Airliners.Net where polyglots helpfully translate articles in languages I can’t read.  (As a Spanish speaker, I find Portuguese easier to read than French … although clicking on the video clips that Globo has posted turned out to be pointless because, although I may be able to read Portuguese, I can’t understand the spoken language at all).

I’m also learning things about what the American press considers worthwhile.  One of the reasons why I had to break out the Spanish-Portuguese dictionary is that the English language media is doing a pretty bad job at updating the story regularly.  The Brazilian press reports every latest development, whereas BBC is running several hours behind, and CNN?  Fuggedaboutit.  Granted, it wasn’t a flight that came from the US, and there were other important goings on in the world yesterday (I refer, of course, to the Bruno/Eminem teabagging incident), but I still couldn’t help being a little snarky when I noticed that CNN became far more interested once it was known that two American citizens were on board.

Today, the world has caught up.  And the mystery is starting to clear, at least a little: although the aircraft would have run out of fuel a couple of hours after it missed its scheduled arrival time in Paris yesterday, it wasn’t until Brazil’s Minister of Defense announced that wreckage found in the Atlantic 700 miles northeast of Recife has been positively identified as belonging to Air France 447 that the media began using the word “crash.”

It’s a stunning tragedy — I feel a knot in my stomach whenever I see the images of relatives and friends arriving at the airports in Rio and Paris, trying to get more information.  They want what we all want: we want to know what happened. We want to find out it was quick.  We want to find out they didn’t know it was coming.  And we’re all pretty sure we’re wrong.

And I just can’t stop watching.

Captain Trips

Friday, May 1st, 2009

It’s official.  I’m over the swine flu thing.

I don’t mean that I contracted the illness and recovered.  I mean that I’m over the non-stop media frenzy over the disease in which not a single one of the media outlets is actually reporting what anyone with half a brain can tell: NO ONE KNOWS WHAT’S ACTUALLY GOING ON.

Cue, for example, the jumble of headlines I saw this morning on my way into the office.  The New York Times was reporting that the virus appears to be slowing down.  USA Today, however, screamed that the World Health Organization was moving the pandemic level up another number.  “It’s a 5!  It’s almost a 6!  That’s the highest number there is!  They might have to invent a 7 just for this disease!”

Several of the more sensible (cue finger quotes) outlets are beginning to run the story that the hysteria about swine flu might just be far worse than the disease itself.

I had a real wall-banger moment the other day when I saw that Israeli politician Yakov Litzman suggested that the name “swine flu” was inappropriate because of the swine=not kosher connection (a couple of the more politically correct news orgs ran headlines, “Is the name ‘swine flu’ offensive to Jews and Muslims?”), and suggested instead that the flu be named the “Mexican flu.”  Because it’s apparently better to offend Mexicans than Jews or Muslims.

(For the record, the Jews and Muslims that I work with were all rolling their eyes over that one.  “It’s not like you’re impure if you catch the disease just because it’s named for a pig!”)

Even better is this little ditty from Qatar Airways:

Qatar Airways requires that all operating crew wear masks on flights from the United States – namely daily services from New York, Washington DC and Houston.

The airline has taken additional mandatory measures for all 1,100 flight deck and 3,400 cabin crew to be vaccinated against influenza to limit the risk of contamination to passengers and staff. The flu vaccine is a protective measure and only protects against a certain strain of flu, not swine flu, which is at the centre of the current health concerns.

Passengers on Qatar Airways’ flights originating from the US to Doha are being issued with masks upon boarding and advised to wear them inflight. In addition, all Qatar Airways’ customer contact staff in the United States and at Doha International Airport are required to wear masks.

Seriously.  How about giving all of the passengers little bottles of Purell and towlettes to wipe themselves down with, given the number of surfaces on your standard airliner that test positive for fecal bacteria?

None of this is to belittle the illness itself–the cousin of a friend of mine was among the first fatalities in Mexico City, and the family has been quarantined by the Ministry of Health.  There are people out there dying from it.  If as much attention were being paid to the treatment of the disease as to, say, semantincs and hokey “preventative measures,” the pandemic could be nearly over.

It’s like the entire world is waiting for The Stand to happen in real life.  (Which leads me to another riff: Considering that he’s pretty much the epitome of pop culture, Stephen King is really bad at inventing pop culture in his own novels.  In The Stand, for example, the popular name given to the strand of the superflu that wipes out humanity is “Captain Trips” — oh, no!  The Captain and Tenille are killing everyone! — and one of the main characters has a top 40 hit called “Baby, Can You Dig Your Man?”  Yes, the book was originally written in the 70s, but I have a hard time imagining that any of this was culturally relevant even then.)

Another friend announced that she was retiring to her bedroom with a bottle of wine and planned to watch all 8 hours of the miniseries in order to dodge the flu.  I don’t know if it’ll work as a preventative, but it will answer the question, “Whatever happened to Corin Nemec?”

YouTube Preview Image

At My Funeral

Monday, December 15th, 2008

I know it’s probably a bit weird to think about your own funeral. In my case, this is doubly so given that I haven’t yet quite accepted the fact that I’m not going to live forever, a la AbFab (“Eddy, you remember how you said you were going to die?” “I might not be now. I’m looking into it.”)

On the other hand, I find it hard to attend someone else’s funeral and not think about whether or not this is the kind of service that I’d want for myself. BJ’s funeral was Saturday, and as religious services go, it was quite nice. I particularly enjoyed that the closing hymn was “We Shall Overcome,” since it sort of encompassed her life’s work quite nicely.

I started blabbing about this the other night in a drunken stupor, and Ray told me I was being morbid, and maybe I am, but it’s a good blog topic. (Especially for Christmastime!) After all, who didn’t have the discussion with their partner or spouse or loved ones during the whole Terry Schiavo affair? For the record: don’t keep me plugged in. And I certainly hope that everyone knows me well enough to know that bringing Jesus into the conversation would just piss me off.

I also made the decision that I want to be cremated after going to a viewing for the husband of a longtime coworker of mine. I’d never met him in life, but I walked into the viewing area, looked in the coffin and thought–God help me–This is the most unnatural thing I’ve ever seen in my life. He looks like a giant block of tofu. I don’t want them to do this to me.

After the service for BJ on Saturday, some of us were reflecting that the nicest moments were when people were telling stories about her. I like that aspect, and I’ve long suspected that I don’t really want a funeral at all. I want a cocktail party.

I don’t believe that, if there is an afterlife, you can’t get in until certain magic rituals and prayers have been said over your body. I just can’t buy that it works that way. Especially for someone like BJ. I do not see her putting up with the celestial passport control officer informing her that, “I’m sorry ma’am, but your visa hasn’t been approved yet. They haven’t said mass for you. Have a seat in the transit lounge. There’s coffee and TVs, but they’re all tuned to the CNN Airport Network.”

I’d much rather that the urn with my ashes be placed next to photos of me (which I will have to personally approve first, naturally), and people have a good time. Tell stories. Does someone really need to recite selected readings from the Bible? Sure. But I’ll pick the passages. And just to keep everyone on their toes, I may toss in a couple from the Qur’an, the Baghavad Gita, and Tales from the City, too. After all, if the passage speaks to one, why not? Isn’t that what’s important? I’d be much happier thinking that people will remember me with fondness and think to themselves, “I kinda want this when I go.” I’d be horrified to think that people will gather, be forced to sit in hard wooden pews, and spend the entire time looking at watches and wondering if there will be booze at the reception afterward.

So there you have it. Like I said, maybe it’s morbid to think about this stuff (Ray did seem a bit horrified), but life is short, and we all know that this is one of those things that no one likes talking about, especially me.

The next post will be all about something completely trivial, I promise!

The Queen Boat, Reconsidered

Tuesday, November 11th, 2008

It’s been quite a while since I’ve written one of my long boring posts, so if you don’t like them, well, I’m sorry.

We had a guest lecturer on campus yesterday who got me thinking (which I am wont to do from time to time) about stuff I haven’t thought about in quite a while.  I’m not going to use his name because he made himself a bit infamous for reasons that have nothing to do with the talk he gave, and I don’t want people stumbling across my blog by seeking him out in Google.  If his topic sounds interesting, e-mail me and I’ll point you in the direction of his article.

The gist of his talk is something to the following effect: he argues that what he calls a “sexual binary”–namely that one must either identify as hetero- or homosexual–is a western notion that is being imposed on the rest of the world.  If this sounds post-colonialist, you’re not wrong (if you don’t know what post-colonialism is, don’t worry about it — I’m only passingly familiar with it as I think the concept that your thoughts have to be limited by a school of thought is kind of stupid).

His specialization is the Arab World, and his particular grief is that the West is imposing this sexual binary on the Arab World when human rights groups, NGOs, etc., identify a certain subset of the populace as gay or lesbian, even when those people may not identify as gay themselves.

For the record, I started having problems with this guy’s talk when he contradicted himself by suggesting that Arabs have learned the concept of being exclusively “gay” or “lesbian” from the West, but then later said that he knows there are Arabs who do identify as gay or lesbian and that’s OK.

Now, he’s not one of these guys suggesting that homosexuality is a western disease and that it’s an unnatural behavior learned from the West — what he’s saying is that in a good chunk of the world, sexuality is more polymorphous than a simple binary.  Men who are married to women and have children also have sex with men, for example, and that these societies have constructed space to allow this behavior.  What he’s arguing is that the insistence from outside that these people be recognized as “gay” and given rights that they’re not asking for is actually causing more harm than good.

And then he brought up the example of the Queen Boat.  The story is recapped as follows: in May 2001, police raided a nightclub in Cairo (the Queen Boat — it was one of the nightclubs that’s on a large boat that goes out for a two or three hour cruise on the Nile that are popular among tourists and Egyptians alike) that was a reputed gay hangout.  52 men were arrested and charged with debauchery (there being no law against gay sex in Egypt), and the trials spanned over months.

Several international gay rights organizations picked up the banner and pressured western embassies to take up the cause of Egypt’s “repression of homosexuality.”  The western gay press ran stories about “Egypt’s Stonewall.”

The problem was this: none of the men arrested identified themselves as gay, even under allegations of torture.  The gay press attributed this to a long-standing social stigma against homosexuality, but Our Speaker suggested another explanation: none of the men actually considered themselves gay.  Many, in fact most of them were married and had children.  Instead of being Egypt’s Stonewall, it was a trial that went nowhere, and with the exception of two men who’ve been in jail for years, most of them were free within a couple of months, badly embarrassed at having been accused of “licentious behavior.”  Several of them have since emigrated from Egypt (with wives and children).

Our Speaker argued that the international attention did more harm than good–Egypt at the time had no law against homosexual acts.  Parliament is now considering them, however, in response to the Queen Boat incident.

I was trying to digest all of this–I think he’s got a point, although I think there are problems with his analysis–when a friend of mine, an Egyptian doctoral candidate in history, raised her hand and made a counterpoint that I’d been waiting for.  The Egyptian government was, at the time, facing rising opposition from Islamist parties who were accusing the government of being corrupt and amoral, and were holding themselves to be the protectors of virtue.  Shortly thereafter, the Egyptian government sanctions a raid on a well-known gay nightclub that’s been operating for years and charges everyone on board with amoral behavior.  Coincidence?  She doesn’t think so, and neither do I.

Another example our speaker brought up was the novel/film ‘Omaret Ya’qubian (The Yacoubian Building), which was very popular the last time I was in Cairo in 2006.  Among the characters in the novel–which is a sort of Egyptian Peyton Place, following the lives of the inhabitants of an apartment building in downtown Cairo–is the self-identified homosexual character Hatem, who engages in a relationship with a Nubian soldier, Abed Rabbo.

Our Speaker argued that the novel is essentially Islamist in tone, even though the author clearly thinks he’s being very sophisticated.  Hatem, who lives alone and is the passive partner in the relationship (read: “bottom”) is identified as شاظ “shadh” (or “shaz,” as the Egyptians would pronounce it) which means deviant or pervert, but is also common street slang for gay.  (I started to have problems with his talk around this point, because he was saying that the book was mistranslated into English because shaz used to only mean “deviant” in a much broader sense, even though now anyone who reads the book would read it as “homosexual,” which the author is on record as having said is what he meant).

Abed Rabbo, on the other hand, is married and has a son, and is never identified as a shaz.  (Abed Rabbo later murders Hatem … well, it’s complicated).  Hence, Our Speaker puts forward the suggestion that the behaviour is only deviant because Hatem has sex exclusively with men, and exclusively in the passive role, for which he is “punished” with death at the end of the novel.

Again, he kind of has a point here, although I kind of think that Our Speaker would do well to review, for example, The Celluloid Closet for examples of early gay and lesbian characters in film, who almost always met a tragic end.  One of the explanations of this is that it helped anyone in the audience who was having conflicted issues about feeling sympathetic toward the gay character feel better when he or she “got what they deserved.”  Indeed, audiences who watched the film version of The Yacoubian Building were reputed to cheer Hatem’s death, even if they had been sobbing moments earlier when Abed Rabbo’s son took ill and died.

And then this got me thinking about Prop 8.  I know, it’s kind of crazy that thinking about the tenuous relationship between Islam and homosexuality in Egypt might have gotten me thinking about Prop 8 and the enormous backlash against the Mormons for funding it.  Believe me, I’m all for holding the church accountable for their part–but Californians actually voted for it.  I find it interesting (anthropologically speaking) that someone could stand in the election booth and vote for Barack Obama, arguably one of the most liberal Democrats to run for office in years, on the one hand while voting for Prop 8 on the other and see no contradiction.

What, I wonder, was the tipping point?  I don’t believe that it’s as simple as “the Mormons poured a bunch of money into the campaign and that’s why it passed” (note to Michael: I’m not saying that I don’t think it’s A reason, I’m saying that I don’t think it’s the ONLY reason.)

I don’t have answers to this, I’m merely posing the question: what made the people of what is, next to Massachusetts, considered the most liberal state in the Union decide not only to ban gay marriage but to retroactively alter the state constitution, thus potentially invalidating 18,000+ marragies already on the books?  The LDS campaign may have pushed it over the top (in fact, I’m fairly sure it did), but there was already a solid base to begin.

How could we have made history by electing our first black president and shattering the racial glass ceiling, but reaffirm separate-and-unequal status in several states all in one fell swoop?  Are we the sacrificial lamb being offered up?  “We’ll elect a black guy, but the immorality has to stop” — is that it? Trust me, I’m kind of used to it.  I live in Texas.

But it doesn’t make me happy about any of this.  It just makes me wonder what’s really going on here.

If I have any more thoughts, I’ll share.  You can, too.

 

Blog Theme by LJP & SLR Lounge