Thursday 8 July 2010
Double Take
Tuesday 6 July 2010
They always choose the dumbest American....
Why is it that the reporters always seem to choose the dumbest person in America to interview about whatever news event is going on?
In this article about how Baldwin Park, CA -- birthplace of the In'N'Out Burger -- is banning drive-thrus (a rarity in the UK), somehow they found this brilliant example of American intelligence to interview:
Nice, real nice, Fabian.
In this article about how Baldwin Park, CA -- birthplace of the In'N'Out Burger -- is banning drive-thrus (a rarity in the UK), somehow they found this brilliant example of American intelligence to interview:
Another customer, Fabian Olguin, conceded that "to be honest, yeah, we have too many drive-thrus", but said they are a victim of their own success. Sometimes, the long line of cars outside In-N-Out often makes it impossible for him to drive there from his workplace, on the other side of the road, he complained. When that happens, he is forced to walk across the street and eat his dinner in the restaurant's sit-down section.
Nice, real nice, Fabian.
Wednesday 23 June 2010
I hate the Guardian
Headline: "Budget 2010 losers: women, disabled and families bear the brunt"
Sub headings:
Disabled people (cuts and stricter regulations on disability living allowance)
Middle income families (child tax credit)
Mothers (pregnancy and maternity payments abolished)
The north (public sector cuts and job losses)
Poorer families in London (housing allowance capped)
For the Guardian, "women" = "mothers"
Nice.
Thanks, Guardian, I'm not a woman.
Sexist pigs.
Sub headings:
Disabled people (cuts and stricter regulations on disability living allowance)
Middle income families (child tax credit)
Mothers (pregnancy and maternity payments abolished)
The north (public sector cuts and job losses)
Poorer families in London (housing allowance capped)
For the Guardian, "women" = "mothers"
Nice.
Thanks, Guardian, I'm not a woman.
Sexist pigs.
Monday 21 June 2010
World Cup "Widows"
Ah, the World Cup. This is me being excited. "Anyone But England": racist? England drawing with the US and Algeria: scandalous? WAGS: (Wives And Girlfriends -- why is it pluralised with an S on the acronym? Probably the same reason that FUBARed has an ED.) good or bad? But today I'm talking about the term "Football Widows".
"Football Widows" is used to describe women who don't watch football being ignored by husbands (boyfriends, etc.) who do.
When looking on Google News, oddly enough, "articles" from Which Bingo UK, Online Bingo Club, and Online Bingo Fans appear in top 5.
Why are these obviously commercial websites appearing on Google NEWS? Um, problem, google guys.
But this may, in effect, show how the term is used commercially to draw in women to spend money whilst their men spend money on beer, pizza, and other football snackfoods.
(See examples left)
I like the Sainsbury's ad as an example of the range of things sold about the World Cup: beer (in mini fridge, cider outside), crisps, branded clothes, and a sofa and a TV.
The Tesco World Cup section also has the TV, but has BBQ meat (mmm, testosterone!), and the more classy wines (as compared to cider).
This one kills me, though.
At Tesco, women wear shirts supporting their team.
At New Look, they wear underwear.
Thanks.
But this ad in particular caught my eye. This is an email from a local hotel we sometimes use at work for company guests.
The name of the hotel was removed so that they don't get embarrassed by the fact that ALL PEOPLE WHO DON'T LIKE FOOTBALL ARE WOMEN (widows).
I think my football-hating husband would disagree.
"Football Widows" is used to describe women who don't watch football being ignored by husbands (boyfriends, etc.) who do.
When looking on Google News, oddly enough, "articles" from Which Bingo UK, Online Bingo Club, and Online Bingo Fans appear in top 5.
Why are these obviously commercial websites appearing on Google NEWS? Um, problem, google guys.
But this may, in effect, show how the term is used commercially to draw in women to spend money whilst their men spend money on beer, pizza, and other football snackfoods.
(See examples left)
I like the Sainsbury's ad as an example of the range of things sold about the World Cup: beer (in mini fridge, cider outside), crisps, branded clothes, and a sofa and a TV.
The Tesco World Cup section also has the TV, but has BBQ meat (mmm, testosterone!), and the more classy wines (as compared to cider).
At Tesco, women wear shirts supporting their team.
At New Look, they wear underwear.
Thanks.
But this ad in particular caught my eye. This is an email from a local hotel we sometimes use at work for company guests.
Love it or hate it, the World Cup is here and for our very good friends, we've put together two packages that give you the best of both worlds.
For football lovers, there's the World Cup Warm-up package, which features a super-slinky room, fantastic atmosphere, buckets of beer and of course big screen football.
For World Cup loathers there's the World Cup Widows package. Leave the other half in the bar or on the sofa and escape the World Cup at the [hotel]. Featuring dinner, 2 cocktails, nibbles and chocolate. As well as DVDs to watch and breakfast delivered to your room. Who says you can't enjoy the World Cup too?
Enjoy the World Cup in style from from June 11th - July 11th 2010.
World Cup Warm-up from £99 per room
World Cup Widows from £65 per person
The name of the hotel was removed so that they don't get embarrassed by the fact that ALL PEOPLE WHO DON'T LIKE FOOTBALL ARE WOMEN (widows).
I think my football-hating husband would disagree.
Wednesday 5 May 2010
Individual Responsibility
The individual is central to the American system. In the UK, it's the group. Two examples of the power of groups in the UK is the education system and the political system. Being that the general election is tomorrow, I thought I'd explain the way it works for Americans.
Each constituency elects an MP to Parliament in Westminster. It's a standard majority vote, or "first past the post" as it's called here. The MPs then go to Parliament and the political party with the most MPs gets to be the Government and choose the Prime Minister and his cabinet. The other parties get to be "shadow" cabinet members. There are "front bench" and "back bench" MPs; the back bench MPs are considered less important and don't get as much say in things. During speeches in Parliament, it is quite traditional to have the MPs cheer or boo or do that standard RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE thing.
What this system means is that the people do not elect the Prime Minister. They elect a political party, and that party chooses the Prime Minister from their ranks. There are many political parties in the UK, but the biggest are Labour, Conservative (Tory), and Liberal Democrats (Lib Dem). Outside of that are the regional parties of Scottish Nationalist Party (SNP) and the Welsh Plaid Cymru. There are also the Green Party, the UK Independence Party (UKIP), the British Nationalist Party (BNP), the Libertarian Party, the Socialist Unionist or whatever party, and historically the Raving Loony Party. So it's not like the people have no choice in the matter. But this variety has somehow or another led to what is called "strategic voting". As I was told in 2000, "A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush", in the General Election various parties are asking the public to vote strategically. "A vote for Lib Dem is a vote for Labour" or in different constituencies "A vote for Lib Dem is a vote for Tory". They have their safe constituencies much like the Republicans can count on Texas and the Democrats can count on, um, who can the Democrats count on? Washington State? I dunno.
But I reiterate: people do not elect MPs, they elect a party. The MPs have almost no personal responsibility to their constituency: they almost invariably tow the party line. The MP is merely a cog in the big wheel of the party, run by God only knows whom. And so the people have no recourse of action if they think their MP sucks. People must consider the values not of the individual who is running for MP, but only the values of the party they are voting for. And choosing the Prime Minister? Not the public's job. So the debates on TV by the leaders of the big three parties defeated the purpose: while political goals will be the party's line, the personal charisma, integrity, and general bearing of the leader himself may not be the same as the MP the public will elect in that constituency. Thus, the public has no need to vote for an MP with any sort of sense of personal responsibility. For someone to say "I am honest and I will only think of you, my constituency, first" wouldn't work and wouldn't happen.
So personal responsibility is not necessary in UK politics. And then they wonder why there was the big expenses scandal. Be aware, America, if the ridiculous party politics continue, you could go down the British path, leading to people voting for parties not politicians and being unable to hold politicians accountable. Be selfish, be demanding, and ask for congressmen and congresswomen you trust and believe in. Person, not party.
The power of the group also continues into the education system. In the US, in most places, you have primary school, middle school (or junior high), and high school. Once in high school, your transcript for all four years will be considered by colleges and universities, usually in conjunction with a standardized test like the ACT or SAT and probably some essays. But in high school, all four years count. Every class is a piece of the GPA that will let you into some college or university. Sure primary school and middle school aren't as important, but there's always that possibility that if you are exceptionally bright you may be pushed forward or if you're exceptionally not bright, held back a year. Maybe it isn't used often, but it's there. A child is able to fail or succeed, and they hold their future in their four years of high school.
This isn't the case in the UK. The educational system is in two stages: primary school and secondary school. (I've known some Brits to get particularly snippy about referring to college or university as "school".) Some 30 years ago or so, it used to be that there was an exam at age 11 (the end of primary school) that would determine if the child got sent to a grammar school where they would complete O-level exams, or if they would be sent to the lesser state secondary schools. From what I've been told, this single exam at age 11 would decide your fate, as students from the lesser secondary schools would never get the same level of qualification as the students from the grammar schools. Typically this was along class lines: you were more likely to go to a grammar school if you were wealthy and the converse. But there was still a chance that a student could be from a poor background but work really hard and pass the 11+ exam to get into a good grammar school. You could still fail or succeed.
The duel system was done away with in the 70's. There are still "selective" private schools, much like the private schools in the US, which I would assume are likewise quite expensive and usually reserved for the wealthiest of children. Students now take A-levels instead of O-levels. These exams, taken on a number of subjects like the O-levels, are what gets the student into university. A quick look at the University of Edinburgh undergraduate admissions for English Literature shows that the main qualifications needed for getting into the degree are the number of A-levels (or Scottish SQA equivalent) and the score on them. So the classwork doesn't count. Only the exams matter.
This may be the reason that there are even fewer push-forward of hold-backs in the UK than there are in the US. At least anecdotally, it's unheard of to tell a primary student to repeat a grade. Or skip a grade. You progress at the same rate as everyone else, regardless of ability. (Note the case of Alexander Faludy who was the youngest Cambridge undergraduate student in almost 200 years.) But why care? It's not the classes that matter, it's the exams. You could potentially fuck around until the age of 15 but then pass the exams and not worry. Where is the personal responsibility in that? Personal responsibility is just like any other skill: use it or lose it. And regardless of whether you think passing an exam show personal responsibility or not, where is the university consideration of the whole rather than the part? This is, I must say a problem in American higher education with too much weight being given to the SATs, but at least things aren't so bad that GPA's aren't recognised.
Stay alert, America. Think about the UK, and remember, "there but for the grace of God go I". Learn from the British. We owe them a lot (like our English language!), but we should not duplicate their mistakes.
The NHS, on the other hand, that could use replication.
Each constituency elects an MP to Parliament in Westminster. It's a standard majority vote, or "first past the post" as it's called here. The MPs then go to Parliament and the political party with the most MPs gets to be the Government and choose the Prime Minister and his cabinet. The other parties get to be "shadow" cabinet members. There are "front bench" and "back bench" MPs; the back bench MPs are considered less important and don't get as much say in things. During speeches in Parliament, it is quite traditional to have the MPs cheer or boo or do that standard RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE thing.
What this system means is that the people do not elect the Prime Minister. They elect a political party, and that party chooses the Prime Minister from their ranks. There are many political parties in the UK, but the biggest are Labour, Conservative (Tory), and Liberal Democrats (Lib Dem). Outside of that are the regional parties of Scottish Nationalist Party (SNP) and the Welsh Plaid Cymru. There are also the Green Party, the UK Independence Party (UKIP), the British Nationalist Party (BNP), the Libertarian Party, the Socialist Unionist or whatever party, and historically the Raving Loony Party. So it's not like the people have no choice in the matter. But this variety has somehow or another led to what is called "strategic voting". As I was told in 2000, "A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush", in the General Election various parties are asking the public to vote strategically. "A vote for Lib Dem is a vote for Labour" or in different constituencies "A vote for Lib Dem is a vote for Tory". They have their safe constituencies much like the Republicans can count on Texas and the Democrats can count on, um, who can the Democrats count on? Washington State? I dunno.
But I reiterate: people do not elect MPs, they elect a party. The MPs have almost no personal responsibility to their constituency: they almost invariably tow the party line. The MP is merely a cog in the big wheel of the party, run by God only knows whom. And so the people have no recourse of action if they think their MP sucks. People must consider the values not of the individual who is running for MP, but only the values of the party they are voting for. And choosing the Prime Minister? Not the public's job. So the debates on TV by the leaders of the big three parties defeated the purpose: while political goals will be the party's line, the personal charisma, integrity, and general bearing of the leader himself may not be the same as the MP the public will elect in that constituency. Thus, the public has no need to vote for an MP with any sort of sense of personal responsibility. For someone to say "I am honest and I will only think of you, my constituency, first" wouldn't work and wouldn't happen.
So personal responsibility is not necessary in UK politics. And then they wonder why there was the big expenses scandal. Be aware, America, if the ridiculous party politics continue, you could go down the British path, leading to people voting for parties not politicians and being unable to hold politicians accountable. Be selfish, be demanding, and ask for congressmen and congresswomen you trust and believe in. Person, not party.
The power of the group also continues into the education system. In the US, in most places, you have primary school, middle school (or junior high), and high school. Once in high school, your transcript for all four years will be considered by colleges and universities, usually in conjunction with a standardized test like the ACT or SAT and probably some essays. But in high school, all four years count. Every class is a piece of the GPA that will let you into some college or university. Sure primary school and middle school aren't as important, but there's always that possibility that if you are exceptionally bright you may be pushed forward or if you're exceptionally not bright, held back a year. Maybe it isn't used often, but it's there. A child is able to fail or succeed, and they hold their future in their four years of high school.
This isn't the case in the UK. The educational system is in two stages: primary school and secondary school. (I've known some Brits to get particularly snippy about referring to college or university as "school".) Some 30 years ago or so, it used to be that there was an exam at age 11 (the end of primary school) that would determine if the child got sent to a grammar school where they would complete O-level exams, or if they would be sent to the lesser state secondary schools. From what I've been told, this single exam at age 11 would decide your fate, as students from the lesser secondary schools would never get the same level of qualification as the students from the grammar schools. Typically this was along class lines: you were more likely to go to a grammar school if you were wealthy and the converse. But there was still a chance that a student could be from a poor background but work really hard and pass the 11+ exam to get into a good grammar school. You could still fail or succeed.
The duel system was done away with in the 70's. There are still "selective" private schools, much like the private schools in the US, which I would assume are likewise quite expensive and usually reserved for the wealthiest of children. Students now take A-levels instead of O-levels. These exams, taken on a number of subjects like the O-levels, are what gets the student into university. A quick look at the University of Edinburgh undergraduate admissions for English Literature shows that the main qualifications needed for getting into the degree are the number of A-levels (or Scottish SQA equivalent) and the score on them. So the classwork doesn't count. Only the exams matter.
This may be the reason that there are even fewer push-forward of hold-backs in the UK than there are in the US. At least anecdotally, it's unheard of to tell a primary student to repeat a grade. Or skip a grade. You progress at the same rate as everyone else, regardless of ability. (Note the case of Alexander Faludy who was the youngest Cambridge undergraduate student in almost 200 years.) But why care? It's not the classes that matter, it's the exams. You could potentially fuck around until the age of 15 but then pass the exams and not worry. Where is the personal responsibility in that? Personal responsibility is just like any other skill: use it or lose it. And regardless of whether you think passing an exam show personal responsibility or not, where is the university consideration of the whole rather than the part? This is, I must say a problem in American higher education with too much weight being given to the SATs, but at least things aren't so bad that GPA's aren't recognised.
Stay alert, America. Think about the UK, and remember, "there but for the grace of God go I". Learn from the British. We owe them a lot (like our English language!), but we should not duplicate their mistakes.
The NHS, on the other hand, that could use replication.
Thursday 29 April 2010
BNP buys my love
Headline: BNP would offer £50,000 to leave the country. My response: WHERE DO I SIGN UP?!?
I've paid roughly £1000 in visa fees over the past 4 years. (Current Student Visa: £199; Current Post-Study Work (Formerly Fresh Talent Scotland): £315; Spouse visa: £475 by post; TOTAL: £989)
I won't count the taxes I've paid as I've enjoyed the NHS service, and I'd have to pay tax in the US as well.
Petrol prices are about £1.17 per litre, which at 3.78 litres to the US gallon, makes gas £4.42 per gallon, or at today's exchange rate, $6.72 per gallon, or more than twice what it is in the US. Being that (while I don't drive) my husband and I spend roughly £50 per month on petrol alone, and I've been with him for 3 years, divided between the two of us, I've overspent (50*36=£1800/2=) roughly £900 on gas.
Let's look at food.
UK (usually Morrissons): Bread: £0.75-£1.34 ($1.14-$2.04) Milk (2L): ~£1.50 ($2.28) Eggs (12 large Free-range): £3.99 ($6.06) Butter: £1 (on sale - works out to one cup) ($1.52)
USA (Albertson's online): Bread: $0.99-$3.59 Milk (Half Gallon) $1.79 Eggs (Naturally Nested 12 Grade AA large): $3.29 Butter: (four sticks = four cups) $2.59-$3.49 ($0.64-$0.87 / cup)
Difference: Bread: On average, roughly the same if not better. Milk: UK: $1.14/L US: $0.95/L = 20% increase in the UK. Eggs: Almost twice as expensive in the UK. Butter: Twice as expensive.
So, while food prices vary from slightly less than American prices to twice American prices, we can assume that there is roughly a 50% increase on prices, if not more. So if I'd lived in the US, our grocery bill of £30/week ($45.60/week) would be cut to probably $30/week (£10/week less). So I've overspent in the 3.5 years I've been here some (10*52*3=) £1560 on food.
Visa: £989
Petrol: £900
Food: £1560
Total spent on UK (not including flights): £3449
Out of the £50,000 for leaving the country, I'd re-coup that £3500, spend another £1000 on the flight home and some £1000-2500 moving our things. Leaving £43,000 to buy a house in the US. At today's exchange rate, that's $65,360, which in Oregon would buy a 1 bedroom house in a cheap area or a 2-3 bedroom manufactured home or some acres of land. Not too bad, eh?
Of course, with the UK in its biggest economy crisis in EONS, the big question is: how would you pay for this?
But then, the BNP isn't concerned with practicality, are they?
I've paid roughly £1000 in visa fees over the past 4 years. (Current Student Visa: £199; Current Post-Study Work (Formerly Fresh Talent Scotland): £315; Spouse visa: £475 by post; TOTAL: £989)
I won't count the taxes I've paid as I've enjoyed the NHS service, and I'd have to pay tax in the US as well.
Petrol prices are about £1.17 per litre, which at 3.78 litres to the US gallon, makes gas £4.42 per gallon, or at today's exchange rate, $6.72 per gallon, or more than twice what it is in the US. Being that (while I don't drive) my husband and I spend roughly £50 per month on petrol alone, and I've been with him for 3 years, divided between the two of us, I've overspent (50*36=£1800/2=) roughly £900 on gas.
Let's look at food.
UK (usually Morrissons): Bread: £0.75-£1.34 ($1.14-$2.04) Milk (2L): ~£1.50 ($2.28) Eggs (12 large Free-range): £3.99 ($6.06) Butter: £1 (on sale - works out to one cup) ($1.52)
USA (Albertson's online): Bread: $0.99-$3.59 Milk (Half Gallon) $1.79 Eggs (Naturally Nested 12 Grade AA large): $3.29 Butter: (four sticks = four cups) $2.59-$3.49 ($0.64-$0.87 / cup)
Difference: Bread: On average, roughly the same if not better. Milk: UK: $1.14/L US: $0.95/L = 20% increase in the UK. Eggs: Almost twice as expensive in the UK. Butter: Twice as expensive.
So, while food prices vary from slightly less than American prices to twice American prices, we can assume that there is roughly a 50% increase on prices, if not more. So if I'd lived in the US, our grocery bill of £30/week ($45.60/week) would be cut to probably $30/week (£10/week less). So I've overspent in the 3.5 years I've been here some (10*52*3=) £1560 on food.
Visa: £989
Petrol: £900
Food: £1560
Total spent on UK (not including flights): £3449
Out of the £50,000 for leaving the country, I'd re-coup that £3500, spend another £1000 on the flight home and some £1000-2500 moving our things. Leaving £43,000 to buy a house in the US. At today's exchange rate, that's $65,360, which in Oregon would buy a 1 bedroom house in a cheap area or a 2-3 bedroom manufactured home or some acres of land. Not too bad, eh?
Of course, with the UK in its biggest economy crisis in EONS, the big question is: how would you pay for this?
But then, the BNP isn't concerned with practicality, are they?
Wednesday 28 April 2010
China, HIV, and Xenophobia
The Guardian reports that China is ending its HIV entry ban. I think this is a good thing, but first some background on the situation.
When I lived in China, I was forced to have my chest x-rayed to make sure I didn't have tuberculosi, had my womb scanned to make sure I wasn't pregnant, and had my blood drawn to make sure I didn't have HIV/Aids. This was in 2004 and 2005. Fortunately for me, this was all paid for by the university I was working for. But it still remains that it was illegal for foreigners in China to have HIV/Aids. During the time I was there, there was even a case where the police were looking for a foreigner who had lied about having HIV and was on the run. They published a description of him and everything. Scary.
But even more frightening than dealing with the Chinese police (one of those fears I try to avoid), was the public opinion of STD such as HIV and Aids.
In China I had a lovely housekeeper named Sunny, who was a local woman who spoke English fairly well and had a knack for getting things done. She'd come in and clean once a week, but even better, it didn't matter what you needed, curtains, a vet, plants, she could find it for you. A clever woman, making her money off of the foriegn teachers at the university, but very genuine and nice. She was no rural bumpkin, nor a bigoted moron.
We were speaking one time about prostitutes in the nearby city. (Can't remember why.) And during the conversation the topic of safe sex came up. I think she had said that the prostitutes use no protection, or maybe I had asked about it. I had said, lord that's just wrong! Cause then these women could get Aids or something and then give it to other men who then take it home and give it to their wives! And this statement came as a surprise to my otherwise-worldly housekeeper. Only foriegners have Aids. I (probably quite angerly) refuted this saying, no, anyone can have Aids. And even if it first came from foreigners, everytime a Chinese man goes to Thailand and sleeps with a prostitute he could brind back Aids to his wife and family and any other prostitutes he sleeps with. I don't think I mentioned drug use or sharing needles, but the flat out denial that Aids (or any STD) shouldn't be a consideration between two Chinese people having unprotected sex simply blew me away.
I think I helped open her eyes about the matter some. But then, like I said, she was sharp. All of her English had been learned on her own by working for foreign teachers. But even this intelligent woman who has worked with foreigners for years still harboured some small xenophobic blame of foreigners for Aids.
Possibly the only other statement to surprise me was from that teacher named Angel from the Phillippines who, when I asked why she thought there were so many hurricanes hitting the Deep South (of the US) replied -- quite seriously -- because they are evil sinners. And here I was thinking about "climate change" or "global warming". But she actually was a loony.
When I lived in China, I was forced to have my chest x-rayed to make sure I didn't have tuberculosi, had my womb scanned to make sure I wasn't pregnant, and had my blood drawn to make sure I didn't have HIV/Aids. This was in 2004 and 2005. Fortunately for me, this was all paid for by the university I was working for. But it still remains that it was illegal for foreigners in China to have HIV/Aids. During the time I was there, there was even a case where the police were looking for a foreigner who had lied about having HIV and was on the run. They published a description of him and everything. Scary.
But even more frightening than dealing with the Chinese police (one of those fears I try to avoid), was the public opinion of STD such as HIV and Aids.
In China I had a lovely housekeeper named Sunny, who was a local woman who spoke English fairly well and had a knack for getting things done. She'd come in and clean once a week, but even better, it didn't matter what you needed, curtains, a vet, plants, she could find it for you. A clever woman, making her money off of the foriegn teachers at the university, but very genuine and nice. She was no rural bumpkin, nor a bigoted moron.
We were speaking one time about prostitutes in the nearby city. (Can't remember why.) And during the conversation the topic of safe sex came up. I think she had said that the prostitutes use no protection, or maybe I had asked about it. I had said, lord that's just wrong! Cause then these women could get Aids or something and then give it to other men who then take it home and give it to their wives! And this statement came as a surprise to my otherwise-worldly housekeeper. Only foriegners have Aids. I (probably quite angerly) refuted this saying, no, anyone can have Aids. And even if it first came from foreigners, everytime a Chinese man goes to Thailand and sleeps with a prostitute he could brind back Aids to his wife and family and any other prostitutes he sleeps with. I don't think I mentioned drug use or sharing needles, but the flat out denial that Aids (or any STD) shouldn't be a consideration between two Chinese people having unprotected sex simply blew me away.
I think I helped open her eyes about the matter some. But then, like I said, she was sharp. All of her English had been learned on her own by working for foreign teachers. But even this intelligent woman who has worked with foreigners for years still harboured some small xenophobic blame of foreigners for Aids.
Possibly the only other statement to surprise me was from that teacher named Angel from the Phillippines who, when I asked why she thought there were so many hurricanes hitting the Deep South (of the US) replied -- quite seriously -- because they are evil sinners. And here I was thinking about "climate change" or "global warming". But she actually was a loony.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
