oxymoron67: (Default)
For those who thought that the "Is the DaVinci Code real?" documentaries were delightfully factual, the National Geographic Channel produced this documentary.

Lord, it was bad.

It starts off with this conspiracy theory that the Princess Elizabeth, when eleven, died of an illness and was secretly replaced by a boy. And no one noticed.

Seriously.

Ok, I can kind of see Henry VII not seeing this: he might not have been paying close attention and, for most of her childhood, Elizabeth was excluded from the succession and shunted off to the side. BUT his later queens, especially Katharine Parr, encouraged a reconciliation.

After Henry VII's death, Elizabeth lived with Katharine Parr and her new husband, Thomas Seymour. Since Seymour had (at least) a quasi-sexual relationship with Elizabeth, the whole "secretly a guy" thing would have been discovered.

Also, this conspiracy theory really gained traction because of misogyny. Lots of men cannot believe that a woman could have been a capable ruler, and since, unlike Catherine the Great of Russia who enjoyed sex or Maria Theresa of Austria who had seventeen children, Elizabeth remained unmarried and probably a virgin.

So, she had to be a man. Otherwise, she would have married and bred.

Never mind that she lived through her own mother's execution as well as the execution of her father's fifth wife (Katharine Howard) and the mess surrounding Lady Jane Grey, Elizabeth learned that to stay alive, she needed to stay in control, so no marriage.

Anyway, then they discussed that she never married, and the whole romance with Dudley (who she may have married, had things turned out differently).

So... nothing new and some idiotic conspiracy theories.

Huzzah.
oxymoron67: (Default)
I'm watching Nazi Hunters on the National Geographic Channel right now. This episode focuses on Paul Touvier, a French collaborator who was an important figure in the Milice, the Vichy French version of the Gestapo. Touvier worked with Klaus Barbie, the butcher of Lyon.

Touvier was responsible for the deportation and murder of Jews and resistance fighters.

After the war, Touvier was condemned to death by the French courts. Unfortunately, he was in hiding, protected by reactionary factions in the Catholic church. In fact, when Touvier was arrested, he and his family were staying in a monastery run by the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), a group so reactionary that Pope John Paul II excommunicated them.

I'm not surprised that SSPX would shelter this man. Many members of SSPX are Holocaust deniers.

In the early 90's, Touvier was convicted of Crimes Against Humanity. I think he;s the first Frenchman to be convicted of these charges.

This episode reminded me of a few things:

1) The Catholic church -- well, elements of the Catholic Church, helped many Nazis escape. This is part of why I oppose the canonization of Pope Pius XII the pope during the war. His ties and deal with the Axis have never really been made public.

2) American intelligence authorities also helped many Nazis escape, at least partially because they had information on the USSR, the new enemy.

It was an interesting documentary. If you can catch it, you should.
oxymoron67: (Default)
The 20 finalists showing pieces to Nina, Heidi, Michael and Tim? I loved that, It made sense to me. The four primary judges of the show got to see what the finalists had already done, and could give feedback and make some decisions. I did kind of feel sorry for the four who were sent home, but I don't disagree with the choices.

I liked the first challenge, too. Make an outfit out of what you sleep in and one bedsheet. I enjoy the challenges that aren't just "Make a pretty dress", but force the designers to think.

The guy sent home? The correct choice. His pants were horrible, and that ... necklace thing... that kind of looked like a cross between a bib and a fanny pack was worse.

I don't think that deeply closeted Mormon dude is long for this competition, mostly because that outfit he produced was ugly. The shirt looked like it was turned inside out.

Burt won! Which made me happy. I like him (so far).
oxymoron67: (Default)
I went to The Museum of the Moving Image today.

I am direction challenged, so by all rights, since the museum is:

1) someplace I've never been to
2) in a neighborhood I'm not terribly familiar with (Astoria)
3) and it was a gross, humid, rainy day

I should still be wandering around Astoria totally lost.

If you don't believe me, here is an example of what happened in Atlanta:

At any rate, after the plenary, the conference organizers scheduled a coffee break. (These people did scheduling right: one or two sessions, then a break for food and relaxation.) I was scheduled to give my first presentation, "Expanding the Speech Center's Role" after the coffee break.

Given my remarkable lack of direction sense, I decided to skip the coffee and just head out to the building where the presentations were taking place. It was only three blocks away, but I figured I could use the extra time.

I'm glad I did this. I managed to get lost. Twice. The first time, I was walking thinking that these were awfully long blocks when I came upon the Georgia State's bus station and the Georgia capitol building. I checked my map. Neither of these appeared on my map.

So, I turned around and went back. Making a different turn, I walked past three parking garages. Fortunately, I didn't walk quite as far this time, because I remembered that, according to the map, the parking garages were in the exact opposite direction of the building.

As a result, a five minute walk became a forty-five minute walk. I got there just on time.


Anyway, I didn't get lost at all. I think it helped that the bus dropped me off exactly two blocks away, and I could see it.

It's a cool place. Be forewarned, the ground floor is WHITE. WHITEWHITEWHITE. WHITE.

WHITE

In two weeks, a muppets exhibit opens there. So, I'll be going back. The regular installations were fun: many, like the sound effects and animations were hands-on (you got to make your own animated short!) and they had all this equipment from the 1910s to now.

The main point of the permanent exhibit was to show what goes on behind the scenes: they started with the heavy equipment, from cameras to sound recorders to TVs. Then there was a wall of photographs of major performers. Finally, there were displays on costuming, special effects and make-up. They also had old-fashioned video games: pong, space invaders, defender (I used to be good at that game. Boy I sucked.)

It was fun. A great way to spend an afternoon,

Today!

May. 21st, 2011 12:21 pm
oxymoron67: (Default)
Barring the Rapture, I will take today to watch some of my favorite TV shows.

I already watched my all-time favorite Project Runway episode: the menswear challenge wherein Carmen sends a model down the runway with NO SHIRT.

One of my favorite parts? Sweet P, whose outfit is also a disaster, was worried that she was going home for it, and Chris looks at her and all but says, "Carmen doesn't have a shirt. You're fine."

From there, I will watch some of my favorite Daria episodes and then maybe some variety of Law and Order or Criminal Minds. (By the way, the spinoff of Criminal Minds? So disappointing.)

I have to drop clothes off at the laundromat at some point, too.

Since my family seems to enjoy them, I'll probably make a few movies out of my photos of various museums and stuff. (The joys of iMovie.)
oxymoron67: (Default)
Today, I went to The Paley Center for Media.

When you enter the Paley, you pay $10, and given a list of things that they are showing in their theaters. Also, on the ground floor, they have a room for rotating exhibitions.

The ground floor room contained two exhibits: a Paley Center tribute to comics on television (with a lot of clips of routines of comedians on the Tonight Show) and an exhibit on photography in the Crimea.

That room was... jarring. The two screens showcasing the comics were nestled amidst images from the Crimea. Unlike peanut butter cups, there were not two tastes that taste great together. I'm not saying that either one was bad, just that I couldn't really get into them because the juxtaposition just didn't work. Whoever put this room together was CLEARLY not thinking.

Then I went to the theater, where I saw the last fifteen minutes or so of a tribute to the teenage years on TV. I came in when they were talking about graduating high school.

While the clips were amusing (and they stretched from the early days in TV until the early 2000s), I get tired of hearing about how wonderful high school was and how graduation was so bitter sweet.

Because in my experience, not so much.

The thing is, when I was actually IN high school, I couldn't have told you why I was so miserable there (besides the whole "gay fat geek in a mill town" thing, and honestly while I knew I was gay, I hadn't really admitted it to myself yet.).

Then I went to the Pre-College program at CMU between my junior and senior years of high school. Then I understood. BEtween not fitting in and my mother (and earlier, my grandmother) working at my schools, I had very little freedom. Everything I did was watched over VERY closely. It was a very oppressive environment.

At CMU, I had lots of freedom.

Of course, after that, I returned to high school. My senior year? Super miserable because I KNEW why I hated it there.

Anyway, I don't think of graduation as a bittersweet thing. It was totally sweet. I've never looked back.

So,,, issues...

After that, they showed another Paley Center-produced show, this one on women in comedy in television. This was the third Paley Center production they showed (the comics and the teenage ones were also Paley productions). It felt kind of masturbatory.

I'm not saying that they were bad.. they were actually quite good. Just... well... they have a massive library of things, why not show those things, and not clip shows?

The women in Comedy show went from Grace Allen to (sigh) Debbie Allen, who can be in all these specials as long as she never, ever choreographs another Oscar Show ever. It included clips from shows from the 50's up to the nineties, when this was produced.

I mean, Jasmine Guy was on this show... JASMINE GUY. When was the last time anyone thought of her?

After this, they showed a documentary about the early TV performances of Elvis Presley. It was okay... I mean, left about fifteen minutes in: the seats were a little too close together and got uncomfortable after a while.

From there, I decided to go to Madison Square Park. Why? It has an area for kids and lots of families go there. Also, people walk there dogs through the place. Prime people watching. Also, the four corners of the park have statues:

1) Admiral David Farragut, hero of the Battle of Mobile Bay
2) Chester Alan Arthur, the 21st President of the United States
3) William H. Seward, Secretary of State under Lincoln and Johnson. Seward bought Alaska, "Seward's Folly"
4) Representative and Senator Roscoe Conkling, who collapsed in a blizzard at that very spot.

Then I came home.

Tomorrow? I'm figuring on going to The Roehrich Museum and maybe one or two other places in that neighborhood.
oxymoron67: (Default)
[Error: unknown template qotd]

For me? Hawaii 5-0.

It's fun and watchable and, despite Alex O'Laughlin's wooden performance, the cast is fun, especially Scott Caan.

In less then one season, the show has already established recurring themes:

1) I swear almost everyone on that island is related to Chin and Kono.

2) You can't slash Steve and Danny more than the writers already do. (Seriously... "I chose you.")

3) Lots of firefights and explosions.

The list can continue.

It's good fun.
oxymoron67: (Default)
I really enjoyed two shows over the weekend:

1) How the Earth Changed History on the National Geographic Channel
It's hosted by a Scottish geology professor, Iain Stewart.

It's an interesting show about how wind, water, etc affected human history.

And Iain Stewart is cute. I think they used the same (probably gay) cinematographer that 20th Century Battlefields had.

Especially in the episode about wind: I swear he spent half the episode walking away from us. He has a nice butt, so that's fine.

But make no mistake, this is an interesting show, the eye candy is just a bonus extra.

2) Lost Royals
This was a British special all about finding descendants of Royal bastards. The show picked four: William Longsword (Henry II), Elizabeth of Galloway (Henry I), Richard Fitzroy (John) and one who I forget who was also fathered by Henry I -- he had twenty children by a host of mistresses, which is interesting since his marriage only produced one child who survived infancy: the Empress Matilda, the mother of Henry II.

They also had a dinner with many descendants of Charles II and his mistress Nell Gwynne. They also visited a society of bastard descendants of royalty in San Francisco.

Really cool.

Television

Dec. 17th, 2009 11:01 am
oxymoron67: (Default)
I love Martha Stewart. I can't help it: she's so over the top... it's amazing to watch.

The Fine Living Network has been running lots of Martha Stewart holiday specials since early November (I've counted at least four separate specials). I've watched all of them, a few more than once. Here are some thoughts:

1. How many sweaters does Martha Stewart own? "It's a new segment! She must be in a new sweater! And that sweater must tastefully match the room she's in AND the outfits of all those in the room with her." Yes, I know all these segments are actually clips from other shows, but I'm still amazed by the dazzling array of sweaters.

2. She just doesn't know where to stop. Every time I think "Okay, it's not over the top, damned if she doesn't just raise that bar. "Every year, I pick a color theme for my Christmas Tree, this year it's red!" And that poor tree looked as evil and slutty as Scarlett O'Hara in that red dress at Melanie's party. Does anyone really want a slutty Xmas tree?

3. As it is Martha's show, I have no real problem with how she treats most of her guests. How she treats her mother? Not so much.

On her Xmas cookies show, Martha has her mom chopping walnuts and breaking eggs while the camera focuses on her.

If I were to ever have a cooking/lifestyle show and I would invite my mother...

Me: And here's my mom! We're going to make cookies together!
Mom: Hi everyone!
Me: Okay, mom, while I and the camera go over here to do fun stuff, you get to chop this cup of walnuts!
Mom: You brought me to this studio in New York to chop walnuts?
Me: And when you're done, you can pour molasses into a measuring cup!
Mom:...
Me: And then break some eggs!
Mom: Let me break those eggs now (Throws them at me)
Me: Mom...
Mom: You dragged me here TO CHOP NUTS!?!?!
Me: That and for that special joy family adds to the holidays.
Mom: I can spend my time in much better ways than chopping nuts.
Me: Fine. I let you toast them in the oven.
Mom: (sarcastically) Yes, that makes it so much better.
Me; You have that "You're not a child anymore so it's no longer abuse" look in your eyes.
Mom: I have no idea what you're talking about.
Me: I think I'll just turn the entire segment over to you, and sit here quietly.
Mom: That *IS* the responsible choice.
oxymoron67: (Default)
Me: So, I now have almost all of the Mrs Peel=era Avengers.
Him: You really should just get them all and then we'd watch them marathon-style.
Me: She was so spectacular.
Him: Yup. Her and Julie Newmar.
Me: CATWOMAN!
Him: So fierce, so amazing. I fantasized about them.
Me: They were as tough as the boys without being the stereotypical musclehead.
Him: And the OUTFITS! Leather! Mod 60's jumpsuits! Whips!
Me: It was strange: I knew I preferred guys, but I still was fascinated by these two.
Him: Same here.
Me: Julie Newmar and Diana Rigg... confusing gay boys since the 60's.
oxymoron67: (no bear)
I've seen the previews for Bravo new show NYC Prep, and I have had a viscerally negative reaction to them. Frankly, it's a reaction that's totally out of proportion, so I'm trying to figure out why.

I'm not a fan of the whole "They're rich! They're assholes! Let's follow them around with a camera!" genre of reality shows out there right now (The Real Housewives of..., for instance), but normally I just think to myself "If I want to watch unpleasant people, I can go to a local bar," and change the channel.

In other words, static, unpleasant static, but static nonetheless.

But not this one. I'm almost irrationally angry at this one. Part of it is the attitudes of the kids in the commercials. They all irritate me. They come across as that delightful combination of smug, arrogant and clueless.

Now that I'm thinking about it though... they're all still in high school... they're still kids. If there is any time to smug and clueless in this life, it's when you're a kid. Life will beat you down soon enough.

Maybe part of it is that this show is about kids.

It's one thing to show adults being generally rude and unpleasant to one another. Everyone involved is an adult, after all, they've consented. This... with teenagers... if I were a parent, I wouldn't let my kid do this.

So, in the end, I'm having an ugly reaction to a show that I will almost certainly never watch.

Television

Feb. 10th, 2009 09:13 am
oxymoron67: (Default)
I have a new TV channel addiction: The Military Channel. Over the past few weeks, they've been showing "Hitler's Bodyguard", a series about the various attempts on Hitler's life and the people who protected him. I found it spellbinding.

Apparently, Hitler survived most of the attempts on his life, not because of his bodyguards, but because he was so damned unpredictable.

Also, last night was part one of the Westminster Dog Show. I don't know what it is about dog shows, but they hypnotize me. I'll be channel surfing, then suddenly, "puppies!", and I'm stuck.

So, since I watched it, I have a question: why does the poodle always win its category? Also, even though they explain why the poodles are groomed that way every year, I still think it looks stupid and more than little cruel.

And the commercials reminded me that I was wrong, my mom doesn't need pet dogs... she needs a pet ostrich. I could only imagine the looks on the neighbors' faces when she'd take it for a walk.
oxymoron67: (Default)
I couldn't escape that Jane Seymour necklace commercial this weekend, and I got to thinking: I couldn't do the whole "my mother always said 'keep an open heart and love will always find a way in'" stuff, because my family doesn't do sentimentality in general, and cheap sentimentality in particular.

So I got to thinking what kind of jewelry commercial my family would inspire:

Cue: room decorated in soft pastels, light, unobtrusive background music in the background. I am center stage, with an easel, and some paints. I face the camera and start speaking:

"In my relationships, I always rely on my grandmother's wisdom to guide my way. Her favorite saying was 'Don't be a horse's ass.' So, along with Jared, America's jewelry store, I've developed this lovely horse's ass pendant that you can give to loved ones, to remind them to stop being so goddamned stupid."

Somehow, I don't think it would be a Valentine's Day best-seller.

Valkyrie

Feb. 2nd, 2009 02:38 pm
oxymoron67: (Default)
Because I’m trying to save money and the general nastiness of this winter, I haven’t gone out much since I came back from Pittsburgh. Also, the subway line I take to get into the city, the 7 train, hasn’t been running all the way into the city on weekends lately due to track maintenance.

It just feels like a social life is more of a problem than what it’s worth right now.

(The Herculoids are on right now. I’ve always loved the Herculoids, even though I see now that the premise is “space hippies and their pets have adventures”. I think my favorite is Tundro, the triceratops-looking Herculoid with eight legs.)


[Poll #1342290]

Anyway, one day last week, I decided that I needed to see a movie, so I went into town. By the time I got to the theater, I realized that I didn’t want to see a good movie, so I decided on Tom Cruise’s Valkyrie.

Imagine my disappointment when it wasn’t really a bad movie, just a kind of mediocre one. Yes, Tom Cruise spoke with an American accent while the others did not, but I just figured that his character came from Bavaria and the rest were from the north, or something.

For me, Valkyrie failed because it never really captured the menace and fear that must have surrounded the plot. I had no feeling of fear from any of these people, just a sense of grim determination. They were all “ho-hum, another boring day, let’s kill Hitler!”
oxymoron67: (Default)
And came across what appears to be a Lawrence Welk Halloween special.

I can’t turn away. )
oxymoron67: (Default)
Last night, I watched the opening ceremonies. I loved the spectacle: the drummers, the parade of Chinese ethnic groups, the lighting of the torch. I thought the lighting of the torch was brutally cool.

During the parade of nations, I really liked the thing they did with the athletes walking in the paint then walking across the canvas. That was neat. I loved the parade of nations: I even liked that the nations were "alphabetized" the Chinese way, by brushstroke count.

Some of the announcers' random throw-away lines were fun: "Brunei has pulled out of the Olympics. The sultan has not issued a reason." I always forget the Saudi arabia doesn't allow its women to compete until I see the delegation (and the announcers mention it.)

For my money the ugliest wardrobe choice goes to Turkmenistan. That shade of green (personally approved by the president of Turkmenistan) was hideous, It looked like the color of shag carpeting circa 1973.
oxymoron67: (Default)
The Assassination of Lincoln: History and Myth, Lloyd Lewis

I'm in the process of reading April 1865: The Month that Saved America, and was thinking about Lewis' book.

Lewis' book deal with the immediate after-effects of Lincoln's death. It's filled with interesting facts. A large portion of the book is devoted to the train trip that Lincoln's body made from D.C. to Illinois and the reaction of the people along the way. Preachers led the way here, saying that Lincoln was like an American Moses, died before reaching the Promised Land (a reunited America). The author makes the claim that these preachers were the superstars of their day. They certainly influenced public opinion. The Radical Republicans, not really Lincoln's biggest fans, also helped turn Lincoln into a secular saint.

A remarkable thing about Lewis' book? It was written in the 1920s and still held up. It's hard to find, goodness knows, so look in a library, but it's worth the read. It's not always an easy read, but it is worthwhile.

I wonder... the main thesis of April 1865: The Month that Saved America was that it was far more likely that the Civil War would devolve into guerilla warfare rather than the peaceful end we saw. The North only controlled the major cities. Vast areas of the South were unoccupied. Partisans were already in the field -- especially in places like Missouri and Texas-- led by quality soldiers, like Nathan Bedford Forrest*. They could have easily faded into the countryside and turned the Civil War into a bloody war of attrition, laying waste to the South and blunting the transformation of the United States into a superpower.

Even though Lincoln's policies would have been far more conciliatory than the Radical Republicans, I wonder if Lincoln's death made the transition a little easier. I'm sure that many in the South loathed Lincoln, but with him dead, a new leader, without all the Civil War baggage, as it were, could reunite the country.

Of course, this would have gone more smoothly if Andrew Johnson wasn't that leader.

*Whatever Forrest's achievements, I can't help but remember him as one of the founder of the KKK, and therefore, not somebody worth celebrating.

_________________________

A book about another time period:

The Perfect Heresy: The Revolutionary Life and Death of the Medieval Cathars by Stephen O’Shea

I was thinking about this book because History International ran Banned from the Bible II and some special on the DaVinci Code.* The Cathars play an important role in the Christ Kids Conspiracy, so naturally, I thought about what I know of them.

This book is about the Cathars or Albigensians, a sect of Christians (primarily in southern France) that bothered the Church so much that it called a crusade against them. The French agreed to it because they felt (rightly) that it would extend the crown’s authority in the area. At the time, the king of France's rule was limited to the Ile de France, he region around the Paris. The rest of what we now call France was under the control of various dukes and counts, most of whom -- Provence was an exception here-- were allegedly fiefs of the French king, but in reality, they were independent.

The most powerful of the Southern French nobles was the Count of Toulouse, Raymond VI. He protected the Cathars, so the French crown attacked him, more to spread the king's influence than any purely religious reason.



Frankly, having read the book, I can see why the Cathars’ way might be attractive to people. They preached equality between the sexes. In fact a number of noblewomen who converted became important religious figures, which wouldn't have happened in Catholicism at the time. (Women like St. Teresa of the Cross and St Hlldegard of Bingen were exceptions.)

But there were downsides. They were one of those sects that preached total celibacy: anything to do with flesh was a weakness. So they didn't eat meat.. or anything by-product of meat: milk, cheese, honey. They were the first Vegans. And let's be honest, Vegans are among the most annoying people on earth to be around. (Well, the proselytizing ones anyway.) The Cathars called their religious leaders, those who had given up all sins of the flesh, “The Perfect.”

No, really. The Perfect!

C’Mon! Someone is suffering from the sin of pride here. I hold to my original statement about the Cathars:

“When my professor said that the Cathars were the first Vegans, I understood immediately why they had to be wiped out.”

This book is a good read, but is a bit too pro-Cathar. I understand why: in modern eyes, it's hard to understand why these people, who come off as a cross between hippies and Shakers, were seen as a threat. Also, they were massacred. They were treated cruelly. All true.

But at a time when nation-states were being born and religious identity was a tool of statecraft, they were a definite threat. At the time these Cathars were doing their whole "We're dropping out of society" thing, society wasn't built yet, and may not have been able to spare them OR have them as an alternate polity.

I don't condone the massacres or the cruelty of war, but I understand. The book, however, doesn't really discuss this.

*While watching the DaVinci Code special, I was reminded how infuriatingly stupid all the DaVinci Code documentaries were. Here is the pattern:

Narrator: The DaVinci Code makes claim X.
Random Scholar 1: And here is where those ideas came from.
Random Scholar 2: And here is what's wrong.
Random Scholar 1: Oh, please. This petty bourgeois need for evidence of one's theories is so pre-Foucault.
Random Scholar 2: Nothing supports these claims. Nothing.
oxymoron67: (Default)
I feel for poor Richard. He choked. It seemed to me that he just couldn't focus enough for the final challenge. He looked so upset. I don't blame him. On the other hand, a car is a kick ass consolation prize.

The way the show was edited, it did seem like Lisa might win, which would have sucked. I will grant that this was the most human we've seen her in weeks, but, still, she annoyed me. She was second worst at Judges Table how many times? It is kind of impressive to bring a level of fail, but not enough fail, to a competition, I guess.

Yay for Stephanie! I don't really have much else to say as I was on team Anyone but Lisa.

Top Chef

Jun. 5th, 2008 07:48 am
oxymoron67: (no bear)
As I said elsewhere... after the apocalypse... there will be cockroaches... Cher... and Lisa.

How often has she been the second worst?

Okay, confession time: of the four contestants finalists, I thought Antonia was the third best. I wouldn't have been bothered with her winning but I didn't think she was quite at Stephanie's or Richard's level.

Underdone beans? Gross. Putting it all on one plate? Unfortunate choice. As much as I'd rather see Lisa go, I can't fault them for knifing Antonia.

I loved how Stephanie bounced back from the pork bellies being left out. That was nice. I also liked how she really didn't try to screw anyone with assigning sous chefs. (Although, really, the only one who would have problems was Lisa. Watching Lisa and Dale work together again would have been fascinating.)

Of course, the only way to keep Lisa totally happy would have been to give her Nikki. (Is it me, or do the contestants have a higher opinion of Nikki than most of us do?)

The end was fascinating. Provided that Lisa wasn't just projecting, and that Stephanie and Richard don't think Antonia should have gone. Part of me wouldn't be surprised. I think the three of them along with Dale bonded several episodes in as the putative favorites.

Richard won a new car! Suddenly we're on The Price is Right?

So, Lisa is still here.

Profile

oxymoron67: (Default)
oxymoron67

October 2013

S M T W T F S
  123 45
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 24th, 2017 04:55 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios