From THE ONION
NASSAU, BAHAMAS—Former stripper turned Playboy Playmate turned reality-TV star Anna Nicole Smith has overcome her longtime struggle with obesity, at last reaching her target weight of 125 pounds, sources said Monday.
“Anna’s been through a lot,” said Florida Circuit Court Judge Larry Seidlin, who became visibly emotional as he spoke to reporters. “But I think it’s fair to say that she hasn’t been this happy in years.”
Giorgio Agamben –
Agamben’s text State of Exception investigates how the suspension of laws within a state of emergency or crisis can become a prolonged state of being. More specifically, Agamben addresses how this prolonged state of exception operates to remove individuals of their citizenship.
When speaking about the USA Patriot Act, issued by the United States Senate on October 26, 2001, Agamben writes, “What is new about President Bush’s order is that it radically erases any legal status of the individual, thus producing a legally unnamable and unclassifiable being. Not only do the Taliban captured in Afghanistan not enjoy the status of POW’s as defined by the Geneva Convention, they do not even have the status of people charged with a crime according to American laws (Agamben, pg 3).”
Many of the individuals captured in Afghanistan were taken to be held at Guantánamo Bay without trial. These individuals were termed as “enemy combatants.” Until July 7, 2006, these individuals had been treated outside of the Geneva Conventions by the United States administration.
____
Hughes – variety of settings that fall under a category (sport) – what are the common features that are the same?
“cooling out the mark.”
What an interesting phrase! Google led me to this 1952 article by Erving Goffman. He starts with the perspective of professional con artists. In their jargon, “cooling the mark” out refers to techniques designed to prevent the mark, or victim, from calling the police or otherwise making his loss public. The cooler (the con man assigned to this task) can use various approaches: He can emphasize the embarrassment involved, he can emphasize the hopelessness of trying to recover the lost money, he can encourage the mark to see the con as a learning experience, and so forth.
From there, Goffman moves to a much broader view of how people deal with their losses, which Goffman sees as primarily a problem of helping people reconcile their internally held identities with facts. He sees the same basic dynamics in handling an angry customer, in rejecting a suitor, or in firing an employee.
The problem we encounter as sociologists doing ANT is not the start/stop – but how do you not stabilize? Don’t look for centres in which things eminate and work their way down (to flatten). Foucault flattens the panopticon – Governor is another point in the panopticon.
There are no findings, but the reassembling of a network. Reassembled –
The Goal: To Mark 220 Exams for the Sociology of the Family course I TA for in Calgaryby 10:15 PM.
6:24 At this point, I have graded about 80 or so? I am in the windowless office, and I have the new LCD Soundsystem album CRANKED. I have no idea if anyone is on the 9th here with me, and if they are, it is loud enough that they might come and tell me to turn it down.
6: 28: When my family finally disowns me, I am changing my last name to “Gagatek”
6:35 Is it possible that I haven’t been obsessed with this record yet? I think I just had to jam it really, really loud to fully appreciate it…
6: 40 Is it just me, or do men with extremely tiny, obbsessively neat PRINTING scream “Serial Killer in Training”?
6:45 “The time has come / the time has come / the time has come today” Repeat x220
7:18: A few hours in… it doesn’t even seem like the pile is any smaller. This makes me feel “emo”
7:24 Genius! I am working in the windowless office, lined with empty desks. I have a “rolly” chair, and I am marking the exams, and then alphabatizing them at the same time, but instead of working through them, now that I am about half-way through, I am counting how many down in that letter group (so, I have marked 7 exams for students with the letter “M” – I count down how many M’s come before (say, 3) and then count the stack to three, and drop the new one in – Rinse, repeat. Efficiency!
8:10 I am noticing the pile going down, but there are endless distractions right now… Destroyer is playing LOUD –
Don’t spend your life conceiving
that the widows won’t get sick of their grieving
9:00 – somehow there are no more left? Sweet. An hour and some to kill…
Discussion on the rationale for grading: pointing out deficiencies. Start with 100%, and lose from there.
Doing writing as a “trial” – which is, taking your B+ first draft, and turning it into an A+ third draft. Building on your own argument, taking it further… finding a way to just give it that extra.
Where do you stop… when you hit the end.
Habitus:
Pg 44: Habitus is troubled usage, if we imply some kind of force. The wrong way of using it is similar to how Durkheim uses anomie…
Looking for mediators where each point can be said to fully act.
59: concatenations of mediators…
footnote p.209: Marcell Maus is sick… watches the “girls” and how they walk. Recognizes the universal gate, in that they have all watched the same movies. When he goes to Paris, sees it there. Evoking Habitus, not as a force, but a habit, a learned way of using and disposing your body. Holding arms, swinging hips. Analyzable. For Latour, something worth studying because you can actually SEE it.
SHOW it to me!!!
“This is why Habitus, freed from social theory, is such an excellent concept” (p. 209). Think of Habitus like equiptment. I can see it, take notes. What are the mediators vs the intermediaries.
Good Bourdieu behaves ethnomethodologically, when he is treating it like equiptment. The bad Bourdieu is when he is generating theory, actors as a generic entity, that “mediate” “actors” “within fields.”
Don’t need to throw away stuff from the last seven years… becomes a matter of understaning training…. The more deeply committed you are to the sociology of the social, the less you will get ANT.
Get rid of the term “actor?” as it implies a locus of determination? Defends the hyphen of actor-network – only an actor in a network. Only talk about relations of power. If we are talking about power, we are inventing a force.
Anomie: give Durkheim needs his due. Even though he may have been a lousy sociologist (quit using anomie as if it actually fricking explains anything). Yet, he was onto something… the way people felt at the begining of the 20th Century – it captures a discontent. With the classics, there is something to be learned from them. They were people of their times. Profoundly in touch with their times that was profound. In the same way that certain poets could feed back towards a culture, a time.
Habitus: Husseral, Maus, Merlot Ponty, Elias… then Bourdieu.
Equiptment and subscriptions: (208-210).
Instead of, say “narrative habitus” —- narrative equiptment. Have to maintain subscriptions in order to maintain the equiptment. To find something deeply engaging. An “aquired taste” – never aquired the plug in for rap… etc. Need to replace our vocabulary of like, don’t like, “that’s no good” – I never got the equiptment, and/or I haven’t maintained the subscription. There is a moment when you make a descision whether you want it or not — selection/evaluation. Too much going on out there; plug in enables capacity of vision and division is that even though we can liberate habitus of social theory, but it keeps sucking us back towards …. Bourdieu should have taken this criticism seriously.
From today’s Postsecret. My blog and I had a little argument last week, but we have patched things up, and will be bringing joy for weeks to come. Unless it pulls that SHIT again…
I was pointed to THIS today. Full length movies, with no download, no fuss. They have a pretty good television selection as well. New stuff… I am watching the classic Seinfeld episode “The Wink” right here in my shitty office. “PULP CAN MOVE BABY!”
Reassembling the Social:
P. 141: When your informants mix up organization, hardware, psychology and politics… don’t break it down into neat little pots (“themes”) – try and follow the link they make between those elements, which would have looked impossibly distinct with old Sociology. Trace those associations.
Treat writing as a trial.
IE/ANT “line of fault” – is it doing what it is supposed to do (Y/N)? Even if it is, is it too expensive in the cost of participating? These are more IE than ANT; to go in an ANT, it doesn’t work. ANT – uncovering the controversies. IE assumes presupposition – a “lived experience” which is something ANT isn’t interested in.
ANT is not so much a sociology of technology. Looking at innovations, something “new” happening. If you don’t, it will be hard, as the associations are harder to trace. You need the ethnomethodological “disruption” – you have to mess people around.
Latour and Social Theory:
102: Social forces play the role of being what has to be postulated, and what, for many reasons, has to remain invisible. For Durkheim: Social Solidarity, has the complicated role of explaining EVERYTHING. The only interesting part is how you get to the answer. There is only one way to get there. Social solidarity, at the same time, remains invisible. Based on imaginary substances. Instead of tracing the networks, he jumps to imaginary forces (egoism, anomie). Both explain suicide, and that which suicide explains.
P. 71: Describing Weber’s interpretive project; starts off with distinction between behavior and action. Sociology then is the proper study of action. Durkheim macro / Weber micro, creating meaning. Weber then puts sociology on the side of the meaningful. Sociology relies on intentional humans. For Latour, this is wrong: don’t make that distinction, the question becomes “WHAT ACTS?” not what is the consciousness, what are the things that are acting. Weber: only humans can act. Latour leaves this open, and thus has little interest in typologies of meaning.
Work net: keeps ANT from network theory. We don’t want this to be confused.
ANT: How these multiple mediators are brought into association with one another. How their worknet aquires the name of capitalism. Weber does talk about this stuff, but in the wrong order, ending up without being able to go anywhere.
We’ve never really had an action theory in sociology, but a consious actor theory.
The issue of explanation (what theory is supposed to “do”). Latour suggests a fundamental reversal. For the sociology of the social, generate a mass of effects. (p. 130-131 – key pages). Sociology of the social, fewest number of causes that will generate the greatest number of effects. This is the history of sociology. Durkheim – solidarity. Weber – legitimate authority, Parsons agil; fewest numbers of causes, largest number of effects. Marx: only one cause, CLASS CONFLICT and that it is.
Moving into the PoMo; we see the same thing. To create typologies is to do this. Generate most possibilities. Sometimes, this leads to interesting ways to think. Yet, they postulate ways to live. Themes in Grounded Theory – combine to metatheory, coming up with a meta-language, which are proxy explanations. Make claims to represent explanations. They are being transmogrified; they end up having the same point. “Now that I understand the five themes of living with this illness, I now can explain the greatest number of effects in their lives” – what is grounded is that these themes remains unspecified. The description is truncated.
Latours notion of explanation:
If a description remains in need of an explanation, that means that it is a bad description. You just haven’t done it well enough (p. 137). As soon as a sight is placed into a framework, everything becomes rational much too quickly.
There is nothing left to be explained. Tolstoy describes so adequately, that everything else remains unponderable.
With theory, Latour might object to all purpose, all terrain methodology (note 126 on pg. 96). This is what C. Wright Mills objected to in “Sociological Imagination” – theory used without going under any change.
Do what you are doing, don’t always have to put a name on it.
Researchers should fall between the egoism of the investigator becomes Newton, or the totalitarianism of Stalin.
“Critical Theory” – theory that pre-supposes actors Misrecognition. ANT/IE are on different tracks. As much as Smith wants to give actors credit, that actors just don’t understand “ruling relations” – cosmology land; even though they look similar, ANT would never allow for something like misrecognition.
The problem is that there IS sometimes misrecognition (Smith, Latour, Bourdieu); yet we can understand, subjects incapable of not knowing.
118: There is no rear world… that is what the 19th century were all about. Postulating the rear world, in which is making difference, but not observable.
The word “network” is dangerous because it is a concept, not a thing that is “out there” – networks as being “there” – instead of holding on to that word, call it work nets – trace the work that net people together.
A network is a tool to help describe (p. 131). The reclaiming of habitus, globalization – instead of imagining some “thing” that works on its own, if we concentrate on teh relay of actors as mediators – how they “hook up” with each other – then we are on solid ground.
So, what is a concept, and what is a good concept?
Latour’s revision of the social is that there is no society or social relm. All there is is translators that may generate tracable associations.
ANT is best when you have stuff that is tracable.
The translation does not transmit causality. Used to translate causality. Instead, translation induces two mediators into co-existing.
All this suggests three principles.
1) Principle of relativism: pp 95 – not the relativity of truth, it is the truth of a relation. Truth is always a relation (restating Heisenberg). Gives rise (116) to multiplicity. Deluze. It isn’t that we look at the world from different backgrounds; there are multiple objects. The waterbottle has multiple ontologies (not that there is multiple waterbottles).
2) Principle of multiple agencies (166) “pluralverse” – what multiple agencies are involved here.
3) This brings us to symmatery of humans and non-human actors. We relate to each other through objects. It just doesn’t get that far; impoverished world, because tracing the ties that are handling the relay. It isn’t minds existing with other minds. 78 – can’t be a social science and pursue only SOME LINKS… like Mol’s pointing out that medical sociologists stop as soon as blood hits the scenes.
4) Stick to the new definition of social as a fluid, visible only when new associations are being made (p. 79). That we will be able to see the fluid (from Garfinkel).
The unhappy realization is that there is no seperate sphere of theory as a distinct realm for some sociology (a “Theorist”) we have the occasion in a curricular slot (this class) then we end up wanting an all purpose, all terrain theory.
P. 130: in a bad text, nothing is translated is one to another because action is translated through them. Few causes, whatever effects you go study, using few effects you learned in “theory.” You can’t lose. Can you imagine where that is not applicable. And that what you feel you have a right to ask for.
Instead of theory, we need more details, NO MORE FRAMEWORKS! We jump to (INSERT X HERE). Latour wants to preserve the irrationality. the complexity. Momentary associations. War and Peace: moments of momentary associations.
The momentary is all there is!!!!!!!! (<— epiphinal moment).
Don’t want to create a mastery of a meta-narrative, with minimal causal factors… You can’t just get rid of stuff… it is all interconnected.
This video shows rare footage of a frilled shark in shallow water. The frilled shark (Chlamydoselachus anguineus) is a primitive shark species, sometimes called a “living fossil” because it resembles extinct species of sharks. Frilled sharks are usually found at depths of around 2,000 feet, but this one somehow found its way into shallow water off the coast of Japan, where it was captured and taken to a nearby marine park. In poor condition, the shark died soon after this video was shot.
When I was a kid, I wanted to be a marine biologist. No, this is not a Seinfeld reference. I was obsessed with sharks and whales, and used to imagine epic shark vs. whale undersea battles, not dissimilar to the epic battles in Return of the King. Of course, the sharks were evil and the whales were good.
I imagine the Chlamydoselachus anguineus to be like, the king of the sharks or something. It looks wise.
What are you talking about?
So here is March. Without looking, I have no idea what day. I think it is Sunday (?) and last night’s wonky “too early” daylight savings has messed up all my clocks. One says it is 08:00, another 10:00, another says it is 11:00. Needless to say, this is only adding to my sense of confusion.
Over the last few days, I have been marking student blogs almost non-stop for my Media course. I am finding that I am frequently cracking up, as some of my students are really funny. For example, this passage struck me as hilarious:
Because the theatre was so full I was unable to secure a buffer seat on both sides of me. So I ended up sitting beside a teenager and his younger brother. Seeing Nicholas Cage’s head turn into a flaming skull was apparently something they could bond over. The movie began with a mood setting if somewhat lame introduction, which gave me time to ponder how near I was to a stranger. I have not been in such close proximity to an adolescent boy since . . . well since I was an adolescent girl. If we had both turned our heads at the same time we could have kissed.
Yes indeed.
In the last class meeting, I had them all bring a piece of music (the class was on the social meanings infused in music). Then, throughout my planned lecture, I had “face off” slides, where two students had to come to the front and play their song. After both played, they had to tell the class the song name, who sang it, and why they love it so much. Then, the class had to anonymously vote for the favourite of the two.
I think this went off well. Due to the blogging nature of the course, I get instant feedback, and there was lots of it this week. One student clearly hated it:
So, first thing is first, people in the class have terrible music taste. Maybe it’s me with the bad taste, but I honestly can’t say I liked too many songs
This really got me worried, as it was the first review I read. Yet, everyone else seemed to enjoy themselves, such as the following, which has to be the best complement one could ever get:
That was probably one of the single best university classes I have ever been to. I thought it was really cool to listen to a bunch of new music I had not heard before.
Like everything, you win some, you lose some. All I know is that when I teach this class again, I am moving the music lecture to the front, as I think for many students it was a weird sort of “bonding” exercise. When you hear something you obviously think is terrible, and then you hear someone explain what it means to them, it breaks down barriers. Like Madonna (or whoever writes music for Madonna) said: Music / makes the people / come together.
I was recently tested for type-II diabetes. For a number of events, recent happenings (my eyes, odd blood sugar readings), my Dr. requested that I get tested.
Last Friday, I spent a few hours in a hospital, and frankly, I was concerned. Nay, freaking out. I know that as I have been working out lately, that I have had problems maintaining a level blood sugar, and on and on.
On Monday, I got a call from my doctor’s office, requesting that I called them back. As I was in Calgary, I didn’t. I didn’t want to know, I couldn’t deal with the consequences of having it. I couldn’t figure out how to fit something like diabetes into my life. Would it propel me to stop fucking around and start taking better care of myself? Or would I ignore the consequences and continue my gradual self-destruction?
Finally, on my very dull drive back to Lethbridge this morning, I was bored enough to call. I was told “you don’t have diabetes” on the phone.
So, great! I don’t have diabetes.
Yet, as has been happening a lot this year, I feel really stupid. Perhaps silly is the right word? Which is strange, because you would think that I would feel releif? Sure, there was relief. Yet, mostly I felt stupid. For not calling back on Monday, for making this into (perhaps?) a bigger deal than it was (at least in my own head). For thinking that, in a way, it would work perfect if I had the disease because it would focus my research for my dissertation…. All of these things.
I saw Zodiac tonight. It was the kind of movie we just don’t get enough of; namely, it kept me in its world for the entire running time, and I was sad to have it end.
“All good things must come to an end / the bad ones just go on forever”
One scene in particular was of note: the Zodiac killer is tying up a young couple lying on a beach. The woman tries to negotiate with this man, dressed in black, with a bag over his head (see picture below: the scene was very creepy). She says, of her male companion:
“He can help you…. He’s a sociology major!”
I can say that this line proviked rawkus laughter from myself and my two collegues (who are both sociologists). After the man and woman were tied up, they were both repeatedly stabbed. Can I have on record that I don’t want to die from being stabbed to death? It seems like a terrible way to go.
For whatever reason, the sociology line stuck with me through the remainder of the film. I started to see it as a metaphor for what I do: chasing something that I can never get my hands on, to the point that I start driving everyone in my life away (in a variety of ways) as part of an obsessive quest for… well, I am not sure of what. At a certain point, it becomes something bigger than a carreer.
This provoked the following questions: What drives me to push myself? What do I get out of it? Where is this going to take me, and how far will I get with it? What am I even chasing? If I find “it” – what then? Do I get to go home?
I am sure that these questions will haunt me until I die. I hope I remember to keep asking them.
Le sociologue et philosophe Jean Baudrillard, mort mardi à Paris à l’âge de 77 ans.
Worst
1. The acoustic guitar
2. Fretless bass
3. Sitar
4. Children’s choirs
5. Paul McCartney chewing vegetables for percussion
6. Feedback
7. Simmons drums
8. The voice of Mariah Carey
9. Flying V guitar
10. Side of pork which Scott Walker punches for percussion on The Drift
Best
1. The vocoder
2. Double bass
3. Glass harmonica
4. Mellotron
5. Sousaphone, as played by John Simon with the Band
6. The Pet Sounds box of fun
7. The voice of Björk
8. The Flaming Lips’ boombox orchestra
9. Roland TB-303 bassline
10. The melodica
Heads up….
Dinosaur Jr. are playing Calgary on May 25. Tickets go on sale on Friday.
Dinosaur Jr. were one of the first “Alternative” bands I got into, yet they really don’t get much play, aside from the song “Little Furry Things” – which I will never, ever get sick of. See for yourself.
In other concert news, Morrissey is planning a 40 date “North American” tour this summer… I will move heaven and earth to see that show.
Dinosaur Jr:
How do you set things free? From the cosmologies.
A Durkheimian sees collective consciousness. A Weberian looks around, sees the state of the times. A Marxist sees conflict. A Funtionalist… An Exchange Theorist… An Symbolic Interactionist…. on and on.
The thing is there is no… “the sky” – yet we turn it into “the sky” and invent various belief systems to hold it up, we take seriously the imaginary entities that hold it up as “the sky.” The history of Sociological theory is a history of these cosmologies.
It begins to shift with Garfinkel. He sees the problem, and the core issue (Zimmerman and Weeder, responding to Denizen, all micro sociologies). “What you don’t get is the problem of … take for granted that there are all these things out there (in Becker’s case, Jazz), and see how these people make up a resource to gather around … Jazz is left unexplained. Hiding off the stuff that “people” are supposed to do… As long as they leave some sphere out, and gather sociology around it… everything but the playing of the jazz. Garfinkel comes along — “there is not magical out there” “just people constantly recreating the stuff they then do” (i.e. playing jazz). Garfinkel still retains (frum functionalism) the desire for order, which is an ongoing achievement.
Latour: the social is any assemblage. In this sense, one can have a society at an elemental level. But we tack on “social” as an atmosphere in which pure objects floats, exists in. This is the way in which we “mark” territory – calling something “social” – we mark it off as the sociology, something we study.
Latour makes the break from where Ethnomethodolgy drifts to cosmology: 1) the postulate of “order seeking” – the “member” in ethnomethodology wants nothing more than to achieve order. There are no rebels in ethnomethodology. It is about how people get back to the safe zone (accountibility) before they get tagged (deviance). How do you get back to being accountible before getting tagged. i.e. Jurors are only accountable to judges.
The other part of ethnomethodolgy is that in place of collective consciousness is “turn taking” – people are hard wired to obey and exemplify. This is where ethnomethodolgy morphs to conversation analysis. The social is identifiable in the mechanics of turn taking.
Latour, in Reassembling the Social is doing his best not to recreate another cosmology. An ANT way of holding up the sky. He actually refuses to aknowledge a sky; you have to show what comes together to say it is the sky.
Our first mistake as sociologists: there are no groups, only group assemblages. Can’t study the group, have to study how the group came to be. How did they come to be associated (or,as Dorothy Smith says, were coordinated).
There is no social. There is only assembling, associating. As sociologists, we re-assemble. The first part of the problem: what are the actors here? And to be an actor, you have to do things, cause things to happen. As you are doing this, you do not discriminate the human and non-human actors. Why this is good in technological rich settings. ANT doesn’t have to stop as soon as there is blood or machines. How does blood, as an actor, cause another actor to act. Depends on how much, and where, mobilizing other actors (or not).
I posted this on Mel’s facebook tonight. It deserves an audience;
If at any given moment, someone asked me “what is the worst song ever written?” I would, without hesitation reply: “Your Body is a Wonderland” by John Mayer” For the win!
The sad reality is that I think about this stuff, on the off chance someone actually were to ask such a question. If they do, I will be prepared.
Also: this song has been the answer to this hypothetical question since I first heard it in 2002. I don’t think it is in any danger of being replaced (though, there were a few Black Eyed Peas songs that almost pushed it out of top spot).
If someone were to, hypothetically, ask you this question, what would be your reply?
The concert last night was alright. The people who get it, get it. The people that don’t, don’t. What I do isn’t for everyone, and when I am having an off night (like last night), it just compounds the problem. The fine line between “esoteric” and “fucking horrible” is fairly thin for me, and I was definitely walking that line. When you play solo in a venue like “The Slice,” you just have to pray that some friendlies show up an clap, show some love etc. Which they did, so it’s all good.
I left in a good mood, woke up in a bad one.
Ran(!) into a bunch of old friends last night that I haven’t seen much of lately (or at all). Of note: the McKenna brothers, Niall and Brian. Niall and I were friends in High School, and then ended up doing Sociology degrees at the same time. He works for the CBC now, so I told him that I need to stay in contact with him because that is where I want to work too. Brian is Brian… funny how little people change over the years. One of those people that talk to you, but you see them constantly scanning the room to see if there is someone better to talk to (no matter who he is talking to). He’s working as an artiste in Amsterdam, which is a pretty cool.
Saw Jenny, my old room mate and one time girlfriend. I don’t see her much at all, but last night I talked to her for a bit. It’s weird because we haven’t talked in so long, but I read her frequently updated blog, and told her I found it depressing. Which was funny because her next blog entry is pondering whether her blog is, in fact, depressing. Ooops. Bad case of bigmouth.
Today, I had to take Hayden to the ex-inlaws to see his uncle’s new baby boy. Awkward. Which is strange, because that awkwardness with me and my ex-bro and sister-in-law is fairly recent. There was an “incident” last fall with them moving, and I said I could help for a bit, and I did help, for two hours in between classes. They heard “a bit” and thought I agreed to help for the entire day, so now they smile at me through their teeth. Which I totally don’t understand at all. I am just happy I don’t have to deal with that from them much anymore.
Let’s see, who else can I shit-talk today? I’m naming names. Drawing lines in the sand.
My course is going well, though I am a bit annoyed with some people who continually sleep through class, don’t participate, leave at the break, etc. I know this isn’t elementary school, and I shouldn’t give a shit whether people show up or not… I just take it personally in this setting. I am trying to do something different, inject some new ideas, ways of thinking, etc. Don’t get me wrong here: I totally heart a huge majority of this class. It is interesting knowing people more through their blogs than I do in real life… adds a way different dynamic. I especially love now when I make a face/blog connection… I get very excited inside.
Back to my books. They aren’t loving me back today.
RAN! (myspace page) (aka me) will be playing at the Slice in Lethbridge tonight, opening for the fantastic Darby and Joan club. Come, I beg of you!
The Annotated Everything 