Another Useless Study

I know that I'm always saying that we're doomed. It's only because we are. Do you need another example of how I know that to be true? Because I have one. And I'm going to share.

The Post-Gazette.com has an article which goes over a study by some sort of think tank called Rand Corp. Their study found "...that couples who scored well on a short test of math skills accumulated more wealth by middle age than couples who scored poorly." It goes on to say that "...when both spouses correctly answered three math questions, family wealth averaged $1.7 million. That compared with $200,000 for households where neither spouse answered any question correctly." Wow. 200 grand when you don't get anything right? That really doesn't seem like such a horrible consolation prize, does it?

No, not at all. Which is kind of why this study is seeming a) ridiculous, and b) useless. But if there's a shred of reality to it, we're doomed. Even if there isn't a shred of reality to it, just that we're being subjected to it as if it is fact is rather dooming. But at this point of the article, I'm still fairly intrigued and wondering about the type of questions which will determine future wealth. Naturally, I was also wondering how I would fare with the questions. I stopped wondering after I read them and instead began wondering how a dog would fare, as I can't imagine a human being who is capable of earning $200,000 at the very least not being able to answer these questions.

Seriously, if these are the determining factors of wealth, then something has gone seriously wrong in this country. But maybe you should decide. Question One: If the chance of getting a disease is 10 percent, how many people out of 1,000 would be expected to get the disease? Uh, really? That's the sort of question that, if I can noodle it through, is indicative of my ability to earn money? Even more extraordinary is that that's the sort of question that would be indicative of my ability to do math. Come on! What is that? Fourth grade level? Third?

Maybe they get harder as we continue. Let's look at the second question: If five people all have the winning numbers in the lottery, and the prize is $2 million, how much will each of them get? Hmm. No. No, I don't see these getting harder. I sort of see them getting a little easier. And I definitely see myself getting more annoyed with this study. (Seriously, how do I get a job at a think tank? Wait. First let me ask: Is it really a tank? Because I don't know if I'd like that very much. I'd like all of the thinking, but the thought of being in a tank all day is a bit off-putting.)

The last question (did I mention it was a really short quiz?) reads as follows: Let's say you have $200 in a savings account. The account earns 10 percent interest per year. How much would you have in the account at the end of two years? Oh, for cryin' out loud. Are you kidding me?! First of all, what sort of savings account is going to earn 10 percent interest per year? None! There isn't one! Not a single one! I mean, really, the lottery question was pretty far-fetched. I'd have to believe that if I held a winning lottery number, I'd be able to figure out EXACTLY what my share was in a split-second after learning that I had won. That's a no-brainer. But this question is just completely baseless. Why not make it more realistic? I guess because then it might actually be somewhat relevant? Nah, that can't be it. The whole idea of this study having any relevance at all is completely preposterous.

See? We're doomed. Is anyone paying any attention to stuff like this? God, I hope not. What a waste of time. But seriously, how do I get a cush gig with a think tank? Anyone? Anyone?

Sphere: Related Content

Is The Groping Worth It

Way too many news stories focusing on the new TSA searches and pat downs. Way too many stories about people who are not happy with the more invasive body searches down by TSA employees. Way too many stories about the upcoming royal wedding. (Seriously. Does anyone really care about that sort of thing anymore? We were all duped into feeling like we should have given a fat rat's ass when Chuck married Di and look how that turned out.) But there aren't near enough stories about what the new TSA searches are supposed to accomplish.

All I read about is how passengers hate them. I have yet to read if they actually do any good. Now, maybe you have more faith in the TSA than I do and think that of course they do some good. But do they really? Seriously, the United States seems to be a bit reactionary whenever it comes to air travel regulations. Some guy tries to blow up a plane with his shoe? Next thing you know, we're all taking our shoes off. Some guy tried to put together a liquid bomb in mid air? Next thing you know, we can't take more than three ounces of any liquid on a plane. (No one has ever explained why three was the magic number in that instance. No, instead they just settled upon three and that's the way it has been ever since.) It's like there has to be an attempt first and then the policy will be fashioned. I'm not so sure that's the best way to go about this.

Here's the thing: All of these more invasive searches that they've been doing lately? Yeah. Those. Tell me, would they have been able to stop, say, the Grundle Bomber? You might also know him as the Underwear Bomber. Can they see stuff like that? I don't know. The reason why I don't know is that no one has answered that question. I'm guessing that they probably couldn't do much about something like that, but that's purely a guess based upon the little faith that I have in most government operations.

If the TSA would just come out and explain why these extra measures are necessary, perhaps some of the uproar would die down. The bottom line is that we all want to be safe, but we don't necessarily want to be groped by a stranger in order to be safe. And mind you, so far, none of the implements that have been, well, implemented have thwarted anything. Not one thing. All failed attempts haven't been taken down by the TSA. No, all failed attempts have been taken down in the air by other passengers. So, I'm not sure how feeling up my breasts, no matter how soft and supple they may be, is going to help thwart future attacks...especially since I'm not a terrorist.

Sphere: Related Content

A Penis With Personality

You know what will happen when a bunch of city supervisors over at your local City Hall enact a law which completely takes away your freedom of choice under the apparent guise of them knowing better than you? That's right. People near and far are going to want to enact another one which limits your freedom to choose even more. I'm not talking things like abortion and guns here, but that's only because I'm talking about San Francisco. No, when you factor San Francisco into the mix, you have to include wacky things like Happy Meals and the male foreskin. Wait. What now?

Yeah, there's a sentence that I never thought I'd type. At least, I never thought that I'd have the opportunity to include both 'Happy Meal' and 'foreskin' in the same sentence and have them both be relevant. But thanks to San Francisco, such a sentence AND such a concept is now possible. Try not to hang yourself until you finish reading. (I know how tough that will be. I had to resist the urge to hang myself until I finished typing.)

As you may or may blissfully not be aware, last week, San Francisco passed a law that forbids fast food outlets from giving out a toy with a meal that is not deemed "healthy". Personally, I think the easiest way around that law, rather than succumb to what San Francisco thinks that you should do and/or eat, would be to sell the toy and include the meal for free. There's no law against that. Yet. But I digress. Now, there might be a measure on the ballot next year "...that would make it a “misdemeanor to circumcise, excise, cut or mutilate the…genitals” of a person under 18." So sayeth CBS San Francisco. Good Lord, people.

I'm all for the not being able to mutilate genitals. Don't get me wrong, as that sounds like a fairly reasonable provision. However, to need a separate law for it would be, you guessed it, completely ridiculous. That's because you typically don't define a medical procedure as 'mutilation'. But back to the foreskin. (Again, a sentence I never thought I'd type.) The author of this asinine bill is a one Lloyd Schofield who claims that the circumcision IS genital mutilation. Uh-huh. OK, then. What else?

He seems to be going on the belief that circumcision is a religious practice. And yes, it has been for many years and still is in some instances I would assume. But I would be surprised if the majority of circumcisions that are being performed today are being done so because of a religious belief. I would also be surprised if the majority of people thought of circumcision as a religious rite as opposed to seeing it as a medical procedure. I checked with the CDC (at their website) and they don't have any guidelines on whether or not a circumcision should be performed for health reasons. According to the CBS article "Scientists with the Centers for Disease Control are still studying whether circumcisions are healthier, and have promised recommendations to the public." Oh, good. A foreskin promise. That's something to look forward to.

Haven't we always been told (or taught) that circumcision cuts down (pun probably not intended, but completely inevitable) on diseases and is just cleaner or easier to clean? I don't know the specifics, not ever having had a foreskin, I'm just going on what I've learned in various health/anatomy classes. I'm also going to go with what was on Seinfeld when Elaine asked Jerry if he had ever seen one that wasn't circumcised. He said he hadn't and she went on to tell him that it wasn't good. "No, had no face, no personality, very dull. It was like a martian. But hey, that's me." Do you want a weenie with no personality ? I don't think you do.

The point here (surprisingly enough) isn't about the penis. It isn't even about the foreskin. It's about the government trying to ooch its way into every aspect of the life of a private citizen and the decision that they should be making ON THEIR OWN. You don't need to the government to tell you what kind of food you can buy for your child. You're supposed to be responsible enough to make that decision on your own. Yes, yes. I realize that we are surrounded by morons. And I also realize that we are surrounded by morons with children. But we can't let the freedoms of the capable be taken away by the moronic. Technically, the moronic are supposed to suffer as a result of their poor choices. I realize that consequences are practically non-existent in a socialist society, but we're not totally there yet, so there's still hope.

I'm semi-interested in whether or not the author of this bill has had his snipped off. I don't know why I'm semi-interested in that, but I just am. Regardless, it doesn't mean that he gets to try to dictate (again, no pun intended, but pretty funny none the less) what others do with theirs. Why are people not up in arms about the very thought of this happening? I'm not exactly sure, but that alone frightens me more than the possible ban on circumcision does.

Sphere: Related Content

Non-Torturous Jailhouse Movies

If you're in jail, it's not supposed to be fun. It's not supposed to be enjoyable. You're not supposed to be having a good time. So if you're not thrilled with the television programming that your particular place of incarceration is providing you with, please do not write letters to your local news source and complain. James Poulin, I'm talking to you.

According to something called TCPalm, Mr. Poulin, who has spent the last "...four years awaiting trial for driving-under-the-influence manslaughter", wrote to something called Florida Today complaining of "torture". Now, normally, claims of torture would be taken quite seriously. But when you realize that Mr. Poulin's definition of "torture" is that at the Brevard County Detention Center, where he is currently a resident, the "...inmates are forced to watch the same movies over and over and it is taking a toll." Wait a minute. Movies? What the...?

Correct. According to Mr. Poulin, the Sheriff of Brevard County, a one Jack Parker "...gathered up a bunch of old (movies) he had laying around and played them over and over for the next year," Poulin wrote to Florida Today. "I have seen 'Black Hawk Down,' 'Pearl Harbor,' 'Saving Private Ryan' and 'Battle Front' hundreds of times each, sometimes two or three times a day. . . " Um...OK. Hmm. Anything else?

Of course there's something else! He's an inmate who is bitching about what is on TV! You think it's going to stop there without some sort of ridiculous comparison to something that doesn't even make sense? Of course not! He includes "Like the old Chinese water torture, the inescapable sounds of these movies over and over works on nerves and psyche." Hey, could someone actually perform the old Chinese water torture on this guy and see how he likes his movies then? Or better yet, just waterboard the moron. I'm sure that he'll want to watch nothing but 'Saving Private Ryan' all day, every day in lieu of being waterboarded.

In case you were wondering, Mr. Poulin has been in jail since 2007 "...for allegedly driving and crashing his car while intoxicated, an accident that killed his female passenger." What's the hold up? Well, from what I can tell, he is the hold up. "There have been 14 motions for continuances in his case and six federal lawsuits against the jail, all of which have been dismissed." OK. I've got it now. As if it wasn't clear before, now I'm relatively sure that this guy, aside from being a cretin, is just a pain in the ass. And the same sentiments go for his lawyer, a one Assistant Public Defender Randy Moore. Mr. Moore said that "...the continuances are a strategy." I see. I'm guessing that Mr. Moore and Mr. Poulin get along just swell together. What a scumbag.

You know, having to watch the movies that he's "subjected" to over and over doesn't seem that bad. It's not like they were being subjected to anything with Jennifer Aniston in it or something like that

Sphere: Related Content

The Most Obnoxious Child Ever

I think I've done it. I think I've found the most annoying 10-year old in the world. I might have found the most annoying child in the world. I'm probably stretching it to say that she is the most annoying person in the world (especially since I've seen episodes of Jersey Shore), but not stretching it too far. Actually, I can't take all of the credit for this one. I stumbled upon this self-important child over at a blog/website that appears to be called either Blog Bethany or Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah. It's one of the two. And whichever one it is certainly does not detract from the content, as Bethany is highly amusing.

Here's the deal: What you're about to watch is a less than 2-minute interview with a one 10-year old Cecilia Cassini. Ms. Cassini is dubbed as the "Youngest Fashion Designer in the Country". I'm not going to doubt that, as I have seen her "designs" and they do appear as if they were created by someone quite young. Granted, I think the term "designer" is a bit gracious. Perhaps they should have tried on something like "Young Person Learning To Sew". I find that title to be a bit more accurate.

Warning: You might not be able to make it through this entire video without feeling the uncontrollable urge to strangle this child. This is not an uncommon reaction, as I have shown this video to several people and all have had visceral reactions to it (the most severe hoping that she OD's on cocaine by age 11). And look, I realize that she's 10. Should I not like a 10-year old as much as I don't like this one? If they act like she does, I think that's just inevitable. Now, I realize that I would probably dislike her parents even more than I dislike her, as they are the ones that are putting up with this sort of nonsense. But since they're not around in the video, I just get to dislike her. And now, behold! The most annoying person you will witness all day (at least)!

How ya doin' over there? You OK? Clawed out your eyeballs? Stabbed your ears? Yelled "Kill it with fire!"? Yeah, I understand. Let's take this from the top. What in the hell is on top of her head? Look, that's not fashion. That's like a startling visual for why you shouldn't do drugs. Is she trying to channel Sarah Jessica Parker during some SATC movie premiere? (That chick always has on a large hat for some reason.) Working on a more modern version of Aretha Franklin's inauguration hat? I don't get it.

Then there is the matter of her designs. They all seem to sport a common theme (aside from appearing to be poorly sewn). The theme is a solid colored fabric on top or bottom of a dress and then a printed fabric (or a really, super sparkly one) opposite of that one. Oh, wait. I forgot about the theme of all fabrics that don't go together at all and look like they were sewn in the dark. Behold!

Wow. OK, then. That's what kids want to wear? Um, have at it, I guess. I don't quite know how to react to those, other than "Run! Save yourself!"

But what I really don't get is that Valley Girl, "I'm so much better than you" tone in her voice. What is up with that? Why is she talking like that? I spent a little time with The Google and found a couple of other interviews that she has done earlier in the year. She was somewhat obnoxious, but nowhere near as obnoxious as she was in the video above. This kid is letting her ego get way too big for herself. Sure, it's cool that she has an interest in designing clothes. Sure, it's great that she's learning (and I stress the word learning) to do what she's doing. I'm sure that she'll have a lovely career in fashion of some sort. You can see more of her "fashion designs" at her website.

The point here is that she is insufferable as a human being. I skimmed through her blog and she seems to delight in referring to herself as "moi". Didn't Miss Piggy do that? Hmmm. It's certainly more endearing for the muppet than it is for her. Her clothes aren't that great (at this point) and are extremely overpriced (for something that isn't that great). Don't get me wrong. I'm thrilled that she will be able to support herself one day and has some sort of a future. But she really needs to work on her attitude, not to mention the quality of her work. (Is a straight seam too much to ask?) The last thing that we need is a bunch of kids running around emulating her and her extreme obnoxiousness. (Is that a word? Obnoxiousness? If not, is it now and it was invented just for her.)

Sphere: Related Content

You Can Eat That? Part Deux

It's really hard to know where to start with this one. I guess I'll start with the obvious and say that I wouldn't have expected this to be anywhere but in the south. Personally, I would have guessed Flori-duh. You can imagine my surprise (but not complete disbelief) when I learned that it actually took place in Kentucky. Apparently, Kentucky has its own special way of working out differences between folks that involve a lot of alcohol and a twenty dollar lawnmower.

Meet Clem. (His real name is Harvey Westmoreland, but I have a hard time calling him anything but Clem when I read this story. It was between Clem and Cleetus, but I think I'll make Cleetus his brother.)

Apparently, Clem's brother, Cleetus, had been doing some work for a one Troy Holt. Now, it would seem that before this incident these guys were friends. I use the term friends loosely, as I don't have any friends that get involved in these sorts of hijinks. Troy and his friend, a one James Hill, called up Clem and asked him to come over to where Cleetus was working for Troy. (He was cleaning out stalls of some sort. I'm guessing that there are horses involved. Fortunately, that's as far as their involvement goes, however. Those horses should consider themselves lucky that they didn't get dragged into this.) And according to Clem, "They called and wanted me to come around there and when I got there, I realized they were already drunk." Of course they were already drunk. You don't get a story like this without copious amounts of alcohol.

For some reason, after Clem gets there, Troy offers to buy his lawnmower from him for $250. I don't know if the lawnmower was already there or if Clem regularly travels on his lawnmower, but drunken Troy wanted to buy his mower. Well, Clem had only paid $20 for the mower, so he thought that he was getting quite the deal and agreed to it. The way things develop after this are a little cloudy, but apparently, drunken Troy felt like he was getting ripped off. Little did he realize that he was the one who was ripping himself off, as he is the one who offered up the $250 for the mower in the first place (which I was imagining to be a push mower, but was apparently was the mower pictured here). That's when, according to Clem, "He thought I was trying to cheat him. One thing led to another, and before I knowed it, there were knives and guns and everything just went haywire." I think that things were a little haywire before the guns and knives came out, but I see his point.

Side note: I'm going to start throwing that phrase into conversation and see if anyone notices. Before I knowed it. I think it'll catch on. What? You don't? People everywhere are saying "Run and tell that, homeboy!" I think "before I knowed it" has a shot.

So, where was I? Oh, right. The haywire. It's at this point that Mr. Holt and Mr. Hill allegedly cut off Clem's beard and (wait for it) forced him to eat it. Now, I'm not exactly sure how that would happen. First of all, what are they cutting it off with? The knives that they pulled? OK, I guess I get that. But like, did they make him eat all of it? From the pictures, Clem has a pretty good sized beard. Had he been forced to eat all of it, it would have definitely constituted a meal. I don't know how much beard I could possibly eat, though I'd imagine that it would be a pretty sizable amount if I had a gun pointed at me.

This is probably the sort of caper that could only occur when alcohol is involved. Who in their sober mind would force someone to eat their own beard? How do you force someone to eat their own beard? It's as bizarre as it is disgusting. And something tells me that there is a little more to this story that ol' Clem there isn't saying. I don't know what it is, but there has to be something else involved here. Mr. Hill and Mr. Holt are to be sentenced on Tuesday. Perhaps after that, they might be able to speak up a little bit about what happened and fill in some of the blanks here.

Sphere: Related Content

You Can Eat That?

More on this guy tomorrow. Holy crap, will there definitely be more. It's absolutely worthy of a very thorough analysis. (I have been swamped lately and find myself falling behind on posting daily in a timely fashion. Thus, I'm resorting to a two-parter in order to keep up.) And really, just his hat (with the silhouette of a woman on all fours emblazoned in a stars and stripe pattern) could warrant its own post. Where does one get an item of apparel such as that? I'm guessing maybe every gas station in the south?

Sphere: Related Content

Hardly A Spree

We have a winner! Yep, with only a little over a month left to go in the year, I think we have a winner for Mugshot of the Year. Sure, there have been a lot of notable ones up to this point, but I really think this guy is going to be hard to top. Behold!

Yep. There you have it. Did I tell you? It's a winner. Apparently, the chap in that photo is a one Mark Siebenmorgen and according to the news footage over there at KATU (that's in Portland, Oregon), he "...went on a one-man crime spree last month in Milwaukie and when they caught him he graced them with this priceless look for his mug shot." Huh. Crime spree, eh? Like what kind of a crime spree? Apparently in Portland, the "crime spree" occurred when he "...walked up to a total stranger and shoved him to the ground. Minutes later, he jumped on a car, stomped on its hood, flexed his muscles and kicked out the windshield before running away. Police say they caught Siebenmorgen the next day after he showed up at a Safeway at southeast King Street making rude comments to employees." Wait. What?

THAT'S your crime spree? It sounds to me like the guy thought he was the Incredible Hulk, only without all of the turning green and hulking. I don't know if I'd call that a "crime spree". Granted, it's awfully erratic, but where is the spree part? The shoving part is uncalled for at best. Is that a crime? I guess it's assault. Kicking the windshield in is definitely a crime. Being rude to Safeway employees isn't exactly good manners, but it's hardly a crime. And this whole story is hardly worthy of the moniker "spree". No wonder he looks so crazed. He's totally misunderstood. Yeah. That's it.

Sphere: Related Content

So Gross And So Hazardous To Your Health

The FDA is now going to have more graphic warnings on cigarette packages. That's not a bad idea. You know and I know that no one reads those things. Then again, it's not like you can't figure out that smoking is bad for you. But yet, people continue to do it. I know, I know. Supposedly, quitting smoking is harder than quitting heroin. I don't know about that. I've never smoked and I've never been addicted to heroin, but it seems like a pretty strong comparison, so let's just say that quitting smoking is hard, shall we?

According to The Washington Post, the new warnings will consist of "...images that could include emaciated cancer patients, diseased organs and corpses." Nice. Apparently the new warnings will no longer be regulated to just the side of the cigarette pack. No, now they will take up "...half the front and back of each pack and 20 percent of each large ad." That's a pretty significant amount of space on each pack. And since it's on the front and the back, it's not like there's going to be any getting away from it if your pack is just lying around. It is going to be a bit imposing on ol' Joe Camel, though. (Is he still around? Dead? Lung cancer? I'm not really sure. But I've always thought that his nose looks a bit like a penis. I don't know what that has to do with making someone want to smoke or not, but it's fairly undeniable that that's what it looks like. Penis.)

Here are a few of the proposed images that the FDA is mulling over. This one shows a guy with a tracheotomy hole and he's still puffing away on a cigarette. The caption reads "WARNING: Cigarettes are addictive". Geez. Yeah, I'd say.

This one says "Warning Cigarette smoke can harm your children". What a cute little baby. How much do you want to bet that they don't use that one because it's a black baby and they don't want to be accused of being racist and saying that cigarette manufacturers are trying to kill black babies? That's what this country has come to, so don't be surprised when it happens.

And this one says "Warning: Cigarettes cause fatal lung disease." But then they have a picture of a toe tag on a corpse. How is that helping? Why not show a diseased lung inside of a dead person? That would hit it home for a lot of folks, wouldn't you say?

Most of the ones that I looked at were along these same lines. They're fairly tame. But, then again, we've become a rather soft nation, so it doesn't really surprise me, even though it does sadden me. Then I learned that other countries have been putting gross pictures on cigarette packages for years. And those other countries don't mess around with the pictures that they came up with. Holy Toledo. Let's take a gander over there at Brazil, shall we? This one starts off with "Infarto". (I think we used to call each other that on the playground in elementary school.) Then it shows a picture of a human heart in a human chest with a bunch of cigarette butts put out in it. Good Lord! That's disgusting! And that's on the pack of cigarettes that someone is going to willingly buy? Holy crap. It's a wonder anyone smokes at all having to look at that. Behold! Infarto!

Here's another one from Brazil. It appears to depict a very premature and ridiculously small little baby. It's incredibly sad. I don't understand folks who smoke when they're pregnant. I don't get it at all. Seriously, what is wrong with you people? You can't quit for the sake of your unborn kid? Oh, I'm sure you'll be a great parent. Uh-huh. Let me know how that turns out. Actually, never mind. Don't. I can already guess.


The one below, from the UK, almost caused me to hurl. It is absolutely disgusting. I don't even know what the deal is with the guy on the left, but it appears that the inside of his neck is trying to escape. As for the one on the right, I can barely look at it without cringing. I have awesome teeth and that just makes me want to vomit. It definitely does NOT make me want to smoke. Good job, UK!


Singapore heeded to my picture of a diseased lung idea from above. Here's what they did to their packs. You know, the amount of space that it takes up is stunning. It's not like you can miss that or anything. It's just gross.

And the last one that I'm going to include is NOT for the faint of heart. Holy canoli, I can't imagine why anyone would ever think of starting to smoke if they had seen something like this first. Seriously. Behold! The dangers of smoking!
Wow. Really? Gangrene? I didn't know that smoking could cause gangrene? How does that work? Well, it's not good, whatever the situation. Smoking. Is there anything in your body it can't ruin? Apparently not. I don't know if stuff like this is going to do much for the person who has been smoking a long time. It might help for those who haven't been smoking for very long. I'm really hoping that it helps those who haven't even started yet. Make sure kids see stuff like this often as soon as they're of age to get it. Why would you want to start after seeing in graphic detail what it can do to you?

Sphere: Related Content

While perusing the Innerwebs today, I ran across this over at something called Washington Scene - The Hill:

Oh, please. Are you freaking kidding me? A reception to honor your accomplishments? Is that necessary, you twit? First question, who is paying for this wing ding? It certainly had better not be taxpayers and if it is, I want to go. I'd feel a lot better about how my tax dollars were spent if I actually felt like I got to use the things that they were spent on once in a while. (And don't tell me that the roads I drive on are paid for by some sort of tax dollars. The roads I drive on are crap, at best.)

Seriously, how out of touch is she (and the rest of them)? They need to throw themselves a little wing-ding so that the entire self-congratulatory bunch of them can stand around and reinforce how great they think they are? That doesn't sound all that necessary to me. You know, y'all haven't exactly turned this country around all the way quite yet. What say you hold off on your narcissistic tea party until the unemployment rate is at least at a manageable level again, OK? Is that too much to ask? Apparently so. Sadly, apparently so.

Sphere: Related Content