February 23rd: Responsibility to Keep it Brief

I almost wish, as a society, we valued different things. That way, two consecutive weeks in which no reading was done and few classes were attended, but ridiculous amounts of TV were consumed would maybe be considered more of an achievement than an embarrassment. Regardless, less reading=less links=shorter, more manageable blogposts, so it’s to your benefit I guess.

Last week there was unusually little IR/foreign policy stuff, so a bumper edition this week. It’s also going to be structurally brilliant.

First off, two articles on The Bridge, another good security studies/defence stuff website. The first one is an interesting defence of the Responsibility to Protect (see what I did with the title?). By drawing the debate away from the extremes of airstrikes and no-fly zones, the author provides a strong justification for its continuing relevance – even when the appetite for military intervention seems generally limited, early warning mechanisms that appeal for more limited interventions before things get too bad can still be useful. It’s well worth reading, as is the rebuttal, published a few days later on the same site. The rebuttal is good at pointing out a few flaws, gaps and oversights in the original article, but less good at making its own case, so it’s only worth reading as a means of being made to pay attention to the flaws in the first article.

Like I said – structurally brilliant. Much like a university lecturer or someone equally talented, I’ve just alid out a theoretical debate for you, and now, bang. Case study. I’m pretty sure I’ve linked to Peter Munson before* but his pieces at War on the Rocks are great – this one on Syria places it in the context of the Just War debate (which admittedly, isn’t quite the same as the R2P one but is closely descended enough that my course outline holds together). It’s both a sanguine and level-headed consideration of the limited prospects for success of any US intervention in Syria, and a (possibly quite irritable) plea for a less self-righteous tone to the arguments for intervention. Every time I read a great piece on Syria I feel less inclined to write one myself because it really has all been said.

As a transition to the more ill-themed segment of the article, this review from War on the Rocks isn’t really what I thought it would be, but it’s quite nice anyway. Since reading a piece about the US withdrawal from Afghanistan last year I’ve been fascinated by the logistical side of armies, so I was hoping this would be an article about that, but I guess I’d have to read the actual book.

Next, and I think this is the first time I’ve linked to anything Novara, so I’d just like to take a moment to strongly recommend their radio show/podcast** – it’s kind of depressing, because the presenters usually have a really compelling, radical, plausible take on politics that makes you feel both very smug and superior when reading mainstream op-eds and very depressed when you consider the state of the future. Reading it back, this doesn’t sound like the best recommendation, but check it out. This week’s article is just a brief outline of the arguments in favour of campaigning for a Universal Basic Income (UBI) . This is a really interesting proposal that I feel has a certain amount of momentum – this article makes arguments for it both in and of itself and also as part of a broader anti-capitalist campaign. Quick and interesting, check it.

Possibly of limited interest to people who aren’t me, but I’ve been following Mauricio Savarese on Twitter for a while and his posts on Brazil are always interesting – this one is on the skewed portrayal of Brazilian politics in the media – he’s written previously on how badly the international media reports on Brazil, but this one is more general. It seems even-handed to me, but part of why I like the piece so much is that it is really fucking hard for me, having lived abroad for the best part of twenty years, to form any sort of opinion on Brazilian politics***. This at least illuminates part of the problem. Of course, if he’s right that Brazilian political parties tend to paint their opponents as radically different to themselves despite having almost identical politics, I wonder if that doesn’t just bring Brazil closer to “developed world” (lol) politics. Anyway.

Bit more frivolous, but this is a good article about Tinder, its founders, and some quite nice anecdotes about outcomes. I was kind of hoping the author would write more about the bug that seems to afflict people whose names begin with G and end in –abriel that seems to hide all the matches we- they are getting, but…****

Finally, something very relevant to this blog, which is definitely not neutral but pretty poor at expressing definitive opinions, this post on Charlie’s blog***** is really good on ambivalence.

A bit longer than last week, but hopefully still within reasonable limits. Enjoy the end of February x

*just checked – I haven’t. My bad. This piece, again on Syria, is brilliant.

**if nothing else, I feel like this blog could have been written by a Republican in recent weeks and I feel like recommending a radical left-wing media outlet regains me some left-wing credit

***and I have to vote this year!

****good God. I was making a crap joke, but I just found a Yahoo answers page that is filled with this level of almost so-sad-it’s-almost-adorable delusion.

Februrary 16th: Austerity Reading

This week I’ve done some absolutely stellar TV and video-game work, which has had a knock-on effect on the amount of reading I’ve done, and consequently, how much I have to share with you this week. Also the length was getting out of hand so I’m going to try and be more selective from here on out. And concise, though concision isn’t really my thing.

This, over at Foreign Policy, is an interesting argument that I don’t think you hear often in English-language press for reinforced security cooperation between France and the USA. For the most part, you only hear about France in ill-informed stabs (in French, that one, but a brilliant takedown) at its economic policies. There’s a lot of merit to the idea of boosting trilateral relations, including the UK this time, as well. Worth a look.

I’ve definitely made this argument in the past – how the arbitrary borders imposed by colonial administrators are a big source of conflict etc. etc. This article about Sykes-Picot, which has had a surge of bad press because of the state of Syria and Iraq at the moment, is an interesting and strong corrective to what are, in this situation anyway, largely untrue connections.

This one’s a bit long, but it’s a really interesting, and I assume well-informed explanation of the North Korean regime and where things might head next after the purge of Kim Jong Un’s uncle. Hardly ever see this sort of information come out so this is cool.

Readers, let’s take a moment to salute a true workhorse. In the world of war machines, the expensive and high-tech items get all the attention and budgetdronesanti-ship ballistic missilescyber warfare, and the like. But, on the battlefields of the twenty-first century, a humble and under-rated weapon has quietly showed up these expensive attention-hogs: the pickup truck.”

The second War on the Rocks piece is weird but well worth reading if you’re into military-ish stuff. Last week I linked to three articles about the F-35, and the idea that a pickup truck may remain more relevant to most warfare is almost funny (as funny as death-making machines can be I guess).

Finally, one article on how the internet can be really cool – a history of computer/online dating including the story of that amazing guy who basically won at OKCupid with math skillz. For balance, one article on how the internet can be fucking awful – the story of one woman’s battle with the owner of a (thankfully now-defunct) revenge porn website. It takes some really surreal and quite terrifying turns and seems to have a happy ending. Check it.

Less than 500 words! Have a great week, guys.

PS: Just seen that one of my views for last week’s piece came from the search “chinese woman fucking in home video leakeg”. I’m still counting it. 

February 9th: Watch the Chinese Throne (Reading List)

I have literally spent all week concerned about titles etc. and can’t get past calling it something Sunday-papers-related (ie, what RPS call it) or something like what Another Angry Woman calls hers, but having linked to both of those last week, I can’t plausibly pretend I’m not just nicking their titles. So I’m going with a new approach – crappy jokes about the content of the post is the way forward.

Overthinking Rappers

Which is a lie as a title because I think there’s enough interesting stuff in any (well not all of them) Kanye song to justify writing at length about, but these articles go in such interesting directions that it almost feels strange that they’re built on the foundation of the man who wrote “in a French-ass restaurant/hurry up with my damn croissants”. Anyway, there are two segments to this section – the first half are articles that were mostly written years ago but since they were linked to in a post from this week, they fit. The second half I read months ago, probably around when Yeezus came out, but they seem to dovetail quite nicely with this theme and I really want you all* to read them.

So over at Foreign Policy, Matt Lynch wrote this really cool post about Kendrick Lamar (who I think I am about to understand the hype about – just one more play of good kid) and academia, which was good on its own merit – but then he linked to an earlier post about Jay-Z and international relations and I think this started the most entertaining reading I’ve done all week. First, the original post. Then the responses he compiled. And, finally, just when I was starting to feel upset at the absence of Kanye in the discussion – boom, Watch The Throne dropped and earned itself its own post! Highlights:

“Eminem returned strong after a long struggle with depression to make the ferociously brilliant Recovery album; but like, say, India or Brazil he has always been a powerhouse in his own world, neither influencing nor affected by the wider field.”

“many doubted whether Kanye could ever recover. This was a reputational collapse on a par with what the Bush administration did to America’s standing in the world.”

It’s absurd, but it absolutely works and is really fun – sort of like a hip-hop version of Daniel Drezner’s IR and zombies book.

In a similar vein, some of the writing in response to Yeezus and Kanye’s interviews, etc. in the months since has been absolutely brilliant.

Cord Jefferson, in particular wrote two really interesting, personal pieces discussing racism and his lived experience of discrimination and where Kanye West fits into this as an artist that are wonderful – this one was in response to that thing with Jimmy Kimmel, who comes off as a real tool.

“That Kanye West didn’t take it as a joke isn’t really a surprise, even if we ignore the fact that he’s famously self-serious. Here he’d done an interview explaining how hurtful it is to have proved one’s ability and still be seen as inferior by rich white people, and a rich white person responded by infantilizing him.”

Meanwhile, this piece is as much about race as gender, and the pretty shitty sexism that Kanye lyrics occasionally (frequently) swerve into. As Jefferson puts it,

“But if much of Kanye’s latest effort is intrepid, industrial progress, one big swath remains anchored firmly in the past, like a rocket ship heated with a wood-burning stove.”

Well worth a read and does a really good job of contextualizing the awfulness without giving it a pass. Also features some very bleak history and interesting personal touches.

Finally two good pieces from The Sabotage Times – one my favourite review of Yeezus and the other a really good defence of Bound 2 and its video. I love that song and I have a lot of time for Kanye but even I was baffled and derisive of that video, which was probably unfair. Hari Sethi takes it seriously and makes a solid case that

“Whilst we all cringed at silly ol’ Kanye, it’s highly plausible the rapper had the last laugh.”

Why we should(n’t) be afraid of China

A massive pile of pieces on politics in East Asia now. It’s a really interesting (in the terrifying way) situation at the moment and I have no idea whether to believe the doom-mongers but it does make me slightly troubled by the UK move towards losing aircraft carriers (how far I’ve fallen). Then again, the joy of not being the hegemon is not having to pay for global public goods I guess. Anyway. This week’s first of three War on the Rocks pieces is a persuasive case for a change in US response to Chinese “salami-slicing” which is my new favourite metaphor –

“It is the rivals of salami-slicers who are obligated to eventually draw red lines and engage in brinkmanship over actions others will view, in isolation, as trivial and far from constituting casus belli.”

It’s compelling and a bit scary. Linked to within that post is this brilliant article from the New York Times that I think has to be read on a computer browser to do it justice – it’s beautifully presented Snowfall-style stuff (I said this about a piece last week I think). It’s also a fascinating and surreal report on the Filipino efforts to keep hold of tiny little islands across the South China Sea and China’s basically unstoppable moves to take them. At its heart is an abandoned, rusty, collapsing beached WW2 boat and the handful of marines garrisoning it. Really good reporting, check it.

So while that’s all a bit terrifying, the pessimistic case may be somewhat overstated. For one thing, this piece in The Diplomat argues that the Chinese military is over-estimated as a threat – they’re poorly-trained and much much worse equipped than we think, despite all the publicity around their military budget. Meanwhile, this other piece on the F-35 fighter jet (I don’t know who I am anymore) turned out to be really interesting and nicked at least an hour of my life while I read up, pointlessly, on US fighter jets. Together, they make it quite clear that the US military is still so ridiculously powerful that in the event of a war it’s not implausible that the US would be able to wipe the floor with China, which in turn makes it highly unlikely that it’ll come to it. Fingers crossed. Also the F-35 thing paints this delightfully Skynet picture which I was more amused than terrified by – possibly because of this blog which got a giggle out of me.

Zack Beauchamp over at ThinkProgress.com also outlines a lot of convincing reasons that war is ultimately pretty unlikely. So that’s good.

International Diplomacy for dummies

Worryingly, on the strength of these two pieces, the US diplomatic corps doesn’t exactly sound up to managing these crises. This profile of former US ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul is interesting – he doesn’t come off awfully and seems like a decent bloke but… not great. Also:

“The only known association between the Russian president and American football was Putin’s alleged theft of Patriots owner Robert Kraft’s diamond-studded Super Bowl ring in 2005”

Amazing. (That said, there’s another Russia piece or two incoming that aren’t so fun so steel yourselves. On the problems with the diplomatic service generally this one has been doing the rounds on Twitter and is a bit worrying but also brilliant because hopefully the British or the Brazilian ambassadorships are as much of a joke which improves my chances (of course apparently you need to be a massive donor to get in so I’d still need to be loaded. So not that much of an improvement)

Middle Eastern things

As Iran moves back towards a degree of normalization internationally these two pieces are good for treating it like a normal country instead of a Holocaust-denying ranter (Ahmadinejad being gone helps with that). The Al-Jazeera piece is just a good outline of where its national interests lie and helps explain its behaviour. Meanwhile, the War on the Rocks one is more self-interested in a way.

“Because giving Iran a place at the table is the only way to make it take responsibility for its role in Syria’s civil war.”

By virtue of being a pariah Iran doesn’t get called out on all of its behaviour as much maybe it should – that post argues that its normalization could help in more ways than one. In a similar vein, this on Foreign Policy (also doing well this week) discusses Syria using the analogies of Bosnia and Iraq properly and seriously and actually drawing interesting and credible conclusions instead of “we should/shouldn’t bomb Syria because Bosnia/Iraq”. So good job there.

Finally, a really moving piece on how we talk about war at (ha) War on the Rocks. It really is to that site’s credit that they get both great scholars and experts and veterans (often in the same person) to write for them.

“We’ve abstracted Syria to the point that it’s no longer a war, but a giant Risk board we get to watch on CNN.” 

I can’t be bothered to make up a tenuous set of categories for the rest of these so the overflow section is really big and contains some of the best posts. Tough.

Who says titles have to be brief? Ok first up, and vaguely related to the last one, this piece about women and the media from Sarah Graham (who I know! Get me) is really good – it outlines all the different kinds of fuckery that are pervasive in the media and at its heart is the horrific work (I mean great work from her but awful) by Karen Ingala Smith –

“Her Counting Dead Women campaign recorded 140 women killed in 2013 by boyfriends, husbands, sons, grandsons, friends, relatives, acquaintances and strangers. That’s one woman every 2.6 days.”

It really underlines why this shit matters and it’s a great piece which you should read now – I’ll wait.

Tenuously linked (Sarah mentioned the Meredith Kercher trial) is this mildly surreal but quite powerful piece in the Guardian on Amanda Knox. It’s weird to read how sympathetic she sounds with the knowledge that she’s a convicted murderer but Hattenstone isn’t unaware of that tension. Also I never followed that trial so I didn’t have any opinions either way beyond “this is awful”. Good article though.

Stoya is wonderful and this piece from her in the New Statesman is really cool and funny but important and I love her rule 7:

“7. If your sexual partner(s) express a limit or ask for something to stop and you do not respect it, you are stepping onto a scale that ranges from “jerk” to “full-on rapist”. Personally, I don’t want to be on that scale at all, and I don’t want to engage in sexual activity with anyone who does hang out on that scale.”

For something completely different, but related to the war on women piece by virtue of it just being me boosting my friends, Charlie Satow’s blog on development is well worth following and this piece was nice and light-hearted but really captured the fundamental tension that lies in the fact that if development efforts achieve their aims,

“all of us lovely people in the global North who want to work in Development are out of a job”

Also I can’t wait to see the Romeo and Juliet piece.

I warned you about this one. This report in GQ about “Being Gay in Russia” by Jeff Sharlet is excellent. It’s driven by the voices and the stories of the people who have to live with the awful discrimination and is very powerful and moving and heartbreaking and if you only read one thing I link this week** make it this.

On the other hand, Another Angry Woman makes a very good point here – that while stuff in Russia is undeniably fucked up, it is far from the only place in which stuff is fucked up. It’s harsh and also contains a whole litany of depressingly shit stuff that LGBT people face and is entirely in keeping with the name of the blog and worth reading as a precursor to some uncomfortable looking in the mirror (metaphorically)

“I’m not saying don’t be pissed off about Sochi and Russia. I’m saying, be more pissed off.”

Now for some much more trivial but still interesting (but after the GQ piece, to be honest, anything would seem a bit trivial)…

Pop culture bits!

I’ve been meaning to write about Louie (literally directly beneath this in my word document are two half-written posts about it) and I still might, but this from Todd VanDerWerff almost*** makes me not want to bother because it says a lot of what I wanted to but well and with like… knowledge about TV. So read this and I’ll see if I can add to it. Also watch Louie – it’s really good.

Get this as a sentence. The next piece is an excerpt from a Harry Potter fan fiction written by respected IR scholar Daniel Drezner and published in Foreign Policy, called “Eat, Cast, Love.” Worth a click just to reward them with page-views for the weirdness.

Finally, I’ll leave you with an irresistibly nerdy post from Alan White**** on video-gaming in the past decade is really fun and reminded me of a lot of cool stuff. I was also weirdly proud of getting a lot of the moments.

Last week I was concerned that 1500 words was too many. This one has over 2200. Is that too many? Please feel free to comment or contact me or something if you have any thoughts on whether this thing should be less fucking long.

*I say “all”, last week’s blog got less than a dozen hits which makes “all” seem like an absurd word to use really

**please don’t only read one post though there are like twenty+ links in this post and this shit takes time.

***almost – I actually remembered it having more about why Louie is so good but it just kind of takes that as a given, so there’s hope for me yet.

****and I know that Buzzfeed gif-lists are kind of the opposite of this blog’s stated intent of sharing interesting stuff to read you may not have seen since it’s Buzzfeed so you will have done, and it’s a listicle so hardly even reading but….)

February 2nd: Reading List

So back when I was still on Live Journal and much better at blogging than I am these days, I did one of those “stuff I’ve read” this week blogs that I kept up for several months. Inspired both by Stavvers’ excellent version of this same idea, and my good friend Charlie’s general flurry of online activity I’ve decided to try and do one of these again as a substitute for original content. Also, in the absence of any real expertise in any thing that would make this blog worth reading, I figure I can leverage something that I am actually pretty good at – reading a whole bunch of articles on tangential subjects from different sources. Hopefully at least one post per week will be super interesting to at least one of you, and if so, then that’s cool I guess.

Of course the issue here is that it’s Sunday and I decided to do this two hours ago and so don’t remember what I’ve read. I refuse to fuck with the chronology of this and do it every Tuesday or some shit. Conversely, I know that if I wait until next Sunday I will have lost all drive to write it. So this week, I’ll provide some general recommendations for sites as well as any articles I can find in my Pocket* archive that I loved. I’m going to try and do a mildly organised theme to this though the sections are likely to shift and split more than an amoeba, so we’ll see.**

Popular Culture

The AV Club: I visit this site several times a day for one simple reason. The TV Club post really, really good recaps/reviews of most of the TV programs I watch almost the minute they come out. Moreover, there are good odds that they have archived articles on older shows, or even better, an explicitly over-thinking kind of “rewatch” blog (there’s currently one running for Mad Men which has really tempted me to get back into it). I have always felt a strange compulsion to read reviews and analyses of media I consume almost the minute I put it down, so this is a godsend to me. It’s gotten to the weird point where I enjoy a series less if I know the AV Club don’t have articles on it (Lost pre-end of Season 3, The Wire pre-Season 5, Fresh Meat (all of it) and generally a large proportion of UK TV). Worse, I sometimes find myself itching to read the review before I’ve even finished watching the episode just to make sense of what I’ve just seen. My pathological need to be told how to feel aside, the reviews are generally excellent. It is to the site’s immense credit that it generally discusses the How I Met Your Mothers or Big Bang Theorys of the world with a similar level of seriousness to Mad Men or The Sopranos. Sometimes it can feel like attributing too much depth and intent to light-hearted comedies***, but it enables the writers to bring all their knowledge of the context and history of TV to bear in elucidating what makes these series work. Even the comments are broadly tolerable.

Rock Paper Shotgun: I found this site by accident a couple of months ago, and it is now another that I check for updates regularly, despite really not being interested in most of them. It’s a PC-gaming focused website, and with that comes a lot of news about games I don’t care about and never will, a fair bit of hardware talk, and other stuff that I don’t want to read. However, I keep coming back because their features and reviews are utterly brilliant. Much like The AV Club recaps, the Wot I Think reviews are really interesting takes on games that, despite hitting a lot of the “gameplay,graphics,sound” beats that other reviews do, seem to elevate them much further, taking games completely seriously. The features are generally excellent too. Of special note is their Sunday Papers posts**** (another inspiration for this feature), which collects their favourite writing on games from the week. And they do collect some fucking fantastic writing with really out-there, intelligent, quite radical takes on video-games, that, again, take it seriously.

Now for some actual articles!

This, from Brendan Vance, who I suspect I found through the Sunday Papers, is provocative and quite interesting.  Most of his blogs on game design philosophy and stuff are worth checking out if you’re into videogames.

“It’s gotten weird, people, and it’s getting weirder. “

This, on the other hand, is much less light-hearted and fun and more upsetting, sad but with a tiny bit of optimism-maybe. It’s a longish read from Dorian Lynskey about anti-fascist groups and hip hop in Greece and Golden Dawn and that whole situation is kind of fucked and at its heart there’s just a really sad story of a guy who seemed like a good guy getting murdered. Nevertheless, well worth the read.

Foreign Policy/Defence

To be honest I don’t really know what to call this section – if I did I might know what I am academically interested in and what to pursue as a career, but that’s a whine for another blog. Basically I could see this one just becoming politics, but a lot of my reading these days does happen on a specifically IR/military sort of area, with a distinctly US-centric (which admittedly for this kind of thing isn’t as bad as it sounds since they matter a lot).

One of the best sources of clear-headed, realist (in the academic sense), writing from people who generally know their shit is War on the Rocks. It’s almost weird to me when I look at my old LJ blog and think of the bolshie teenager that I used to be that today I am highly recommending a blog with a large proportion of serving or former US military personnel advocating different ways for the US to maintain its power but there you go. It is, at the very least, a welcome antidote to all the utterly vacuous thinking on international relations you get in the UK press (from the left’s knee-jerk anti-Americanism absent any real analysis or alternative, to the right’s tediously predictable empty call for interventions absent any real detail or planning beyond moralising and smugness).

Speaking of which, this is one of the better Syria pieces I have read in a while.

“Why assume U.S. military aid will be a “magic bullet” given the apparent evidence of our poor aim to date?”

Strikes me as quite an important point, given that the failure to get any backing for direct military involvement seems to have given rise to a push to increase lethal aid to the opposition.

John Mearsheimer is one of my favourite IR theorists at the moment (what a dick sentence) and this essay by him is one of those really nice expressions of a man’s thinking that also makes a whole lot of sense as a suggestion for the USA. I’ve lifted the conclusion so you can get a sense of what that thinking is.

“None of this is to say the United States should become isolationist or ignore its position in the global balance of power. On the contrary, it should make sure it remains the most powerful country on the planet, which means making sure a rising China does not dominate Asia the way the United States dominates the Western Hemisphere. It should also use force when core strategic interests are threatened. But Washington should stop intervening in the politics of countries like Egypt and Syria and more generally abandon its interventionist strategy of global domination, which has led to unending trouble. We might then begin to restore the tarnished liberal-democratic principles that once made America truly exceptional and widely admired.”

I like how it balances reluctance to intervene like the neo-cons/liberal internationalists who dominate these days do, with the commitment to maintaining US hegemony. Quite a nice balance. Again, as a former diehard anti-imperialist lad, I don’t quite know what the fuck led me to be OK with an author advocating continued US hegemony but there you go. Rather them than China, anyway.

Finally, for a more light-hearted***** piece, this, from Foreign Policy about portable tactical nukes is a really nicely-presented (finally coming round to the redesign) report, a la Snowfall, on a completely fucking surreal technology and period in recent history and just generally it’s mad.

“NATO allies, particularly West Germany, were understandably apprehensive about the idea of U.S. forces lighting off scores of small nuclear weapons on their territory.”

Imagine that as a serious sentence. Baffling. But you know, real, and fascinating.

Other shit

Finally, because sometimes stuff doesn’t fit anywhere else, the overflow section.

This piece (Buzzfeed doing well today, despite their having recently revived those god-awful quizzes we used to do in high school on the old Facebook) from a few weeks back is really weird. It sort of toes this line where there’s a real danger it’ll turn out to be a really self-indulgent story by some gentrifying hipster dickhead but never quite gets there and so remains just a really unique interesting and quite uplifting story. Also because Detroit and the wholesale decline of a massive, massive city is a kind of fascinating tragedy to watch.

This, from the AV Club, but not a TV article is just weird and surreal and a bit wonderful.

And there we have it. 1500 words is far too long, so sorry about that, but there was establishing and stuff that needed done this week, so it’ll get snappier as it goes on.

*one of my favourite apps out there. With the addition of a little button in my browser taskbar it solves both the problem of too many articles queued up clogging up my tabs, and the eternal quest for stuff to read when I’m offline.

**I feel like a more professional blogger would have done all this stuff mentally instead of showing the gears of it all to you but there you go

***I say this largely to deflect any judgement and hostility, but to be honest, the programs that have had the most emotional impact on me have tended to be frothy sitcoms anyway. How I Met Your Mother has reduced me to tears on a number of occasions and I’m increasingly anxious about the imminent series finale in March.

****see what I’ve done there is actually link you to the Sunday Papers tag so you can see all of the past posts. Aren’t I great?

*****as light-hearted as you can really be while discussing nuclear fucking war I guess.