Christopher McKitterick's Blog, page 36
August 2, 2011
How radical conservatism is wrecking America.
So the country won't go into receivership today because the Congress happened to finish a bill that would raise the debt ceiling and the Senate approved it. Was anyone surprised? The only part that surprised me was that they somehow managed to create a 12-person crew to guide cuts and so forth that's half Dem and half Repub. Perhaps it's less surprising when we step back and ask what those party definitions mean today, and if there's any real practical difference anymore.
I really like this piece by Republican commentator Robert Frum about how radical conservatives have not only ruined the Republican party but are on track to ruin our nation. At last, a sensible Republican speaks out.
A few simple things:
1) Reducing government spending eliminates jobs and reduces support for the unemployed and poor, infrastructure repairs, education, military adventures, research, science, and so forth. I think everyone of all party affiliations can agree that people losing jobs is not a good thing for anyone, nor is it good for the economy. I think everyone with any education at all knows that cutting across the board like this, eliminating science research and educational support will result in a nation of declining value.
2) When fewer people have jobs, tax revenue declines because of several factors: a) unemployed don't pay tax, b) unemployed collect unemployment benefits, c) unemployed don't buy stuff the way employed do, d) and this cascades across the entire economy. Fix unemployment and you fix almost everything.
3) We're suffered a decade's worth of hugely expensive wars - unfunded wars. You don't need to be highly educated to recognize that spending $trillion$ without adding any income sources is just idiotic. If America were truly based on fairness, the radical neocon-wingnuts who demanded war but refused to pay for it would be sued to cover our debt.
4) Many or most of the tax loopholes for the ultra-rich and mega-corporations must be eliminated. Billionaire Warren Buffett is disgusted that he pays lower taxes than his secretary. The tax rate paid by ultra-rich Americans declined from 26% in 1992 to just 17% in 2007. Meanwhile, the tax break for unemployed workers ended in 2009, so as tax breaks for the poor evaporate, the ultra-wealthy pay less. This, while the Census finds a record income gap between the rich and the poor.
5) Why do corporations that ship jobs overseas get tax breaks? Why do we give more subsidies to corn and other grain crops when even the heavily ag-lobby-influenced USDA's "food plate" has revised way down how much grain we should consume? And why do we still give more tax breaks for oil than anything else ("for wealthy or sophisticated investors, one investment class continues to stand alone above all others: oil")? Best of all, though, is how American corporations pay almost no taxes. The best example is General Electric: Not only did they pay absolutely no taxes in 2010 or 2009, but they actually pocketed more than $3 billion in government tax credits. Yes, you and I paid GE billions for being GE.
6) Which leads me to my primary point: Eliminating tax subsidies for the ultra-rich and mega-corporations is not the same as increasing taxes. It is cutting spending. Tune out the radical screams about "tax increases" and consider: We, the taxpayers, spend a lot of our nation's wealth on tax-code-based spending designed to encourage some things and discourage others. I guess if you're a staunch Ayn Randian and place your self-interest above the well-being of others, including your nation (which, I would argue, is short-term thinking: Wreck your country and you wreck yourself).
So was it good or bad that Congress passed this bill to allow the debt ceiling to rise? Yes. No.
Yes in that it likely allows our credit rating to remain tip-top, though some argue that the credit agencies had also required that we find more revenue and cut more. But did anyone believe that the 2-year thinkers driving our country toward oblivion would really let their political posturing overcome their desire to keep their jobs at the next election? Feh.
No in that it doesn't address any of the real problems outlined in my six points above. Cutting spending willy nilly will lead to nothing but bad things, short-term and long. Not paying for what we spend is childish. Our current tax code gives gifts to mega-corporations and the ultra-rich - why? As rewards for their richness. Then the radical neocons cut spending, which mostly benefits the poor and middle class, in order to maintain this reward-the-rich scenario.
This bill is meaningless, really. Except for how it helps display the disease that is radical neoconism that's killing our nation.
Chris
I really like this piece by Republican commentator Robert Frum about how radical conservatives have not only ruined the Republican party but are on track to ruin our nation. At last, a sensible Republican speaks out.
A few simple things:
1) Reducing government spending eliminates jobs and reduces support for the unemployed and poor, infrastructure repairs, education, military adventures, research, science, and so forth. I think everyone of all party affiliations can agree that people losing jobs is not a good thing for anyone, nor is it good for the economy. I think everyone with any education at all knows that cutting across the board like this, eliminating science research and educational support will result in a nation of declining value.
2) When fewer people have jobs, tax revenue declines because of several factors: a) unemployed don't pay tax, b) unemployed collect unemployment benefits, c) unemployed don't buy stuff the way employed do, d) and this cascades across the entire economy. Fix unemployment and you fix almost everything.
3) We're suffered a decade's worth of hugely expensive wars - unfunded wars. You don't need to be highly educated to recognize that spending $trillion$ without adding any income sources is just idiotic. If America were truly based on fairness, the radical neocon-wingnuts who demanded war but refused to pay for it would be sued to cover our debt.
4) Many or most of the tax loopholes for the ultra-rich and mega-corporations must be eliminated. Billionaire Warren Buffett is disgusted that he pays lower taxes than his secretary. The tax rate paid by ultra-rich Americans declined from 26% in 1992 to just 17% in 2007. Meanwhile, the tax break for unemployed workers ended in 2009, so as tax breaks for the poor evaporate, the ultra-wealthy pay less. This, while the Census finds a record income gap between the rich and the poor.
5) Why do corporations that ship jobs overseas get tax breaks? Why do we give more subsidies to corn and other grain crops when even the heavily ag-lobby-influenced USDA's "food plate" has revised way down how much grain we should consume? And why do we still give more tax breaks for oil than anything else ("for wealthy or sophisticated investors, one investment class continues to stand alone above all others: oil")? Best of all, though, is how American corporations pay almost no taxes. The best example is General Electric: Not only did they pay absolutely no taxes in 2010 or 2009, but they actually pocketed more than $3 billion in government tax credits. Yes, you and I paid GE billions for being GE.
6) Which leads me to my primary point: Eliminating tax subsidies for the ultra-rich and mega-corporations is not the same as increasing taxes. It is cutting spending. Tune out the radical screams about "tax increases" and consider: We, the taxpayers, spend a lot of our nation's wealth on tax-code-based spending designed to encourage some things and discourage others. I guess if you're a staunch Ayn Randian and place your self-interest above the well-being of others, including your nation (which, I would argue, is short-term thinking: Wreck your country and you wreck yourself).
So was it good or bad that Congress passed this bill to allow the debt ceiling to rise? Yes. No.
Yes in that it likely allows our credit rating to remain tip-top, though some argue that the credit agencies had also required that we find more revenue and cut more. But did anyone believe that the 2-year thinkers driving our country toward oblivion would really let their political posturing overcome their desire to keep their jobs at the next election? Feh.
No in that it doesn't address any of the real problems outlined in my six points above. Cutting spending willy nilly will lead to nothing but bad things, short-term and long. Not paying for what we spend is childish. Our current tax code gives gifts to mega-corporations and the ultra-rich - why? As rewards for their richness. Then the radical neocons cut spending, which mostly benefits the poor and middle class, in order to maintain this reward-the-rich scenario.
This bill is meaningless, really. Except for how it helps display the disease that is radical neoconism that's killing our nation.
Chris
How radical conservatism is wrecking America.
So the country won't go into receivership today because the Congress happened to finish a bill that would raise the debt ceiling and the Senate approved it. Was anyone surprised? The only part that surprised me was that they somehow managed to create a 12-person crew to guide cuts and so forth that's half Dem and half Repub. Perhaps it's less surprising when we step back and ask what those party definitions mean today, and if there's any real practical difference anymore.
I really like this piece by Republican commentator Robert Frum about how radical conservatives have not only ruined the Republican party but are on track to ruin our nation. At last, a sensible Republican speaks out.
A few simple things:
1) Reducing government spending eliminates jobs and reduces support for the unemployed and poor, infrastructure repairs, education, military adventures, research, science, and so forth. I think everyone of all party affiliations can agree that people losing jobs is not a good thing for anyone, nor is it good for the economy. I think everyone with any education at all knows that cutting across the board like this, eliminating science research and educational support will result in a nation of declining value.
2) When fewer people have jobs, tax revenue declines because of several factors: a) the unemployed don't pay as much tax (though they lost their tax break in 2009), b) the unemployed collect unemployment benefits, c) the unemployed don't buy stuff the way employed do, and d) this cascades across the entire economy. Fix unemployment and you fix almost everything.
3) We're suffered a decade's worth of hugely expensive wars - unfunded wars. You don't need to be highly educated to recognize that spending $trillion$ without adding any income sources is just idiotic. If America were truly based on fairness, the radical neocon-wingnuts who demanded war but refused to pay for it would be sued to cover our debt.
4) Many or most of the tax loopholes for the ultra-rich and mega-corporations must be eliminated. Billionaire Warren Buffett is disgusted that he pays lower taxes than his secretary. The tax rate paid by ultra-rich Americans declined from 26% in 1992 to just 17% in 2007. Meanwhile, the tax break for unemployed workers ended in 2009, so as tax breaks for the poor evaporate, the ultra-wealthy pay less. This, while the Census finds a record income gap between the rich and the poor.
5) Why do corporations that ship jobs overseas get tax breaks? Why do we give more subsidies to corn and other grain crops when even the heavily ag-lobby-influenced USDA's "food plate" has revised way down how much grain we should consume? And why do we still give more tax breaks for oil than anything else ("for wealthy or sophisticated investors, one investment class continues to stand alone above all others: oil")? Worst of all, though, is how American corporations pay almost no taxes. The best example is General Electric: Not only did they pay absolutely no taxes in 2010 or 2009, but they actually pocketed more than $3 billion in government tax credits. Yes, you and I paid GE billions for being GE.
6) Which leads me to my primary point: Eliminating tax subsidies for the ultra-rich and mega-corporations is not the same as increasing taxes. It is cutting spending. Tune out the radical screams about "tax increases" and consider: We, the taxpayers, spend a lot of our nation's wealth on tax-code-based spending designed to encourage some things and discourage others. I guess if you're a staunch Ayn Randian and place your self-interest above the well-being of others, including your nation (which, I would argue, is short-term thinking: Wreck your country and you wreck yourself), you're okay with all this.
So was it good or bad that Congress passed this bill to allow the debt ceiling to rise? Yes. No.
Yes in that it likely allows our credit rating to remain tip-top, though some argue that the credit agencies had also required that we find more revenue and cut more. But did anyone believe that the 2-year thinkers driving our country toward oblivion would really let their political posturing overcome their desire to keep their jobs at the next election? Feh.
No in that it doesn't address any of the real problems outlined in my six points above. Cutting spending willy nilly leads to nothing but bad things, short-term and long. Not paying for what we spend is childish. Our current tax code gives gifts to mega-corporations and the ultra-rich - why? As rewards for their richness. Then the radical neocons cut spending, which mostly benefits the poor and middle class, in order to maintain this reward-the-rich scenario.
This bill is meaningless, really. Except for how it helps display the disease that is radical neoconism that's killing our nation, and how almost every politician is okay with letting them do so.
EDIT: I must share Keith Olbermann's take on this. He's on the money:
Chris
I really like this piece by Republican commentator Robert Frum about how radical conservatives have not only ruined the Republican party but are on track to ruin our nation. At last, a sensible Republican speaks out.
A few simple things:
1) Reducing government spending eliminates jobs and reduces support for the unemployed and poor, infrastructure repairs, education, military adventures, research, science, and so forth. I think everyone of all party affiliations can agree that people losing jobs is not a good thing for anyone, nor is it good for the economy. I think everyone with any education at all knows that cutting across the board like this, eliminating science research and educational support will result in a nation of declining value.
2) When fewer people have jobs, tax revenue declines because of several factors: a) the unemployed don't pay as much tax (though they lost their tax break in 2009), b) the unemployed collect unemployment benefits, c) the unemployed don't buy stuff the way employed do, and d) this cascades across the entire economy. Fix unemployment and you fix almost everything.
3) We're suffered a decade's worth of hugely expensive wars - unfunded wars. You don't need to be highly educated to recognize that spending $trillion$ without adding any income sources is just idiotic. If America were truly based on fairness, the radical neocon-wingnuts who demanded war but refused to pay for it would be sued to cover our debt.
4) Many or most of the tax loopholes for the ultra-rich and mega-corporations must be eliminated. Billionaire Warren Buffett is disgusted that he pays lower taxes than his secretary. The tax rate paid by ultra-rich Americans declined from 26% in 1992 to just 17% in 2007. Meanwhile, the tax break for unemployed workers ended in 2009, so as tax breaks for the poor evaporate, the ultra-wealthy pay less. This, while the Census finds a record income gap between the rich and the poor.
5) Why do corporations that ship jobs overseas get tax breaks? Why do we give more subsidies to corn and other grain crops when even the heavily ag-lobby-influenced USDA's "food plate" has revised way down how much grain we should consume? And why do we still give more tax breaks for oil than anything else ("for wealthy or sophisticated investors, one investment class continues to stand alone above all others: oil")? Worst of all, though, is how American corporations pay almost no taxes. The best example is General Electric: Not only did they pay absolutely no taxes in 2010 or 2009, but they actually pocketed more than $3 billion in government tax credits. Yes, you and I paid GE billions for being GE.
6) Which leads me to my primary point: Eliminating tax subsidies for the ultra-rich and mega-corporations is not the same as increasing taxes. It is cutting spending. Tune out the radical screams about "tax increases" and consider: We, the taxpayers, spend a lot of our nation's wealth on tax-code-based spending designed to encourage some things and discourage others. I guess if you're a staunch Ayn Randian and place your self-interest above the well-being of others, including your nation (which, I would argue, is short-term thinking: Wreck your country and you wreck yourself), you're okay with all this.
So was it good or bad that Congress passed this bill to allow the debt ceiling to rise? Yes. No.
Yes in that it likely allows our credit rating to remain tip-top, though some argue that the credit agencies had also required that we find more revenue and cut more. But did anyone believe that the 2-year thinkers driving our country toward oblivion would really let their political posturing overcome their desire to keep their jobs at the next election? Feh.
No in that it doesn't address any of the real problems outlined in my six points above. Cutting spending willy nilly leads to nothing but bad things, short-term and long. Not paying for what we spend is childish. Our current tax code gives gifts to mega-corporations and the ultra-rich - why? As rewards for their richness. Then the radical neocons cut spending, which mostly benefits the poor and middle class, in order to maintain this reward-the-rich scenario.
This bill is meaningless, really. Except for how it helps display the disease that is radical neoconism that's killing our nation, and how almost every politician is okay with letting them do so.
EDIT: I must share Keith Olbermann's take on this. He's on the money:
Chris
July 26, 2011
Astro-Porn of the Day: P4, Pluto's 4th Moon
Did you know that Pluto has more moons than just Charon? Last month, the Hubble Space Telescope discovered a new moon, S/2011 (134340) 1 - or in friendly terms, "P4." P4 orbits Pluto every 32 days at a distance of about 37,000 miles. This puts it between the paths of Nix and Hydra, two moons found circling Pluto in 2005.
This Hubble photo shows Pluto and its four known moons, including the new one, as captured by the HST Wide Field Camera 3 on June 28, 2011. Check it out:
Click the image to see the story. Photo by NASA, ESA, and the SETI Institute.
In other news, the month-long Center for the Study of Science Fiction intensive program is a wrap! The Workshops, Conference, and Teaching Institute were all WONDERFUL - more later, after I get a chance to breathe a bit. Finals incoming soon, and then my dad comes to visit, but soon life as normal shall resume. I love this thing I do every year, despite how wearying it is. Everyone who came - participants and guests alike - was awesome, and I miss you already!
Chris
This Hubble photo shows Pluto and its four known moons, including the new one, as captured by the HST Wide Field Camera 3 on June 28, 2011. Check it out:
Click the image to see the story. Photo by NASA, ESA, and the SETI Institute.
In other news, the month-long Center for the Study of Science Fiction intensive program is a wrap! The Workshops, Conference, and Teaching Institute were all WONDERFUL - more later, after I get a chance to breathe a bit. Finals incoming soon, and then my dad comes to visit, but soon life as normal shall resume. I love this thing I do every year, despite how wearying it is. Everyone who came - participants and guests alike - was awesome, and I miss you already!
Chris
July 13, 2011
Happy Birthday, Neptune!
It's now been one (Neptunian) year since Neptune was discovered by Johann Gottfried Galle of the Berlin Observatory on September 23, 1846. Because its orbital period (year) is 164.79 Earth-years, Neptune completed its first orbit since its discovery on July 12, 2011: also James Gunn's birthday! (You can wish him happy birthday at Facebook.) Coincidence?
Wrapping up this year's wonderful CSSF Science Fiction Summer program - including the Science Fiction Writers Workshop, the Campbell Conference and start of the Intensive Institute on the Teaching of SF - got in the way of my remembering to celebrate!
Voyager 2 captured this Neptune shot in 1989. Click the image to see the NASA article about and more photos of Neptune.
I even wrote an article for Steven H. Silver's Argentus fanzine, alongside such science and SF luminaries as Mike Brotherton, Michael A. Burstein, Brother Guy Consolmagno, SJ, Marianne Dyson, Kurt Erichsen, Brad W. Foster, Heidi Hammel, Bill Higgins, Sue Mason, Christian Ready, Steven H Silver himself, MO Starkey, Steve Stiles, and Diane Turnshek.
Happy (belated) Birthday, Neptune!
Chris
Wrapping up this year's wonderful CSSF Science Fiction Summer program - including the Science Fiction Writers Workshop, the Campbell Conference and start of the Intensive Institute on the Teaching of SF - got in the way of my remembering to celebrate!
Voyager 2 captured this Neptune shot in 1989. Click the image to see the NASA article about and more photos of Neptune.
I even wrote an article for Steven H. Silver's Argentus fanzine, alongside such science and SF luminaries as Mike Brotherton, Michael A. Burstein, Brother Guy Consolmagno, SJ, Marianne Dyson, Kurt Erichsen, Brad W. Foster, Heidi Hammel, Bill Higgins, Sue Mason, Christian Ready, Steven H Silver himself, MO Starkey, Steve Stiles, and Diane Turnshek.
Happy (belated) Birthday, Neptune!
Chris
July 6, 2011
a musical interlude at the Workshop
Tonight the CSSF Science Fiction Writing Workshop enjoyed a special treat: Bradley Denton and Nathaniel Williams on guitar and harmonica, playing and singing together for the first time. Fantastic.
Chris
Chris
July 4, 2011
Birthday Cakes of TERROR!
The SF Writers Workshoppers made me a pair of TERRORIFIC cakes for my 2011 birthday. Here they are:
The more-SFnal one: see the rocket exhaust from the feet?
This one uses the title of a film project I'm working on with a friend.
My birthday always arrives during the workshop, so I feel a mix of melancholy and joy. Because all these people are so nice to me - people who were mostly strangers a week before - more than makes up for not really getting to celebrate my birthday, which has all the normal emotions attached to it already, plus the parental lies that the whole country was celebrating my birthday. Sort of like learning about Santa Claus, but only you were the fool.
Anyhow, had a lovely day of Workshopping, with Brad Denton in town for the week and Jim Gunn visiting for a short discussion, fantastic custom cakes, a fine dinner out at Ingredient, and now an evening of reading and critiquing and talking with new and long-time friends.
Thanks, you guys!
PS: If you want to track my feeble posts I'm able to manage these days, it's over on my Facebook page.
Best,
Chris
The more-SFnal one: see the rocket exhaust from the feet?
This one uses the title of a film project I'm working on with a friend.
My birthday always arrives during the workshop, so I feel a mix of melancholy and joy. Because all these people are so nice to me - people who were mostly strangers a week before - more than makes up for not really getting to celebrate my birthday, which has all the normal emotions attached to it already, plus the parental lies that the whole country was celebrating my birthday. Sort of like learning about Santa Claus, but only you were the fool.
Anyhow, had a lovely day of Workshopping, with Brad Denton in town for the week and Jim Gunn visiting for a short discussion, fantastic custom cakes, a fine dinner out at Ingredient, and now an evening of reading and critiquing and talking with new and long-time friends.
Thanks, you guys!
PS: If you want to track my feeble posts I'm able to manage these days, it's over on my Facebook page.
Best,
Chris
June 26, 2011
Astro-Porn of the Day: Asteroid to Buzz Earth this Monday!
Just a quick drop-in to share some exciting astro-news: Asteroid 2011 MD, a chunk of rock estimated to be 25 to 55 feet (8 to 18 m) across, is expected to pass less than 8,000 miles above Earth's surface around 1 p.m. EDT (17:00 UT) on Monday, June 27th. The actual event will be observable only from South Africa and parts of Antarctica, but the approach will be visible across Australia, New Zealand, southern and eastern Asia, and the western Pacific.
The asteroid was spotted on June 22nd by LINEAR, the Lincoln Near-Earth Research project. This is probably the biggest known asteroid to have whizzed past this close. Check it out:
Click the image to see the Astronomy Magazine article with many links.
The asteroid peaks brighter than magnitude 11.0 at the places where the closest approach is visible, and it's already about magnitude 12.5 — fairly easy to spot in an 8-inch telescope — by 14:30 UT, 2½ hours before closest approach. At that point it's visible from Southeast Asia, eastern China, and Japan, as well as Australia and points between.
The asteroid will be very hard to observe after its closest approach, since it's departing more or less toward the Sun. To observe the asteroid you will need a good telescope (the bigger the better), excellent charts and the know-how to use them, and ephemerides from the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. But just knowing it's out there is the cool-beans part!
Chris
The asteroid was spotted on June 22nd by LINEAR, the Lincoln Near-Earth Research project. This is probably the biggest known asteroid to have whizzed past this close. Check it out:
Click the image to see the Astronomy Magazine article with many links.
The asteroid peaks brighter than magnitude 11.0 at the places where the closest approach is visible, and it's already about magnitude 12.5 — fairly easy to spot in an 8-inch telescope — by 14:30 UT, 2½ hours before closest approach. At that point it's visible from Southeast Asia, eastern China, and Japan, as well as Australia and points between.
The asteroid will be very hard to observe after its closest approach, since it's departing more or less toward the Sun. To observe the asteroid you will need a good telescope (the bigger the better), excellent charts and the know-how to use them, and ephemerides from the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. But just knowing it's out there is the cool-beans part!
Chris
June 24, 2011
Month of science fiction in Lawrence about to launch!
The Science Fiction Writers Workshop put on by the Center for the Study of SF at the University of Kansas is about to kick off, followed by the Campbell Conference and Awards Banquet, after which the Intensive Institute on the Teaching of Science Fiction begins, so I'll be mostly off the interwebs for the next month.
Have a great summer!
Chris
Click the image to see the full-size poster for the book signing.
June 20, 2011
LJ links, Wal-Mart, and the Supreme Court suck today.
What is up with LJ today? I keep seeing links like this that fail to open comment pages or links: http://api.viglink.com/api/click?format=go&drKey=1111&loc=http (and then the link address).
Speaking of being pissed off at authority, did you hear that the Supreme Court threw out the Wal-Mart discrimination case - not because of merit or lack thereof, but because the "class-action status – potentially involving hundreds of thousands of female workers – was too large."
Um, isn't that what a class-action suit is all about? Largeness? With this precedent, I can see corporations planning to market crappy or dangerous products simply marketing it far and wide enough that they can't get sued.
Fuck the Supreme Court. Also:
Chris
Speaking of being pissed off at authority, did you hear that the Supreme Court threw out the Wal-Mart discrimination case - not because of merit or lack thereof, but because the "class-action status – potentially involving hundreds of thousands of female workers – was too large."
Um, isn't that what a class-action suit is all about? Largeness? With this precedent, I can see corporations planning to market crappy or dangerous products simply marketing it far and wide enough that they can't get sued.
Fuck the Supreme Court. Also:
Chris
June 13, 2011
We survived!
I'm back in town after four days of adventure in the Colorado Rockies. Except for an astounding string of bad luck, it was a lovely getaway. Everyone survived, and that's what really counts, right?
Details forthcoming, but first I must catch up with work. But a couple of teaser shots. Here's the gang, blinded by camera flash and dead-tired upon arriving at our campsite, hours and hours later than expected, drained from adrenaline come-down:
Yes, it was near-freezing and pitch-black when we set up camp, but what we got to see was so beautiful and worth it. Check out this landscape we enjoyed the next day:
More later!
Chris
Details forthcoming, but first I must catch up with work. But a couple of teaser shots. Here's the gang, blinded by camera flash and dead-tired upon arriving at our campsite, hours and hours later than expected, drained from adrenaline come-down:
Yes, it was near-freezing and pitch-black when we set up camp, but what we got to see was so beautiful and worth it. Check out this landscape we enjoyed the next day:
More later!
Chris
Christopher McKitterick's Blog
This is my long-lived LiveJournal blog (http://mckitterick.livejournal.com), but if you really want to stay in touch, check out my Tumblr and Facebook pages.
...more
- Christopher McKitterick's profile
- 31 followers
