The Life and Death of 2pac
10 years ago today, the legendary rapper Tupac Shakur (aka 2pac) passed away. He died almost a week after being shot several times. Tupac was riding with Suge Knight (head of Death Row Records) around Las Vegas when he was shot.
1) I was a teenager when 2pac was alive and popular! I was in high school when he died! His music brings me back memories of those times! Those of my generation feel the same way. To my generation, 2pac is a legend, just like how Elvis was a legend for the teenagers of the 1950's,!
2) Some people thought Suge Knight was responsible for 2pac's death. That is ridiculous!
If you want someone dead, would you want to be right next to him when the bullets start flying?
Plus, Suge Knight was shot too, though he didn't recieve as many bullets as 2pac.
Some might think I'm just saying that because I'm afraid of Suge Knight. Obviously, I wouldn't want to mess with that guy!
But the main reason why I don't think Suge Knight was responsible for 2pac's death is because he was sitting next to 2pac when the bullets were flying, and Knight got hit by bullets too!
Plus, Suge Knight and 2pac seemed to good friends who always hang out together. So I don't think Knight would ever want 2pac dead.
3) I remember this one white guy I was talking to was saying "2pac was just another black dude with a bad attitude". And another told me that one porno book store employee (who was also white) was saying he was happy when 2pac died.
What a bunch of morons!
Those white guys embrace heavy metal and punk rock, with some of it's musicians getting to trouble with the law too! But they don't have a problem with white guys getting into trouble, it's only when black guys get into trouble, that they start hating!
What's with white guys liking heavy metal or punk rock, but hating on gangsta rap?
Heavy metal/punk rock and gangsta rap is almost the same thing! Yeah, I know, they use different beats, and the musicians tend to be of different races, and they dress differently! But those musical genres represent the same thing - hardcore attitude, being angry at the world, being from dysfunctional families and dysfunctional communities!
I see Fred Durst and 2pac as being very similar! They may be from different races and use different beats in their music, but people embrace them for similar reasons. Both made "angry at the world" songs, but they also made "party songs" as well. They also had some slow songs as well! They have a hardcore side to them, but they also have a mellow side as well!
Those are the reasons why I really embraced the music of Limp Bizkit (Fred Durst's band) and 2pac. And they're embraced by people of all different races, not just whites and blacks.
4) Those who hate on 2pac need to know these following songs
"Dear Mama"
"Keep Ya Head Up"
"I Aint Mad at Ya""Do for Love"
"Brenda's Got A Baby"
"Life Goes On""
To Live and Die in LA"
"So Many Tears"
These songs show a more mellow side of 2pac. Not all of 2pac's songs are "thuggish songs" or "party with the h-s" songs. I know there's more mellow 2pac songs, but I dont have time to list them all. The ones I listed were his more popular mellow songs.
5) Yes, I am defending 2pac, but that doesn't neccessarily mean I would agree with everything he does.
He did get into trouble with the law! However, most of those times, it seems that 2pac didn't even start the incidents, he just lost control of his anger!
Let's face it, a lot of us have lost control of our anger, even the more conservative and the more pacifist among us! We just got to figure out ways to deal with stuff that angers us without lashing out! I'm not perfect on this either, though I am learning ways to deal with idiots without lashing out!
6) Tupac was 25 when he died (1971-1996). I am 25 years old, ten years after his death. So I'm at the same stage of life 2pac was when he died!
We've been able to see his peers like Snoop Dogg, Dr. Dre and Ice Cube mature over the last decade.
We all wonder how much 2pac would've matured if he still alive today. Too bad we never got the chance to see it!
Monday, September 11, 2006
9/11 - 5 years later
Five years ago today, terrorists associated with Al Quaida hijacked 4 planes and flew them into the World Trade Center, Pentagon, and one crashed onto a field in Pennsylvania.
1) I remember in the few days after 9/11/01, people who were usually cynical had put their trust in government to protect.
I remember within the 2 year span before 9/11, my political ideology was shifting toward libertarianism, which didn't trust government much. I was turning in that direction because I wanted an alternative to the Democrats ( who usually wanted to ban guns, raise taxes, and over-regulate entrepreneurship, and promoted affirmative discrimination ) and the Republicans ( who usually wanted to ban abortion, adult entertainment, put non-violent weed smokers in the same prison space as violent thugs, and wanted to force Christianity on public school students ). I also remember being skeptical about both Democrats and Republicans who always wanted to send US troops to fight foreign battles.
Also, within that 2-year span before 9/11, there was a controversial 2000 election between Al Gore and George W. Bush. I voted Harry Browne for the reason mentioned in the previous paragraph.
Right after that election, there was a recount controversy. It was earlier declared Bush was the winner, but Al Gore refused to admit defeat. I was so tired of this controversy, I wrote an editorial on Ka Leo, saying that Al Gore should just move on. Because of that editorial, I was demonized and forever considered a "Bush lover" by Tobin Jones.
Anyways, after 9/11, I sided with Bush in sending troops to the Middle East to fight the terrorists! I was no longer against sending US troops to fight foreign battles.
2) Though most Democrat politicians (including left-wing liberals like Maxine Waters, Nancy Pelosi, Charles Rangel and Neil Abercombie) supported the US invasion of Afghanistan, some Radical Leftists objected, and blamed America for 9/11. I was irritated by those Radical Leftists, and I wrote several editorials on Ka Leo criticizing them. I was then known by Ka Leo readers as the "campus conservative" even though I was NEVER conservative on issues like abortion, sex ed and other related issues.
In the last few years, I was also irriated by Radical Right-wingers who used 9/11 as an excuse to hate on immigrants! Ironic, they still haven't demanded on a ban on NY residents from moving to Oklahoma, even Bufallo NY raised Timothy McVeigh blew up a federal building in Oklahoma.
3) As for the war on Iraq, Collin Powell was right -- the US should've used over-powering force when it first invaded Iraq! That way, we could've easily defeated the Iraqi insurgents before it gotten worse! Though I would've preffered to have Saddam Hussein assassinated instead of an invasion.
Hopefully, the new Iraqi government can handle it's own defense. The longer we're there, the more the Radical Muslims would use that as an excuse to promote anti-American hatred!
4) I remember the few days after 9/11, Bush was a popular President. He said all the right words, America wanted revenge, and people wanted to trust the government.
Now Bush isn't popular. This came after the war on Iraq (which some felt was a distraction on the war against Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan), as well as the mismanaged recovery after Hurricane Katrina. (which Bush made worse by hiring inexperienced people to head FEMA.) But some blame also ought to be placed on Democrat politicians running the state of Louisiana and the city of New Orleans.
People no longer trusted the government like they did right after 9/11/01. Even I went to back to being skeptical of the government like I was before 9/11/01.
5) As for my political views, I still don't support Democrats or Republicans, though I do think Libertarians are too impractical. Which is why I call myself a centrist!
Tuesday, August 29, 2006
Female Athletics
There is this Extreme Right Wing wesbite called http://www.ladiesagainstfeminism.com/ and it has a REALLY STUPID article that is against females participation in sports
http://www.ladiesagainstfeminism.com/artman/publish/article_1574.shtml
1) Why should girls who like to play sports not play them? Let them enjoy sports!
2) This article, printed by fundamental Christians promotes the same mentality as those Islamic Fascists we're supposed to be fighting. This goes to show that the main difference between Christian Fascists and Islamic Fascists is the languages they speak and the clothes they wear.
3) This is what I wrote to those "ladies against feminism"
Conservatives complain about teenage pregnancy, but female athletes ARE A LOT LESS LIKELY to get pregnant early than other women. Why? THEY HAVE AN INCENTIVE NOT TO GET PREGNANT EARLY! Also, girls who do well in academics are also ARE A LOT LESS LIKELY to get pregnant early than other women. Why? THEY HAVE AN INCENTIVE NOT TO GET PREGNANT EARLY!
INCENTIVES MATTER! You can quote all the holy verses you want, but most teenage minds will just tune out! YOU NEED TO HAVE PRAGMATIC INCENTIVES!
Most of the girls who get pregnant early are the ones who 1) are don't doing good in academics OR 2) not playing any sports. Those who fit both those categories see no real incentive to remain abstinent, because they have no plans for the future. Their mentality is "ANYTHING GOES!"
And that is true, even among girls from extremely conservative families! My grandma grew up in an extremely conservative Catholic family in the World War 2 era, (in other words BEFORE the era of Elvis, the "decadent 1960's", 2 Live Crew, or the Pussycat Dolls) and she still got pregnant at 14. If she was more focused on academics or athletics, she would've stayed abstinent during her teenage years!
Plus, why do some people care so much if someone isn't 100% masculine or 100% feminine! It's supposed to be a non-issue in a place that emphasizes freedom. Let people figure it out for themselves how masculine or feminine they want to be!
But to the Conservative Correctness Crowd, the only freedom that matters is 1) low tax rates and 2) the right to make the most bigoted comments. Nothing else matters!
4) The Radical Feminists are whining because some female athletes are posing nude in magazines.
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0035,cagan,17748,3.html
"There are just a lot of men there, including, I'm sure, in the newsroom, who just kind of resent women's success," says Linda Steiner, associate professor and chair of the department of journalism and media studies at Rutgers University. "And so to sexualize her and sort of treat her as a pinup is a way of cutting women down to size."
The women who've posed, and their supporters, argue that the pictures are part of a revolution in women's sports. They say that the photos aren't mostly about sex, they're mostly about strength and confidence. They parry with the non sequitur, emphasizing the intelligence and independent thought of the bare-naked ladies. And, surprise surprise, some say that critics are a bunch of moralistic, uptight, you guessed it, feminists. "This is not a calendar of bimbos," Acuff has repeatedly said. "These are intelligent, world-class athletes. One of them is a Rhodes scholar." Acuff hasn't since explained the correlation -- hasn't she ever heard of smart women, foolish choices? -- but others have echoed her contention.
In a *Washington Post* column defending Thompson's pose, sportswriter Sally Jenkins argued that Thompson is "a 27-year-old of serious intellect, a Stanford graduate on her way to medical school." She also took critics to task as "sports prudes and creaking, old-school feminists."
Those Radical Feminists need to spend more time fighting against those already-mentioned "Ladies Against Feminism" instead of whining about female athletes posing nude! After all, Dennis Rodman posed nude in his book cover, and the feminists weren't complaining
So why are female athletes posing nude? Females have non-conscious, natural desire to attract males! If it means exposing a few body parts, they'll do it. That's nature. It doesn't matter if the female is an athlete, artist, entertainer, librarian, doctor, etc. They're just doing what females do naturally.
It's just like how guys like boast about how much muscle and strength he has. And it's not just the 6 foot 5in. athletes, even the short guys try to emphasize their muscle strength to make up for their lack of height. Even guys who work in the office (which usually requires NO MUSCLE STRENGTH AT ALL), try to emphasize their toughness and masculinity when their job doesn't require it. But the biological-male-in-them "has to" emphasize their toughness, in order to command respect and (drumroll please) attract the females.
There is this Extreme Right Wing wesbite called http://www.ladiesagainstfeminism.com/ and it has a REALLY STUPID article that is against females participation in sports
http://www.ladiesagainstfeminism.com/artman/publish/article_1574.shtml
1) Why should girls who like to play sports not play them? Let them enjoy sports!
2) This article, printed by fundamental Christians promotes the same mentality as those Islamic Fascists we're supposed to be fighting. This goes to show that the main difference between Christian Fascists and Islamic Fascists is the languages they speak and the clothes they wear.
3) This is what I wrote to those "ladies against feminism"
Conservatives complain about teenage pregnancy, but female athletes ARE A LOT LESS LIKELY to get pregnant early than other women. Why? THEY HAVE AN INCENTIVE NOT TO GET PREGNANT EARLY! Also, girls who do well in academics are also ARE A LOT LESS LIKELY to get pregnant early than other women. Why? THEY HAVE AN INCENTIVE NOT TO GET PREGNANT EARLY!
INCENTIVES MATTER! You can quote all the holy verses you want, but most teenage minds will just tune out! YOU NEED TO HAVE PRAGMATIC INCENTIVES!
Most of the girls who get pregnant early are the ones who 1) are don't doing good in academics OR 2) not playing any sports. Those who fit both those categories see no real incentive to remain abstinent, because they have no plans for the future. Their mentality is "ANYTHING GOES!"
And that is true, even among girls from extremely conservative families! My grandma grew up in an extremely conservative Catholic family in the World War 2 era, (in other words BEFORE the era of Elvis, the "decadent 1960's", 2 Live Crew, or the Pussycat Dolls) and she still got pregnant at 14. If she was more focused on academics or athletics, she would've stayed abstinent during her teenage years!
Plus, why do some people care so much if someone isn't 100% masculine or 100% feminine! It's supposed to be a non-issue in a place that emphasizes freedom. Let people figure it out for themselves how masculine or feminine they want to be!
But to the Conservative Correctness Crowd, the only freedom that matters is 1) low tax rates and 2) the right to make the most bigoted comments. Nothing else matters!
4) The Radical Feminists are whining because some female athletes are posing nude in magazines.
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0035,cagan,17748,3.html
"There are just a lot of men there, including, I'm sure, in the newsroom, who just kind of resent women's success," says Linda Steiner, associate professor and chair of the department of journalism and media studies at Rutgers University. "And so to sexualize her and sort of treat her as a pinup is a way of cutting women down to size."
The women who've posed, and their supporters, argue that the pictures are part of a revolution in women's sports. They say that the photos aren't mostly about sex, they're mostly about strength and confidence. They parry with the non sequitur, emphasizing the intelligence and independent thought of the bare-naked ladies. And, surprise surprise, some say that critics are a bunch of moralistic, uptight, you guessed it, feminists. "This is not a calendar of bimbos," Acuff has repeatedly said. "These are intelligent, world-class athletes. One of them is a Rhodes scholar." Acuff hasn't since explained the correlation -- hasn't she ever heard of smart women, foolish choices? -- but others have echoed her contention.
In a *Washington Post* column defending Thompson's pose, sportswriter Sally Jenkins argued that Thompson is "a 27-year-old of serious intellect, a Stanford graduate on her way to medical school." She also took critics to task as "sports prudes and creaking, old-school feminists."
Those Radical Feminists need to spend more time fighting against those already-mentioned "Ladies Against Feminism" instead of whining about female athletes posing nude! After all, Dennis Rodman posed nude in his book cover, and the feminists weren't complaining
So why are female athletes posing nude? Females have non-conscious, natural desire to attract males! If it means exposing a few body parts, they'll do it. That's nature. It doesn't matter if the female is an athlete, artist, entertainer, librarian, doctor, etc. They're just doing what females do naturally.
It's just like how guys like boast about how much muscle and strength he has. And it's not just the 6 foot 5in. athletes, even the short guys try to emphasize their muscle strength to make up for their lack of height. Even guys who work in the office (which usually requires NO MUSCLE STRENGTH AT ALL), try to emphasize their toughness and masculinity when their job doesn't require it. But the biological-male-in-them "has to" emphasize their toughness, in order to command respect and (drumroll please) attract the females.
Thursday, August 17, 2006
Hyphenated-Americans
Anti-immigration fascists love to quote 26th president Theodore Roosevelt
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyphenated_American
The term "hyphenated American" was popularized in the 1910s by President Theodore Roosevelt, responding to the increasing fractionalization within the nation along ethnic lines. In an October 12, 1915 speech to the Knights of Columbus,
Roosevelt said,"There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism. When I refer to hyphenated Americans, I do not refer to naturalized Americans. Some of the very best Americans I have ever known were naturalized Americans, Americans born abroad. But a hyphenated American is not an American at all. ... The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities, an intricate knot of German-Americans, Irish-Americans, English-Americans, French-Americans, Scandinavian-Americans or Italian-Americans, each preserving its separate nationality, each at heart feeling more sympathy with Europeans of that nationality, than with the other citizens of the American Republic. ... There is no such thing as a hyphenated American who is a good American. The only man who is a good American is the man who is an American and nothing else."
--------------------
What Roosevelt said was VERY STUPID!
Let's say someone calls themselves "Irish-American", "Mexican-American", "African-American" or "Korean-American", etc.
That person is
1) acknowledging the heritage of their ancestors
AND
2) also acknowledging their participating in American culture.
----
The idea that" someone who is paying respect to their ancestor's culture isn't a real American" is a stupid idea!
The idea of being an American is celebrating freedom and individuality. So that means someone can embrace parts of their ancestor's culture AND parts of mainstream American culture!
---
There's this worry about immigrants settling in communities where everyone is from the same country, and therefore not a real American. LIGHTEN UP!
I spend a lot of time in Kalihi, which is a mostly Filipino community in Honolulu. One can live a whole life there, and only have Filipino friends. But I can tell you with great honesty that a Filipino person who was born in Kalihi is VERY DIFFERENT from a Filipino who just arrived from the Phillipines. You can walk by Farrington High School and be able to tell which of the students is a "local Filipino" and an "immigrant Filipino" Even in Kalihi, you're not isolated from the culture of the rest of Hawaii or the US.
It's just like the time I was visiting my uncle in LA. He lived in a mostly Mexican neighborhood. Still, his kids are able to understand English VERY WELL. I didn't even talk to them in Spanish (which I can't speak fluently). However, the anti-immigration fanatics don't want to think about that!
Editing Films for Content
Some conservatives who are disgusted by movies with lots of violence and sex have re-edited films to delete such scenes without permission!
So ironic, since conservatives (who supposedly hate the entitlement mentality) start claiming that they're entitled to "cleaned-up edited" version of popular films!
1) don't like it? Don't watch it!
2) you can't always escape ideas you don't like anyways! What next, avoiding anyone who thinks differently from you?
3) I make my art the way I want to! If you don't like it, make your own art!
4) Maybe I should edit those conservative films so as to not offend the liberal sensibilities of the Blue States. You know, take out scenes critical of affirmative action, homosexuality, abortion, etc. Take out scenes promoting abstinence and resisting drug use. Then we'll see how conservatives feel about editing (censoring) films.
Maybe we could re-edit "Passion of the Christ" with it's violent scenes.
5) Or just go along with #1 "don't like it? Dont watch it!"
Some conservatives who are disgusted by movies with lots of violence and sex have re-edited films to delete such scenes without permission!
So ironic, since conservatives (who supposedly hate the entitlement mentality) start claiming that they're entitled to "cleaned-up edited" version of popular films!
1) don't like it? Don't watch it!
2) you can't always escape ideas you don't like anyways! What next, avoiding anyone who thinks differently from you?
3) I make my art the way I want to! If you don't like it, make your own art!
4) Maybe I should edit those conservative films so as to not offend the liberal sensibilities of the Blue States. You know, take out scenes critical of affirmative action, homosexuality, abortion, etc. Take out scenes promoting abstinence and resisting drug use. Then we'll see how conservatives feel about editing (censoring) films.
Maybe we could re-edit "Passion of the Christ" with it's violent scenes.
5) Or just go along with #1 "don't like it? Dont watch it!"
Aborted/Unaborted
Right-wing columnist Julia Gorin wrote one of those columns with a few wise-ass remarks against abortion.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008802
Gorin: If Ms. (a feminst magazine) readers hadn't had so many abortions, there might be more Ms. readers. As for the rest of us, here's a petition we could all sign: "I wasn't aborted."
Pablo: Yeah, and if my parents didn't have sex about 9 months before I was born, I wouldn't be here either. I am so glad my parents didn't practice abstinence at that moment.
--------
Gorin: Rather than debate what it is we're killing, we should consider what we may be saving--for our sakes as much as for "its" own. When you choose to abort, you alter the course of history. While the child up for abortion may or may not be the next Einstein, saving his life could one day save yours.
Pablo: And maybe we should just put a stop to abstinence too. So if you and your lover don't have sex tonight, that means that you miss a chance to produce the next Einstein, the next Tiger Woods, the next Bill Gates or some hero who cures cancer, ends all wars, and save the world from global warming!
------
Gorin: The Web site of Ms. Magazine--yes, it still exists--is calling on readers to sign a petition: "I have had an abortion. I publicly join the millions of women in the United States who have had an abortion in demanding a repeal of laws that restrict women's reproductive freedom."Well, so much for the right to privacy.
Pablo: The right to privacy is so that those who had abortions (for whatever reason) can have it without worrying about right-wing bullies like Julia Gorin finding out and persecuting them.
The Ms Magazine is trying to get those who had abortions to become brave enough to stand up to right-wing bullies like Julia Gorin.
Right-wing columnist Julia Gorin wrote one of those columns with a few wise-ass remarks against abortion.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008802
Gorin: If Ms. (a feminst magazine) readers hadn't had so many abortions, there might be more Ms. readers. As for the rest of us, here's a petition we could all sign: "I wasn't aborted."
Pablo: Yeah, and if my parents didn't have sex about 9 months before I was born, I wouldn't be here either. I am so glad my parents didn't practice abstinence at that moment.
--------
Gorin: Rather than debate what it is we're killing, we should consider what we may be saving--for our sakes as much as for "its" own. When you choose to abort, you alter the course of history. While the child up for abortion may or may not be the next Einstein, saving his life could one day save yours.
Pablo: And maybe we should just put a stop to abstinence too. So if you and your lover don't have sex tonight, that means that you miss a chance to produce the next Einstein, the next Tiger Woods, the next Bill Gates or some hero who cures cancer, ends all wars, and save the world from global warming!
------
Gorin: The Web site of Ms. Magazine--yes, it still exists--is calling on readers to sign a petition: "I have had an abortion. I publicly join the millions of women in the United States who have had an abortion in demanding a repeal of laws that restrict women's reproductive freedom."Well, so much for the right to privacy.
Pablo: The right to privacy is so that those who had abortions (for whatever reason) can have it without worrying about right-wing bullies like Julia Gorin finding out and persecuting them.
The Ms Magazine is trying to get those who had abortions to become brave enough to stand up to right-wing bullies like Julia Gorin.
Monday, July 03, 2006
Single Gender Schools
Brother Greg O'Donnell, the principal of Damien Memorial School (an all boys school in Honolulu) wrote an article that says that boys and girls ought to be segregated in schools.
http://starbulletin.com/2006/06/25/editorial/special.html
O'Donnell: For starters, the natural thing for boys and girls is to be extremely different, including the ways in which they learn.
Pablo: An average boy might learn and act differently from an average girl. But not everyone is average! Take a group of boys -- you'll find that the boys have different learning styles from each other! Same is true if you take a group of girls!
This isn't being politically correct. This is from observing my fellow students when I was a student, AND observing the students as I was a teacher!
------
O'Donnell :From a classroom management standpoint, girls are easier to teach. There are, of course, other considerations, but the energy level of boys can overwhelm a teacher who's already tired.
Pablo: In the elementary level, boys do tend to be more rascal!
However, my observations in the middle school level shows both the boys and girls to be rascal.
There were even cases, when I was working 2 different middle schools, I could have a class of mostly boys, in which the class environment was laid back. However, in the same day, in the same school, with the same lesson plans, a class of mostly girls was worse. A lot of the girls were rude and sassy!
This doesn't happen all the time, but it happens enough to show a pattern!
---
Some say that one-gender schools are good, in that students don't get distracted by the opposite sex. I say it's better that they learn to deal with those distractions early in life!
However, if the student was homosexual, the student would be distracted no matter what school he/she attends!
Brother Greg O'Donnell, the principal of Damien Memorial School (an all boys school in Honolulu) wrote an article that says that boys and girls ought to be segregated in schools.
http://starbulletin.com/2006/06/25/editorial/special.html
O'Donnell: For starters, the natural thing for boys and girls is to be extremely different, including the ways in which they learn.
Pablo: An average boy might learn and act differently from an average girl. But not everyone is average! Take a group of boys -- you'll find that the boys have different learning styles from each other! Same is true if you take a group of girls!
This isn't being politically correct. This is from observing my fellow students when I was a student, AND observing the students as I was a teacher!
------
O'Donnell :From a classroom management standpoint, girls are easier to teach. There are, of course, other considerations, but the energy level of boys can overwhelm a teacher who's already tired.
Pablo: In the elementary level, boys do tend to be more rascal!
However, my observations in the middle school level shows both the boys and girls to be rascal.
There were even cases, when I was working 2 different middle schools, I could have a class of mostly boys, in which the class environment was laid back. However, in the same day, in the same school, with the same lesson plans, a class of mostly girls was worse. A lot of the girls were rude and sassy!
This doesn't happen all the time, but it happens enough to show a pattern!
---
Some say that one-gender schools are good, in that students don't get distracted by the opposite sex. I say it's better that they learn to deal with those distractions early in life!
However, if the student was homosexual, the student would be distracted no matter what school he/she attends!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)