Moved Over

 rortybomb  Comments Off
Apr 262012

I’ve been blogging away over at my new blog at Next New Deal, come join me over there!  Here’s the new rss feed.

I might post here once in a great while, mostly to draw additional attention to recent non-blog post work I’ve been doing – articles, appearances, etc. – that could use some additional attention. So feel free to keep this in your rss, as I won’t overrun it with materials or double posts.  The portfolio tab above keeps a running track of some of my bigger stuff, and that’ll stay updated for the foreseeable future.

Thanks again everyone who has read, commented, tweeted, linked, emailed, and everything else so far.  Big props to those I interacted with early on, and extra thanks to those who reached out when I was still a pseudonymous blogger, and gave me some much appreciated early encouragement.  It has been an honor to be able to try and make sense of the biggest economic collapse since the Great Depression, the efforts to reform and rein in Wall Street, the political environment of the first term of the Obama administration as well as any type of future for progressive politics here with all of you, and I will do my best to continue to do so at the next space.


[I've moved blogs - check out the Next New Deal Rortybomb blog, here is the new rss feed, and here is this post over at the new site.]

The Spring 2012 issue of Jacobin is now online.  It has a lot of great content in it; make sure to check out Megan Erickson’s addition to the “unschooling” debate that goes back and forth in parts of the internet.

I have a piece - Against Law, For Order - on ideology, governmentality and “policy” in an era of mass incarceration.  It’s about how criminal laws informs our markets and government policy.  Bits and pieces of it have appeared in this blog, but here it is in one place.  The piece ends up reviewing a lot of recent books on policing, with special attention to Bernard Harcourt’s work on neoliberalism and policing, as well as Jonathan Simon’s work on “governing through crime” - how policy is reworked to use the language and techniques of policing.  I hope you check it out!

I wrote it a while ago so I didn’t get to reference two of the big events in policing and incarceration that happened recently, but I think they fit into the framework I try to build.  The killing of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman appears to be, in large part, about Zimmerman believing Martin didn’t belong in the neighborhood he lived in.  Maintaining order, seperating insiders from outsiders, and who gets to make those calls and what consequences they have is a central part of the neoconservative vision of policing I outline.

Meanwhile the 5-4 Supreme Court decision in Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of the County of Burlington held that “Jail strip searches do not require reasonable suspicion, at least so long as the arrestee is being admitted into the general jail population.”  Reading Justice Kennedy’s logic, it looks like that since people put into a prison population could be dangers to themselves, guards and other prisoners, the guards have the ability to institute whatever techniques they believe are necessary.  Kennedy looks uninterested or unwilling to second guess the prison system.  Which means that people within the criminal justice system exist in a sphere of total government control and competency, a way of thinking I link back to the neoliberal vision of governance.

Sadly I couldn’t find a way to link in one of the more interesting pieces I’ve read recently, one I’m still grappling with, Kate Redburn’s Hate on Me at New Inquiry.  It’s about the GLBTQ groups – including The Sylvia Rivera Law Project, FIERCE, Queers for Economic Justice, the Peter Cicchino Youth Project, and the Audre Lorde Project – who oppose New York State’s “Gender Expression Non-Discrimination Act,” which “would make violence against gender-nonconforming people a hate crime.”

This is governing through crime – the best way to react to the social problems of violence and hate aimed at the GLBTQ community is to increase the policing and incarceration of those who do the violence.  Mandatory minimums, which translates into higher guilty pleas, which translates to more bodies in jail.  These groups oppose this because the police themselves are part of the problems they face, not part of the solution.  As Redburn argues, “Hate crimes legislation not only doesn’t change institutional bias; it further empowers this broken system by increasing law enforcement’s ability to arrest and imprison.”  I find the challenges posed here important to understand as we all try to find a way to have a governance project built outside the logic of mass incareceration.

Apr 262012

This is a nice rant by Glenn Loury, an economist at Brown University, in conversation with John McWhorter of Columbia. It’s about the toll taken on academic thought by specialization and what you might (though Loury doesn’t) call intellectual timidity.

Loury’s opening reference to the ‘young whippersnappers’ in economics may make you want to file this under, ‘Kids, get off my lawn!’. But Loury isn’t imagining this difference between generations. That academic specialization has grown during his career is undeniable–and, indeed, is a sign of a kind of intellectual progress. So is the greater use of quantitative tools, as he acknowledges. In that sense, faculties full of tightly focused number crunchers should be a source of pride. Still, we do need the yin to this yang–the impressionists, the synthesizers, the grand theorizers, the reckless speculators, the people willing to spend time arguing about things that won’t soon, if ever, be settled but are no less important for that.

If you want to see more of Glenn, check out the Glenn Show archives at If you want to hear McWhorter discuss the theory that made him unpopular among some of his fellow linguists, here’s that.


[optional image description]

Newsweek/Foreign Policy


Actually, the only clash here is over which part of the woman should be covered in black and which part should be exposed–and on this issue the two magazines are completely at odds. They are in broad agreement about how to get people to pay attention to your magazine.

I wonder how these covers affect how the cover stories–Newsweek’s by Katie Roiphe and FP’s by Mona Eltahawy–are being received. Eltahawy’s is a particularly interesting case. Her piece is a passionate indictment of the way women are treated in Arab countries. And I would imagine that some of the people in those countries who most resist her message might try to use the cover to discredit it. (Though it’s hard to tell in this thumbnail image, the woman is covered only by paint, and the lower part of her breast is visible.) Then again, there’s an Arabic edition of FP, and it wouldn’t shock me if its cover has a different look. 

Apr 262012

As the scandal over Secret Service agents sleeping with prostitutes continues to unfold, I have a question: Wouldn’t it be more scandalous if the women those agents slept with weren’t prostitutes?

Rep. Peter King, chairman of the House committee that oversees the Secret Service, says the key question is whether the prostitutes gained access to “any data or information that could have compromised the president of the United States or made an enemy force aware of the practices and procedures of the Secret Service.”

I can think of several reasons this sort of damage is more likely to be done by ordinary sex partners than by the kind you pay for:

1) That’s the way it happens in the movies! When a foreign spy service sets a “honey trap,” the bait isn’t typically a call girl. The victim is usually under the impression that he’s successfully picking up some woman who finds him irresistible. And that makes sense because:

2) If you were setting a honey trap, why would you create some barrier to entry, such as a fee? As the hapless agent who started this scandal illustrates, sometimes a guy doesn’t have much cash on hand. And the first rule of patronizing prostitutes (” The Jerry Springer Rule“) is: Never pay with a check or a credit card!

3) If you’re a secret service agent, what kind of woman is going to be better at extracting information from you: (a) a woman you’re paying to have sex? (b) a woman you’re trying to impress so that she’ll have sex with you or keep having sex with you? The latter, I submit (though, as Dick Morris showed us, the line between a high-end call girl and a conventional paramour can in this regard get blurry over time).

And as for the possibility of blackmail: There are married men who would rather their wife find out about a prostitute than about a more conventional affair, because then it’s easier to claim there was no emotional attachment. Of course, there’s always blackmail value in documenting someone’s illegal behavior, but in this case the prostitution was legal.

I’m not saying we shouldn’t be outraged by what happened in Colombia. And I’m not saying we shouldn’t be outraged by prostitution–which often entails the exploitation and even enslavement of vulnerable women and girls. I’m just saying the outrage about what happened in Colombia should be broad; it should be about sexual activity in foreign countries more generally. And any new rules for the Secret Service that result from this scandal should be commensurately broad.


Should we raise taxes on richer Americans? Eric Cantor has a clear answer. Absolutely, 100% no.

Should we raise taxes on poorer Americans? Eric Cantor has a different answer: “You’ve got to discuss that issue.”

Here’s the fuller quote, via Tim Noah:

Cantor: We also know that over 45 percent of the people in this country don’t pay income taxes at all, and we have to question whether that’s fair. And should we broaden the base in a way that we can lower rates for everybody that pays taxes.


Q.: Just wondering, what do you do about that? Are you saying we need to have a tax increase on the 45 percent that right now pay no federal income tax?

Cantor: I’m saying that, just in a macro way of looking at it, you’ve got to discuss that issue. What is going to fund the necessary operations of the federal government. How do we allow for that to take place in a way that we can see a growing economy. Because whatever scenario you may choose to embrace about cutting the spending or reforming the entitlement programs, the necessary piece is a growing economy or you’re never going to manage down and back to balance in the budget. So that’s gotta be the goal. How do you deal with that? How do you deal with a shrinking pie and number of people and entities that support the operations of government, and how do you go about continuing to milk them more, if that’s what some want to do, but preserve their ability to provide the growth engine? And that leads me back to saying those at the bottom end of the income scale want nothing more than to increase their income, to get up that ladder of success. So the goal should be, how do you do that? I’ve never believed that you go and raise taxes on those who have been successful that are paying in, taking from them, so that you just hand out and give to someone else. Those someone else[s] want hand-ups. They want the ability to get up the ladder.

It’s true that more than 45% of Americans don’t pay net positive federal income taxes. But 80% of them live in households making less than $30,000. They are automaticaly taxed at a lower rate, and they receive “refundable tax credits” that bring their tax bill past zero.

What would it take to force these lucky duckies to pay positive income taxes? It would mean instantly higher taxes for 70 million Americans. It would mean raising taxes on some of the poorest households by up to $4,000 a year, according to the Tax Policy Center.

A lot of what Eric Cantor is saying I agree with. Cantor says we need to fund the necessary operations of the federal government. I agree. He says that most people who aren’t rich want to be richer. I agree. He says that the poor need help to climb that ladder of wealth. I agree. But his solutions are totally upside-down. If we need to fund the necessary operations of government, why raise taxes on the on the poorest half of the population, exclusively? If people naturally want to be richer, why would slightly higher taxes on income over $330,000 change their mind? If the poor need hand-ups, why would we reduce their take-home income?

It is a matter of economic dogma that taxes discourage behavior. Eric Cantor has obviously convinced himself that taxing income under $30,000 will discourage poverty. On the issue of ridiculous taxes, maybe we should create a new levy on comments that the tax code would be “fairer” if the bottom 40% did more to support the burden of top 1%. That’s the sort of thinking that truly need to be discouraged.

Apr 262012

Update: See below.

Great Britain’s economy contracted slightly for the second consecutive quarter. Yep, that’s a recession.

Note, this isn’t a huge plunge. It’s a little toe-dip. But the implications are bigger. Before Prime Minister David Cameron came into power, his country was recovering at roughly the same pace as the U.S. Since Cameron announced an austerity plan to win the graces of the international lending community, the economy has hit a wall, stumbled forward, and finally fallen flat on its face.

Take a look at this great graph from Scotty Barber at Reuters: Great Britain is now doing even worse than the euro zone it so routinely disparages.


What’s the lesson here? That fiscal austerity doesn’t work without an export recovery to make up the money? Sure. That the Bank of England has failed to stimulate growth expectations in a sagging economy? Sure.

But here’s the fascinating thing about the UK double-dip. According to UK Office for National Statistics, the sector whose value-added has grown the most in Great Britain since 2008 is … the government. Huh?

The government supersector — which includes public administration, defense, education, health, social work, and (for some reason) the “entertainment and recreation” industry — has expanded 4.5% since 2008. By contrast, overall production — which includes mining, agriculture, and manufacturing — has declined 9%. Construction, which plummeted in 2009, is still down about 6% from 2008. Meanwhile, despite taking an enormous hit in its mighty financial sector, UK business/finance is nearly back to its 2008 level. Take a look:

UK double dip.pngHow is all this possible? How could austerity be crushing the UK economy while, at the same time, government’s value added is growing faster than the rest of the economy?

Here’s a two-part answer. Part One: The incidence of austerity is having its biggest impact on Britain’s disposable income. Reduced transfer payments and higher taxes both count as austerity, but they are squeezing families more than they are squeezing public spending on health care, education, transportation, and defense. As a result, the UK is feeling the pinch of austerity throughout the economy, not just in the sectors conservative consider “public.”

Part Two: Britain’s biggest problem is the EU. The rest of Europe accounts for half of UK exports, and it’s been ravaged by the last four years. “What you engage in medium-term budget consolidation while your biggest trading partners are going into a recession, you shouldn’t be surprised that the economy is stalling,” said Desmond Lachman of the American Enterprise Institute. Austerity or no, the reason why overall production, including manufacturing, and other tradable services are getting crushed is that Britain’s trading partners are, well, getting crushed.

Update: There’s been some confusion over the second graph showing government’s value-added component of GDP growing since 2010 even though the British government has been cutting fiercely and shedding 6% of the public workforce. The thing to keep in mind is that much of the UK government — and much of our government for that matter — consists of transfer payments for goods and services, and the impact of these cuts is felt in other industries, such as leisure, where demand has fallen.

Simon Johnson, the MIT economist and prodigious author, explained over the phone this afternoon: “Government purchases are more or less stable. The government doesn’t drop its purchases dramatically like the private sector. If you include education, or the military’s multi-year contracts, or severance packages to laid-off public workers, those things prop up government spending.”

So! The short answer to the question in the headline is: (1) The UK is double-dipping because government cuts are depressing disposable income growth the short run and (2) Austerity works when a small country can export its way out of pain, and the UK’s top export partners are falling into recession.


“If Congress doesn’t act, it’s the students who’ll pay.
The right and left should join on this like Kim and Kanye.”

Politics and policy sound better set to smooth jazz and couplets, and that’s how millions of Americans were introduced to the latest salvo in the student loan debate last night, when President Obama “slow jammed” the news on Jimmy Fallon’s show.

Okay, so that was pretty great. But since late-night shows aren’t always the most illuminating venue for policy, I thought I might add some background music for those confused by the student loan debate. As I see it, there are the congressional politics, the presidential politics, and the bigger picture.

The congressional politics are pretty boring, if you don’t mind me saying so. President Obama wants to keep the interest rate on student loans at 3.4%, which is historically very low (but then again, so are most rates today). This plan would cost about $6 billion next year. Otherwise, rates will double for newly originated loans. Guess how Democrats propose to pay for this? Higher taxes. Guess how Republicans feel about higher taxes? Not good about it, is how. There’s no telling how thrilling the debate over offsets will be.

The presidential politics are somewhat indistinguishable from marketing. Both candidates feel vulnerable in the youth demographic. President Obama’s star is on the wane among young voters, whom he’d like to re-engage by talking about college costs. Mitt Romney faces a 17-percentage point deficit against Obama among voters between 18 and 29. He, too, supports freezing low rates.

As they’re running for president, both men are in the business of making promises that strain credulity. One of those promises will be that, if elected, they will work tirelessly to make college more affordable. But the economics of college aren’t so pliant that the right president can simply grab the tuition inflation curve and bend it to his will. Education is getting more expensive for many of the same reasons that health care is getting more expensive. It’s labor intensive, it defies easy productivity gains, and it’s a human capital investment that lots of families are willing to overpay for. If Obama or Romney have good solutions to all three problems, they deserve a short-term dictatorship in Washington.

The bigger, most interesting question about student loans is what role government should play in getting kids (or adults!) to go to college — and whether Washington’s good intentions might have negative consequences.

The federal government belongs in the student loan business for at least two reasons. First, it’s the only financial institution with the means to lend cheaply to students. After all, who else wants to make a low-rate loan to a 18-year old kid with no earnings, no credit history, and zero collateral when he won’t start paying interest in four years, at the earliest? Second, it’s the only institution that can reap the fullest benefits from the college investment. Even if taxpayers lose money on student loans — which they can — we benefit from the outcome of those students loans. People that graduate from college are less likely to be unemployed, less likely to be on Medicaid, more likely to earn a higher wage, and more likely to pay net positive federal income taxes. Remember: There is a high cost to students arresting their education after high school. A 2012 U.S. study put the final cost per NEET youth (Not Engaged in Employment/education, or Training) at $37,450, including lost earnings and health spending. Paying students to go to college costs money. Not paying students to go to college might cost money, too.

Even if student loans are a reasonable investment for government to make, it’s equally reasonable to wonder whether subsidizing college is responsible for higher college costs. As James Surowiecki has written eloquently, tuition is rising for reasons that have nothing to do with Stafford loans. But as Jordan Weissmann has written for us, the economic literature found that funneling money to middle class students has contributed to college costs rising even more than they would have without loans. The evidence is mixed.

But the bigger picture is clearer. College costs more money that most students have in savings. Government is uniquely positioned to lend some of the difference. Everybody benefits from higher educational attainment — taxpayers, included.

Apr 262012

Garett Jones - Economist at George Mason University. You can follow him on Twitter: @GarettJones

According to the arcane conventions of economic statistics, a “consumer durable” is any physical product that lasts longer than three years: cars, fridges, computers (Strangely, Levi’s don’t count as a durable). 

Normal economics has two pieces of advice about how to buy consumer durables:

1.  Buy them when interest rates are low (cheaper to borrow the money; and you weren’t going to earn anything at the bank anyway).  

2.  Don’t buy them when your income takes a one-time hit (if the ‘crops’ have been bad the last few years–like they’ve been since the Great Recession–it’s best to focus on buying things that get used up: food, haircuts, doctor visits; you can keep driving the Corolla). 

Recessions are times when 1 and 2 usually push in opposite directions, but in practice 2 wins the battle: Durable purchases collapse in a recession

But the idea of a durable is more important than any official definition: And memory, wholly intangible, is quite durable. 

People often shrink from driving to a distant, promising restaurant, flying to a new country, trying a new sport–it’s a hassle, and the experience won’t last that long. That’s the wrong way to look at it. When you go bungee jumping, you’re not buying a brief experience: You’re buying a memory, one that might last even longer than a good pair of blue jeans. 

Psych research seems to bear this out: People love looking forward to vacations, they don’t like the vacation that much while they’re on it, and then they love the memories. Most of the joy–the utility in econospeak–happens when you’re not having the experience. 

Vacation purchases jump around just the way you’d expect if they were a durable: People spend a lot less on them during recessions, about 15% less in the Great Recession. Food spending, by contrast, only fell 5%.

So people treat memories somewhat like durables, but most of us could do a better job of it. Yes, it’ll be a hassle to find that riad in Marrakech when your GPS fails you, but complaining about it with your sibling years later will be a ton of fun. Get on with it. 

A corollary: if memory really is a durable, then you should buy a lot of it when you’re young. That’ll give you more years to enjoy your purchase. 

So it’s worth a bit of suffering to create some good memories, since the future lasts a lot longer than the present. Bob Hope and Shirley Ross figured this out, reminiscing over their failed marriage:

And thanks for the memory

Of sunburns at the shore, nights in Singapore

You might have been a headache but you never were a bore

So thank you so much.

Yes, it’s only a song from a movie.  But it’s pretty good social science. 


Over the last ten years I managed to do something, that, with the benefit of hindsight, would appear to be somewhat remarkable.


I financed, produced, directed, marketed and distributed seven documentary films that treated the subject of sexuality in a way that is unprecedented in cinema. The briefest description I can offer is that these films offer a glimpse of “love, uncensored”; which is to say they show, in a tender and unflinching manner,  what it looks like when two people who love each other make love; and then reveal through testimony why the couple feels the way they do about each other. Our couples were never asked to do anything that was not already a regular part of their own off-screen love life; only to share themselves with each other joyously, and allow us to bear witness. The response to these simple little films, so frank yet so gentle, has been no less remarkable.

Variously they have taken awards at international film festivals, played to standing-room-only houses, been seized by customs officials, banned by censorship authorities, stopped by the police, and described by the MPAA as “A great little film that really delivers. Exactly the kind of film the NC17 rating was made for.”

Even more remarkable, these films have provided my family a livelihood. Throughout the ups and downs of creating, marketing and distributing these films we’ve never gone hungry, we’ve never missed a mortgage payment, we’ve always had health insurance, we’ve never had to borrow money from friends or family. Some years we’ve even manage to save some money, or go on a vacation.

It’s been tough, but it’s been good tough, the kind of thing you look back on with pride.


One of the reasons it’s been tough is that the social and media landscape has changed a lot since we first began this work. There was a lot more openness to new ideas about sexuality in 2003 when we got our first major press mention (and inbound link!) from Richard Corliss at Conversely, there was a lot less file sharing. As best as we’ve been able, we’ve tried to adapt to changing norms around sexuality on the internet, or attitudes about intellectual property.

Sometime in the last year I was reading yet another article preaching give-it-away-for-free (the it being your book, your record, your film – your whatever could be digitized) and then sell your true fans the very special limited edition, gold foil wrapped, signed collector’s edition, or if not that, a t-shirt or a stuffed animal or whatever. This approach has been proffered (time and time again) as the solution to a world that does not offer artists who work in easily replicated distribution mediums a way to exchange their work for money with those who wish to pay for it without making it freely available to those who wish to enjoy it but do not wish to pay for it.

As I was reading this it hit me; this is not an especially “low-impact” approach to making a living as an artist.

The low-impact approach would be to make the creative work once, and then distribute it in as small a foot-print form factor as possible, with protectable digital distribution being near ideal.

What is not ideal is turning songs or novels or movies into loss-leader for more crap — t-shirts, collectors edition box sets, and whatnot. Putting “Comstock Films” or “Helvetica” or “NIN” or whatever on a t-shirt and selling it for $19.95 is not value added, and it’s not a real substitute for compensating artists for their investment of time and money.

At best it’s an ugly kludge that ought to be a source of deep shame to anyone who claims to care about the real possibilities that digitized culture offers, and doubly so if you claim to care about leaving a smaller foot print on a planet increasingly strained by the crush of humanity.

But we don’t have protectable digital distribution, and I don’t expect we ever will. It’s unfashionable, reviled by the digital cognoscenti; and even if it weren’t I not even sure it’s possible.

For a while I thought about four-walling. That’s what my hero Bruce Brown did, traveling from town to town, putting up posters, renting out halls, and hoping enough people would come to the show to make it worthwhile. But I’m in my 40s, I have two young children I adore, and the thought of being on the road, touring touring touring, away from my kids, sleeping in hotels instead of sleeping in my own bed with my wife is not especially appealing.

For a brief time I thought about making a road show out of my film history/media studies work, the work that I drew from during my stint last year as a guest-blogger for James Fallows, and I got a good response from the universities I approached. But again, that would mean too much time away from my family, too much time on airplanes and in motels, and not enough time with the people and things I love. And the film history/media studies puts the talking ahead of the doing. Don’t get me wrong, I like talking, but I like doing more.

This left me in a pickle.

I have been making a living with words and pictures since I was 19 years old. I have never been paid to do anything else.

Until this last Summer.


The parameters were simple. Whatever was next had to be something that could not be digitized. Yes, I know, according to the digerati, all those people downloading our films weren’t going to buy them anyway, so that was no money lost. I don’t care. I made those movies with my own two hands. I wrote checks to pay for film-stock and equipment rental and to pay my crew union rates. I didn’t do that so people could watch my films for free. I did it to put a roof over my children’s head and food on our table. And because of that, I get a little upset at the fact that people can decide whether or not they want to pay to see our films.

And I’m not especially comforted by the idea that our livelihood is just unfortunate collateral damage of a technology that allows the flowering of mash-up culture. In all the tens of thousands of times our films have been downloaded, no one’s ever mashed up anything. No new culture, no new commentary. Just people riding the bus for free because it’s easy enough not to pay.

So it couldn’t be something digitizable.

It also had to be something that couldn’t be toured. I’m too old for that. I like being with my family too much. So whatever it was had to be something so special that people would come to me instead of waiting for me to come to them.

So what did I do? I started taking people sailing. Aside from meeting the above criteria, it has a few other really wonderful characteristics.

To start with, it has relatively high financial barriers to entry.

You’ve got to have a boat. Kaching. You’d be stupid not to have insurance. Kaching. You need to put the boat somewhere for the Winter. Kaching. And on and on and on.

Do these cost eat into profits? Of course. But even more importantly they keep the hobbiest and the dilettantes out. It’s hard enough to make a living competing against other professionals, but it’s damn near impossible when everyone wants to be a filmmaker (or journalist, or coder, or whatever) and all they need is an iPhone and an iMac to do it!

It also has legal barriers to entry. If you want to take people on a boat for money, you have to have a US Coast Guard Captain’s License.

In some ways this is pretty funny, because if you just want to drive yourself and your friend around on a boat, you don’t need anything. You can pretty much buy a boat, jump in and go; good luck and God bless. You can even rent a boat, filled with your friends, and go on your merry way. The high seas (or your local bay) are the last vestige of a liberty we probably never really had. You want to be a libertarian. Get a boat!

But if you want to be a captain for hire, it gets complicated. There are classes you have to take, tests you have to pass. You have to show that you have been on boats long enough to (hopefully) have some clue about what you’re doing. You have to take a physical and get your eye sight checked. You have to pee in a cup to show your don’t get high.

Maybe to some people this sounds like a big hassle but for me it’s a big blessing. After two decades of hearing Steve Jobs say “Now anyone can…” it’s nice to be doing something where Uncle Sam is telling other people “Oh no you can’t. You can’t unless you do this and this and this and this and this.”

So that’s what I did last Summer. (And since I’ve mentioned the small footprint thing, let me add that I managed to do nearly 100 sailing trips on about 12 gallons of diesel.)

And it’s what I’m going to do next Summer.

© 2012 Meslema Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha