nothing as it seems to be

As set forth, nothing as it seems to be
Your propitiation swings like a machete.

New Year’s Resolution

Though it seems so worthless, you imagine all you want done,
and consider all who won’t do it for you.
It’s time to cut the extra loop …
and let those laced to you now go free.

At the molecular level,
you hate yourself
and all you can and cannot see.
But some things you have to move away from,
just to make some elbow room,
so let those laced to you now go free.

Herding of animals began with the domestication of goats in Iran.

I just thought I should mention that, lest you think people of that region never accomplished anything even vaguely good (as most Western media would have us believe).

The Indestructible Battle Design

Check out what you’re actually doing.
 Think about what you’re going to make.
 Abuse the privilege of self-reflection from time to time.
 Give the occasional impromptu performance, because that form of might
called Creativity can be yours.
Being alone or lonely isn’t always terrible.
Sometimes, by leaving people behind or by being left behind,
you are reminded of what you actually have — whatever it is —
and it may be a time of self-realization.
Conversely, it may be a time of self-denial.
Be careful either way.
Overcome fears related to budgeting, because the economic system is largely
 bullshit anyway.

The indestructible battle design prevents society from being totally reformed,
or totally destroyed — unless perhaps a meteor hits the earth and wipes us all out (or something to that effect).
What do I mean by the indestructible battle design?
These systems of thought, both formal and informal, intentional or not,
 which collectively and individually shape human interactions and systems
 of thought to always be in  conflict with each other and themselves, even
 when they seem to “work”.
Some elements of this design are surely by nature in general, as opposed
to what we call “human nature,” but they structurally make up our break downs,
yet we rely on them just the same.
Because of this, shouting is not always enough to get your way. 
There are always louder groups than whatever particular one you
find yourself in on a given issue.
Sometimes stop shouting and start thinking and talking.
If you think enough, it will eventually be harder to be a total idiot,
even if you’re not the greatest thinker.
You will make some observations that are difficult to refute.
For example, I often tell conservatives that if they object to people being
 on welfare, offer these people employment, money, or a place to live.
If critics can’t do any of those things, or refuse to, they are just throwing
around words and won’t actually accomplish anything.
If you tell them, “Stop being lazy and get a job!,” then put your money where
your mouth is.
If you cannot offer a real alternative to their situation,
people should be skeptical of your claims otherwise from a grander, philosophical
perspective.
See, that I believe is a valid point, with plenty of practical merit.
It’s hard to debunk the logic in it.

I would say similar things about theft.
If you are generous to people, yes, some might eventually abuse your generosity
by expecting it all the time, but these people are at least somewhat
 less likely to steal from someone who is nice to to them anyway.
Why steal when all someone has to do is ask?
From there I will say it’s not enough to generate the business half of life
and leave it at that.
Even from a business-savvy perspective, it makes sense to cultivate some
personal relationships that are mutually beneficial.
The alternative is to lead a disparate local existence with
no relief from extended middle fingers.

If you make too many enemies you increase the odds of facing trouble.
Speaking of trouble, people spend way too much time believing jail or
prison solves — or even addresses — society’s troubles.
Bars for them equal freedom.
Is it a failure to act responsibly to ask whether concrete
cells are good enough to really address a problem?
Unfortunately, many people do not see need to ask such questions,
and simply internalize the status quo.
They are mostly dabbling in a mythology, if they think about such
things at all.
What about a concrete cell actually addresses some root cause of a
given problem?
It merely conceals it, at best.
It’s also cruelty.
Certainly it sometimes inflicts cruelty on someone who was willfully cruel,
but that is not always the case anyway.
For example, I’ve heard of a man who left his baby in a car
while he was at work, and the baby died from the heat.
In response, someone argued that the man should be imprisoned
as a murderer.
I explained that it may not be murder at all but neglect,
that people are capable of doing stupid things, and that
putting him in jail probably won’t really accomplish anything.
After all, did the possibility of punishment prevent this particular neglect?
Obviously not.
From there it simply follows that it won’t likely prevent similar events.
To top it off, I even suggested that this parent (or anyone like him)
 may not have been a neglectful “monster” all the time, but possibly
just on this one occasion.
What were common sense considerations for me apparently were ever elusive
to this person, which illustrates how far down the pike we’ve gone
from being an intellectual society.
None of those are particularly brilliant observations, but plain
and entry level ones.  Still, I had to be the one to step in and make them,
possibly in the face of condemnation.
As Emma Goldman once said, it is easier to condemn than to think.
It is also easy to fuck up in life changing ways, like that guy probably did.
In the broader sense, this is what people have done all around.
The human race has fucked up, but we’ll take it all out on some idiot,
just so we’ll feel better about ourselves.
Of course, we’ll forget about our outrage at that instance when a new issue
comes along, and pretend we’re accomplishing something grand.
Again we will say, “We’ll never be like that person!”
Meanwhile, systematic and ideology-based abuses continue to flourish,
including in those places we send these neglectful or evil criminal fools.
We’ll tend to ignore systematic abuses because they belong to the
 indestructible battle design, and redesigning anything requires too much thought.
It’s out of our control, right?
That’s why you should occasionally sit and quietly think.
Check out what you’re actually doing.
You have probably missed a few details.

Nothing to say now

I have nothing to say now, so I’m going to post five words below and see if anything happens. 

Here they are, officially starting now:

Weeks!
Drive.
know.
Escapee.
hatred.

On banning stuff

People do things that arguably aren’t perfectly healthy. 
Gambling is just one stock example.
Before you say, “I’m thinking of banning gambling this year” — STOP!
  Gambling, like so many other things, is an issue to be resolved by individuals and families directly affected by it. But personal issues are almost an alien concept these days, and it scares people. 
Banning is not resolving a specific instance by those directly involved in it. It is imposing laws upon others — many who would not wish to resolve the conflict in such a way. There is a simple solution here: Don’t gamble, and discourage others from gambling.
Generally speaking, I think the premise of banning something is in bad taste.
That’s one way to describe these circumstances. 
Or one can see it more as nipping at  another’s heels, so one person can feel morally superior; “I don’t engage in this or that questionable behavior, so I must be superior and make all those poor fools more like me!”
And attempts to legislate undesirable behavior often end up with weird, convoluted arguments in their defense.
Eventually, any pro-choicer somehow becomes a conspirator for the white devil movement. Or all “liberals” are out to convert heterosexual, white, Christian males to homosexuality.  Or all Batman wanted was to bang Vicki Vale.
A long time ago I decided to mind my own business, for the most part, and I haven’t veered too far from that since. 

Rehashes giving me rashes

All television programming is subject to change.
So is music.
So is anything else in culture.
Creativity is not a static operation,
where some intended decency must be present at all times.
Still, why did Spike Lee have to remake the South Korean film “Oldboy”?  I’m not a bitter opponent of remakes, but there is nothing any film maker could have done to make that movie better, as far as I’m concerned.  I may even watch the remake some day, but right now it’s just too much.   

6 Ways The Entertainment Industry Harms Comedy

[For purposes of full disclosure, this is an article I originally attempted to pitch to Cracked.com.  This isn’t usually a humor blog, but I am capable of being at least somewhat funny.  I’m a bit biased, but I don’t think it’s such a bad article (and their article criteria is a little strange, in my view).  So here is the rejected article in all its glory.  Enjoy!] 

1.    Image Is Everything

Most people hate certain Hollywood celebrities, but pay attention to them anyway.  It’s like a collective scab we need to pick at and let bleed every so often, just for the hell of it.  Or is it because we’re inundated with their images, and focus on them accordingly? 
On TV and in tabloids, flashy Hollywood premieres, celebrity interviews and scandals abound to the point of obsession, and most of it is superficial nonsense. 
In Hollywood, and in the entertainment industry generally, there’s an expectation that things be glitzy and glamorous (with some obvious exceptions like Gary Busey).  Yet, paradoxically, the media is fascinated with celebrities falling short and appearing flawed — human, as it were.  All too often these perceived failings become the obsessive topics of mainstream comedy — not merely topics, but obsessive topics.  So-and-so is one drugs, engaging in slutty behavior, said something controversial or weird, etc.
 
 When celebrity failings are constantly brought up on every late night talk show, and on CNN, MSNBC and FOX News, one is occasionally tempted to locate the nearest Kevorkian.  Comedians talk about celebrity “meltdowns,” but a lot of those same fools have their own meltdowns and shortcomings, which also make the news cycle, and are regarded as somehow interesting. 
As a recent example, consider Piers Morgan’s little live TV spat with comedienne Chelsea Handler, in which she called him a “terrible interviewer.”  It was a minor skirmish, certainly, but such words will take a significance far greater than merited.  Maybe Piers Morgan is an unlikable British buttock who believes he’s a super hero for questioning American gun laws, but why should we care about it in our Facebook “trending” news feed?
He’s flawed to some.  We’re all flawed in some way.  Let’s move on.  Celebrity spats get boring.
Mountains out of molehills:       
http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2014/03/13/chelsea-handler-piers-morgan-terrible-interviewer-on-cnn-show/
     
2.  Too Many Usual Suspects

This is easily forgotten, but there are billions of funny people in existence.  Even people who aren’t always funny can be hilarious sometimes.  The internet has made this phenomenon even more noticeable.  For some, a stupid, relatively anonymous cat video ranks as the funniest thing of all time.  And why not?  Funny people and funny things are basically a dime a dozen.  Unfortunately, you wouldn’t know that from watching most TV.  Often, spliced in between commercials, we have these shows called “comedies,” and in these comedies we have many familiar faces and names appearing in a wide assortment of places, until their very existence is etched into our brains.  Some of these people are funny indeed, but what if we see them so regularly we begin to dislike them a little?  It’s reasonable to assume that’s possible.  Songs we like get tiring if we hear them constantly, don’t they?  Now imagine that song being in person form, and looking like Ben Stiller — a man who, at one point, seemed to appear in every other new comedic film.  Many people believe Ben Stiller is funny, but how often has the proverbial Ben Stiller received a role that others could have done?  How often has he received public attention that others could have received?  Ben Stiller has become almost an entity now, whose very presence overwhelms whatever it is near.  Meanwhile, some really funny stuff goes totally unnoticed, as Big Ears makes yet another faux pas for Robert De Niro.         
     No one’s saying enterprising comedians can’t enjoy steady work and success.
For example, back in 2005, it was written that “CRACKED’s new creative, editorial and business team includes experienced individuals from the publishing world – from companies such as Universal Studios, Dennis Publishing, American Media, Marvel Entertainment, Wenner
Media and National Lampoon.”
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/cracked-magazine-re-launches-56173522.html
It’s all good in the hood there (right?).  But there’s a difference between steady, successful work and the feel of an all-consuming media presence.

3.  Comedy Is Often Taken Too Seriously

As CRACKED magazine notes, CRACKED Magazine is “one of America’s oldest and most well-known humor magazines.”
http://www.cracked.com/article_15430_investor-group-acquires-cracked-magazine.html
What makes it so?  It is often funny, plain and simple.  It may not always be funny to everyone, but it’s consistently able to get the job done.  But that’s the question:  Is comedy just a job?  If so, what happens if a comedian, or any comedic gesture or statement, isn’t considered funny?  This question easily plagues anyone who tries to be funny, because no one wants to fail.  Failure leads to disgrace.  At the same time, this makes comedy more absurd, and not simply in the positive sense of absurdism.  Thinking about comedy as a business cheapens it, as business cheapens everything else.  Look at what happened to Michael Richards.  Was anything about that situation normal or funny?  It looked like someone in a high stress environment failing to make some folks laugh, getting heckled as a result, and lashing out in a highly offensive manner, thereby creating a media uproar and damaging his career.  Real fucking hilarious.  The possibility of that happening is more sad than it is funny.  Why could such a thing happen?  There are many reasons, but an obvious factor is that a paying customer might be disappointed, criticize the service rendered, and the stressed out server (in this case, comedian) completely loses his shit.  The lesson:  Don’t treat comedy merely as a business, and don’t lose your shit.  If you lose your shit in one sense you can lose your shit in another, and never quite get it back again.  

       
4.  Corporate Monopolist Censorship 

When Disney, Capital Cities and ABC merged, we may have learned this about
the CC/ABC Multimedia Group: 
    “The Multimedia Group develops and manages business opportunities
in new and emerging media technologies.  These include the
interactive television, pay-per-view, and video-on-demand areas;
video cassette and disc-based media; on-line services;
location-based entertainment; and HDTV and digital television.”
(http://www.thefreelibrary.com/%2FFIRST+AND+FINAL+ADD+–+DISNEY,+CAPITAL+CITIES%2FABC+AGREE+TO+MERGE%2F-a017368916)
That was quite a while back.  And what has happened since then?  Disney just kept growing, and bragging about everything it acquired, like the proud behemoth it is.  Unfortunately, Disney is typically a G rated or PG rated entity, which usually makes for shittier comedy.  Sure enough, Bill Maher was considered too edgy for ABC/Disney, who cancelled his show Politically Incorrect.  Why? 
After 9-11, he disagreed with Bush’s calling the terrorists cowards, saying: “We have been the cowards, lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away. That’s cowardly. Staying in the airplane when it hits the building, say what you want about it, not cowardly.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNMhNJDRnhU
In other words, he was cancelled for living up to the title of his show.
How cool is that?  Mickey Mouse is apparently a giant wuss.
 
Then there’s Gilbert Gottfried, who lost his gig voicing a corporate duck. 
Sure, one can still find edgy comedy in the corporate world.  However, as suggested before, commercialism tends to make it less edgy, and more conformist.  Perhaps a better example is the censored music video for “Gay Bar” by the often humorous band Electric Six, as shown on MTV. 
The offending lyrics?
 “Let’s start a war, start a nuclear war,
 At the gay bar, gay bar, gay bar.”
The words “War” and “nuclear war” were replaced by whip cracks.  
Why?  The song made its air debut at the start of the Iraq War.
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRWe_0sD33Y)
As one Youtube commenter notes:  “They censored ‘nuclear war’? I thought it was ‘suck a cock’ for years. They made it sound far worse…”  Indeed they did. 

5.   Excess Pressure For Comedians to be Edgy

Now we’re getting into the opposite problem, which is a little more difficult to tackle.  Every comedian is expected to be edgy; to mock, critique, offend, and criticize culture.  It sells, and gets respect from other comedians.  But sometimes it actually seems “tiresome, too-eager-to-offend,” as Variety said of Daniel Tosh’s show “Brickleberry.”  The problem is this:  Someone might joke about, say, eating out a raccoon, but where do they go from there?  Must every other joke involve something gross or offensive, or just some of them?  Asking this makes one sound like a prude, but it is a valid question.  To what extent can people go the Cosby route, but keep that raccoon on standby?  There is, of course, no real answer, but it’s an interesting question. 

  
6.  Comedy Central Needs A Wider View of Comedy

Comedy Central can be great.  As an example, the Daily Show is often considered a leading source for news (a fact Jon Stewart often laments).  Still, one thing is commonly missing from their lineup:  Old school and offbeat comedy.  Where in the hell is Redd Fox?  Bill Hicks?  For movies, how about some interesting choices like Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, rather than seeing Clark Griswald or Daniel Tosh half the time?  The Marx Brothers made some truly hilarious comedy, yet their existence is virtually unknown to Comedy central viewers.  You would think a place where comedy is central would take more interest in the history of comedy, right?  Some people may find Charlie Chaplin funnier than Sinbad, if they were able to compare and contrast.                      

Godzilla VS. Sudan.

We’re not as bad off as Africans are. We’re not as, we’re not as…

My happiness makes me OVERWORK!

I can see the direct results  and read the scores. S

Some day I won’t need my meds anymore… Life is FORCING it’s way through.

I Must Get Ultra Low Cost Meds!, must smile better for SOCIETY!

A clean getaway, adultery, appliance sales, FORENSICS.

TV besotted with some muggings and murders, unnerving images of reticulated pythons.

TV besotted with some muggings and murders, unnerving images of reticulated pythons.

My home away from home is here inside my home.

Pushing the War Button

As “intelligence failures” over Iraq indicate, governing can have serious  consequences.  Still, it’s not necessarily true that we can’t afford another corrupt  administration.   If we so wish, we can afford virtually any leadership  that comes down the pike. They can simply remind us, as Bush and his predecessors  constantly do, that the US is chiefly responsible for “the  spread of liberty and democracy” in the world.   In other words, Americans are inherently benign — provided we have strong leadership above us.  Supposedly, 9/11 makes it more so, for it apparently instantly  added legitimacy to the state. After all, as Bush said in his final State of  the Union address, “We have taken the fight to these  terrorists and extremists.” Implied is that all other questions are nonessential to this divine quest. Bush also suggested that, “wherever freedom advances in the Middle East, it seems the Iranian regime is there to oppose  it.”  This is because “Iran is funding and training militia groups  in Iraq, supporting Hezbollah terrorists in Lebanon, and backing Hamas’ efforts to undermine peace in the Holy Land,” and “Tehran is also developing ballistic missiles of increasing range, and continues  to develop its capability to enrich uranium, which could be used to create a nuclear weapon.” (1)

Of course, as always, US nuclear weapons and missile defense programs are just fine. For example, in London on Thursday, February 18, 1999, House  Policy Chairman Christopher Cox candidly assured us the following: “Some of the research and development for our current ballistic missile defense program dates back to Britain’s response to the German V-2 ballistic missile attack in the last world  war. Today, we talk of the amazing successors to these technologies: guidance systems utilizing kinetic energy, hit-to-kill intercepts of ballistic missile targets, and such things as indium antimonide and gallium arsenide quantum wells. American scientists’ attention is focused principally on advanced theater missile  defense now, to protect forward-deployed and expeditionary elements of  our armed forces,” and those of chosen “allies.” Where is the moral outrage over these weapons programs? No one is supposed to have it. Like a good salesman, Cox’s language implied that missile defense (and defense spending generally) was more important than ever before. Again, it’s okay for American missiles  to be advanced, but Iran is a different story  entirely because theirs would be against ours. (2)

Also implied in Bush’s address is that only Islamic states and terrorists have unjustly abused “the Holy Land”. Did any military-happy American President urge Israel out of  south Lebanon, or to drop its weapons programs?  No, and supposedly because “America is a force for hope in the world” and “a compassionate people,” as are its  official allies. That’s the official script. To veer away from it supposedly makes one an unsavory character. Under this principle, fire coming from “our” hostile troops, as well as “our” bombs  from above, are hopeful and compassionate — presumably unless a key  American politician declares otherwise.  Until then, everything must be well-intentioned.   If we believe something like this, we can stand squarely with President Bush.  Then, of course, Bush can ironically warn Iran (or countries  he doesn’t like):  “Verifiably suspend your nuclear enrichment, so negotiations  can begin,” and tell them that, “to rejoin the community  of nations, come clean about your nuclear intentions and past actions, stop your oppression at home and cease your support for terror abroad.” (1)

Supposedly, America’s control of Baghdad was never in any way oppressive or terroristic.   This is why, during his famous 48 hour warning to Iraq, Bush warned that, “For their own safety, all foreign  nationals — including journalists and inspectors — should leave Iraq immediately.” Somehow, terror of any kind is simply not implied here. In this case, any perceived terror must have been merely a subjective feeling, just some emotionally charged mental hyperbole. (3)   On the other hand, reports of a “‘two-way pipeline’  moving Islamic militants between Europe and Zarqawi’s network in Iraq”  (and other such reports) are a matter for total alarm. (4)

Meanwhile, Iraq’s Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, Hamed al-Bayati,  expressed his own interest in further alliances, urging the “international community” to “provide greater support to the Iraqi government in confronting terror groups that are active worldwide, like Zarqawi’s group,  al-Qaeda and others.”   (5)      So why stop warring now, or ever?   As Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim Jaafari reminded us, “car bombs  can be exported everywhere.” Iraq’s Shia-dominated Government sensibly admits that elections didn’t end the insurgency. As al-Jaafari stated: “You all know the heavy legacy inherited  by this Government.  We are afflicted by corruption, lack of services, unemployment and  mass graves.”  (6)

And, of course, anyone against American efforts can be accused* of “agreeing” with al-Qaeda, or any other Islamic terrorist  organization.  We’re supposed to be practically ahistorical.    We’re not supposed to care about the support America gave to the radical Islamic Mujahideen during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, even though these same fanatics later gave as al-Qaeda  and the Taliban.   Or, if we are to look at that example, we’re  supposed to justify it because of the Soviet Union and play the “lesser of two evils” game.

However, we actually can condemn all of al-Qaeda, the US government, and the  Soviet invasion of Afghanistan for their corresponding roles.  We needn’t play the “lesser of two evils” game.  Let’s not be so dishonest as to regard 9-11 as some historical cut-off point, and that the  US (and Britain, France, Germany and others) were “leaving the  Middle East alone” until a fateful day in 2001. Unfortunately, though, “lesser of two evils” remains a very popular  game. It’s pervasive even after it was reported by the New York Times  that ISI, the intelligence service of Pakistan (“a crucial American  ally in the war on terrorism”), has had “an indirect  but longstanding relationship with Al Qaeda, turning a blind eye  for years to the growing ties between Osama bin Laden and the Taliban.”  How “indirect” the relationship has been remains questionable.   Allegedly, the ISI “even used Al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan to train covert operatives for use in a war of terror against India.” Said one State Department official on the matter:  “I think the Pakistanis realized as time went on that they had  made a bad deal…. But they couldn’t find an easy way out of it.” But the C.I.A., going down the usual route, still “equipped and  financed a special commando unit that Pakistan had offered to  create to capture Mr. bin Laden.”  (7)

That Pakistani intelligence would fail shouldn’t be entirely surprising. US authorities themselves “have stated that more than a third of those rounded up after the September 11 attacks and still in custody were people of Pakistani origin.”  John Ashcroft said that, of the 641 people detained in  the US in connection with the attacks, “over 200 came  to the United States from Pakistan”. This is not to say all those detained were even guilty, but that the US government seems suspicious of Pakistanis in general. It makes an alliance of doubtful merit, at best. (8)

According to high-ranking officials, military intelligence has been a consistent problem with capturing or killing al-Qaeda members, as it was with bin Laden. During the Clinton years, “the information was usually only at the ’50-60% confidence  level, not sufficient to justify American military action,” wrote CIA Director George Tenet in his memoir. ‘As much as we all wanted Bin Ladin dead, the  use of force by a superpower requires information, discipline, and  time.  We rarely had the information in sufficient quantities or the  time to evaluate and act on it.” (9)

Now that bin Laden is dead, how much new information must the US government take in, how much more time must be spent on war-making, and must we continue to act like the full history doesn’t matter?

SOURCES: 1.  President Bush’s final State of the Union Address.  Chamber of the United States House of Representatives.  United States Capitol.  Office of the Press Secretary.   January 28, 2008:  [url]www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/01/20080128-13.html[/url]

2.  Address to the European-Atlantic Group. Hon. Christopher Cox Chairman, House Policy Committee London, Thursday, February 18, 1999 [located on Usenet]

3.  “President Says Saddam Hussein Must Leave Iraq Within 48 Hours.  Remarks by the President in Address to the Nation”:  [url]http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030317-7.html[/url]

4.  “Desperate Londoners seek survivors after bombings.” Katherine Baldwin and Kate Holton (Reuters): [url]http://redorbit.com/news/general/168696/desperate_londoners_seek_survivors_after_bombings/index.html[/url]

5.  “Steep rise in London death toll” Mail & guardian Online: [url]http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?articleid=244896&area=/breaking_news/breaking_news__international_news/[/url]

6.  “Terror chief losing grip, says US,” James Hider, Times Online: [url]http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7374-1596751,00.html[/url]

7.  “A NATION CHALLENGED: THE SPIES; Pakistani Intelligence Had Ties To Al Qaeda, U.S. Officials Say ,”  James Risen, Judith Miller, New york Times, October 29, 2001: [url]http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B03E3D61630F93AA15753C1A9679C8B63[/url]

8.  “US feared ISI during Clinton’s Pakistan visit: Report,” rediff.com, November 30, 2001: [url]http://www.rediff.com/news/2001/nov/30clint.htm[/url]

9.    “U.S. ABORTED RAID ON QAEDA CHIEFS IN PAKISTAN IN ’05,” Marlk Mazzetti, The New York Times, May 4, 2009: [url]http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9500E6D7133EF93BA35754C0A9619C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all[/url])