jack london wrote
reams of dialog
fantastic prose
sleek as a mug
chronicles of a journey
narrated by a dog
i have a blog
the gold rush was
his recurring theme
his never ending scheme
tried as he may
to break the mold
to clear the fog
he'll always return
to the leash, and its dog
i have a blog
and so to preempt the death
of flow and creativity
to steer the flotilla
of literary composition
clear of an iceberg
i ponder my choice
of word and dialog
i co-opt the help of technology
digital and analog
to try to compile, a catalog
of do-nots
a list of words
from which to choose,
to choose not
and these words are:
heartbreak
heartache
groins
loins
secrete
accrete
deplete
defeat
women
hymen
bosoms
rhythms
schisms
orgasms
premature
caricature
....
....
stop
on this charade somebody
please pull the plug
because i'm the proprietor of the blog
and i need to vent and rant and rave
and before your authority i will not cave
and your censorship you may save
shove up the place you never shave
i have a blog
now that the point
has been made
now that the ground rules
have been laid
let me tell you what else
i have in spades..
besides the blog
and its maneuvers
of chase and evade
i have a scheme
I HAVE A SCHEME
women of the world, you are the screen
an intricate web of dark and sheen
two alternating figures on a trampoline
an elusive target, lost, sight-unseen
confusing the fellas
as they hit and miss
and hit and miss
and every time there is a miss
there's also, quote unquote, a "miss-
-understanding" ...
and of your attention, poor chap,
she's always demanding
i see you sob, i see you scream
oh brother man, did you call her a queen?
I have a scheme
i see you sob, i see you scream
O brother man did you call her a queen?
and now here you are
flipping coins, from rome to prague
skirts of the world, you are the steam
that moves my gear and turns my cog
the prize held aloft in a dream
the pinnacle of an orgasmic epilogue
a fantasy falling apart at the seams
of a four poster creaking like a frog
milfy scenarios, filmed and seen
like sarah palin going rogue
a woman wants a reenactment of a love scene
as, before the moon, she tiptoes for a kiss and a hug
but what i have is a movie for the above eighteen
and a six-pack, and a six-pack
and so we shag, and we chug
i have a scheme
a woman wants a reenactment of a love scene
as, before the moon, she tiptoes for a kiss and a hug
but what i have is a movie for the above eighteen
and a six-pack, and a six-pack
and so we shag, and we chug
a man does think of all things obscene
your memory let me help you jog
a man could trade his self esteem
for an all-nighter with a broad
in evolution horniness rules supreme
arrow-tipped sperm pointing the road
i regret offending your hygiene
ma'am but things are as grave as they seem
to play biology you need a team
and for this ma'am, i have a scheme
and it's as simple as pouring hot liquid in a jug
a 'receptacle' you say, a stereotype extreme
but that's as far as my lizard intellect had dug
and for this ma'am i have a scheme
and it begins with a word, and a monologue
and it ends with a sigh and a monologue
a medium of a kind, creme de la creme
and a disclaimer as long as a brothel's log
i have a blog
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Tuesday, December 07, 2010
The Decision Maker's Dilemma
‘Decision-making’ is one of those funny terms in the jargon of business and politics that could mean anything from 'not knowing what the hell you're doing' to 'stalling', 'filibuster', 'repression', 'bypassing', 'skullduggery' ..etc.. It portrays the ‘decision making’ process as one that entails putting together smaller components; soliciting opinions and feedbacks from various players who have a stake in the matter; weighing different options against each others. And so on. And sometimes this is indeed what happens in real life. The decision gets to be put in the process of making, as opposed to have been made already, before the deliberations about how to make it are underway.
I do get the impression, however, that most of the time decision makers have had made up their minds before consulting their underlings and associates. And here’s the real dilemma: they send out letters, enquiries and questionnaires, requesting the inputs of those who matter. But then (depending on the diversity of the choices available and on the amount of dissent permissible) when finally a decision that had been made earlier becomes public and affirmed, the decision maker, who had subconsciously made the decision beforehand, and who went through the motion for the sake of curiosity or thrill, this decision maker will be in a bit of a bind: what to do with the very valid points and vectors of opposition that he had gotten aimed at himself and his decision? He could, for the heck of it, ignore them. Since, well, if you have the capacity of making a decision without oversight breathing down your neck, then you also have the capacity of ignoring, muzzling, and even suppressing dissent.
But this is not how despots think. The decision maker, who’d already made his decision before asking you to proffer your valued opinion on the subject, truly believes that his decision is the smartest, most brilliant (albeit also the most self-serving) one of all. He feels unwittingly insulted by the exposure of flaws and pinpointing of shortcomings in his decision. But what he’s supposed to do about it? The decision had already been made, and he still sincerely, honest-to-god believes that his decision is the finest, most ambitious and visionary one out there. So what should he do to alleviate the feeling of inadequacy he ends up feeling about his decision-making process? He tries to get the opposition, those with the most valid and differing point of views, to change their minds. To see things from his perspective. From his mind-set and his state of being when he’d started making the decision before the decision-making process was supposed to commence. The following scene unfolds:
Despot: I think you made a compelling argument for why your method of approaching the impending crisis is more effective than the one I’d proposed. But hey, don’t you feel that, in the greater scheme of things, we might be able to salvage more assets in the long run by staying the course?
Dissident: Hmm. Nope. I mean, I see the merits of your argument vis-a-vis the status quo. But sitting on our hands is not an option. This is the time for action.
Despot: true, true. But hey, all I’m saying is, veering off from our envisioned trajectory that we’d been plotting with great care for the last decade isn’t an easy, spur-of-the-moment decision. There’s got to be more telltales of a radical, permanent shift in the market situation for us to react the way you’re proposing. You certainly see my point?
Dissident: I certainly see your point. But honestly I don’t see why we’re having this conversation: I’d already exhaustively explained the advantages of tweaking our policies for the upcoming fiscal year. You’d see in my report that I’d played out scenarios of all the possibilities and risks you’re talking about, and I still concluded that this is the best way to go. I can’t put it any better. If my report couldn’t secure your conviction in my proposal then nothing else will, this conversation included.
Despot: Fine, fine. We’re still tossing ideas to see if some last-minute spark of inspiration could break this …standstill. I want the best for this company. And I want us to be on the same page…..
Dissident: well, sir, with all due respect. I’ve already said what I have to say about the subject matter. Take it or leave it.
This scene could go on for a while. And it depends on the resilience and backbone of the dissident. Eventually, he/she could stalk out of the room with exasperation. Or agree to disagree in the most amenable manner and make his/her retreat. Or, if his/her concern for the well being of the despot’s ego surpasses his/her faith in his/her own judgment, he/she could yield and succumb to pressure and eventually agree that the despot’s is the way.
But barring a smooth and unwrinkled conclusion of the decision-maker’s impasse, don’t you, with all the compassion of your heart, empathize with the decision-maker and his dilemma?
Despots of the world, I feel for you. Hang in there…
I do get the impression, however, that most of the time decision makers have had made up their minds before consulting their underlings and associates. And here’s the real dilemma: they send out letters, enquiries and questionnaires, requesting the inputs of those who matter. But then (depending on the diversity of the choices available and on the amount of dissent permissible) when finally a decision that had been made earlier becomes public and affirmed, the decision maker, who had subconsciously made the decision beforehand, and who went through the motion for the sake of curiosity or thrill, this decision maker will be in a bit of a bind: what to do with the very valid points and vectors of opposition that he had gotten aimed at himself and his decision? He could, for the heck of it, ignore them. Since, well, if you have the capacity of making a decision without oversight breathing down your neck, then you also have the capacity of ignoring, muzzling, and even suppressing dissent.
But this is not how despots think. The decision maker, who’d already made his decision before asking you to proffer your valued opinion on the subject, truly believes that his decision is the smartest, most brilliant (albeit also the most self-serving) one of all. He feels unwittingly insulted by the exposure of flaws and pinpointing of shortcomings in his decision. But what he’s supposed to do about it? The decision had already been made, and he still sincerely, honest-to-god believes that his decision is the finest, most ambitious and visionary one out there. So what should he do to alleviate the feeling of inadequacy he ends up feeling about his decision-making process? He tries to get the opposition, those with the most valid and differing point of views, to change their minds. To see things from his perspective. From his mind-set and his state of being when he’d started making the decision before the decision-making process was supposed to commence. The following scene unfolds:
Despot: I think you made a compelling argument for why your method of approaching the impending crisis is more effective than the one I’d proposed. But hey, don’t you feel that, in the greater scheme of things, we might be able to salvage more assets in the long run by staying the course?
Dissident: Hmm. Nope. I mean, I see the merits of your argument vis-a-vis the status quo. But sitting on our hands is not an option. This is the time for action.
Despot: true, true. But hey, all I’m saying is, veering off from our envisioned trajectory that we’d been plotting with great care for the last decade isn’t an easy, spur-of-the-moment decision. There’s got to be more telltales of a radical, permanent shift in the market situation for us to react the way you’re proposing. You certainly see my point?
Dissident: I certainly see your point. But honestly I don’t see why we’re having this conversation: I’d already exhaustively explained the advantages of tweaking our policies for the upcoming fiscal year. You’d see in my report that I’d played out scenarios of all the possibilities and risks you’re talking about, and I still concluded that this is the best way to go. I can’t put it any better. If my report couldn’t secure your conviction in my proposal then nothing else will, this conversation included.
Despot: Fine, fine. We’re still tossing ideas to see if some last-minute spark of inspiration could break this …standstill. I want the best for this company. And I want us to be on the same page…..
Dissident: well, sir, with all due respect. I’ve already said what I have to say about the subject matter. Take it or leave it.
(Think Tom Hanks in Angles and Demons: "Guys....You called me!")
This scene could go on for a while. And it depends on the resilience and backbone of the dissident. Eventually, he/she could stalk out of the room with exasperation. Or agree to disagree in the most amenable manner and make his/her retreat. Or, if his/her concern for the well being of the despot’s ego surpasses his/her faith in his/her own judgment, he/she could yield and succumb to pressure and eventually agree that the despot’s is the way.
But barring a smooth and unwrinkled conclusion of the decision-maker’s impasse, don’t you, with all the compassion of your heart, empathize with the decision-maker and his dilemma?
Despots of the world, I feel for you. Hang in there…
Monday, December 06, 2010
A Word About What's Been Leaking And Lacking
There is something slightly troublesome about the whole wikileaks saga. Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for more transparency and more governments' accountability as far as foreign policy is concerned, and for leaders to say in private what they say in public…etc... But there’s something really bothersome about the wikileaks' discourse. Something that had either been omitted or ignored, which I’m going to summarize in a few words:
To my American and European friends who live under democratically elected governments and are (probably rightfully) angry about the wikileaks revelations: seriously, what are you getting your knickers in a twist about? What’s so new about these revelations? Like, do you even know or care what your governments did before in PLAIN SIGHT? And what were you doing about it then? Have you heard of the Goldstone report? How is that for a leak? What are you going to do about your governments covering up war crimes? Your leaders aren’t even bothered about your reactions to the stuff that you are allowed to see and read, why should they bother now? Again, have you heard of the Goldstone report? Americans, how do you feel about your congress condemning a report it had not read (according to rep. Dennis Kucinich)?
You have the right to be angry. But please don’t insult my intelligence. Outrageous and anger-inducing stuff have been out in the open for a long, long time…
I have much more to say and more questions and examples to bring up. But I'll spare you
And in return, please....Spare me…
To my American and European friends who live under democratically elected governments and are (probably rightfully) angry about the wikileaks revelations: seriously, what are you getting your knickers in a twist about? What’s so new about these revelations? Like, do you even know or care what your governments did before in PLAIN SIGHT? And what were you doing about it then? Have you heard of the Goldstone report? How is that for a leak? What are you going to do about your governments covering up war crimes? Your leaders aren’t even bothered about your reactions to the stuff that you are allowed to see and read, why should they bother now? Again, have you heard of the Goldstone report? Americans, how do you feel about your congress condemning a report it had not read (according to rep. Dennis Kucinich)?
You have the right to be angry. But please don’t insult my intelligence. Outrageous and anger-inducing stuff have been out in the open for a long, long time…
I have much more to say and more questions and examples to bring up. But I'll spare you
And in return, please....Spare me…
Sunday, December 05, 2010
Tips For Architects Doing Interior Design Jobs
I thought I’d write something professional and useful for once. So bear with me.
I’ve handled a couple of modest interior design jobs recently. And I thought I’d share with my fellow architects a few tips that could get you through a similar challenge with the best possible results. Although, from a broader point of view, these tips are applicable for everyone who works in design.
There’s no substantial difference between architecture and interior design, except maybe that what we do is cruder and less insane. The majority of career architects I know are hesitant about getting mired in the great expanses of the amoebic field that is interior design. Personally speaking, what I find unsettling about interior design is handling loose items (like furniture, etc). The way I see it, architecture is structured and stationary. Yes, doors revolve and windows swing and skylight slides and sun screens revolve; and yet all these elements are still structured and static, in their own way. Interior design, on the other hand, deals with a menagerie of loose and disconnected items. And there’s nothing more infuriating to me like fussing over things endlessly. I know an interior designer of a hotel who had to change an artifact behind a reception desk FIVE TIMES before he settled down for something less aesthetically attractive that what he’d started with. As far as I see it, taking out women shopping might be more bearable. Sorry, I’m not your best gay friend (no offense to gays)…
Anyway, enough with the drivels, here goes:
1- Function: Is far less important in interior design than in mainstream architecture. Set your theme and don’t shy away from trying something bold.
2- Perspectives (or 'artistic illustrations', as Gulf News likes to call them) are your friends: But you should define all the materials you are using in advance. You are entitled for a little wild thought-experiments while doodling, but whatever you show the client has to be tangible and solid. (And backed up with materials). And it follows from here that you should know your materials in advance and be prepared. Think of your materials as your vocabulary, can you write well without vocabulary? (I’ve heard this metaphor from a very mediocre and under-achieving interior designer).
3- The devil is in the details: Except here you are going to have to deal with the devil. You should have a strategy for detailing that covers all ambiguous areas, without ending up exhausted and behind schedule. Walk through your design front to back, back to front, top to bottom, left to right, in the dark, in the sunshine, like a child, like an adult, with a critical eye, blind, on wheelchair…etc... A good finished product is one that is universal in its appeal.
4- You are going to have to be persuasive. No client will accept ink on glossy papers without a supportive, passionate spiel. And the initial No, (especially in our part of the world), doesn’t always mean No: it could mean a) I like this design, you’re a good designer, but I’m a bit of a spoiled brat and I need some coaxing to proffer my consent. b) I like this design, but I’m not going to sound cheap and easy. You’re going to have to work a little harder. c) I like this design, but I’m not sure. I really am not sure. I’m hesitant. I’m ambivalent. Oh, God. I’m anxious. I feel weak and hollow and defenseless and I need reassurances. I need support. d) I like your design, but I never buy from the first shop ‘round the corner. Try harder…and so on. It’s incumbent upon you, and you owe it to your design, to exhaust all these possibilities before you give up and surrender to another round of doodling.
5- Respect budget: I always wonder why the fuck most construction projects overshoot budget (especially in our part of the world). And in order to understand why the fuck most construction projects overshoot budget you should take all factors into account: strike down price escalations (and this has indeed been a serious problem in the last 5 years, with the mad vacillation of all raw materials), put aside changes and additions and expansions and upgrades, and you still end up with incompetent budgeting. Or maybe it’s a deliberate, wishful, superstitious act meant to entrap clients and then after they realized they’re going have to pay more it’ll be too late to backtrack….. For whatever reason: Interior Design jobs are the most susceptible to budget overshoots. And for a good reason: pretty and desirable materials aren’t cheap. The old trick of decking out a building in affordable materials and making sure it still looks pretty five years down the line isn’t only overrated: it’s also risky. More often than not, cheap materials mean there are no warrantees and no qualified staff for installation. Be honest about budget limits upfront.
6- Be humble: assertiveness doesn’t always mean downright condescension. If your client is a nomad who’d struck luck and made it big and his taste in cars and clothes makes your stomach turn; then tough shit. You signed up for the job. You should know how to sell your idea without talking down to your client.
7- Be part of the contractor selection process: Meet them face-to-face and make sure you’re on the same page. Communication is crucial here. No matter how well your design is thought-out and detailed on paper, if the contractor and his foremen can’t understand (or accept) your verbal instructions and comments at site, the finished product loses a significant part of its quality.
8- Ask for mock-ups: If you’re still unsure about certain areas in the design, ask the contractor to make mock-ups of them (2 x 2 square, or 2 linear) and show it to your client. Mock-ups are of a great assistance when you have repetitive elements in your design. And they help everybody envisage how things are going to look like eventually.
Finally, make sure you have a plan B always on the ready: basically to severe all your professional contacts and drop from public eye for a couple of weeks. This will come in handy when it turns out that your design actually sucks when the job is completed.
I’ve handled a couple of modest interior design jobs recently. And I thought I’d share with my fellow architects a few tips that could get you through a similar challenge with the best possible results. Although, from a broader point of view, these tips are applicable for everyone who works in design.
There’s no substantial difference between architecture and interior design, except maybe that what we do is cruder and less insane. The majority of career architects I know are hesitant about getting mired in the great expanses of the amoebic field that is interior design. Personally speaking, what I find unsettling about interior design is handling loose items (like furniture, etc). The way I see it, architecture is structured and stationary. Yes, doors revolve and windows swing and skylight slides and sun screens revolve; and yet all these elements are still structured and static, in their own way. Interior design, on the other hand, deals with a menagerie of loose and disconnected items. And there’s nothing more infuriating to me like fussing over things endlessly. I know an interior designer of a hotel who had to change an artifact behind a reception desk FIVE TIMES before he settled down for something less aesthetically attractive that what he’d started with. As far as I see it, taking out women shopping might be more bearable. Sorry, I’m not your best gay friend (no offense to gays)…
Anyway, enough with the drivels, here goes:
1- Function: Is far less important in interior design than in mainstream architecture. Set your theme and don’t shy away from trying something bold.
2- Perspectives (or 'artistic illustrations', as Gulf News likes to call them) are your friends: But you should define all the materials you are using in advance. You are entitled for a little wild thought-experiments while doodling, but whatever you show the client has to be tangible and solid. (And backed up with materials). And it follows from here that you should know your materials in advance and be prepared. Think of your materials as your vocabulary, can you write well without vocabulary? (I’ve heard this metaphor from a very mediocre and under-achieving interior designer).
3- The devil is in the details: Except here you are going to have to deal with the devil. You should have a strategy for detailing that covers all ambiguous areas, without ending up exhausted and behind schedule. Walk through your design front to back, back to front, top to bottom, left to right, in the dark, in the sunshine, like a child, like an adult, with a critical eye, blind, on wheelchair…etc... A good finished product is one that is universal in its appeal.
4- You are going to have to be persuasive. No client will accept ink on glossy papers without a supportive, passionate spiel. And the initial No, (especially in our part of the world), doesn’t always mean No: it could mean a) I like this design, you’re a good designer, but I’m a bit of a spoiled brat and I need some coaxing to proffer my consent. b) I like this design, but I’m not going to sound cheap and easy. You’re going to have to work a little harder. c) I like this design, but I’m not sure. I really am not sure. I’m hesitant. I’m ambivalent. Oh, God. I’m anxious. I feel weak and hollow and defenseless and I need reassurances. I need support. d) I like your design, but I never buy from the first shop ‘round the corner. Try harder…and so on. It’s incumbent upon you, and you owe it to your design, to exhaust all these possibilities before you give up and surrender to another round of doodling.
5- Respect budget: I always wonder why the fuck most construction projects overshoot budget (especially in our part of the world). And in order to understand why the fuck most construction projects overshoot budget you should take all factors into account: strike down price escalations (and this has indeed been a serious problem in the last 5 years, with the mad vacillation of all raw materials), put aside changes and additions and expansions and upgrades, and you still end up with incompetent budgeting. Or maybe it’s a deliberate, wishful, superstitious act meant to entrap clients and then after they realized they’re going have to pay more it’ll be too late to backtrack….. For whatever reason: Interior Design jobs are the most susceptible to budget overshoots. And for a good reason: pretty and desirable materials aren’t cheap. The old trick of decking out a building in affordable materials and making sure it still looks pretty five years down the line isn’t only overrated: it’s also risky. More often than not, cheap materials mean there are no warrantees and no qualified staff for installation. Be honest about budget limits upfront.
6- Be humble: assertiveness doesn’t always mean downright condescension. If your client is a nomad who’d struck luck and made it big and his taste in cars and clothes makes your stomach turn; then tough shit. You signed up for the job. You should know how to sell your idea without talking down to your client.
7- Be part of the contractor selection process: Meet them face-to-face and make sure you’re on the same page. Communication is crucial here. No matter how well your design is thought-out and detailed on paper, if the contractor and his foremen can’t understand (or accept) your verbal instructions and comments at site, the finished product loses a significant part of its quality.
8- Ask for mock-ups: If you’re still unsure about certain areas in the design, ask the contractor to make mock-ups of them (2 x 2 square, or 2 linear) and show it to your client. Mock-ups are of a great assistance when you have repetitive elements in your design. And they help everybody envisage how things are going to look like eventually.
Finally, make sure you have a plan B always on the ready: basically to severe all your professional contacts and drop from public eye for a couple of weeks. This will come in handy when it turns out that your design actually sucks when the job is completed.
Wednesday, December 01, 2010
Happy National Day, UAE!
I walked through the patio of the Dubai Municipality building, a space otherwise vacant except for the stray guy smoking a cigarette by the fountain or a distressed consulting engineer on the phone with a contractor (phone calls of such kind, devoid of any recognizable code of civility, have to be conducted out of doors). But today was remarkably different: stalls of traditional local food and crafts, wide and expansive wooden benches and thick, floor mounted mats forming entwined majlises were erected to celebrate the occasion of the 39th birthday of the country. The entire space was adorned with flags and pictures of the leaders and pioneers of this young yet great nation.
I took a slip of paper from the automated token machine and sat underneath an intricate skylight feature on one of the cushioned waiting chairs. As my turn came closer, an extremely polite young man approached me and asked if I can afford him a 'five minutes of my time', for a customer satisfaction survey he's doing. He said he represents an independent research firm doing a survey in this regard on the behalf of DM (Dubai Municipality). I said sure, but I'd have to move on once my number is called on the electronic board. He went through the standard issue questions of profession and areas of interest. Then he asked about my name. I said I'd only be comfortable giving him my first name, if he was in turn interested in a candid response from me. This elicited a smile on his part and he said it's not a problem.
There is no doubt that the UAE is a great country. A small nation that had made great strides in the areas of trade, media, education, tourism, construction, entrepreneurship, etc. And I'm extremely happy to have witnessed milestone events while living here: the commencement of construction, the construction itself and inauguration of the Dubai metro; the inauguration of Burj Khalifah; the opening, respectively, of the Mall of the Emirates, the Dubai Mall and the Atlantis hotel, the opening of the gorgeous grand Sheikh Zayed mosque in Abu Dhabi; the UAE national team winning the Gulf Cup in 2007....just to name a few. I've been here 6 years, and it's been a whirlwind of events, some memorable, others less so. I'm grateful for being here and for the opportunity to have exposure to the latest trends and techniques in the world of construction. In hindsight, I could have probably made more money staying at home and setting up my own engineering practice, but the lifestyle (transient and taxing as it may be), the professional experience that could be garnered and the work and life ethics (flawed as they may be) are some of the things that kept me here.
But my love for the UAE (and more specifically, Dubai), is marred by something akin to the expectations of a cynical couple. There is nothing more frustrating than not being able to exhibit your full potential to your best half. There is nothing more foolish than the recidivism of those who are constantly trapped in a unilateral love affairs. And my cognizance of these restraints and circumscriptions keeps me from voicing my concerns in a more articulate and vocal fashion. It's always a questionnaire filled on a first name basis or an anonymous blog post. And hence, I tend to keep my love at bay.
On the other hand, you have the ilk of people with their sets of ready made demands. They rant and rave on the comments section of the less scrutinized English dailies. They go on about how unfair and backward things are, for them. And how unfair things are for those less unfortunate. The valid points they sometimes make are undermined by the arrogant sense of propriety and entitlement in which they deliver their message. Never mind that their conceited attitude is supported by the exact system they seem to despise. A system of accent, color, and nationality privilege. Make no mistake about it, this is not a broken love affair where the couple fail to engage and communicate openly. For this group of people, the expectations and lists of demands are an independent being of its own. Probably never meant or expected to be acted upon. It's perhaps their way of justifying the gaps and disparateness, if for no one else but themselves.
Eventually, I discarded my time slot with the intended counter and sat with the researcher for fifteen minutes, explaining to him passionately what I think is wrong and how it could be improved. His face contoured with concentration as he tried to summarize my fiery remarks. I have no doubt that DM sincerely wants to improve their services and make life easier for everyone involved. And I wish them nothing but good luck, on a first name basis.
Happy National Day, United Arab Emirates. Here's to many more happy returns.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)