No shirt, no service

I admit, I have a bit of a problem. I wouldn't consider it a fetish nor an addiction, so no worries about any need for an intervention here. But for as long as I can recall dressing myself, I have been a big fan of unique t-shirts.

Ok, ok. Who isn't, right? I mean, we all get a chuckle out of the Urban Outfitters ones ("Visit Philadelphia, Stay For the Crack" with a pic of the Liberty Bell in the middle is still my all-time fave from there). And of course, there is/was the 'hipster' scene where everyone that was anyone is/was paying triple digits for a designer T. Plus, I am a guy, so having a t-shirt tendency is about as common as girls having a preference for a Renee Zellwegger movie over Predator.

I think it all started with a t-shirt I bought/won/got free at a fair, the Hamburg County Fair (outside Buffalo) to be exact, when I was 12ish. It was gray and had this adorable cow (I also had a cow thing) drawn on it with a hat that said something like "1989 Hamburg County Fair" or something. Simple, but ironicish before that was cool and before I even knew what that meant. The material was so comfortable and I wore it for many, many years later, helped by the fact that around this age I started buying everything in XL for no apparent reason.

Then at about 15, when one tends to actually have more say in ones attire due to spending money, I bought THE shirt that more or less defined me for 10 years. It was the iconic 'Spicolli van' Beastie Boys ringer shirt. (That sound you just heard is from my friends that knew me then doing a collective groan. I considered scanning a pic to show it, but thought said friends would also gouge out their eyes.) As much as my friends hated the shirt from seeing it so much, it was also loved just as much and worn by almost every girl I (semi)dated and some of the said friends during this time. Mind you, this was all pre-internet shopping and Cafepress where cool t-shirts were hard to find, especially when you lived in BFE, let alone a Beastie Boys shirt. (I probably don't need to mention I was probably the only Beastie Boys fan in my entire high school, also much to the chagrin of anyone that rode in my Renault.) Sadly, after serving me and many a walk of shame well over those 10 years, I forgot the shirt at a hotel. Of course I tried to contact the hotel to get it back, to no avail.

Also, during college and the new "electronic age", I was able to find and express my clothing attire much more easily in the form of everyone's favorite 90's fad, wearing my favorite band shirt. Between buying them at their concert and the local music stores (the what?!?), I had at least three(3!) Rage Against the Machine t-shirts. Due to this, at some point in this relatively short phase, I overheard some friends refer to me as "the Rage guy" to someone else. I think this made me start to reconsider my RATM t-shirts and probably with much help from my gf at the time, had a "Township Rebellion" before there were "Bulls on Parade" and let the shirts "Sleep Now in the Fire". Ok, quickly moving on...

My t-shirt persona laid dormant for awhile as I entered the workforce. But while on a work trip to California, I got the idea that with all the traveling I do with work and after hours cool bar visiting, I should collect t-shirts from the bars I like. Luckily, this phase only lasted a few months. Although, I still have one last shirt from that era from The Vortex in Atlanta. On one of these trips to LA, I picked up an AC/DC shirt (yeah, still with the bands) and my "I only date crack whores" shirts at Venice Beach, which I usually only break out on special occasions.

This brings me to an important point. I don't care the band, the designer or the irony of the shirt; it shouldn't cost more than another piece of clothing I am wearing. As much as I'd be willing to (K, look away) take $10,000 from SA's college fund to pay for a private concert from AC/DC in my backyard, I refuse to pay $50 for a concert T, sorry guys. T-shirts are by definition supposed to be casual, reflective of the person, and a low brow accessibility. If you pay more than $50 for a t-shit, all it says about you is that you are kind of douchey. Moving along...

With the internet booming, I started to much more easily acquire and meet my t-shirt needs. Via T-Shirt Hell (back in its early days) and Cafe Press. However, after moving toward the much latter half of my 20's, my t-shirt taste got a little more sophisticated. Now, I prefer more original and well designed shirts.

I've purchased a couple shirts from Sheri Moon Zombie, Rob Zombie's wife, from her Total Skull line. Also, I got what appear to one of the last "Sometimes I Worry About Zombies" shirts from Tinaseamonster. I was actually contemplating the end of my t-shirt buying days. That is, until today, when in a span of 30 minutes, I came across two sites that completely turned me back into that 15 year old kid.

The first is Mondo Tees, which I think is out of Texas. I can't decide to get the Swedish Nurses shirt from their vintage porn collection or BadAss Grindhouse Girl from their BadAss collection. The also have this funny one...

Then when checking out Lenore's site, she tipped me off to a friend of Daniel's (you should remember these two from my Frankfurt Halloween post) who is a designer. Alfalfa-Seeds designer Raphael has done a super cool '7 Deadly Sins' collection. I can't decide between 'Lujuria' (lust) or 'Soberbia' (pride), although given the tone of this post, I think lust seems to be the obvious choice.

Well, at least you all know what to get me for Christmas now. But what is your favorite t-shirt you have either owned or thought was clever?

What my blog looks like 50 years from now...

Give or take 49 years...

Watch CBS Videos OnlineI'd like to apply to be the next Andy Rooney. That would be the perfect job to me.

Happy Birthday Nikola Tesla!

One hundred and fifty three years ago, in a village far, far away, well, kind of far, over in today's country of Croatia, Nikola Tesla was born. You may be asking yourself, 'And so?' Well, it just so happens that Tesla was the father of electricity. Sure, you may have learned in elementary school that Thomas Edison "invented" electricity, although that is like saying Newton invented gravity and Columbus "discovered" the New World. Tesla was a tad eccentric and scared the daylights out of a lot of people due to his electrical experiments. However, if not for him (and NOT Edison, who was a bitter rival of Tesla's), we wouldn't have the following:

1. AC (Alternating Current), which is still how power is provided to the masses. (It is converted to DC (Direct Current) at your home). Also, we wouldn't have the band name AC/DC, which I'd be very sad about.
2. Wireless communication which would later be called "radio". Not to mention ALL the wireless technologies we now use today based on this one discovery.
3. The tesla unit for measuring magnetism, the pioneering inventor in this field.
4. Wireless energy transfer, which he demonstrated as early as 1893, yet we are still trying to perfect. No Hot Pockets without this!
5. He also theorized, yet never put into practical use, what we would consider an electronic bomb; a weapon that would wipe out electricity and electrical components in a wide swath of area, a common theme in dystopian stories, and was shown as an actual occurrence following a nuclear detonation.

Also, we wouldn't have the band Tesla and the song "Signs" to sing when drunk.

So Happy Birthday and flick your lights on and off in honor of the Father of Electricity!

If only it was this easy and true!

Socialism will make me rich!

I always scoff and often outwardly laugh out loud whenever I hear people get all Chicken Little when talking about the current administration's plans and how it will make the US 'socialist'. Whenever anyone says this, it proves to me that they clearly don't even understand the definition of socialism. Sure, Obama has plans that contain more socially conscience policies, but that is no different than saying Ronald Reagan was more socialist than Calvin Coolidge, which is true if you follow most of the pundits' and Tea Baggers' logic. Also, most of the countries singled out as 'socialist' don't even make the definition, for instance most of Western Europe. These countries, even Sweden and France, are still capitalist economies that function much like our own. Even the USSR wasn't socialist and for most of its existence was a state capitalist economy, similar to how China functions today. But I digress.

The point here is that for all the screaming and shouting about the end of times and how these programs and policies will ruin the economy and growth in this country, the facts prove just the opposite. Weston Wellington, Vice President of Dimensional Fund Advisers, put together a fantastic analysis of the current market situation and where it may be heading. The part that I found most interesting is Part 5, titled "Is Nationalization a Threat?" If you listen to the Chicken Littles on Fox, CNBC, paid right wing pundits, and a lot of bloggers, the answer to that question seems like an obvious "YES"! However, facts, not fear, paint a different picture.

As Wellington mentions during his presentation, this fear of moving away from the free market arises after every economic crisis. This time is no different. However, he points out why the fear is not only misguided, but from an economic growth related to investor and market gains, this is also ignorant. Over the past 10 years (see slide 5), the US ranks 20th out of 23rd in annualized percent returns. In fact, traditionally 'socialist' countries such as Canada(#1)(and a full 10% better than the US -1.7% return), Norway(#3), Denmark(#5), and France(#12) all out performed the US during this time. Granted, ten years is a relatively short time to compare these numbers, especially when you factor in the horrible year the free market caused in the US. If you go back 39 years (slide 6 and the oldest data available), the US still trails countries such as Canada, Sweden, Denmark, France, and Norway. The US ranks 15th out of 18 countries over this period.

So, what does this tell us? It means that in the short-term, government involvement will LESSEN the losses and shrinkage of an economy, allowing companies and ultimately economies of countries to continue to grow. In the long-term, it shows that government involvement does NOT hurt growth and company profits as is often the rallying cry of the Chicken Littles and in fact these economies have historically outperformed freer markets. The next time you see or hear a Chicken Little professing 'the end of times', give them these facts to dry their eyes.

Billy Mays and Healthcare concerns

More sad news this weekend as I heard that Billy Mays, of the infamous OxiClean commercials, died yesterday after a rough landing on a flight into Tampa made objects fall on his head. He was only 50. You may not recognize the name, but you definitely know his face and voice if you have ever watched TV in the past five years....

This guy could sell ice to an Eskimo! I always wanted whatever he was selling on tv. The NYT did an amazing piece on him about a year ago, a mini-biography, chronicling his rise and fame as a tv pitchman. All around, nice, hard-working guy that loved what he did and made sure he only sold items he felt were legit. I'm hoping for a weekend marathon of his work just like all the Michael Jackson/Farrah Fawcett stuff this past weekend.

In a sadly related vein, there has been a lot of bitching and moaning about Obama's (scaled back) plan for national healthcare. First of all, it is meant ONLY for those that do NOT have health insurance currently. It is an attempt to make healthcare affordable to the millions of unemployed, underemployed (less than 35 hours a week), and workers who simply do not get benefits from their typically small business they work for. The idea that this will REPLACE private insurance is fear mongering. In fact, government "controlled" healthcare ALREADY exists, yet private insurance is alive and well. For instance, MY insurance is managed in a similar fashion. Due to the large number of government employees, many insurance companies compete with lower premiums to cover us. I get a choice of about 10 different providers, depending on my needs. This is also what Congress gets. I expect the final Obama plan will more or less be like this.

However, IF the government is truly the single-payer control for this national healthcare, it wouldn't be the first time this has been shown to be successful. Currently, the military and the millions of users (ie families) that use TRI-CARE are ALREADY in a government controlled national/international healthcare system. It provides, based upon government rules and cost restrictions and managed by an Executive Branch office (Department of Defense), fast and professional healthcare at an affordable cost for all of our military and their families. It is often rated as one of the best health care providers.

Another complaint about the proposed plan is that people compare it to other countries, mostly Europe and Canada, where 99% of the people in this country have NO experience with and only presumptions by talking heads on tv and the radio. No system is perfect, but I trust what people IN those countries have to say and do than what some millionaire personality has to say. For instance, I have friends that live in Germany that although don't LOVE the German national healtcare system, prefer it to the US system. On June 7th, a Canadian reporter for the Denver Post provided her response to comments she often hears about the Canadian healthcare system. A quick summary:

Myth: Taxes in Canada are extremely high, mostly because of national health care.
In actuality, taxes are nearly equal on both sides of the border. Overall, Canada's taxes are slightly higher than those in the U.S. However, Canadians are afforded many benefits for their tax dollars, even beyond health care (e.g., tax credits, family allowance, cheaper higher education), so the end result is a wash. At the end of the day, the average after-tax income of Canadian workers is equal to about 82 percent of their gross pay. In the U.S., that average is 81.9 percent.

Myth: Canada's health care system is a cumbersome bureaucracy.
The U.S. has the most bureaucratic health care system in the world. More than 31 percent of every dollar spent on health care in the U.S. goes to paperwork, overhead, CEO salaries, profits, etc. The provincial single-payer system in Canada operates with just a 1 percent overhead.

Myth: The Canadian system is significantly more expensive than that of the U.S.
Ten percent of Canada's GDP is spent on health care for 100 percent of the population. The U.S. spends 17 percent of its GDP but 15 percent of its population has no coverage whatsoever and millions of others have inadequate coverage. In essence, the U.S. system is considerably more expensive than Canada's...People who cannot afford care wait until advanced stages of an illness to see a doctor and then do so through emergency rooms, which cost considerably more than primary care services. What the American taxpayer may not realize is that such care costs about $45 billion per year, and someone has to pay it.

Myth: Canada's government decides who gets health care and when they get it.
While HMOs and other private medical insurers in the U.S. do indeed make such decisions, the only people in Canada to do so are physicians. In Canada, the government has absolutely no say in who gets care or how they get it. Medical decisions are left entirely up to doctors, as they should be. There are no requirements for pre-authorization whatsoever.

Myth: There are long waits for care, which compromise access to care.
There are no waits for urgent or primary care in Canada. There are reasonable waits for most specialists' care, and much longer waits for elective surgery. Yes, there are those instances where a patient can wait up to a month for radiation therapy for breast cancer or prostate cancer, for example. However, the wait has nothing to do with money per se, but everything to do with the lack of radiation therapists. {ed. note - Although this sounds bad, this is no different than any major metropolitan city, including Washington, DC, where you often have to make appts weeks or MONTHS in advance to see a specialist.}

Myth: Canadians are paying out of pocket to come to the U.S. for medical care.
Most patients who come from Canada to the U.S. for health care are those whose costs are covered by the Canadian governments. If a Canadian goes outside of the country to get services that are deemed medically necessary...the provincial government where you live fully funds your care.

Myth: Canada is a socialized health care system in which the government runs hospitals and where doctors work for the government.
Most physicians in Canada are self-employed. They are not employees of the government nor are they accountable to the government. Doctors are accountable to their patients only. More than 90 percent of physicians in Canada are paid on a fee-for-service basis.

Myth: There aren't enough doctors in Canada.
From a purely statistical standpoint, there are enough physicians in Canada to meet the health care needs of its people. But most doctors practice in large urban areas, leaving rural areas with bona fide shortages. This situation is no different than that being experienced in the U.S.

Granted, I won't go out and say the Canadian, the UK or any Euro system is perfect, just like Obama's or eventual compromised plan won't be. But clearly, the system we have now is NOT working and we are all paying for it anyways. It's time we joined the civilized world and gave health coverage to those that do not have the means to obtain it elsewhere. There is this famous saying that insanity is defined as doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results, which is what we have done with healthcare in this country for decades. It is time to stop fearing the boogie man under our bed and finally fix one of the problems plaguing this country.

First Father's Day

You ever come up with a good idea, especially for a blog post, and then have like a paragraph or two of Seinfeld-esque witticisms that you think will have your readers peeing their pants?!? I did, but between when I was thinking of it on Saturday for this post and now, sitting down and having time to do it, I lost it all. Anywhoot...

I realized I haven't done a what I've been up to post in a long time and this, being my first ever Father's Day as a father, seemed to be an appropriate time to talk about the more important things. Actually, I knew Father's Day was coming up, even bought something for my dad and back on Mother's Day, I got K something as well. Plus, the fact that my home has been invaded by a quasi-constant attention needing pooping and spitting-up creature that makes random noises should be clue enough that I am a 'father'. But what can I say, I am a bit slow.

The first sense was on Thursday, when a co-worker, not a father, on his way out for the weekend said to me, "Happy Father's Day," to which I responded, "ha, uhm, thanks?!" which through me off of my usual pedestrian auto response to co-workers' "Have a good weekend" report. I thought, wow, this IS a day about ME. Another co-worker, this time a father and about my age, wished me the same thing, this time allowing me to rattle back quickly "Thanks and you too!"

The actual day was pretty nice. We all went downstairs, like normal, after SA's level of boredom from lying around in bed, slowly allowing her parents to wake up, and desire to be entertained finally reached its maximum level. I received my very thoughtful gift from "SA", including a card that K and SA "picked out" that actually was surprisingly touching to me, considering SA can't actually say anything yet and her ability to show appreciation of me is to laugh at my very crappy dancing, jokes, funny faces, and not intentionally poop when I am changing her (she leaves that for mommy!). K did a very cute thing in the card and got SA's hand impression in the card.

For the afternoon, we met up with K's parents to take her dad to a Nationals game for his Father's Day gift. After some tension filled moments driving around SW DC looking for a seemingly mythical parking lot, we enjoyed a perfect afternoon baseball game at one of the nicest sporting establishments I have ever been to. I don't even like baseball, but had a good time. Here are some pics to prove it, including what looks like a paparazzi pic of a celebrity baby adoption arriving at the airport or something...




On Saturday, Obama enjoyed part of his Father's Day weekend in my neighborhood. He and his daughters stopped into Dairy Godmother, an awesome (and now even MORE packed) homemade frozen custard place about three blocks from where we live. Unfortunately, we missed the excitement and motorcade.

Here is another cute picture of SA and me playing flying baby!


BTW, her onesie says "I'm a big deal in Tajikistan!" Poor girl is going to have crazy stuff like this for her whole life thanks to places we'll live and where her parents' friends live, ha.

Is the GOP DOA?

In yesterday's Washington Post ("If you don't get it, you don't get it" is still one of my favorite ad slogans ever), Dan Balz does a great summary on the report issued by the two DC think tanks about the future of the Republican Party, namely, that due to demographics, the Republicans are losing voters faster than they can be replaced. Some key points:

"From whatever angle of their approach -- age, race, economic status, geography -- they have come to a remarkably similar conclusion. Almost all indicators are pressing the Republicans into minority status."

"Democrats have won the popular vote in four of the past five elections, though in one case (2000) they did not end up in the White House."

"...demography and density have combined to help Democrats: They dominate not just the cities but also the urbanized suburbs that contain the largest share of the suburban population in America. Democratic strength in the counties around Philadelphia, around Detroit and in Northern Virginia have squeezed Republicans dramatically. Increasingly, Republican strength outside the urban areas counts for less. "There's just not enough rural folks and small-city people left in America in the key states that determine the electoral college to offset that difference," Lang said. "You're out of people.""

"McCain won the South in November, but Obama swept the rest of the country by an even bigger margin...The South now accounts for a greater share of Republican strength than at virtually any time since the party's founding. That base is too narrow, as even Republicans know."

"The most important is minorities' rising share of the vote. Whites accounted for 76 percent of the overall electorate last November, down from 85 percent in 1988."

"There was much attention paid to Obama's trouble winning the votes of white working-class voters...Since 1988, that group's proportion of the national electorate has dropped by 15 percentage points. In Pennsylvania, Teixeira reported, it has declined by 25 percentage points. Teixeira reported that Obama actually won the votes of working-class whites ages 25 to 29; at this point, they appear more culturally liberal than their elders...As the working-class vote shrinks, the college-educated vote increases, and Democrats are gaining a greater share of these voters. Democrats lost white college graduates by 20 percentage points in 1988 but by four points last November."

"Obama may appeal to younger voters, but their shift toward the Democrats predates his candidacy. "This really is not Obama," Keeter said. "Young voters were John Kerry's best age group. They were the Democratic candidates' best age group in the 2006 elections, and they were the best age group for other Democratic candidates in 2008." Younger voters are more diverse demographically than older voters. In 2008, 62 percent were white, compared with 74 percent eight years earlier. Projections show young voters will become increasingly diverse. They are also less religious and more culturally liberal, two indicators of Democratic support."

If you couple this increasing diversification of American voters with the fact that more and more people are moving to cities, as evidenced in works such as Century of the City, which in general tend to attract more liberal leaning individuals and possibly even liberalize others, away from urban areas, it seems to be a losing battle for the GOP. For instance, I come from a very small, very conservative town. However, every year the town gets smaller due to more and more people moving away (or dying) with very few, if any, people moving to it. This is true across rural America.

As much as I would enjoy having to pour some out in memory of the Republican party, I just don't see it happening. First of all, even I don't think politicians in this country can effectively govern with a one party system. However, the main reason is due to the Constitution. The two party system is here to stay barring a change it and the electoral college's 'first to post' voting system (thanks K!) encourages this. Unless one of the major parties splits into two again, these are the two we will always have. Although, I could see that happening to the Republicans in a worst case scenario in four years if things do not improve for them.

The other reason I don't think this will happen is b/c the Democratic party supposedly received its "last nail" more than once. After the 1968 disaster, Mondale's unfortunate pummeling in 1984, and again in 2000. The reason the Democrats didn't go away is b/c the two party system won't let them. Aside from being cliche now, voters often want "change". If they are unhappy with the results, they vote for the 'other guy'. In our system, right now, the 'other guy' is a Republican and will be barring anything catastrophic only the Republicans could do unto themselves such as splintering or pissing more voters off, especially Latinos.

If Obama's policies fail or a minimum of 51% find them ineffective, the Republicans could be back strong in the 2012 Presidential election or even sooner in the 2010 mid-terms. If they don't turn things around by then, mark January 20, 2016 on your calendar Republican readers. As much as I hate to admit it, I'd put money on a Republican winning that election. Only one time in the past 60 years has a party retained the White House for more than two terms in a row (Reagan and H.W. Bush the exception).

So, for better or worse, I don't believe the GOP is dead, but I do think it needs to reinvent itself to not be the party of "old white guys". Any of my Republican readers have any ideas or requests on what you hope your party becomes?

Because the world needs more death metal...

And because this is my blog and I can post what I want, I present:

DEATH METAL COCKATOO...



Rock out with your Cockatoo out!

"I am going to write a letter!"

For those of you that still doubt that I am an 85 year old man trapped in a much younger body, even after my previous self proclaimed love of Andy Rooney, biggest plans revolve around retirement, and my inability to have any hope for the younger generation(s); I offer up the following example. One of my favorite things to say when presented with something that brings about my often quite high level of disdain for the general populace is that when said offense gets my blood boiling, I exclaim "I am going to write a letter!" I pity the fool that is the editor of the town newspaper that I DO eventually retire to. This also explains why I spend more time and words commenting on all of your blogs instead of actually posting on mine! More times than not, however, this is where my exuberance ends and is replaced by another source of annoyance/concern/forth righteousness and the letter never gets written.

In the April issue of Details, there was an article about the best FM radio stations in the country. During my younger days, I spent MANY hours driving, not only b/c I was a pizza delivery guy, but also b/c I was wise enough to almost exclusively have long-distance relationships, and live in a different state each summer during college. My beautiful Renault gave me over 70,000 miles in about four years of abuse and at 35 miles per gallon! All this from an out of business American car company built in 1985!!! But I digress. Also, I was a radio DJ in college for two or three semesters, so the radio business is something that I still have fond memories of as a 'path not taken'. But I digress again. Anyways, I spent a lot of time listening to the radio while driving, generally b/c the tape player in my car often tried to eat my tapes, so I have heard a lot of good and bad radio.

Basically, the article didn't choose a station anywhere near the DC metropolitan area. I don't think it even picked anything within a decent drive, let alone within reception range. Since I first moved to DC, I have listened religiously to 98 Rock out of Baltimore. I even have an old bumper sticker from their old morning show, Kirk, Mark, and Lopez from before Lopez sadly died. Obviously, lots of people IN BALTIMORE listen to 98 Rock, but I may be one of only a few that do in DC, especially since I never see WIYY in the top 30 in the ratings for DC. YES, I read about radio ratings. I told you I keep up on things. Quite possibly, I am the ONLY listener inside the Beltway, haha. Regardless, I felt this slight was too much to take, especially since 98 Rock won Best Station of the Year for 2008 from radio insiders. I mean, if you are going to create a best of list, shouldn't you include the station that its peers consider the best?!?!

So, I did what anyone would do in this circumstance. I posted a comment on the Details portion of Men.Style.Com about the article, the first post about it, and simply stated that 98 Rock is easily the best station in the DC area. Mostly I did this to publicly announce my favoritism, but also as a public service announcement to fill in an area of the country the article simply ignored. I checked back once a couple weeks later and had no replies and 100 or so views. I never thought about it again.

Fast forward to lunch today. I got a turkey sandwich from the usual place. I also decided to get some Baked Lays and headed over to the park across work. It was a very sunny and warm day. I like it there b/c there is a waterfall and ducks. Plus, the waterfall drowns out the traffic and DC noise. Plus, there is almost always some sort of weirdo or tourist that does something chuckle worthy while I am sitting there. (Oh, the other old man thing I do is put way too much detail into my stories, thus turning a simple statement into a five minute diatribe. If you don't believe me, just ask K how she falls asleep most nights...) So, finishing up my tasty lunch, I start reading my new issue of Details. The letters to the editor page is pretty short in Details, usually about four or five submissions at most. I'm reading them like always and when I get to the last one, it starts to sound familiar. I read the whole paragraph and it is signed "SBB11578". Which, like any good ransom letter internet posting, I didn't use my real name. And if you have ever emailed me, you know that is my Yahoo username and my email address. Had I known they would use my comment, I would have been wittier and used my actual name. Oh well.

If you are interested, you can see my letter/comment on page 26 of the new June issue of Details. I'll be happy to autograph your copy! haha.