Is Paul McCartney As Big A Tool As We Always Thought? YES.

Paul and Linda McCartney, 1974
via Corwin

“There are two kinds of people” arguments usually strike me as cheeky and stale.  But there is one incontestable version of the formulation:  there are two types of people in the world—those who prefer Paul McCartney and those who prefer John Lennon.  Let me tell you a little story.  An investor recently sunk $5,000 so that my wife could cover a Beatles’ song, which a director had requested for a movie.  It was all for naught, as the Beatles’ management soon informed the filmmaker of the licensing fee: $350,000.  Two relevant pieces of context:  (1) the standard fee is around 5k. (2) The Beatles were, uh, once revolutionary. It’s a bit hard to remember that second point if you see Paul McCartney perform in the 21st century.  He charges in the hundreds for his tickets, effectively turning his concerts into privileged-class affairs.  He wears the same goofy grin and vacant stare whether he is singing “I Want To Hold Your Hand” or “Day in the Life”. He has nothing to say on stage.

Perhaps you are cynical and think that any rock star would charge as much as they could get for their music, effectively pricing out of the game independent or underground filmmakers who want to use a historically significant and revolutionary song such as “Revolution #9.”  I myself find it hard to believe that John or Yoko would sell “Power to the People” or “Woman is the Nigger of the World” for a large sum of money.  I’m inclined to believe they’d even give it away to the right artist.  A friend told me the other day: “It’s 2011—Lennon would be no different today.  He just died before he had a chance to sell out like the rest of his generation.”

Don’t believe it.  That’s the kind of story we tell ourselves when we feel guilty that we or our heroes would never spend thousands just to buy billboards around the city that say “War is Over”.  It is our self-help solution to the collective trauma of having failed the promise of the 1960s and 1970s.  As Leonard Cohen said in a poem:  “I punished her by saying some of us still take acid”.  Tom Morello of Rage Against of the Machine is still writing revolutionary music and playing it for free at anti-prison rallies.  Noam Chomsky only got more radical after the 70s.  Lennon left the Beatles and started thinking about what always tends to be elided in American consciousness—class.  He started working with socialists, ditched the Beatles songs in concert and stuck to his new more revolutionary work.  Read one of his later interviews at Counterpunch.

Yoko Ono is still creating powerful feminist art and fighting the good fight.  McCartney, on the other hand, is dating a good little capitalist, vice-president of a massive transportation conglomerate.  He has become the “Nowhere Man,” running his once revolutionary band like a corporation.  The music industry, of course, is in ruins, and hasn’t produced anyone remotely resembling a Lennon/Ono in years.  All we can do is support the few who haven’t given in.  The next time you’re thinking about shelling out $250 to see McCartney meticulously avoid the subversive promise of rock n’roll, go instead to the Museum of Modern Art in New York City and add something to Yoko Ono’s Wish Tree installation.  Here’s one:  I wish she had all the rights to the Beatles’ music. TC mark

image – Oli Gill

More From Thought Catalog

Is Paul McCartney As Big A Tool As We Always Thought? YES. is cataloged in , , , , , , , ,
  • http://twitter.com/kyleangeletti Kyle Angeletti

    it's sad that this is true.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ACNQHINABNBQ44S7NIACK7YIYE M Rosin

      It's not sad because this is just a one-sided rant. Sheesh, do you believe everything you read just because someone is bitter about a copyright permission?

      • Imnottheegman

        I've known Paul for at least 15 years now. ACristofani is so far off the mark with regards to what Paul is actually like that I don't even know where to begin to pick apart his musings.

  • http://www.behance.net/clifwith1f clifwith1f

    Wow, I had never realized how toolish he was. I mean yea, he looks like a woman now. But maybe that's why he's so aggrieved.

  • http://hbgwhem.tumblr.com/ HBGWHEM

    i bet susan boyle could cover all those beatles songs for free because no one would realize it isn't Paul they're watching onstage.

  • Kittus

    Oh come on. They were a pop band, not role models. If you really choose your favourite Beatle based on their personal and financial conduct (rather than the songs, which is what made both of 'em big), then it's worth noting that Lennon was a pretty nasty piece of work too – as countless interviews with those who knew him will attest. Wife-beating, heroin, anti-semitism…he wasn't quite the jesus figure people seem intent on posthumously portraying him as.

  • .........

    “Yoko Ono is still creating powerful feminist art and fighting the good fight.”

    ………..

    • Sous Chef Gerard

      That was such a rich line. No one has profited more from the proliferation of Beatles' nostalgia then the all mighty Yoko.

  • Stammgast

    first off, Paul has only owned about 50% of the publishing rights his Beatles songs, and most of the actual hit songs, almost everything before 1968, are owned by Sony/ATV. So it's not like Paul has total control over how Beatles' songs get licensed. Also, “Power to the People”, for whatever reason, has been in more commercials than I can count.

    and secondly, it's really ridiculous for you to assume that John Lennon would remain some saint if he had lived into the 1980s and beyond. Sure he had some strong convictions, but how many other countless babyboomer counterculture artists are now seemingly turning their back on their younger ideals/selling out to the man? I would say more than less. So yeah it's a bummer that Paul charges a lot of money to play in huge venues because of the high demand to see him, and runs his creative output like a business to ensure he doesn't get dicked around like he did in the 60s and lose half of his publishing rights to his songs, but I'll always thank him for his music, and for getting me inspired to go vegetarian/vegan at a young age.

  • http://brianmcelmurry.blogspot.com/ Brian McElmurry

    Paul McCartney is fucking amazing. Have you listened to the Beatles? Have you heard his voice? Lennon is awesome, of course. The Beatles are sick. Better than so many other bands ever. You're talking about business, which, Paul McCartney probably doesn't have anything to do with. Paul McCartney is a god.

  • kt

    If you want to write something convincing, you might try forming an argument. “I find it hard to believe that if…” doesn't count.

    And really, do you think your wife's performance would have been an improvement?

  • Erik

    McCartney may be a tool, but if you expect Paul to act like John, you're both a tool and an idiot.

  • PERFECTCIRCLES

    That’s the kind of story we tell ourselves when we feel guilty that we or our heroes would never spend thousands just to buy billboards around the city that say “War is Over”.

    Yes.

    • 11

      hopefully we or our heroes have better uses for our time and money than empty slogans that change/affect nothing

      also why are we speculating about what a bitter maladjusted man who's been dead for 30 years would be doing with his career

      also tom morello huh

  • Greg Hoy

    It's interesting what perceptions exist: if not for Paul, the Beatles would have lost complete control of all of their own music. Even John admitted this in the 80s. Furthermore, he doesn't need money, yet tours constantly to new areas playing Beatles songs live that even the band never played. As he said at a tour stop last year, 'when people in Russia tell you they learned English from your music, you owe them your life'.

    A good link
    http://abbeyrd.best.vwh.net/pa

    • Greg Hoy

      I also agree w Stammgast: had Lennon lived into old age, expect a lot of similar moves to capitalize on his legacy financially. Paul McCartney has done quite a job preserving the integrity of the Beatles brand: no small feat considering how little control he actually has over the catalog.

    • Anthony Cristofani

      Have you seen his show? It's a farce. Netflix Lennon plastic Ono band live in NYC 72 for real rock n roll.

  • Whaaa?

    You can't be serious, can you? The art that Paul McCartney has put into the world is a hundred times more valuable than anything Yoko Ono could even hope to create.

  • chillwave gonzales

    McCartney has become pretty un-chill.

  • AaronWB

    One thing you can't hide is when you're crippled inside.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ACNQHINABNBQ44S7NIACK7YIYE M Rosin

      Yes, John Lennon was tremendously crippled inside. He hit his first wife and cheated on her endlessly (according to her own book on their marriage). More troubling, he all but abandoned his first son. When Julian came to NYC for a rare visit in the late 70s to spend time with his father, Julian laughed at something and John shrieked at him “Stop laughing, I hate your laugh.” (That's documented in Peter Doggett's latest book.) He said that to a child. So much for being a man of peace. Julian has also made clear how Yoko sold some of John's things rather than give them to Julian after his father's death. Julian had to buy them back at auctions.

      The same people who worship at the Lennon alter and conveniently ignore the fact that he was a jerk (often) in life will take Paul to task for every one of his faults.

  • Dminus11

    Is Anthony Cristofani As Big A Tool As We Always Thought?

    The answer is a resounding YES. Sorry we can't all be unsuccessful musicians whose wives were denied the chance to cover a Beatles song.

  • BBQCHICKEN

    Paul McCartney was NEVER John Lennon. So saying that Paul is a sellout vs. Lennon is not fair because the two cannot truly be compared to one another. McCartney never had the same ideals or visions as Lennon and to say he is a tool is sort of bullshit. Lennon did his own thing and McCartney does his own thing. When he performed at Coachella two years ago, he DID say things on stage and performed incredibly. I think you're just miffed because of this whole deal with the cover of a Beatles song and actually having to shell out money to musical geniuses who by every right do deserve to charge a lot because no one has ever been able to top what they did for music. I'm neither here or there for McCartney or Lennon, but get over it. They/He are/is the Beatles. They/He can do whatever the fuck he wants. Sorry.

  • VCarlisle

    Hilarious how people want to take what is obviously a purposefully polarizing argument and look for subtlety. If you HAD to choose between the two, who would you choose? This is a different question than: what did McCartney do that was still good, and what did Lennon do that was bad? The great weakness of the political left is that we are always looking for complication when we need to get a bit more strident.

  • Anthony Cristofani

    Wow, thanks for all your comments people! I would contend that yes, Ono does make more important art. Read her book? Lennon was the real revolutionary force in the Beatles ( in large part thanks to Ono), and he took his art far beyond mere “pop music” ( cf comment above) and into something far more politically relevant. I suppose its fair to say we don't know who he'd be in 2011, but we can definitively say this: in the seventies and eighties he made McCartney look like Kesha in contrast.

    • BBQCHICKEN

      That's completely unfair. Comparing McCartney's later work to Kesha is fucked up. His work was certainly more poppy if not more banal, but not nearly even comparable to Kesha.

      • AaronWB

        I agree. Kesha seems way more innovative and listenable.

      • BBQCHICKEN

        I do hope for your sake you're being sarcastic.

      • acristofani

        hahaha. It's funny that someone here called McCartney's music 'innovative'. If the lyrics aren't, then the music isn't. That's why we put lyrics to music–because they matter, too.

  • Clare Sherman

    So, it costs a lot to cover a Beatles song, therefore, Mccartney is a “tool” and Yoko is a saint. Let me break this to you – Yoko is as responsible as Paul for anything to do with the Beatles, so, if you don`t like it, you should be blaming her too. Yoko is, and was, a pretty shrewd businesswoman, and, if you want to talkabout licencing, she has turned Imagine into a multi-million dollar industry. She has also done a good job of re-writing, and sanitising her husband`s history.
    Paul was far more experimental than John – and he remains so, and example being the Electric Arguments album.He also frequently speaks out for animal rights, vegetarinism and the environment, even though he knows he will be mocked and criticised.
    Would John still be the same. the same as what, since he basically did nothing for the last 5 or so years of his life.

    • acristofani

      I'm in the music industry, Clare, and understand licensing–I know what Ono does and know what McCartney does. I heard directly from McCartney's people. Ono sold a Lennon song to a director friend for 5k. 5k–not 350k. Go see the Plastic Ono band in concert, then go see Paul, and tell me who's a tool.
      Vegetarianism and animal rights (typical celebrity causes that even moderates hold, though I support them as well) as opposed to Lennon's work with revolutionary struggles, prisoners' rights, anti-CIA and FBI activism, massive public performance art, radical feminismamong other more ballsy positions? No contest.
      You make a good point about the late 70s but read his last interview–he was as politically perspicacious as ever.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ACNQHINABNBQ44S7NIACK7YIYE M Rosin

        So when Yoko sold John's image and voice last year to be used in a European car commercial, you were OK with that? When she agreed to license Lennon's image to a $26,000 Montblanc pen, that wasn't capitalist greed? A couple years ago, when she allowed JC Penney to use Real Love in a commercial, that was I guess fighting the power? When she licensed his name and image to coffee cups, aprons, umbrella, and untold T-shirts?

        You make an argument with half the facts, when really your mind is already made up and you've closed it to anything but your own narrowminded view. You've got blinders on.

        And by the way, the McCartneys were vegetarian LONG before it became cool. Paul's had more of an direct practical impact on changing public attitudes toward vegetarianism — and there are few issues more political than what we eat and how it comes to our table — than Yoko and Lennon ever had on any of those causes you cite. Literally, Paul continues takes specific stands on specific animal-rights issues (most recently supporting a measure in Europe to ban use of animals in testing cosmetics). And Yoko, much as I admire her individuality, never does. For example, she never criticized George Bush over the Iraq war like McCartney did. She doesn't talk specifics at all. She talks in generalities (“imagine peace”).

        And I echo the praise for Paul's recent music. Electric Arguments is excellent. So is Chaos & Creation.

  • acristofani

    The saddest comments here are the bourgeois ones. It's too bad that word has fallen out of American discourse, because it plagues most of that discourse. Paul is not simply 'doing his own thing' while Lennon does another. Paul is doing an inferior thing. Namely, he is making socially and politically less important music, interviews, public interventions. It is the bourgeois position on art par excellence that aesthetics and politics can be separated. Lennon figured that out and never did it again after he left.
    But of course if you make judgments about someone's music because it is not 'successful' (by which I presume you, laughably, mean 'making money'), as a few have done here, you are already hopelessly entrenched in neoliberal thinking.

    That being said–thanks for the more personal, petty attacks. They make me feel like John Lennon instead of McCartney! I must be doing something right.

    • BBQCHICKEN

      It's sort of pitiful that you have returned time and time again to try and justify what you're saying. You can say what you will about the bourgeois and what have you. But not all music and art should or has to be about politics. Jeez. It's nice and all, but that's not what Paul it trying to do. So get over it. Seriously. You're butthurt about things you have NO control over and your opinion will not change anything. Success is obviously objective and everyone will have their opinions on what “success” in the music business is. Paul took a different direction. He had no need to stay loyal to ideals that where not ever his. John viewed the world and music very differently and it was inevitable for them to part ways. You can think that people who don't have a political agenda to their music are “inferior” but they ARE doing their thing and they ARE happy with it. They are not here to please you.

      • acristofani

        It's called discussion. I've noticed you returned as well. Good, that's how discussion works. As for the rest of what you said, I have nothing to say to someone who thinks being 'happy' with work and life justifies life and art. As Leonard Cohen says, “why don't you come on back to the war”…

      • BBQCHICKEN

        Wow, you must really demand too much of yourself and others around you because life is not all about justifying your very existence. HAPPY IS GOOD IF YOU DIDN'T KNOW, but you probably don't since you think it doesn't help justify LIFE.

    • Clare Sherman

      Persoanl attacks definitely put you more on a par with McCartney then Lennon!
      Lots of long words do not disguise the fact that you do not know what you are talking about and you have not taken any notice of any counter arguments.
      I have mentioned Paul`s promotion of vegetarianism, animal rights and environmentalism. You have not addressed this. I wonder if you do not consider them to be proper causes. I am a Beatles fan, and i really do not want to attack lennon and I don`t want to to attack you. One thing I will say – Lennon would not have agreed with you.

  • Renalda

    About Lennon not selling out: 40 years ago, would anyone have guessed that Bob Dylan would be doing totally corny ads for a mass retailer like Victoria's Secret? When he told the press that it would take “women's undergarments” for him to “sell out,” it was assumed that he was joking. Um – but he did.


    Pretty naive to assume absolutely anything about Lennon's future behavior.

  • apollo c vermouth

    ACRISTOFANI said….Paul McCartney perform in the 21st century. He charges in the hundreds…. He wears the same goofy grin and vacant stare whether he is singing “I Want To Hold Your Hand” or “Day in the Life”. He has nothing to say on stage.

    Of course nothing could be further from the truth.
    Apparently you haven't been to any concert or even caught clips on You Tube. Or if you have, then these comments are blatantly false. Setup to support your paper thin and irrelevant point of view.
    credibility = zero

  • Guest

    It's completely pointless to talk about what Lennon would be doing now – he's dead, it's all conjecture. Maybe he would have gone down the Gary Glitter/Pete Townshead route – who can say?

    Plus as has been pointed out depending on the song, the fee might have nothing to do with Maccartney, he doesn't have control over a lot of their back-catalog. As for Yoko fighting the good fight: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R

  • SB

    This really reads like you are bitching about Paul McCartney because your wife couldn't cover a Beatles song. For the sake of your integrity I'm going to assume this was not the desired effect.
    I thought it was common knowledge how often the surviving Beatles, including McCartney, how expressed concern about how their music has been managed. They do not have control over how their songs are licensed. And I think you are forgetting that it was Ono who encouraged the use of the song 'Revolution' in a campaign for a pair of shoes. She is a sharp woman, I will give you that, but every move she makes is calculated, and it seems that her only goal is to further canonize her husband. It looks to me as if your only source of information here is a long-standing bias. This article only serves to make you look like a tool.

  • Millie

    I am both entertained and aghast. All this… what to call it? Banter? Why is there a need to judge either of these two individuals? Moreover, how RIDICULOUS is it to make assumptions about someone else, be that person a celebrity or not? Opinions are like assholes, remember…? Both Lennon and McCarthy lived/live extrodinary lives and it's sad that they should constantly be compared. It's like, 'Nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, my daddy is better than yours!” near the swing set on the playground, for God's sake. Let's just give them both the respect that they deserve and LET IT BE.

    • acristofani

      I will tell you whence the need to judge: Because art is not mere entertainment and distraction. Or it shouldn't be–Lennon and Ono realized that. It has revolutionary potential. When you allow your art to become centered on profit, and you make decisions based on pleasing the lowest common denominator, and let unflinching capitalists run your show, you're not just making “personal artistic decicions” that we can all respect as each person's choice, decision…blah blah that's called relativism and it's our default mode of thinking about art. What you're actually doing is perpetuating the system of profit-based exploitation, class war, and obsession with property (including copyright). When Ono showed up and blew John's mind wide open, Paul should have realized he was in the presence of people with a superior vision, and simply offered his songwriting skills in service of their vision. Because his was not a vision. It's become nothing but another life support system for the status quo.
      p.s. Ono sold 'Revolution' because it's a conservative song that she and John were later embarassed to have written (I think it's their worst song as well). That's why he took the exact same line in “Power to the People”, “you say you want a revolution”, and THIS TIME , instead of the cop out line from “Revolution”, he adds “THEN WE BETTER GET ON RIGHT AWAY”.
      If this discussion proves anything, it's exactly that. This country needs a revolution right away.
      But you say let's give them both the respect they deserve. I agree. John: you are a hero. Paul: you are merely talented at writing tunes. There's the respect you deserve.

      • acristofani
      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ACNQHINABNBQ44S7NIACK7YIYE M Rosin

        So when Yoko sold John's image and voice last year to be used in a European car commercial, you were OK with that? When she agreed to license Lennon's image to a $26,000 Montblanc pen, that wasn't capitalist greed? A couple years ago, when she allowed JC Penney to use Real Love in a commercial, that was I guess fighting the power? When she licensed his name and image to coffee cups, aprons, umbrella, and untold T-shirts?

        You make an argument with half the facts, when really your mind is already made up and you've closed it to anything but your own narrowminded view. You've got blinders on.

        And by the way, the McCartneys were vegetarian LONG before it became cool. Paul's had more of an direct practical impact on changing public attitudes toward vegetarianism — and there are few issues more political than what we eat and how it comes to our table — than Yoko and Lennon ever had on any of those causes you cite. Literally, Paul continues takes specific stands on specific animal-rights issues (most recently supporting a measure in Europe to ban use of animals in testing cosmetics). And Yoko, much as I admire her individuality, never does. For example, she never criticized George Bush over the Iraq war like McCartney did. She doesn't talk specifics at all. She talks in generalities (“imagine peace”).

        And I echo the praise for Paul's recent music. Electric Arguments is excellent. So is Chaos & Creation.

      • Millie

        Well, okay, but a “hero”? That's your opinion. And why modify “talented” with “merely”? That's a put down. (As if being talented isn't enough.) There was only one John Lennon, as there is only one Paul McCartney. You are of the opinion that JL was superior. Fine. PM doesn't need to be trashed in order to prove that, does he?
        I am a huge admirer of John Lennon, he was an exceptional human being and he was flawed, as some people have pointed out here. I think that you make excellent points about John's life and talent and work, but I think (and here I go with the assumptions…) that even he would not agree with your attack on Paul. From what I have read about him-and that's a lot – he was more accepting of people's differences and didn't judge others in the way you have. Paul has many gifts, and he is on his own journey. John tried to make the world a better place. I remember, when he died, one radio DJ said that he was trying to change the world while Paul was writing “silly love songs”. Again, an opinion.

      • http://twitter.com/Almost60Really Paula Lee Bright

        Although agreeing in part with both sides of this silly argument, I just want to say: You're young. You weren't there. “They” were all a tremendous phenomenon. They changed lives.

        I love both, and certainly don't begrudge Paul anything he chooses to do. He's got a whole generation and now 3 or 4 of people who are devoted to their music, and if wishes to share it yet again with people who love it, more power to him.

        Have you checked out the cost of a football game lately? Or a concert by anyone who's made a name for themselves? While the price is beyond what I can afford, if I had it, it would be worth it, to feel that phenomenon again. To see a legend, live, is great. If John were here, he too would sell out arenas. He may have made grand gestures, but he didn't give all his money away, and Yoko for sure does not.

        I love them both, differently. And I was there. It makes a difference.

      • acristofani

        You simply haven't done your research. MOST people charge less than Paul. Some who sell out arenas like Springsteen u2 and Phish charge only fifty bucks. And John and Yoko did and do give tons away. Finally, “being there” is not a privileged analytical position on this issue. A good reader of poetry could easily do more w lennons shaved fish album then someone who was there and just likes to hum along to a catchy melody and think only about personal relationships ( hey, sounds like a Paul fan!). Not saying that's you. Just saying “i was there” is not evidence of clarity or (given the tools commenting on this blog) freedom from neoliberal thinking about art.

      • http://twitter.com/Almost60Really Paula Lee Bright

        Oh, good grief, we've been to dozens of concerts from people from the identical era. Many, many cost a ton. Crosby, Stills and Nash cost more, as have quite a few others. How many of those have you attended again?

        Springsteen? Off by 20 years. U2? U figure that out 2. You're not even talking the same generation of artists.

        Scarcity due to death builds value.

        What is it exactly that the dead John and the living Yoko give away? I'm unclear.

        My point, which you missed, was that “being there” ain't a privilege at all. If one can “be there,”, it's a fact, and it would be worth it to some of us who were in it back then, just to see it all happening again in our hearts and minds, and would dearly like to revisit it. We'd know it doesn't even resemble the real thing. I was in a stadium in 1965 and it is one of the memories of my life. (Same stadium where I saw the Cardinals take the World Series almost 20 years later in 1982.)

        These are things that happen in people's minds, as they age, and god love ya, you will feel it too about your heroes.

        It won't even resemble the original concert, and how well I know it, as does Paul McCartney. But…

        “I was there” = Damn. Would love to see him, if only to remember what that whole thing was like. I'd feel good. I'd feel very happy. It would be worth it for the memory and the night. No neo nuttin. HAPPY. Meaningless?

        “I was there” does not = clarity, or freedom from neoliberal thinking about art. The professors I know would be embarrassed to say that. ;)

        I fear you may be a neo-neo-liberal trying to think or not think about art. Hard to say. Or perhaps just overblown.

        I find that even discussing neoliberal thinking about art makes me think of a) bores or b) people who think they know more than they do. I've never heard a true artist or critic or legitimate reviewer or teacher use such paltry phrases.

        Then again, I now see that the whole point here at this place is for kids, youngsters, young adults. Which leads me to confess that at first I thought it was actually a cross cultural place. My silliness! I admit it. Big DUH for me! I had no business even being here. :D My foot, my mouth, old gal, you know how we are. Think of Granny.

        Truthfully, you just make me chuckle. Kind of a shame, really. I'd hoped for better arguments. But you didn't even hear me. No harm done. Billions of articles on precisely the opinions you espouse, but with legitimate backup. And not. Many sides have their points, and I know that. Yours was just so zealous. That's always viewed as — never mind.

        Anyone interested needs only to search.

        Best of luck!

      • http://twitter.com/Almost60Really Paula Lee Bright

        Great! I take it that you're a good reader of poetry. Do something with it, as you say. Then post a link here.

        I'd love to see what you come up with. Is it a deal?

        I'm sorry. I'd posted the below before I really realized you were issuing a challenge and that you could easily beat it. As a good reader of poetry.

        So…beat it!? Oh, wait, that's Michael Jackson. Just go ahead and write, create, etc. Easy.

blog comments powered by Disqus