Blinding me with Scientology
Mission Impossible 3 is out today. It was written and directed by a friend of mine, JJ Abrams. He’s the guy that created ‘Felicity’, ‘Alias’ and ‘Lost’, and this is his first outing as a feature film director–though he’s been the writer on several, including ‘Regarding Henry’ and ‘Armageddon.’ JJ is a very sweet and self-depracating guy, but ultra creative. He was a big fan of comic books as a kid, and also of paranoid British spy series like The Avengers and The Prisoner. These all had great theme tunes (as did ‘Mission Impossible’) so it’s not a surprise that JJ took up music himself, and started collecting synths and drum machines as well as getting pretty adept with his laptop, Logic, Reason and Ableton Live.
On sets and in edit rooms there’s a lot of downtime. JJ wrote the themes to Alias and Lost on headphones while sitting around waiting for something to happen. While in post production on MI3, he and I started bouncing musical ideas around. He picked up one of my grooves and added a funky bass part and synth riff; and he told me there was a small slot in the movie for it, apparently in a scene where Tom Cruise’s character is working on his car, and there’s a party going on next door. We named the piece ‘Groksploitation’ (for no particular reason) and I hear it’s pretty short and buried in the scene. Still, I got a small fee and a credit. You can download it here.
I’ve been reading the reviews over the last few days. Generally the consensus is that the movie is good, a big improvement over the first two. I’ve yet to see it. It’s hard to juggle the demands of the action genre and still make a worthwhile story with sympathetic characters. And the budget was huge–$165m. But JJ has cut his teeth on episodic TV where you get the shot in a couple of takes and move on, so he brought MI3 in early and under budget. Several reviews have credited JJ with breathing new life into the franchise, and predict it will the first big summer blockbuster. JJ is starting to grab the limelight himself, and I would not be at all surprised if he becomes a celebrated cult moviemaker along the lines of a Quentin Tarantino, while still making tons of money for the Hollywood studios.
What many of the reviewers seem to be more focused on is what they describe as Tom Cruise’s recent ‘bad behavior’. This pisses me off. It’s one thing to say we’re all a bit tired of his total over-exposure on the cover of every crappy magazine at the supermarket checkout. It’s another to say that his lifestyle, lovelife, and parenting style make him a ‘weirdo’. When a star gets that big, it’s so easy to single him out and pry into his private life then poke fun at it. You might not like that he’s a Scientologist, or that he and his partner chose an unusual birth plan. You might take his statement that he didn’t approve of a colleague using anti-depressants as meaning he’s trying to force his own church’s methods on other people. But you know what? it’s all pretty harmless and if you chose to ignore it and not read those mags, or listen to rubbishy TV celebrity gossip, you would not feel offended at all.
What’s more offensive, to me, is the crooked politicians and warmongers that run this country, and the ignorant US populace that voted for them, and who for recreation read and watch the sensationalist media that vilifies celebrities like Tom Cruise and Michael Jackson.
Celebrity is a collaboaration between star and fan. Their lives were not be remotely interesting until the public made them megastars. This was due to their talent, as entertainers. Gardening is not their particular gift, so we pay no attention to the way they garden. Why then do we lavish so much attention on the way they conduct their private lives? Because we’re peeping toms. As such, we have no right to judge them.
And another thing: JJ says Tom is really an ok guy. He told me he found himself liking Tom a lot, and would be his friend even if they were a thousand miles from Hollywood and had never worked together.
May 6th, 2006 at 8:18 pm
Wow, Sir…very strong opinions! I like ‘em, too, generally (particularly where the petty and the political are concerned) — however is it not more sensible to say that publicists, not the public, make entertainers (of any or even no talent) into stars?
One of your most insightful songs, in my opinion, is “Pulp Culture” — and here it is again! For in order for the populace to gag on pabulum, mustn’t someone first be dishing it out?
Anyway, I love your movie work, and am pleased to hear that there’s any amount more. You tend to steer things in intriguing directions.
And speaking of movie work, this is no longer technically a request to do the tour-project (those attempts garnered no response, thus taken as a “No’ response, fair play to you)…however please consider having SOMEONE film and video the Dolby Tour ’06. Particularly as you rental-car it into the bread-basket (a land, and a vehicle, I know well), the art and contrasts and personalities will be well worth collecting and compiling, that future generations may appreciate what you’re doing!
Er…Namaste!
May 7th, 2006 at 3:12 am
Good post mr Dolby, and good point Greg.
If you are not filming your tour for a dvd, is it possible for me to bring my camcorder?
I heard your tours are quite open. It would be a shame to let this event pass by only to be recalled by fond memory.
Many thanks
AG
May 7th, 2006 at 3:14 am
Groksploitation- will this be a bonus track on your new album (hint hint)? Though seriously, it’s great to be able to hear some new material. I also have to totally agree with you on your political/social views.
May 7th, 2006 at 5:29 am
Well yes indeed Gregory, who makes the star, the public or the Public Relations team? IMO it’s principally the public, because (a) we still flock to see his movies (b) we buy mags with him on the cover, and the publisher would not put him there unless it’ll sell copies, and lots of ads inside; those advertisers want to be there because they believe these stars will sell their product, even the placenta-eating ones. I believe the public put Tom Cruise on top of the heap because we liked his screen work, not because he needs to be a role model for our children, or because he hired the best PR team. (This is obviously less true of the plastic celebrities, hotel chain heiresses and former backup dancer-turned-rapper types.)
May 7th, 2006 at 6:26 am
I saw the talented Mr. Abrams interviewed on the Charlie Rose show the other night, and I couldn’t help but come away thinking that he is pretty amazingly gifted and a very cool guy. A friend of mine is a writer on “LOST” and he has only great things to say about JJ. Why does it not surprise me at all that you guys are friends?
Looking down at my feet and shuffling nervously, I will admit, I am one of those people who has groused about the Tom Cruise/Brooke Shields thing. Despite not knowing either of these talented people, the incessant press about the disagreement had a personal sting for me, because of the life experience/post-partum depression of a family member and a lifetime wondering if access to medication/medical therapy might have saved her. After reading your very thoughtful words, I recognize that a more circumspect reaction to what is surely overblown in the media is worth the effort.
Private lives should be just that. Very private. End of story.
Tom Cruise (and Steven Spielberg) spent a couple of weeks shooting “Minority Report” in the building where I used to work in DC. Both actor and director were extremely gracious to us all. Cruise met everyone with a wave, a smile, and a kind greeting, no matter the gawking going on. He took the time to speak with people who approached him, despite the fact that he was at work and busy. (Spielberg let us basically hover over his shoulder as he directed, and let me tell you, that was a hell of an experience to observe a master at work.)
May 7th, 2006 at 7:37 am
Thomas, I agree with 98.6% of your post.
I always felt all we have to go by is what the athlete, the artist, performer, etc., puts in front of us. We pay our ticket price for whatever event we attend and that’s where the judgement of said celebrity/athlete should end: Did they play hard? Was the movie good? And so forth.
Fair questions to ask when you pay your money. But it should stop there. People don’t need to look at telephoto pictures of celebrities with their kids at Starbucks.
I’ve semi-picked on Tom from time to time, because taken at face value, the things he says and does just come off as odd. But, I also think he should respect Brooke Shield’s choice for what works for her. Scientology may have helped him get people off drugs. Cool. For others, it was something else. His is not the only way.
As far as the gardening reference goes though, where do we draw the line between separating that private from public life when criminal activity may be involved? Self-destructive behavior is one thing — we all have skeletons in that closet — but mentioning Jackson as you did, I infer that he should get more consideration than he was given, be it in the court of public opinion, let alone the real courts.
Seems the cult of personality is such though that we read about celebrities who have overcome personal tragedy, addictions, etc., who then go on to do great things in their career, and we applaud. But when it comes to mentioning criminal activity, it seems off-limits. Seems like a double-standard to not be able to mention both.
I look at the artist’s performance that they put out there as being a result of everything they are in life. What it took to get them there. Their influences, etc. (How you relate to us in the audience from up on stage is probably directly related to how you did it on the street of Europe way back.)
But in the case of Jackson, to think I may be watching and enjoying a performance that may be partly influenced by, for lack of a better phrase, evil behavior in private, is not something I can do. My appreciation for what he does is now tainted, my opinion forever changed.
[As an aside, I'd be curious on your thoughts on whether the practice in the UK of not allowing media discussions of criminal cases has fueled public cravings for gossip there or helped diffuse the situation. I've often thought we need that kind of restriction put in place here.]
May 7th, 2006 at 9:58 am
Great blog Thomas and thanks for the download.
Very funky!
Only a few more hours until showtime in Annapolis. Beautiful city and the water is a much welcome change from Kansas City’s landlocked location.
May 7th, 2006 at 11:24 am
I plan on seeing MI:III, because I’ve been a fan of the movie franchise since it began. I also don’t doubt that Tom Cruise is a decent human being.
At the same time, I wouldn’t put the onus of the blame on the public for Cruise’s current portrayal as a bit of a weirdo. For one thing, *he’s* the one putting the weird behavior out there. And we’re not talking about weird behavior being captured by stalking paparrazi, we’re talking about weird behavior at *scheduled high-profile press events.* The public isn’t prying into his new relationship — from the very beginning, it’s been shoved into our faces in an over-the-top (and odd) fashion. I’d bet that most people would just like the whole Tom and Kate show to go away at this point.
His extreme celebrity and the public’s “need to know” aren’t the only reasons why his image has gone from “megastar” to “weird megastar” in the past year. The “weird” component has come into the picture because he’s been acting weird. Period.
I agree that celebrity is a collaboration between star and public, and it’s *in part* earned by the celebrity’s talent — but the star’s public image is also a part of it. The star crafts this image by public appearances, interviews, etc. (and often uses this to her benefit), and the public does as well with its need to know more about the celeb. You ask why the public would lavish so much attention on a celeb’s private life. In the case of Tom Cruise, I’ve been asking myself over the past year about why he’s using his private life to try to bolster his celebrity.
May 7th, 2006 at 11:53 am
I have to respectfully disagree. Although I do think it is unfortunate for Abrams and all involved with MI:3 that the focus of the reviews is not their work but rather Cruise’s lifestyle, I think that Cruise bears the responsibility for this.
As offensive as the warmongering, crooked politicians who run the country are, it is possible to follow pop-culture separately from political culture. There are media outlets (NPR, C-SPAN, FAIR) which do a good job of tracking political and current events without the celebrity nonsense. Why not have outlets (Entertainment Weekly, Access Hollywood) that devote themselves to celebrity? The two aren’t mutually exclusive. Yes, certainly a good portion of Americans could probably benefit from a little more attention to their leadership and a little less to their movie stars, but that’s a separate issue.
You say, “Celebrity is a collaboration between star and fan” which I think is very accurate. And that’s where you start to go off track. I don’t necessarily think artists choose to be artists. But celebrities almost certainly choose to be celebrities. There are many artists (musicians, painters, writers, actors, etc.) who are well respected for their talent and art who are also not inundated by the paparazzi and who choose to lead lives out of the limelight.
Tom Cruise *chooses* to be outspoken about his religion–that is his choice–but in doing so, he legitimately opens himself to the same criticisms I would face if I went around loudly expounding on my beliefs. The fact that we are examined by the public on a different scale is largely immaterial. In the “collaboration between star and fan” he has chosen to make the relationship about his beliefs not just his acting. When a celebrity makes that choice, they should be prepared to live with the consequences.
Tom Cruise has *made* his religion a focus of his celebrity. Take, for example, Jason Lee. I recently learned he is a Scientologist. Does this affect the way I view his work? Not in the least. Why? Because he has not been on countless talk shows, given countless interviews, or chosen to be outspoken about his beliefs. Tom Cruise *has*. With respect to Cruise, we are not prying into his private life; he has chosen to make his private beliefs an aspect of his celebrity.
It is well within Tom Cruise’s right as an individual to practice Scientology if he wishes. It’s also well within his rights to speak out about his beliefs. However, because of his celebrity status, he does so in collaboration with his fans. By *choosing* to be outspoken about his beliefs, by *choosing* to make this a topic for public consumption, he is *choosing* to be subject to whatever criticism the public may have. If he held his beliefs privately, then we would be “peeping toms” as you say–but he does not. He chooses to *publicly* announce his beliefs–and worse, as in the case of Brook Shields–deride others for *their* beliefs. Cruise didn’t talk about his views concerning Shields’ post-partum depression over a private dinner with her–he aired them publicly on Access Hollywood!
That is a far cry from the public invading his private space. Yes, the tabloid press do often cross a line when it comes to celebrity, but if you’re going to discuss that seedy aspect of American pop-culture, Tom Cruise is the wrong person to use for sympathy. He’s not trying to privately practice his beliefs; he’s out on the talk show circuit shouting his views at the top of his lungs. He is merely reaping what he has sown.
May 7th, 2006 at 12:38 pm
Merci, Thomas. (and thanks, Val)
Puisque tu et Cruise sont deux Thomases qui ont lancé leurs carrières ‘circa’ 1981 (heureux anniversaire!), il est juste à apprécier certains analogies ‘pop’ entre vous…les quatre-vingts, le “cool,” etc. Je ne comprends pas la popularité de Cruise (il y a des indices dans “Losin’ It” peut-être?), mais dans les États-Unis (et vraisemblablement sans le placentaburger), La Musique Dolby peut rendre l’équilibre à l’univers! (Mission Impossible, vraiment?)
Je suis désolé que je ne suis pas en arrière d’objectif pour toi (et vous), mais Peut-Le Cube Être Avec Vous!
May 7th, 2006 at 1:04 pm
Actually just came back from seeing MI3. Nice choice of Philip Seymour Hoffman as the understated villain. I think this version goes deeper into the relationship angles than the previous ones, but still has the ‘usual’ incredible stunts and gadgets. I think most people will like this version.
And there’s a cool homage to the idea of ‘wind power,’ as it were, in one of the chase scenes.
May 7th, 2006 at 4:28 pm
“Warmongers”
I just want to pick up on this. It’s the most important bit of the blog for me. I can’t let it pass, what is happening in the world, and the corrupt alliance between republican US (your country) and the UK (my country) that is driving this stupidity.
The objective of the war was “regime change”. Regime change can be accomplished with a single bullet. It is not a justification for war. Musicians have a duty not just to speak about this, but to write music to express alternative ideas/ways of doing things. Whatever the price.
I do not think that war is per se evil funnily enough. I am not a pacifist. But evil wars are unforgiveable.
May 7th, 2006 at 8:28 pm
I saw JJ speak at last year’s Visual Effects Festival where he talked about production for Lost and Alias. He told us then that he was directing MI:III. Really great guy, and he pulls in super people around him. He may be the next Spielberg.
I like Tom Cruise as an actor. But I think he has brought a lot of this on himself as others have said here. When he airs his personal beliefs or behaviors, he makes himself open to public interpretation, and the media will focus on them. Once the weird stuff is caught on tape, it’s going to be aired over and over again. That’s just how it is. Now when I hear his name, I may think of Top Gun and Minority Report, but it also brings couch jumping and the Matt Lauer episode to mind, even if it may not be fair to Tom.
I would say the Iranian president seems to be a warmonger too when he threatens to wipe countries off the map and will have the means to do so. Let’s just hope it’s only peaceful rhetoric…
May 7th, 2006 at 10:27 pm
threats from a lunatic are not an excuse for a war that slaughters civilians….I go back to the “bullet” point…..
May 8th, 2006 at 8:25 am
I have to agree with “Dave!” on this one. Freedom is a two-way street. If someone takes the liberty to preach about their religious and/or political beliefs, others should not be denied the liberty of responding.
I would disagree however with Matthews who suggests it’s a “duty” for musicians to speak out on war and peace and other current events. They certainly have the right to…but “duty?” Eh. Just not feelin’ it.
I admit though, this puts celebrities/artists in a tough position. I love Thomas Dolby, for example, but I do not want to go to his concert in Pittsburgh this Thursday (which I am doing by the way) to hear an anti-Bush diatribe. Imagine how much that would turn-off the Bush supporters in the crowd (of which there may be 3) who came to hear some really great music by one of their favorite artists.
On the other hand, I recognize the celebrity/artist’s longing to express his or her beliefs, and his or her right to do so.
It’s an interesting debate really, an interesting topic of conversation, and I’m enjoying your posts.
I’ll end with this: I have strong opinions, but if I was a celebrity/artist, I feel that I personally would have to adhere to that old social grace rule: “leave politics and religion out of it.” Why? I wouldn’t want to alienate half my audience.
But that’s just my 2 cents. I certainly respect your points of view.
Thanks!
(My 1st post by the way. So cool to see other Thomas Dolby fans. I can’t wait to meet some in person this Thursday.)
May 8th, 2006 at 3:25 pm
Amen.
Tom – I couldn’t have said it better myself!
I have even more respect fo you than I did before.
BTW
Great show at the Rams Head on Sunday!
May 8th, 2006 at 3:30 pm
Yeah, I must admit I agree with you completely Thomas. Tom Cruise is a pretty good guy in my book, despite the so-called odd behaviors so reported lately. Who hasn’t acted “strangely ” over the course of thier life? This was a free country last time I checked. I could do with out the hype though.
May 8th, 2006 at 4:31 pm
I agree with you totally TGrant. Places like this are the place for diatribing. I HATE political gushing at gigs etc….the kind of expression I was thinking of was IN the music…i.e. be alert not to misuse the ability to make music just to create more opiates to hide the pain of things. But then the WHOLE POINT of music is in a way to do that! So you have to get the balance just right…
The people I think did it right are Marley, Lennon, who commit within their artistic output to saying what they want to say. I cannot listen to those records to hide in. For me, the people who do it wrong are the preachers and patronisers who think we can’t think for ourselves and have to be preached to at gigs etc…
Plus anyway, as you all say, this all starts with opinions, and even if not everyone has one, they all have a right to one…
May 8th, 2006 at 11:42 pm
“Great spirits have always encountered opposition from mediocre minds. The mediocre mind is incapable of understanding the man who refuses to bow blindly to conventional prejudices and chooses instead to express his opinions courageously and honestly.” —Albert Einstein, quoted in New York Times, March 13, 1940
May 9th, 2006 at 4:23 am
I think media saturation has gotten to the point that you find yourself swept up into the minutiae of other peoples lives whether you want to be just by turning on the TV these days – I personally despise this state of affairs, as I have absolutely no interest in whether Pete Doherty is pouring crack over his breakfast cereal or whether Katie Holmes is about to give birth to the third alien overlord. As you say, there are more important issues at hand – like the fact that a Simian who bears an alarming resemblance to Martin Sheen’s apocalyptic president from The Dead Zone has his finger on the button and his eye on the world and that my own smiley glad-hand shyster of a PM is apparently content to follow him grinning into the abyss. Difficult to get people to care though – I’ve tried to palm my Chomsky and Pilger off on people that I know, but many of them see the word politics and just panic. Thank Christ for Jon Stewart getting an airing in the UK is all I can say.
The thing is, I think the increased obsession with the cult of celebrity is symptomatic of a culture of vanity and selfishness that’s become a lot more prevalent in the last decade and, depressingly, I can’t see how its going to be arrested any time soon. Despite my best efforts to remain chipper and do my bit, I strongly suspect we’re heading for a tomorrow straight from the pages of John Brunner’s 1972 enviro-dystopia The Sheep Look Up (I’m certain that the late JB was a temporal traveller as his Prexy is a dead ringer for Bush jnr.)
Regarding your friend, Mr Abrams – more power to his elbow for Lost which has been keeping me bleary eyed from staying up late to catch it these last few weeks; I never really caught Alias* and I’ll be giving MI:III a miss (Nice bloke or not, I’m not a fan of Cruise. Not at all.)
Groksploitation? – do I detect a touch of the Heinleins in that title?
Anyway, hope all is well with thee and thine and look forward to seeing you in nodnoL when you get here.
*I prefer my spies gnarly, fusty and middle-aged – your David Callans and your Harry Palmers
May 9th, 2006 at 12:05 pm
I try to look at it this way, when I open yahoo or such homepage and it lists the top10 news stories, if I see such a celebrity driven story of nonsense I realize it is a slow news day and that a carbomb did not go off in the middle east, no natural disasters wiping out people, no shocking murders…so that’s pretty good if that’s the worst they can dig up.
May 9th, 2006 at 5:25 pm
philyG ~
Or maybe it is the celebrity distraction they are counting on to obfuscate whatever independent news remains!
Just a thought…
Government individuals on this planet have become much too deceptive to shrug off…
May 10th, 2006 at 9:00 am
I don’t know, Thomas.
This hit the blogosphere yesterday: “After I began dating Kate, Bella [his 13-year-old daughter] looked at me and said, ‘Don’t let this one go. She’s the one,’” Cruise tells Good Housekeeping magazine in its June cover story. (The issue goes on sale May 16.)
Are we peons* really at fault for discussing what moronic statements he keeps making? Using just today’s example: that he’d drag his kids into his adult public love life, and indicate that his preteen daughter calls any woman other than her mom “the one” is discomfiting at best. Unless it’s a misquote, I fail to see anything there but shameless self-aggrandizement (and a whopping conceit) on the part of Mr. Cruise. We can argue about what level of importance the discussion has to our daily lives, but if Tom Cruise has too much of his personal life in the tabloids and magazines, it is absolutely his own fault.
* aka “movie-buying public”
I’m irritated on this subject, and don’t even get me started on Scientology.
May 11th, 2006 at 5:26 am
I have been following the tom cruise press lately as friends point me to hilarious articles. Whats always been funny to me is how much press celebrities get for just about everything they say, silly or smart, stupid or ludicrous. Somebody must think that it’s important to them. I dont really care what he does with his own life and time, but Scientology is most definitely NOT harmless. i’ve had 2 close friends that got involved and then managed to get out. It’s not easy. I feel sorry for poor katy and their child. Generally religion or wacky thinking of others is none of my business and I’m a big proponant of minding ones own business. But scientology has levered it’s way into my life through my friends so I have an opinion. I will not defend it, or anybodies right to be wacky into it. It’s bad news, and bad news is the only kind that the press is interested in reporting.
May 12th, 2006 at 1:01 pm
It is a sad commentary when many cannot distinguish the objective of this blog.
From what I understood, people seem to place more importance on celebrity personal quirks, which has little if no effect on our lives, compared to crooks who run countries and affect the population of this planet in a warmonger way.
In defense of the human tendency to better itself — I have found religious groups to have at its basic core the aim of improving human condition. We may not approve of their methods and on occasion find a deviant member or leader blunting its effect, but at leat there is the motivation to improve spiritually. This is more than I can say of a disapproving and disgruntled ex-member whose negativity is perpetuated by the ill-informed public. But even more revealing, passing careless judgment on others tells a lot about us.
I hear a humanitarian concern from this blog but some comments instinctively obscure it with pet peeves.
It is one planet folks, and it NEEDS love and human concern before we drive ourselves to the brink of extinction — NOT second-hand criticism of controversial statements, habits and belief of celebrities.
May 13th, 2006 at 2:18 pm
Well, Omar, I do have respect for Thomas enough not to fight with you about this (here), but I did want to point out one thing. Just because a person reads about and casually discusses any celebrity’s antics in the press doesn’t mean she is incapable of also paying attention to local, state and national politics at the same time. The two subjects are not mutually exclusive.
June 21st, 2006 at 2:16 pm
[...] At one point during Tom Cruise’s biggest acting!! moment, Ethan’s face and lips scrunch up, internally wrestling with just how much to reveal of his agent lifestyle to his girlfriend. After sitting through this for what seemed like 45 seconds, Sharkboy leaned over and said “Line..?” to prompt Tom into doing… something. This pretty much set the tone for MI3. It’s hard not to see Tom anything other than crazy since he’s run amok in the tabloids. Sorry Thomas Dolby, the guy belongs to a dangerous cult and needs to be taken down a notch or two. I’ve always said that celebrities’ bosses are the public and the tabloids are the fucktards you have to work with. How you deal with them is part of the job. [...]
January 6th, 2007 at 2:02 am
1960 chrysler record player…
Didn’t notice it before . . . quite clever….
July 1st, 2007 at 2:34 pm
[...] Thomas Dolby has posted on his blog a funky nugget (”Groksploitation,” MP3), a collaboration with JJ Abrams, who’s contributed to the music of his own productions, including the TV shows Lost and Alias and the new Mission Impossible film, M:I-3. It’s in the middle of M:I-3 that this little Dolby-Abrams team-up appears. Explains Dolby, “While in post production on MI3, he and I started bouncing musical ideas around. He picked up one of my grooves and added a funky bass part and synth riff; and he told me there was a small slot in the movie for it, apparently in a scene where Tom Cruise’s character is working on his car, and there’s a party going on next door.” Of Abrams’ music fixation, he says, “JJ … started collecting synths and drum machines as well as getting pretty adept with his laptop, Logic, Reason and Ableton Live.” In Dolby’s telling, “On sets and in edit rooms there’s a lot of downtime. JJ wrote the themes to Alias and Lost on headphones while sitting around waiting for something to happen.” More at thomasdolby.com. [...]
November 4th, 2007 at 10:36 am
wrestling rumors…
Very nice, I love wrestling rumors by the way!…