'Random' Articles

Is Citizens United v. FCC really that bad?

In another political decision, Citizens United vs. Federal Communications Commission, the Supreme Court made some sense of certain portion of McCain-Feingold — by striking down certain portions of it.
Please do not be confused by this ruling — especially if you listen to the left.  It is not a a “major victory” for Big Oil, Wall Street banks and health insurance companies as President Obama may lead you to believe.
This Supreme Court decision is the last word on an action Citizens United, a conservative non-profit company, which tried to run a film critical of then-primary-candidate Hillary Clinton.  Basically, the Supreme Court struck down the law prohibiting corporations and labor unions from funding certain kind of political communication, thus, corporations and unions can now directly run political advertisements out of their general treasuries.
Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the decision, and was joined in the majority with Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Samuel Alito, Justice Antonin Scalia and Justice Clarence Thomas.
Bottom line:  The First Amendment applies to corporations.  Corporations are owned by individuals.  At its purest, a corporation is a pooling of peoples’ money with the advantage of limited liability (and the disadvantage of double taxation).  As such, the majority of these individuals can dictate where the money goes — including, to run ads favoring a candidate that group of individuals supports.  Does this mean that Big Oil, Wall Street banks and health insurance companies will immediately start emptying their bank accounts to run ads about Republican candidates?  That seems doubtful.  Regardless, they still cannot under the law make contributions directly to candidates and

In another polarizing Supreme Court decision, in the  Citizens United vs. Federal Communications Commission, the court made some sense of a particular portion of McCain-Feingold — by striking it down as unconstitutional.

Please do not be confused by this ruling — especially if you listen to the left.  It is not a a “major victory” for Big Oil, Wall Street banks and health insurance companies as President Obama may lead you to believe.  This Supreme Court decision is just another last word on the issue of whether a corporation or union can run certain political ads endorsing or dismissing a particular candidates.  The underlying action was commenced by Citizens United, a conservative non-profit, which tried to run a film critical of then-primary-candidate Hillary Clinton.  Basically, the Supreme Court struck down the law prohibiting corporations and labor unions from funding certain political communication.  Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the decision, and was joined in the majority with Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Samuel Alito, Justice Antonin Scalia and Justice Clarence Thomas.

Bottom line:  The First Amendment applies to “speech,” whether by an individual or by a corporation.  How could it not?  At its purest, a corporation is a pooling of individuals’ money with the advantage of limited liability (and the disadvantage of double taxation).  Imagine a world where speech could be regulated (a.k.a. censored) if the speech came from a corporation.  Last I checked, books and magazines are published by corporations; and well as television and film.

Does this mean that Big Oil, Wall Street banks and health insurance companies will immediately start emptying their bank accounts to run ads about Republican candidates?  That seems doubtful.  The actual provision rendered unconstitutional is only for corporations/unions that run ads, it does not strike the law that prohibits corporations to make contributions directly to candidates.  Fear not leftists, unions can now run such ads and you still have your media and your PACs to dominate the airwaves.

Add comment January 28th, 2010

Nobel Peace Prize: Gore, Palmeiro, and now Obama.

To start, I want congratulate President Obama for his victory in winning the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize.   He joins Mikhail  Gorbachev (1990) and Nelson Mandela (1993) as notable leaders who won this prestigious award.  He also joins Al Gore (2007) and Rafael Palmeiro (1999) as Americans that cleary do not deserve such an award.  Now, for the record, I am making no accusation towards any of these individuals with respect to the use of performance-enhancing drugs.  However, their lack of achievement in the area (peace or defense) in which they won their awards really takes the awards themselves into the irrational.

Al Gore.  No comment.  We can save that for another day.  Rafael Palmeiro.  I can keep this brief.  Back in 1999,  Palmeiro won a Rawlings Gold Glove award for his play at first base while being a member of the Texas Rangers.  As for background, each year, a “Gold Glove” is given out to one player in each league at each of the nine baseball positions.  To his credit, Palmeiro only made only one error during the 1999 Major League Baseball season (and errors are bad things).  Ordinarily that would be an incredible accomplishment for a first baseman (who is the guy that all the infielders throw to).  However, he only played in 28 games at first base that season (and there are 162 games in a season).  The other games he played (135 of them) were as the designated hitter (a designated hitter is what is says, a player, who only hits, and does not field).  The Rawlings Gold Glove is awarded to those players who exhibit “defensive excellence.”  How that was exhibited by a player that played defense in less than 20% of his team’s games (as opposed to the normal 80-95%) is a question that will remain forever unanswered. 

Now we are presented with another award that does not appear warranted.  As legend tells us, after Alfred Nobel died in 1896, his will spoke to us and offered an annual Nobel Peace Prize “to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.”  I hope one day President Obama meets this standard.  To claim he already has is dishonest.

It should be noted that this peace prize is awarded by a committee of only five people, all of which are elected by the Norwegian Parliament.  In its press release on October 9, 2009, this committee awarded President Obama the prize for his “extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.”  When did that happen?  The press release specifically stated that the committee “attached special importance to [President] Obama’s vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.”  What work?  And how did the word “vision” get in there?  I believe the standard above specifically states “have done” — visions are irrelevant.  To the committee’s credit, they did try to show how the vision actually did something (”[t]he vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations”), but, seriously, can anyone argue that this rises to the level of the Nobel standard above?

Nonetheless, I again congratulate President Obama for winning this award.  (Mr. Palmeiro gets no such respect from me as that was Tino Martinez’s award in 1999.)  President Obama has obviously “done” something to win this peace prize.  In my opinion, that was impressing five Norwegians with him vision.  Imagine if he actually does something to lead us to a world without nuclear weapons.  What would he win then — a Gold Glove?

Add comment December 14th, 2009

World Cup 2010: Group of Death?

[New York. December 10, 2009.]  After the groups were chosen for the 2010 World Cup, immediately, soccer (a.k.a. non-US football) fans and commentators  commenced the “Group of Death” argument.  As in prior years, the debate ended fast, with little controversy.  Few have chosen to disagree with the football brass on this issue.  (Note the usage of the term “football”; I do not know of any soccer brass.)  They have all dubbed Group G the Group of Death (such group includes  Brazil, North Korea, Cote d’Ivoire and Portugal).  Since this is the World’s game and means more to most than politics, we shall examine.


First, the basics.  World Cup football begins with eight Groups.  Each Group has four teams.  An elaborate selection process is used to determine which teams are placed into each Group.  This process seeks to offer the Groups parity, but, like everything else in sport, true parity cannot be achieved.  Each Group member plays the other three teams once (three points for a win and one for a draw).  The top two teams in each Group by points move on to the “knockout” round (essentially a quarterfinal).   At the December 4, 2009 selection “event,” Charlize Theron told us that the 2010 World Cup groups would be made up as follows:

Group A:  South Africa (86) / Mexico (15) / Uruguay(19) / France (7)
Group B:  Argetina(8) / Nigeria(22) / South Korea(52) / Greece(12)
Group C:  England(9) / United States(14) / Algeria(28) / Slovenia(33)
Group D:  Germany(6) / Australia(21) / Serbia(20) / Ghana(37)
Group E:  Netherlands(3) / Denmark(26) / Japan(43) / Cameroon(11)
Group F:  Italy(4) / Paraguay(30) / New Zealand(77) / Slovakia(34)
Group G:  Brazil(2) / North Korea(84) / Cote d’Ivoire(16) / Portugal(5)
Group H:  Spain(1) / Switzerland(18) / Honduras(38) / Chile(17)

What are  the numbers in the parentheticals?  They are the FIFA/Coca-Cola World Rankings, which I will use to analyze the Groups.   For those that do not follow soccer, FIFA is the International Federation of Association Football, is the international organization that governs various tournaments, including the World Cup.  Of course, it is known by its French acronym, FIFA.

FIFA, along with its good friends Coke [NYSE:KO], issue internation team rankings, and the last such rankings were released on November 20, 2009.  Spain is number 1 in the world, Brazil is number 2, and so on.

The analysis I will use involves three components to determine which, if any, of the Groups is the “Group of Death” (in the soccer world, this is the most difficult group to get out of — reminder, only two of the four teams in each group advance).  Each component will rank the eight Groups from most difficult (1 point) to easiest (8 point); then, a weighted-average of each Group’s three components will give a final tally.  Of course, at TRP, we love our math.

Component 1 (25%):  The sum of each team’s FIFA rankings for each Group.  For example, Group A, with France (FIFA Ranking 7), Mexico (15), Uruguay (19) and South Africa (86), has a total of 127.  This is the second highest of all eight groups — so Group A will get a ‘7′ for this component.

Component 2 (50%):  The same calculation as Component 1, but using only the top three teams in each Group.  For example, Group B, with Argentina (8), Greece (12), Nigeria (22) and South Korea (52), has a total of 42.  In my opinion, this is the most relevant component, so it is given double the weight of the two others.

Component 3 (25%): Since the third-place team in each Group does not advance, the FIFA ranking of that team will be used.  For this component, “third-place” means the third highest ranked team in the Group.  For example, Slovakia, in Group F, has the highest ranking of all third-place teams — so Group F will get a ‘8′ for this component.

Based on this analysis, the Groups are ranked as follows:

Group F (8.000) (easiest)
Group C (6.000)
Group D (5.125)
Group B (4.875)
Group A (4.500)
Group E (3.500)
Group G (2.250)
Group H (1.750) (most difficult)

There you have it. Are you confused? Let me try to make this clearer through another example, using the potentially strongest group:  Group H has the least total FIFA ranking of all eight Groups with a 74 (so they get a ‘1′ for Component 1); it has the second lowest total FIFA ranking for its top three teams with a 36 (a ‘2′ for Component 2); and it has the second lowest seeded third placed team with the Swiss 178 (a ‘2′ for Component 3). Now, do the math: 1 x 25% + 2 x 50% + 2 x 25% = 1.75.

Although Group G has been presented to the world as the obvious Group of Death (thanks to Brazil, Portugal and Cote d’Ivoire — three top 16 teams), the analysis above results in a Group H of Death.  Clearly, the reason is that Group G’s North Korea is 84 in the world, whereas, Group H’s weakest team, Honduras, is 38.  I have no doubt that Spain (number 1 in the world) would much rather be in Group H, than in Group G.  However, in Group G, the would get the guaranteed win against North Korea, whereas, Honduras is no guarantee.  With that said, I think we can take the following from the above analysis:

  • Groups G and H can share “Group of Death” status;
  • Groups A, B, D and E are actually evenly matched; and
  • Groups C and F are very weak at the bottom.

If you back U.S., English or Italian soccer, get ready for the knock-out round or for some tears.

1 comment December 10th, 2009

Two Things That Scare Me…

I apologize that it has been so long.  I promise to be more consistent and more interesting.  (It’s hard to write articles when you spend your time reading The Audacity of Hope — trying to figure out what Mr. Obama’s views really are.)

 For now, let me leave you with the two things that scare me moving ahead in 2007…

Daisuke MatsuzakaHillary Clinton

Well, once the first pitch is thrown in St. Louis — on Sunday April 1st at 8:05 pm (New York time) – by Chris Carpenter to Jose Reyes (likely a strike-out or a triple) and the Republican and Democrat primary polls really start making sense — this blog will finally get going…

Add comment March 7th, 2007

And the BCS Winner is — Florida?

After this past Saturday night’s upset of USC (Sorry OJ), rumors were flowing regarding who would play the Ohio State Buckeyes in the college football BCS National Championship Game on January 8, 2007. (For those of you out of touch, college football in the United States does not use a playoff format; instead, it uses a dumbfounded formula to decide which two colleges are the top two in the country for championship game purposes.)  This formula is known as the Bowl Championship Series (or BCS).  At the end of the college football season, it is used to determine the teams that will play in the BCS bowl games (the Rose Bowl, the Sugar Bowl, the Fiesta Bowl and the Orange Bowl), but most importantly, which teams will play for the championship.  Clearly, this system is flawed. (For example, if there are three undefeated teams, this system will only allow for two of the three teams to play for the championship — see Auburn, 1994 [Actually, it was 2004 -- good call Bill].)  At the end of this year’s college football season, there were two undefeated teams, Ohio State and Boise State.  (Boise State did not finish in the top two of the BCS, thus, cannot play in the championship game.)  The number two slot came down to two legitimate one-loss contenders — the Florida Gators and the Michigan Wolverines.


To the chagrin of both Ann Coulter and Dick Gephardt, the Gators finished second (and will play the Buckeyes) and the Wolverines finished third (earning a trip to th Rose Bowl versus USC).  So, how did this happen since the Wolverines are obviously (Note: my opinion) the better football team?  It happened for two reasons:  the BCS does not incorporate a playoff and two-thirds of the BCS formula can be manipulated by the “human” element.

The current BCS system — as it stands today, December 4, 2006 (check back for updates!) incorporates three “sub-systems” in determining the top 25 teams in the nation.  The top two play in the championship game, at a neutral site (this year, at the site of the Fiesta Bowl in Glendale, Arizona). The current BCS formula’s three sub-systems are the (i) Coaches’ Poll, (ii) Harris Poll and (iii) computer rankings.

The Coaches Poll. The USA Today Coaches’ poll is probably the most common college football Division I-A top 25 ranking poll.  (Although the AP poll is also pretty well-known, it is no longer used as part of the BCS.)  This poll ranks teams based on the votes of college football coaches — currently, 63 head coaches at Division I-A colleges.  (Yes, the college football coaches vote for the top college football teams in the country.)  Each week, including and most importantly at the end of the college football season, the votes are cast, translated into points.  Then, for BCS purposes, each team is assigned a percentage of the possible points it could have received. This year, Ohio State received 1550 of a maximum 1550 points (1.000%), Florida received 1470 points (.948%) and Michigan received 1444 points (.932%).

The Harris Poll. The Harris Interactive College Football Poll is the “other” human poll used by the BCS for ranking the top 25 college football teams in the nation. Instead of taking its name by the title of the voters, this poll takes its name from its administrator, Harris Interactive, a market research company that specializes in Internet research. This poll recently replaced the AP poll as part of the BCS. The Harris Poll is comprised of various “humans,” and includes, among others, former players (Terry Bradshaw and Boomer Esiason), college administrators, and current and former media.  (Is this the Oscars?)  Like the Coaches’ poll, each voter picks the top 25 teams each week.  These votes are also converted into points and, again, for BCS purposes, each team is assigned a percentage of the possible points it could have received. This year, Ohio State received 2,824 of a maximum 2,824 points (1.000%), Florida received 2,670 points (.945%) and Michigan received 2,632 points (.932%).

The Computer Average. The non-human component of the BCS includes six computer based ranking systems. These computer systems rank the top 25 teams – assigning the number one team 25 points, number two team 24 points, and so on. To compute the final computer average to be used in the BCS, the highest and lowest ranking for each team is dropped. Therefore, if a team receives five first place votes and one third place vote, it will still end with 100 points (4 x 25). As with the prior two polls, a percentage is produced to incorporate into the BCS final standings. Probably the most important aspect of the computer average is that the individual computer systems take into account the strength of each teams’ schedule. This year, Ohio State received 100 points (1.000%), Florida received 94 points (.940%) and Michigan, tied with Florida in this poll, also received 94 points (.940%).  Apparently, the computers realized that Michigan also played a difficult schedule and only lost to the best team in the country — the Buckeyes.

Okay, I know that this is a lot of information, but at least now the BCS should make some sense.  (Hopefully to you as I am lost again.)  Once each team has been assigned a percentage from each of the three “sub-systems,” the three are averaged and the teams are ranked based on that average.  At the end of the regular season (this past weekend), the top two teams are “chosen” to play for the college football championship.

This year, Ohio State (still undefeated) will play Florida (with one loss to Auburn), and the Michigan (with its only loss to number one, undefeated, Ohio State) will have no chance to win the championship, even though its only loss was to the top team in the country — whereas, Florida lost to a two loss Auburn.  Since the final BCS results were released, many have speculated that Michigan was ousted because their only loss was to Ohio State last week – albeit by only three points in Columbus, Ohio — and the human voters did not want a rematch between the two teams (which also play in the same conference, the Big Ten).  Prior to this past weekend, Michigan was ranked third and Florida was fourth (trailing Michigan by a somewhat large margin in all three polls). On this past Saturday, after number two USC lost to UCLA (knocking itself out of the number two spot in the BCS), Florida defeated Arkansas.  While this was going on, the Michigan Wolverines were watching the games on TV — at no fault of their own — since their season ended two weeks prior with the three-point loss to Ohio State. Sunday evening, when the polls were released, Florida jumped Michigan.

In my view, because of the foregoing, the system does not work for college football.  Either we need a playoff or someone should just call me and ask who I think are the best two teams.   (Who wouldn’t want to see Michigan and Rutgers in the championship?)  Now that I have wasted your time with the details of a system that liekly will not last, let me at least provide some weak insight.  After analyzing the BCS framework and reviewing some of the raw data for various years — maybe this system could be used for something.

To stick with the current theme of prior articles – why not use the BCS to narrow the choices in a primary election?  Think about it.  We could use a combination of polls to determine which two of the numerous candidates we want to vote for in a primary election. This could eliminate the dirt that is thrown around within the same political party (Bush v. McCain) — often hurting the party — during the primaries.  With only two primary candidates chosen quickly, costs would be cut and the overall election process could be streamlined to allow for increased information dissemination to the public prior to the primary vote and election day. So you may ask, how would the polls work?

A Coaches-like Poll.  Instead of coaches, the actual candidates’ campaign managers would vote and rank each candidate in the primary. Each candidate would receive points based on their ranking from the other candidates, and a percentage would be assigned to each.  What could be more democratic than having the competing candidates in a particular political party vote for each other?  (Actually, I guess having the people vote would be more democratic.)

A Harris-like Poll. I believe this is what Harris does anyway – so we would not even need to change the name.  An array of people could be assigned to participate in the vote, similar to the Nelson ratings.  Obviously, this poll could be expanded to represent the population – thou shall not disenfranchise.   

The Computers. Affectionately called the modem-poll,” six computer ranking systems could be set up to incorporate various factors in ranking the candidates.  (I would definitely want a chance to set one of these up.)  The computer rankings could various factors, including, experience, voting record, campaign finances, prior misdemeanor and felony convictions, tenure in civil service, filmology, etc.

Okay, maybe this is going too far.  I tried to mask my unhappiness in the BCS with politics.  Maybe the BCS is just useless.  Regardless, I would rather see it make the primary ballots smaller and get rid of those seven-plus-person debates, than diminish the quality of college football in early January…


1 comment December 4th, 2006

1992 Election: Clinton/Bush v. Morneau

Fourteen years after George H. W. Bush was denied reelection to the oval office, the New York Yankees’ shortstop, Derek Jeter, was denied a Most Valuable Player (MVP) award.  Interestingly, if the United States of America used the Major League Baseball MVP award voting system, we could have had a completely different resulting in the 1992 presidential election.  Shall we take a look at the numbers…


In this year’s MVP vote, Justin Morneau of the Minnesota Twins – in case you did not know he is the 2006 Major League Baseball MVP — received 15 first place votes, 8 second place votes, 3 third place votes and 2 fourth place votes (for a total of 320 points).  Derek Jeter, of the New York Yankees, received 12 first place votes, 14 second place votes, 1 fourth place vote and 1 sixth place vote (for a total of 306 points).  The MVP winner is determined based on the total number of points, not first place votes.  Regardless, since there was only 28 voters for this year’s award, the Twin’s Morneau would have won based on a simple majority of first place votes.  (He received 15 to Jeter’s 12.)  Total points for MVP purposes is determined using the following formula.  Each voter ranks 10 players (from first to tenth).  The player ranked first on each ballot receives 14 points, the player ranked second receives 9 points, third receives 8 points, and so on (leaving the player ranked tenth with one point).  For example, let’s look at David Ortiz, who finished in third place for this year’s MVP award.  Big Papi received no first place votes (0 points), 1 second place vote (9 points), 11 third place votes (88 points), 5 fourth place votes (35 points), 7 fifth place votes (42 points), 3 sixth place votes (15 points) and 1 seventh place vote (4 points) — totalling 193 points, a distant third place behind Messrs. Morneau and Jeter.

I have always found this voting methodology both intriguing and fair.  But, how would this play out in a presidential election?  Most of our recent presidential elections do not have more than two “serious” candidates — but 1992 did.  In the 1992 election, William Jefferson Clinton defeated George Herbert Walker Bush by collected 43.0% of the popular vote versus Bush’s 37.4%.  (Please note that Clinton did not receive a majority of the popular vote, but still won with the plurality by collecting 370 Electoral College votes – needing only 270.)

Two assumptions must be made to use the MVP award’s tabulation system — (i) there were only five candidates on the ballot in the 1992 presidential election (in reality, there were more, but the top five candiates collected 104,154,416 of the 104,423,923 total votes cast in the 1992 election) and (ii) points will be allocated as follows:  seven for a first place vote, five for second place vote, three for third, two for fourth and one for fifth.  (I varied the assumptions in calculating the final result and all such results were substantially similar.)

On election day, November 3, 1992, Clinton (along with Albert Arnold “the Internet” Gore, Jr.), collected 44,909,806 votes and Bush, the Republican incumbent (along with James Danforth “what were you thinking” Quayle) collected 39,104,550.  Moreover, as far too many forget, that same day, Henry Ross Perot (along with James Bond “007” Stockdale) collected 19,743,821 votes.  (The other notables included Andre V. Marrou, the Libertarian candidate, collecting 290,087 votes, and James “Bo” Gritz, the Populist candidate, collecting 106,152 votes.)

Before I go through the numbers, it will also be assumed, based on the utter hatred between democrats and republicans that still exists in this country, that all Clinton voters would vote Bush fifth and all Bush Voters would vote Clinton fifth (can you blame me?), and all other voters would have voted their candidate first and then the remaining votes in the order of the actual tally — Clinton, Bush, Perot, Marrou and then Gritz — except that Perot’s voters would likely vote Bush second and Clinton third.  (What was Perot’s party again?)  Therefore, after crunching the numbers, the 1992 election could have ended with Clinton receiving 414,685,850 “points” and Bush receiving 418,549,478 “points.”

Could Bush have won in a squeaker?

Nope – not in this election — because Perot would have ended with 559,071,005 points.  There you have it, Perot in a landslide!

Final vote tabulation as follows (total voters 104,154,416, using 7,5,3,2,1 MVP system):

Clinton:  44,909,806 (first); 396,239 (second); 19,743,821 (third); 39,104,550 (fifth);
414,685,850 (total)
Bush:  39,104,550 (first); 19,743,821 (second); 396,239 (third); 44,909,806 (fifth);
418,549,478 (total)
Perot:  19,743,821 (first); 84,014,356 (second); 396,239 (fourth);
559,071,005 (total).
Marrou:  290,087 (first); 84,014,356 (third); 19,743,821 (fourth); 106,152 (fifth);
293,667,471 (total)
Gritz:  106,152 (first); 84,014,356 (fourth); 20,033,908 (fifth);
188,805,684 (total)

So if you voted for Ross Perot, or just want to see a third party candidate have a chance, write you Congressman and explain the MVP award’s methodology.  All we need is revision to the current electoral college – amendments to force each states’ electoral college representative to vote based on the MVP awards’ methodology.  And yes, electoral fractions would be necessary.

1 comment November 25th, 2006

Goodbye OJ, Go Irish!


 ndlogo.gif        v.          oj.jpg

One such reason (and I apologize to Carson Palmer and his friends) is that the University of Southern California (or USC) is the alma mater of Orenthal James Simpson (or OJ, the Juice).  Now, I normally would not use this analysis to dictate how to feel on a Saturday night, but this Saturday – I have no shame.

After a few drama filled weeks, we finally found out that our Sony televisions and Barnes & Nobles will not be full of the Juice’s face and a detailed account of a would-be murder, somewhat similar to the “alleged” murder committed by the maid (Minute Maid?).  I cannot complain about the last minute rejection, but I must ask – how did it get that far?  We were pretty close to hearing and reading about that June 1994 “incident” from the number one suspect (futher publicizing his image) – all while Ronald Goldman and Nicole Brown are gone and said suspect still owes their families on a (far less publicized) $33.5 million judgment for wrongful death and battery.  (Clearly no “Trial of the Century.”)  At least in the eyes of that jury — based on a preponderance of the evidence — he did it.  That, along with this recent drama, is enough for me to wear green.

I know well (as many of us do) how happy just another football game can make us.  Mr. Simpson does not deserve that happiness.  Not this weekend.  Not if there is justice.  Not after “If I did it,” not even before it.  And surely not from his home in Miami — a home that should be a Goldmans.  (Professor, please explain the homestead to me again?)  Go Mr. Weis.  Go-odbye Mr. Simpson. 

1 comment November 20th, 2006



April 2018
« Feb    

Posts by Month

Posts by Category

Sponsored Links