Showing posts with label My 2 cents. Show all posts
Showing posts with label My 2 cents. Show all posts
Saturday, February 17, 2018
Wednesday, June 28, 2017
Quit smoking, dammit
I doubt the name Michael Nyqvist is going to jump off the page – create an aura of instant recognition for those who see the name in print. But you might recall him if I tell you that eight years ago he played the journalist Mikael Blomkvist in the original and still popular "Girl Trilogy" — The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, The Girl Who Played With Fire and The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet’s Nest. (It’s the same character that Daniel Craig played in the American remake of Tattoo.) Or you might even remember him as the lead villain Kurt Hendricks in Mission: Impossible — Ghost Protocol or as Viggo Tarasov, another lead villain, in John Wick.
Regardless, I just learned he died yesterday. Of lung cancer. And he was only 56-years-old. C’mon people. Wake up! Twenty-seven years ago, I kicked a three-pack-a day habit and I smoked unfiltered Camels for the previous 25 years and I did it cold turkey, without patches or any other form of medication. If I — someone without an ounce of will power — can do it, anyone can.
Wednesday, March 1, 2017
Of Shakespearian proportions
The greatest tragedy to ever befall this nation of ours is not that Donald Trump was elected president, but that Bernie Sanders wasn't.
Monday, July 25, 2016
My doubts about Hillary’s decision making ability
I am not a fan of a Hillary Clinton. I am not a fan of the entire Clinton Clan. One of my problems is that every time I read the word "Clinton" I also read the word "scandal," if not in the same sentence, at least in the same paragraph. But it’s also philosophical. I am an unabashed and not ashamed to admit it independent liberal progressive and the Clintons have always been and will continue to be far too conservative for my political leanings. I have heard all those who claim she has shifted more to the left, but, frankly, I don’t trust her. I simply don’t believe her. She’s the type of politician who’s all too pervasive on the scene these days — she’ll say anything she feels she needs to in order to garner votes. Not only that, her selection of Virginia senator Tim Kaine proves just the opposite — now that the nomination is secured, she’s moving back toward the center-right where she’s always felt the most comfortable.
But recently my feelings about Hillary have only darkened. I found FBI director James Comey’s analysis of Clinton’s handling of classified information to be devastating. Hillary’s supporters will scream "The FBI found no reason to file charges against her," but I want to hold aspiring Presidents of the United States to a higher standard than "at least no charges were filed against her."
But now I’m beginning to view Clinton as the Richard Nixon of the Democratic Party. The revelations of how the Democratic National Committee worked to sabotage the candidacy of Bernie Sanders reminds me of what we learned about the dirty tricks Republicans in CREEP employed in 1972 to guarantee Nixon’s re-election. Debbie Wasserman Schultz is the 2016 reincarnation of Donald Segretti.
On top of that, Clinton chose to fight the wrong battle when all of these shenanigans were revealed. Instead of highlighting the likelihood that Russian President Vladmir Putin conspired with Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump to hack the DNC’s e-mail system in return for Trump’s declaration he would not necessarily challenge Putin for any actions Russia might direct against NATO countries in Europe, Clinton immediately announced how much she respects Wasserman Schultz. Now we’ve also learned that Clinton has hired this dirty trickster to be the "honorary chair" in the effort to elect Democrats nationwide and that she also will continue to be Clinton’s primary spokesperson and surrogate in Florida.
If this is an example of Hillary’s decision-making ability, I’m really afraid of what she might do as president. It makes me more committed than ever to support the Green Party candidacy of Liz Stein.
Friday, July 1, 2016
Monday, May 30, 2016
Who teaches these people how to write
I had to read this sentence at least a half dozen times before I finally came to grips with it, but I’m still not positive that I am completely understanding it. It’s from a column that appeared in today’s Austin American-Statesman by sports commentator Cedric Golden. The column concerned the upcoming Big 12 Conference meetings and I don’t need to go into any more detail than that to highlight this particular sentence Golden crafted about the University of Kansas’ basketball programs:
"The Jayhawks have won three national titles,16 regular season and 10 Big 12 tournament titles, including a current streak of 12 straight."
How, I kept asking myself, could Kansas have won the last 12 straight tournament titles when, according to Golden, they had only won 10 overall? Finally, after reading that sentence over and over and over again and tossing it around in my mind, I somewhat hesitantly have come to the conclusion the "12 straight" refers to the regular season titles, even though the structure of that sentence contradicts that thought.
I’m guessing the Statesman also gives sports copy editors the day off on Sundays because, otherwise, hopefully, someone on the sports desk would have caught and corrected this sentence.
Maybe Austin’s dearth of competent sports writers is because the capital city doesn’t have one of the Big 4 professional sports teams. I also realize I’m going to be spoiled because I began my professional journalism career working on the same newspaper as the great Red Smith and later wound up working on the same publication as the immortal Blackie Sherrod. But still, Austin does have the University of Texas and even though it’s athletic standing ain’t what it used to be, you would think we could do better than this.
"The Jayhawks have won three national titles,16 regular season and 10 Big 12 tournament titles, including a current streak of 12 straight."
How, I kept asking myself, could Kansas have won the last 12 straight tournament titles when, according to Golden, they had only won 10 overall? Finally, after reading that sentence over and over and over again and tossing it around in my mind, I somewhat hesitantly have come to the conclusion the "12 straight" refers to the regular season titles, even though the structure of that sentence contradicts that thought.
I’m guessing the Statesman also gives sports copy editors the day off on Sundays because, otherwise, hopefully, someone on the sports desk would have caught and corrected this sentence.
Maybe Austin’s dearth of competent sports writers is because the capital city doesn’t have one of the Big 4 professional sports teams. I also realize I’m going to be spoiled because I began my professional journalism career working on the same newspaper as the great Red Smith and later wound up working on the same publication as the immortal Blackie Sherrod. But still, Austin does have the University of Texas and even though it’s athletic standing ain’t what it used to be, you would think we could do better than this.
Friday, May 20, 2016
My 20 Favorite Singer/Songwriters (at the moment)
I have nothing against Gordon Lightfoot. I really like a number of his compositions. But I recently ran across this list compiled by the so-called music mavens at L.A. Weekly, which they touted as the definitive ranking of the world’s 20 best singer/songwriters. Gordon Lightfoot was No. 20 on that list, which was OK as far as it goes. But as I scanned the list I noticed the name Jackson Browne was nowhere to be found. Give me a break. I’ll give you Lightfoot’s Sundown and The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald and raise you Browne’s For Everyman, Rock Me on the Water, Something Fine, These Days, Take It Easy, The Pretender, just to name a handful.
So I thought to myself what would my list of 20 best singer/songwriters look. Then I decided I don’t want to compile a list that will stand for all-time, but one that reflected which ones I preferred right now. With apologies to Gordon Lightfoot and the L.A. Weekly, here’s how that list turned out:
1. Bob Dylan
2. Bruce Springsteen
3. Neil Young
4. Paul Simon
5. Lucinda Williams
6. Van Morrison
7. John Prine
8. John Hiatt
9. Boz Scaggs
10. Ryan Adams
11. Jackson Browne
12. Willie Nelson
13. Patty Griffin
14. Mark Knopfler
15. Dave Alvin
16. Joe Ely
17. Lyle Lovett
18. Guy Clark
19. Tom Petty
20. Robert Earl Keen
That's, like I said, the list for right now. It might all change by this time next week, next month, next year.
So I thought to myself what would my list of 20 best singer/songwriters look. Then I decided I don’t want to compile a list that will stand for all-time, but one that reflected which ones I preferred right now. With apologies to Gordon Lightfoot and the L.A. Weekly, here’s how that list turned out:
1. Bob Dylan
2. Bruce Springsteen
3. Neil Young
4. Paul Simon
5. Lucinda Williams
6. Van Morrison
7. John Prine
8. John Hiatt
9. Boz Scaggs
10. Ryan Adams
11. Jackson Browne
12. Willie Nelson
13. Patty Griffin
14. Mark Knopfler
15. Dave Alvin
16. Joe Ely
17. Lyle Lovett
18. Guy Clark
19. Tom Petty
20. Robert Earl Keen
That's, like I said, the list for right now. It might all change by this time next week, next month, next year.
Friday, May 13, 2016
On homophobes, hypocrites and head coaches
- The ugly truth is this country was founded my white Protestant males who wanted a safe, secure refuge in which white Protestant males could prosper. We don’t talk about the founders of this country; we call them our "founding fathers." We don’t use the word "predecessors" when talking about our early government leaders; we say "forefathers." The U.S. Constitution was signed on September 17, 1787. It took another 133 years for the 19th amendment to that Constitution, the one that finally gave women the right to vote, to be ratified. 133 freakin’ years!!!! And African-Americans weren’t guaranteed the right to vote for another 44 years after that. The Tea Party is a movement of mostly older Protestant white males who were flabbergasted by the realization that a black man occupied the White House and that the country was slowly evolving into a minority-majority dominated one and who didn’t want to give up their total domination of running things their way. Today, you saw that white male Protestant ethos raise its ugly head when the Texas governor and lieutenant governor once again went on this bigoted homophobic rant about school restrooms. Here’s something I would tell our misguided state leaders: look at the statistics and compare the number of school children who have been sexually abused by educators — their own teachers — against the number abused by transgendered high school students (how many of them can there be, anyway?) and then try to tell me who is the greater threat.
- Speaking of those in charge of state government, did you notice how many of them got all in a huff when Austin voters decided they wanted their elected leaders — not corporations with obscene amounts of money to spend — to craft their local ordinances? Uber and Lyft, the companies that spent more than $8 million in a futile attempt to spread a bunch of lies to sway voters, decided if the good people of Austin were going to force their drivers to prove who they said they were, they would just leave town. And now Republican legislators are supporting Uber and Lyft. Just let that sink in for a moment. What they are saying is you don’t have to prove you are the person you claim to be to drive a ride hailing auto, but you do have to go to all kind of extra lengths to do so in order to vote. What hypocrisy!
- Speaking of hypocrisy, what about those politicians who say "I don’t agree with anything this person says but I’m going to support and vote for him anyway because he is a member of my political party"? Now I can see why so many Americans are frustrated with the entire political process and decide there are more valuable things they can do with their time than vote. Why vote for people who espouse such nonsense? I’m not advocating abstaining from the voting process — not by any stretch of the imagination; I’m just saying I’m beginning to see why people are so disgusted with politics and politicians in general.
- In 2006, my beloved Dallas Mavericks played the Miami Heat in the NBA finals. The Mavs were far and away the better team and they quickly jumped out to a two-game lead in those finals. The problem for the Mavs, however, was that the Heat had a far better coach, Pat Riley. The Mavs were saddled with Avery Johnson. That wasn’t a fair fight. Riley made some clever adjustments after game two, Johnson refused to respond and the Heat swept the next four games to win the series. I know this is going to sound like heresy, but the same thing just happened in the Oklahoma City-San Antonio Western Conference semifinal series. The Spurs were the better team but the vaunted San Antonio Spurs head coach Gregg Popovich got taken to the cleaners in this postseason by Billy Donovan, in his first year in the NBA coaching the Oklahoma City Thunder. The Spurs’ offense relies on ball movement and Donovan found a way to take the Spurs out of that game. And that’s why the Thunder took the series. Pure and simple. Donovan outcoached the great Coach Popp. Look at the numbers. The Spurs were third in the NBA in assists this past season averaging 24.5 per game. The only time the Spurs came close to that number in their series against the Thunder was when they registered 23 in the series opener which, incidentally, the Spurs won by more than 30 points. It’s obvious Donovan made some adjustments after that game to stymie the Spurs offense. I wish I knew what they were, but no coach is going to give away their strategies for defeating another team. But in the five games after Game 1, the Spurs only averaged 16.8 assists per game, roughly two-thirds of their season average. In fact, in Game 4, which Oklahoma City won 111-97, the Thunder’s Russell Westbrook had three more assists (15) than the entire Spurs team. And that was the difference.
Wednesday, April 27, 2016
Cuban is right, but he’s wrong
Mavericks owner Mark Cuban was absolutely correct when he said the Oklahoma City Thunder’s Russell Westbrook was not a "superstar." He isn’t one. But Cuban was incorrect when he said Westbrook’s teammate, Kevin Durant, as well as Dirk Nowitzki, the greatest Maverick ever, were superstars. The NBA has only three — count ‘em, three — superstars among its ranks.
It should be realized here that "superstardom" has absolutely nothing to do with talent and ability and everything to do with economics. Do people shell out money to see this performer do his or her thing?
Back in what Hollywood likes to refer to as its glory days, when the big motion picture studios controlled everything, it was all about creating and maintaining superstars. It didn’t matter if the movie was good, bad or indifferent, if Bette Davis was in it, or if Marilyn Monroe was in it, or if Frank Sinatra was in it, if it starred Astaire-Rogers, the ticket buyers would shell out the money to see it. That all changed when Hollywood slowly evolved from being star-driven to actor/director-driven. But I still have friends back in my home in New York City who will be at the theater on opening day to see the latest Woody Allen film, no matter what.
I will admit talent helps one become a superstar, but all one has to do is survey the state of today’s most popular concert performers to realize that is not the overriding criterion. A simple poster, not her acting ability, made Farrah Fawcett a superstar in the 1970s. Of the NBA’s three current superstars — two of the them are incredibly talented and the third used to be. I’m talking about Steph Curry of the Golden State Warriors, LeBron James of the Cleveland Cavaliers and Kobe Bryant of the Los Angeles Lakers.
If you have just a passing interest in pro basketball, live within the radius of an NBA city and your team is hosting the Warriors, you’re going to want to go, not to see the Warriors necessarily, but to see Steph Curry. Fans not only show up to see him play, they know enough to get to the arena early to witness his pre-game warmup routine. No one went out of their way to see the Cleveland Cavaliers before LeBron James played on the team (either time), but the Cavs regularly sell out visiting NBA arenas today, as he did when he played with the Miami Heat. But those people come to see LeBron do his thing, not to see the Cavs. I remember distinctly at Mavericks-Lakers games at the old Reunion arena that more people at those contests wore Kobe Bryant jerseys than were wearing Mavericks gear,
That’s what defines a superstar.
How many youngsters outside the state of Oklahoma do you imagine have Russell Westbrook posters on their bedroom walls? I’m betting a significantly greater number have posters of Steph, LeBron and Kobe.
And that’s another measure of superstardom. I don’t even have to mention their last names, but you know whom I am talking about.
Finally, check out this: the best selling NBA jerseys. The top three are 1. Steph Curry; 2. LeBron James; 3. Kobe Bryant. That’s how you define a superstar.
Incidentally, without looking, try to guess who is No. 4 on the jersey list. I’m betting you won’t get it. But it indicates that media exposure, more than talent and ability, drives superstardom.
It should be realized here that "superstardom" has absolutely nothing to do with talent and ability and everything to do with economics. Do people shell out money to see this performer do his or her thing?
Back in what Hollywood likes to refer to as its glory days, when the big motion picture studios controlled everything, it was all about creating and maintaining superstars. It didn’t matter if the movie was good, bad or indifferent, if Bette Davis was in it, or if Marilyn Monroe was in it, or if Frank Sinatra was in it, if it starred Astaire-Rogers, the ticket buyers would shell out the money to see it. That all changed when Hollywood slowly evolved from being star-driven to actor/director-driven. But I still have friends back in my home in New York City who will be at the theater on opening day to see the latest Woody Allen film, no matter what.
I will admit talent helps one become a superstar, but all one has to do is survey the state of today’s most popular concert performers to realize that is not the overriding criterion. A simple poster, not her acting ability, made Farrah Fawcett a superstar in the 1970s. Of the NBA’s three current superstars — two of the them are incredibly talented and the third used to be. I’m talking about Steph Curry of the Golden State Warriors, LeBron James of the Cleveland Cavaliers and Kobe Bryant of the Los Angeles Lakers.
If you have just a passing interest in pro basketball, live within the radius of an NBA city and your team is hosting the Warriors, you’re going to want to go, not to see the Warriors necessarily, but to see Steph Curry. Fans not only show up to see him play, they know enough to get to the arena early to witness his pre-game warmup routine. No one went out of their way to see the Cleveland Cavaliers before LeBron James played on the team (either time), but the Cavs regularly sell out visiting NBA arenas today, as he did when he played with the Miami Heat. But those people come to see LeBron do his thing, not to see the Cavs. I remember distinctly at Mavericks-Lakers games at the old Reunion arena that more people at those contests wore Kobe Bryant jerseys than were wearing Mavericks gear,
That’s what defines a superstar.
How many youngsters outside the state of Oklahoma do you imagine have Russell Westbrook posters on their bedroom walls? I’m betting a significantly greater number have posters of Steph, LeBron and Kobe.
And that’s another measure of superstardom. I don’t even have to mention their last names, but you know whom I am talking about.
Finally, check out this: the best selling NBA jerseys. The top three are 1. Steph Curry; 2. LeBron James; 3. Kobe Bryant. That’s how you define a superstar.
Incidentally, without looking, try to guess who is No. 4 on the jersey list. I’m betting you won’t get it. But it indicates that media exposure, more than talent and ability, drives superstardom.
Monday, January 25, 2016
Thursday, January 7, 2016
Tuesday, January 5, 2016
Monday, December 21, 2015
An idea for a dramatic film
There are those who will argue Traffic already undertook this subject 15 years ago (Wow! It doesn't seem that long ago), but it seems to me that in the right hands, Cartel Land, which is now a documentary (admittedly unseen by me at this point), could be made into a riveting dramatic motion picture. Take a look for yourself:
Wednesday, December 9, 2015
Sunday, September 13, 2015
Friday, August 14, 2015
Between now and then just let me dream
Come next November, I'm going to hold my nose and vote for a right-of-center woman for President of the United States only because she will be preferable to anyone the Republicans are offering. But in the meantime, let me have my fun, let me support this guy, and let me dream about how much better this world would be if he could be elected.
Thursday, July 30, 2015
I'll drink to that
I don't know if my readers are familiar with Jeffrey Wells, but he's a Hollywood columnist who often ventures into topics apart from the entertainment industry. Here is what he wrote about Walter James Palmer, the demented dentist who paid $55,000 for the opportunity to kill Cecil the Lion: Palmer, Wells wrote, should "be stripped naked, forced to drop a tab of ecstasy, set out on the plains of Kenya and be hunted down by animal conservationists? Not with bullets, mind, but with paintballs. Just so he could savor the experience. And then they could tie him to a tree and paint his dick blue. Something like that."
Anyone who has a problem with that doesn't speak the same language that I do.
Anyone who has a problem with that doesn't speak the same language that I do.
Saturday, June 27, 2015
A couple of things I’d like to get off my chest
Listening and reading about their wailing and gnashing of teeth over the Supreme Court’s ruling on marriage equality, I’m wondering how Texas’ Republican leadership can, in good conscience, recite the Pledge of Allegiance, when they know they don’t believe in the pledge’s last lines. This is especially true of that real nut job, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, who was quoted as saying "I would rather be on the wrong side of history than on the wrong side of my faith and my beliefs." That must mean his faith and his beliefs to do not include tolerance since so many other religious leaders supported the ruling. Just one example: "This is a day of celebration for my church community," said Kim Rogers, pastor at Central Presbyterian Church in Austin. "The God I hold dear to me doesn’t push people away." But I guess to Patrick the faith and beliefs of others are just not worthy of consideration. That, my friends, is a textbook example of bigotry.
Speaking of wailing and gnashing of teeth, I noticed none of those spewing invectives at the New York Knicks for chosing Kristaps Porzingis with the fourth pick in Thursday’s NBA draft suggested someone the Knicks should have selected instead. Hey, there were no turnaround players in this draft, no Anthony Davis, no LaBron James, no Kevin Durant, no Tim Duncan, no Shaquille O’Neal, no Hakeem Olajuwon, no Michael Jordan, no Larry Bird, no Magic Johnson, certainly no Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. This draft was comparatively deep in good players, but not really that many very good players. The first pick in the draft, Kari-Anthony Towns, had the lowest points-per-game average of any player ever picked No. 1 in the 68-year history of the draft. And if Porzingis can put some muscle on his skinny frame, he could turn out to be as good a pick as anyone else in this draft. Yes, he could also be a major bust, but so could Towns and Jahill Okafor, two players selected ahead of Porzingis. And there have only been a handful of players chosen at the four spot that have really turned out to be major stars in the league — Russell Westbrook in 2008, Chris Paul in 2005, Chris Bosh in 2003, Stephon Marbury in 1996, Dikembe Mutombo in 1991 — but plenty of good journeymen. If Porzingis turns out to be the latter, that wouldn’t be all that bad.
Speaking of wailing and gnashing of teeth, I noticed none of those spewing invectives at the New York Knicks for chosing Kristaps Porzingis with the fourth pick in Thursday’s NBA draft suggested someone the Knicks should have selected instead. Hey, there were no turnaround players in this draft, no Anthony Davis, no LaBron James, no Kevin Durant, no Tim Duncan, no Shaquille O’Neal, no Hakeem Olajuwon, no Michael Jordan, no Larry Bird, no Magic Johnson, certainly no Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. This draft was comparatively deep in good players, but not really that many very good players. The first pick in the draft, Kari-Anthony Towns, had the lowest points-per-game average of any player ever picked No. 1 in the 68-year history of the draft. And if Porzingis can put some muscle on his skinny frame, he could turn out to be as good a pick as anyone else in this draft. Yes, he could also be a major bust, but so could Towns and Jahill Okafor, two players selected ahead of Porzingis. And there have only been a handful of players chosen at the four spot that have really turned out to be major stars in the league — Russell Westbrook in 2008, Chris Paul in 2005, Chris Bosh in 2003, Stephon Marbury in 1996, Dikembe Mutombo in 1991 — but plenty of good journeymen. If Porzingis turns out to be the latter, that wouldn’t be all that bad.
Monday, June 22, 2015
A change of heart on Rose
Not that I necessarily thought the lifetime ban that prohibited former Cincinnati Reds player/manager Pete Rose from having anything to do with Major League Baseball should be lifted, but I always thought Rose deserved a plaque in baseball’s Hall of Fame. It didn’t make sense, I felt, to deny a spot to the player who had more base hits than any other player in the history of the game. But I felt that plaque should clearly state that, in addition to his accomplishments on the baseball diamond, Rose was banished from the game of baseball for betting on the game while he was manager of the Reds.
Not now, however, not after today’s revelations that Rose was, in effect, in hock to the New York mob because of bets he made while he was a player. This reinforces my belief his banishment is justified and robs me of any argument I might have had about in his inclusion in the Hall of Fame.
And this revelation comes less than two months after Rose appeared on an ESPN radio talk show in New York and said he "never bet as a player. That’s a fact." Reminds me of the words attributed to Buddha, "Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon and the truth."
Rose maintains he has a meeting with baseball commissioner Rob Manfred scheduled for sometime after the break for the All-Star game to discuss Rose’s possible reinstatement. If this is true, Manfred should cancel the meeting and state unequivocally there will be no further discussions between MLB and Rose and/or his representatives for at least as long as he is commissioner.
And if there was a suitable deserted island somewhere …
Not now, however, not after today’s revelations that Rose was, in effect, in hock to the New York mob because of bets he made while he was a player. This reinforces my belief his banishment is justified and robs me of any argument I might have had about in his inclusion in the Hall of Fame.
And this revelation comes less than two months after Rose appeared on an ESPN radio talk show in New York and said he "never bet as a player. That’s a fact." Reminds me of the words attributed to Buddha, "Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon and the truth."
Rose maintains he has a meeting with baseball commissioner Rob Manfred scheduled for sometime after the break for the All-Star game to discuss Rose’s possible reinstatement. If this is true, Manfred should cancel the meeting and state unequivocally there will be no further discussions between MLB and Rose and/or his representatives for at least as long as he is commissioner.
And if there was a suitable deserted island somewhere …
Tuesday, June 16, 2015
She loves me, she loves me not; she kills me, she kills me not
Joyce Mitchell is telling New York state prosecutors she supplied the tools that allowed Richard Matt and David Sweat to escape from Dennemora 10 days ago. She also said she agreed to provide the getaway car and drive the pair out of the country if they agreed to pause for a moment in their getaway to kill her husband. But, she is claiming, she backed out of the getaway car part "because she still loved her husband."
I, for one, am not buying it. You don't bargain with two cutthroats with whom you've been intimate to kill your husband one minute and then claim you love him the next. Are you kidding? Who does she think she's fooling? I sure hope her husband is in negotiations with a top flight divorce lawyer even as I write this.
I, for one, am not buying it. You don't bargain with two cutthroats with whom you've been intimate to kill your husband one minute and then claim you love him the next. Are you kidding? Who does she think she's fooling? I sure hope her husband is in negotiations with a top flight divorce lawyer even as I write this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)







