October 20, 2006
Statistical Ties
In politics, polls are everything. One thing you always hear is when one politician trails another by 5 points, with a margin of error in the poll of +/- 3%, all the pundits who favor that politician call it a “statistical tie”. After all, if you swing one guy up by 2.5 points, and the other guy down by those 2.5 points, you’ve got a tie. Now, it doesn’t matter if 12 different polls all find the margin a consistent 4-6 points, as long as each poll has the same margin of error, the pundits call it a statistical tie.
Now, if I poll 1000 people, asking them today, “which party do you think will win the House”, and I get a 5-point swing, with a margin of error of +/- 3 points, you can take that poll as meaningless. However, if I, and three other polling firms get the same result, the consistency of result means that the chance that all 4 polls are wrong by 2.5 points in the same direction is fairly low. So four polls that show someone is down 5 points pretty much means that the guys is down about 5 points. While each poll has a +/- 3 point margin of error, the combined result is probably, at best, a +/- 1 point margin of error. The more polls showing the same result, the more likely it is that this trend is real, and not an erroneous poll.
Of course, that’s no reason to believe polls at all. I much prefer to believe prediction markets like tradesports.com, as the old adage, “Why don’t you put your money where your mouth is” is answered there by people actually doing it. But I’m also a big fan of pointing out idiocy of the media, and the pundits take the cake. One poll may be a statistical anomaly. Multiple polls, all agreeing with each other, are something to take notice of.
October 13, 2006
Poor Chief Illiniwek
Dear Chief Illiniwek,
In Illinois, a university chooses to honor your spirit and valiant honor in battle, by choosing you as their symbol. It’s too bad that some panty-waisted professors are trying to steal your honor. Though you may be a fictional character, I weep for you.
A group of Illinois faculty members is sending a letter to prospective athletic recruits suggesting they “may want to think twice about whether the university is a good environment for you to further your education and athletic career” because of “the use of a fictitious Native American, named Chief Illiniwek, as the university’s sports mascot.”
Heading the list of 14 signers is Stephen J. Kaufman, emeritus professor of cell and developmental biology who long has been a harsh critic of what the university calls “the Chief Illiniwek tradition.”
The faculty members’ letter informs recruits of the NCAA’s August, 2005 ruling that prevents Illinois from hosting postseason tournaments because it considers continuation of the tradition to be “hostile and abusive” to Native Americans.
Poor Chief Illiniwek… Why do they try to destroy your tradition?
September 13, 2006
Pete’s Couch
This is an anti-pot message I can get behind…
None of the folks I knew in college who smoked pot were destined for a life of heroin addiction. Most of them didn’t do any other drugs, and were pretty normal folks. But that doesn’t mean that they were ready to be productive members of society. All the folks I knew in college who smoked pot wanted to be in the tourism industry or public education… Ya know, no ambition. At the least, this is a heck of a lot more honest than Reefer Madness.
September 7, 2006
Keep Your Mouths Shut – The FEC Is Watching
From Coyote Blog, lamenting McCain-Feingold:
In a stunning beat down on one of America’s longest-held and most sacred principles, your first ammendment rights to criticize incumbent politicians, at least on radio and TV, are suspended from now until the November 7 election. Congress has decided, and incredibly the Supreme Court has concurred, that only members of the media, including intellectual giants like Bill O’Reilly and Keith Olbermann, can legally criticize sitting politicians on TV and radio in the runup to the election. These restrictions also came very, very close to applying to this and all other blogs. John McCain, Russ Feingold, and everyone who voted for this un-American incumbent protection act need to be voted out of office at our next opportunity.
Watch what you say over the next couple months, folks. You never can be too sure who’s listening.
Actually, screw that. Say whatever you want. The last thing we want to do is obey.
August 23, 2006
Oooh… Someone’s Jealous!
Something to Chew On: Skipping Dinner With President
Every so often a football coach says or does something that leads most of us to wonder how he can be a functioning member of the world the rest of us live in. The latest case in point is Nick Saban, head coach of the Miami Dolphins, who just the other day turned down a dinner invitation from President Bush. Saban didn’t have to fly to Washington. He didn’t have to miss a game, seeing as the NFL season doesn’t begin for another five weeks. All Saban had to do was drive to Joe’s on South Beach. I’m sure somebody would have been perfectly happy to fetch the coach a car and driver.
But no, Saban turned down the president. Why? Because he didn’t want to take two hours out of training camp.
…
So, it’s as simple as this: Saban would rather lock himself in a cave and watch film, tinker with schemes, pore over depth charts and sit around with his assistants plotting the exciting intricacies of the next day’s practices than have dinner with the president for two hours. Saban said, “It was a really tough decision for us last night to stay here, work with our team, go to the meetings and do what we have to do in camp.”
It wasn’t a tough decision as much as it was a dumb decision, certainly an arrogant decision. And it wasn’t “we” it was he, Saban. I guarantee you he didn’t put it to a vote of the assistants and players.
Arrogant?! It’s not like the president was offering him the job of Secretary of State, and he said that running a football team was more important. He had an offer to go have dinner in a room where, if he was lucky, he might have a few minutes with the president. This doesn’t show arrogance, this shows that Nick Saban considers his responsibilities a few weeks prior to a season, in the middle of training camp, to be more important than a social activity with a celebrity. That celebrity is the president, yes, which makes someone like me consider it a little more of an honor than dining with Paris Hilton. But it’s a social gathering, it’s not like they’re discussing public policy.
I’m racking my brain wondering why the author, Michael Wilbon, is so critical of Saban here. And the only thing I can come up with is that he’s a reporter. His job is to report on events, and by god, when you’re a reporter, you take every chance you get to be around somebody like the president. After all, the president is a powerful guy, and it’s powerful people who you report on. I can only think that Wilbon is jealous. After all, he may not get invites to dine with the president very often, and here goes Saban, turning down the invitation because he’s too busy.
You know what I think? I think Saban should be commended for keeping his priorities in line. He’s a football coach, and as such, he has responsibilities. Particularly when he’s a few weeks away from the start of the season, in the middle of training camp. Those responsibilities preclude him from leaving in the middle of practice for a social gathering. He’s not a reporter, and he doesn’t have to kneel and kiss the king’s hand. He’s got his own life to live.
August 22, 2006
NCAA v. NFL Football
Quite a while ago, Dec 2004, in fact, I told you all why I prefer NCAA football to NFL. Given that we’re coming up on my favorite season of the year again, when I wake up and spend morning, afternoon, and evening every Saturday watching college football, it’s a good time to revisit that post. And to let Ivan Maisel do it much better than I can, when his editors asked for 20 reasons. And as he puts it:
Oh, the sleepless nights of trying to face such a task. Oh, the agony.
Oh, and one other thing: Only 20 reasons? Sure you don’t want 40?
A few of my favorites:
1. Passion
The appeal of college football is rooted in the simple notion that your team represents you, your state, your alma mater, your youth. The NFL represents — what, exactly? A bunch of 25-year-old millionaires who will dump your town the minute their agent secures a better offer. There is no loyalty in the NFL. College football is all about loyalty.2. 25-year-old millionaires
Speaking of which, college football has none. What the game does have, instead, is humility. You want the bling and the talk? Have at it. We’ll stick with guys who are still happy to get their names in the paper.3. Rivalries
Army-Navy. Ohio State-Michigan. Alabama-Auburn. Texas-Oklahoma. Harvard-Yale. Williams-Amherst. No matter the division, there are rivalries that go 365-24-7. You revel in victory and agonize in defeat. What does the NFL offer in comparison? Dallas-Washington? How big can a rivalry be when they play it twice a year?…
8. Stadiums
NFL owners hold up their hometowns for state-of-the-art palaces that have as much personality as a downtown skyscraper. Give me old-school (there’s a reason that became an adjective) classics like the stadiums at Notre Dame, Ohio State or most any SEC school any day of the week.And think about this: Which sport has 16 stadiums that average more than 80,000 in attendance? The NFL has one. Which sport has four stadiums that average six figures in attendance? It ain’t the Sunday one.
…
14. JoePa
Joe Paterno has been at Penn State as assistant (beginning in 1950) and head coach (since 1966) for 56 seasons — or seven years before the dean of NFL coaches, Bill Cowher, was born.
And one of my favorites:
20. Eternal youth
How about “eternal co-eds”? I get older, but they stay the same age…
Below The Beltway linked with Football: College vs. The Pros
August 21, 2006
Lives Destroyed
aka: Just Another Day in the War On Drugs
Federal Appeals Court: Driving With Money is a Crime
A federal appeals court ruled yesterday that if a motorist is carrying large sums of money, it is automatically subject to confiscation. In the case entitled, “United States of America v. $124,700 in U.S. Currency,” the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit took that amount of cash away from Emiliano Gomez Gonzolez, a man with a “lack of significant criminal history” neither accused nor convicted of any crime.
On May 28, 2003, a Nebraska state trooper signaled Gonzolez to pull over his rented Ford Taurus on Interstate 80. The trooper intended to issue a speeding ticket, but noticed the Gonzolez’s name was not on the rental contract. The trooper then proceeded to question Gonzolez — who did not speak English well — and search the car. The trooper found a cooler containing $124,700 in cash, which he confiscated. A trained drug sniffing dog barked at the rental car and the cash. For the police, this was all the evidence needed to establish a drug crime that allows the force to keep the seized money.
Associates of Gonzolez testified in court that they had pooled their life savings to purchase a refrigerated truck to start a produce business. Gonzolez flew on a one-way ticket to Chicago to buy a truck, but it had sold by the time he had arrived. Without a credit card of his own, he had a third-party rent one for him. Gonzolez hid the money in a cooler to keep it from being noticed and stolen. He was scared when the troopers began questioning him about it. There was no evidence disputing Gonzolez’s story.
Yesterday the Eighth Circuit summarily dismissed Gonzolez’s story. It overturned a lower court ruling that had found no evidence of drug activity, stating, “We respectfully disagree and reach a different conclusion… Possession of a large sum of cash is ’strong evidence’ of a connection to drug activity.”
The man was never charged with a crime. There was no proof offered or required that he was in any way connected to the drug trade. But in our war on drugs, that doesn’t matter. And he and his business associates are out their entire life savings.
Now, I don’t know whether his story is on the level. I’ll freely admit that someone driving a rented car not in his name, carrying $124,700 in cash, is a little suspicious. But who holds the burden of proof? If the government is going to confiscate $124,700, I’d say the onus is on them. But in the war on drugs, you have to prove your innocence. The government can come in, destroy your life, confiscate your property, and unless you prove a negative, the best you can do is ask nicely for them to make it right.
I wish I could say that any of this surprised me. But in the war on drugs, not much surprises me any more. I’ve stopped expecting anything approaching justice or common sense. It’s but one more example of our government disregarding the Constitution, disregarding individual rights, and disregarding sanity, in the quest for ever-greater power. I fear that it will get worse before it gets better, and in the meantime, I can only hope that nobody I know or care about gets hoisted on the pike as the next “victory” in the war on drugs.
But don’t just take my word for it. Below is a video from LEAP (Law Enforcement Against Prohibition), a group of current and former law enforcement personnel. As the people who have spent years as the front-line force in the war on drugs, they’ve seen firsthand exactly what has been accomplished. A string of destroyed lives, non-violent people in jail, violent people enriched by the illicit drug trade, and at the end of the day, not a whit of improvement in the proportion of our population who are addicted to drugs.
How long do we have to continue this before we can finally admit it’s not working?
Hat Tip to Radley Balko on the video. If you’re also fed up with the damage to our society, our Constitution, and our civil liberties caused by this useless “war”, please pass this video along.
Overlawyered linked with Driving while loaded
A Stitch in Haste linked with Cash is King Criminal
August 9, 2006
Netroots – Don’t Count Your Chickens
The whole “netroots” crowd is patting themselves on the back for taking down Joe Lieberman. But are they getting ahead of themselves?
I think they may have bitten off more than they can chew. Winning the Connecticut primary shows that they’ve got some power, but they took aim at a big fish in a small pond. Connecticut is a state where you declare a party at registration, and a very large number if people are registered as Independent. Thus, only registered Democrats can vote in the Democratic primary, meaning it’s even more partisan than most states. And the small population makes it a lot easier to effect a change. It’s a veritable “perfect storm” of primary upset, where a far-left candidate can unseat a moderate-left candidate. But they left Lieberman with a leg to stand on. He had enough time to plan to get himself on the ballot as an Independent. While they’ve won the first salvo, I think they’re in serious danger of losing the campaign.
There’s a big reason you see Democrats urging Lieberman not to run as an independent. He’ll beat them in November. So they keep asking him to “respect the will of the people” and drop out of the race. But as I saw Lieberman point out on PBS today, only about 15% of Connecticut registered voters took part in the Democratic primary. And barely less than 50% of those 15% voted for him. So he’s supposed to assume that because a very small majority of a tiny minority of the population picked Lamont over him, that means the rest of Connecticut voters won’t prefer him in the general election?
The “netroots” crowd are in a tough spot. Unless they convince Lieberman not to run, they have to beat him in November to count this as a victory. If they beat him in November, they’ve proven that the tide has turned against the Iraq war amongst the general public. But if they don’t beat him in November, they’ve only proven that the Democratic party has marginalized themselves by heading farther left, and they’ll look foolish. If Lieberman doesn’t run, Lamont will win, and while that’s not (IMHO) a real victory, it will be seen as such.
It will be an interesting couple of months. Lieberman isn’t going anywhere, and there’s a good chance he’ll beat Lamont and the Republican challenger. The “netroots” crowd, if they want validation, is going to have to put serious money into the Lamont campaign, possibly to the point of attacking Lieberman, the man who they supported only 6 years ago to become Vice President. And the Republicans can either walk away from their own candidate, ensuring a Lieberman victory, or put serious money behind him, hoping to capitalize on Lieberman and Lamont splitting the Democrat vote.
Either way, the only way for the “netroots” crowd to win is if Lamont beats Lieberman and the Republican. I think that’s pretty unlikely.
July 31, 2006
This Isn’t Good
Three Headlines on Yahoo! today, one right on top of the other…
Israel approves wider groud offensive
Assad tells Syria army to raise readiness
Two Koreas exchange gunfire on border
There’s the old proverb, “May you live in exciting times”. Personally, I’d prefer space travel and wild technological progress, rather than this sort of “excitement.”
July 30, 2006
What’s the Point?
Wulf saw the below cartoon, and asked:
I find that most editorial cartoons are really good at communicating a really bad point. Usually, it is that so-and-so is stupid. I am not sure that this one by Etta Hulme is any different in that respect, but I find it very interesting. I hope it can spark some conversation – I’d like to hear some opinions on it. Is there a fair point being made? Talk to me.
I think the point is quite clear.
According to minimum wage opponents, we believe that arbitrarily increasing the cost of labor will have a corresponding increase in the cost of goods and services which use that labor.
Well, what’s happened in government? Over 9 years, we’ve seen an enormous arbitrary increase in the salaries of people who make our laws. What’s happened to the federal budget (i.e. the cost of government)? Enormous increases!
July 26, 2006
Watching it is Funnier Than Reading About It
I posted the other day about Stephen Colbert getting Congressman Robert Wexler (who is running unopposed in 2006) to say “I enjoy cocaine because it’s a fun thing to do.”
Well, below is the YouTube clip of the same. Watch how Colbert completely manipulates Wexler into saying it. It’s pure mastery.
Below The Beltway linked with Friday Videos: The Colbert Report, Part I
July 25, 2006
Insulting Some Beer Drinkers
It’s always fun to read something like this. Really makes you think an industry respects its customers:
“If you’re going to play with multi-billion dollar companies, you better come up with something really original,” he says.
Palmer adds it also helps that many beer drinkers aren’t sufficiently savvy to understand they’re being sold the bottle, not the beer. “Consumers are dumb. In a blind taste test, they couldn’t tell the difference between ale and lager but they say Steam Whistle tastes better because they bought it in a green bottle and paid more for it. It’s all perception,” he says.
Thankfully, after re-reading the article, I realized that this guy [Palmer] doesn’t work for the brewery being profiled here. But he is “a leading beer industry analyst”, which means he’s trying to take the industry the exact opposite way I’d like to see it go.
And unfortunately, they’re following his lead:
Forget the ’80s, Steam Whistle Brewing is real retro.
The six-year-old Toronto-based microbrewery is all about the 1950s, from producing its premium pilsner recipe in green bottles, to the ‘57 Chevy pickup trucks that deliver it, to the black and white television set watched by patrons at the inhouse pub. (Okay, so the brand isn’t 100 percent pure; the TV is hooked up to a satellite dish.)
“What we wanted to create here was the type of brewery you’d see in the 1950s and the type of beer you’d drink in the 1950s,” says Greg Taylor, co-founder of Steam Whistle and a veteran of Upper Canada Brewing Co. for ten years prior.
“Instead of having Chrysler vans out there with logos on them, we send these ‘57 Chevy’s out there. It sends a similar message about the ’50s — overbuilt quality and a lot of style,” he says.
Easily its biggest point of differentiation is Steam Whistle’s distinctive green bottle, a vessel that according to Taylor was commonly used a half-century ago. It costs a little more, but it’s well worth it, he says.
I don’t have a problem with the branding, with the attempt at being “retro”, or any of that. It is true that the number of craft breweries in North America is rapidly expanding, and you need something to differentiate yourself.
But green bottles? I’d prefer they do something that won’t make their beers skunky:
Skunky or cat-musk aromas in beer are caused by photochemical reactions of the isomerized hop compounds. The wavelengths of light that cause the skunky smell are the blue wavelengths and the ultraviolet. Brown glass bottles effectively screen out these wavelengths, but green bottles do not. Skunkiness will result in beers if the beer is left in direct sunlight or stored under fluorescent lights as in supermarkets. In beers which use pre-isomerized hop extract and very little flavoring hop additions, the beer will be fairly immune to damage from ultraviolet light.
Especially since they make a light-colored pilsner, which is much more prone to having this problem than something dark like a stout, and yet is still hoppy enough to have enough of the compounds discussed above. Ever wondered why Heineken tastes better out of a keg than out of the bottle? It’s because it’s shipped from Germany and then stuck in supermarket or liquor store refrigerators under flourescent light.
Style may count, but if you’re sacrificing quality in order to acheive that style, you might be making a bad deal. This brewery may be trying to differentiate itself from the macro market, but they’re getting into a market that increasingly understands that green isn’t good.
Hat Tip: Matt Duffy
July 24, 2006
Fun Things To Do
Just ask Congress…
Congressman jokes about cocaine on TV
Democratic Rep. Robert Wexler says he was just playing along with the joke when comedian Stephen Colbert prodded him in an interview to say: “I enjoy cocaine because it’s a fun thing to do.”
The Florida congressman who is unchallenged for re-election appeared on Colbert’s Comedy Central show and was asked to say a few things that would “really lose the election for you if you were contested.”
Colbert asked the congressman to complete this sentence: “I enjoy cocaine because … ”
A bemused Wexler looked into the camera and said, “I enjoy cocaine because it’s a fun thing to do.”
A follow-up in the complete-the-sentence questioning led to this comment: “I enjoy the company of prostitutes for the following reasons … because it’s a fun thing to do. If you combine the two together, it’s probably even more fun.”
Something tells me that he’ll be opposed come 2008… And that this clip is going to get a lot of airplay around that time. But I think he’s locked up the coked-out hooker vote!
That’s funny stuff. Much funnier than “I didn’t inhale”…
The Unrepentant Individual linked with Watching it is Funnier Than Reading About It
July 18, 2006
Atlas Shrugged: A Trilogy?!
The plan is for the film to be shot and shown in three parts, as a trilogy, like “Lord of the Rings.” Only that length, they said, would give sufficient scope to tell Ayn Rand’s long, complex story. (The initial $40 million would go mainly to Part I.)…
A trilogy, huh? This, for a book that I recommend to my friend with the caveat that “well, the first 600 pages or so are pretty slow, mostly character development stuff.” Basically the first 600 pages consist of Dagny gettin’ it on with copper magnate Francisco D’Antonia and then with industrialist Hank Rearden.
Supposedly Angelina Jolie is going to play Dagny. Which means the first movie will be soft-core porn, starring Angelina Jolie??
Maybe this doesn’t sound like as much of a problem as I thought!
Hat Tip: Hammer of Truth, and Jason Pye
Below The Beltway linked with Not. Gonna. Happen.
July 16, 2006
Water Causes Cancer!
It’s true, scientists says so!
It turns out that they fed 1000 rats only distilled water for 2 months. By the end of those two months, 996 of the rats were dead. Finding no known cause of death, the scientists surmised it must be cancer!
Of course, I jest. I’ve used that scenario to make fun of the near-constant scares hyped by the media for years. But it’s not far from the truth. Reading John Stossel’s book, Give Me A Break, I was taken aback when I saw how close I was to the truth:
So scientists began seeking ways to determine which chemicals caused cancers and other problems. Animal tests using proportions of chemicals that arenormally consumed in real life wouldn’t work because they’d need a million rats or guinea pigs to get significant results (not every animal gets cancer from the carcinogen, and a third of the animals get cancer just from living). The scientists got around that by feeding the animals huge doses of the carcinogens, then waiting up to two years to see if the animals got cancer, and the tests often cost more than $1 million.
Then California biochemist Dr. Bruce Ames came up with a brilliant solution. “Instead of testing animals,” he said, “test bacteria to see if the chemicals damage DNA. You can study a billion bacteria on just one petri dish. Bacteria reproduce every 20 minutes.
The Ames test proved fabulously successful. It was hailed as a major scientific breakthrough, and became the standard test to see if chemicals cause mutations. Its first use in the ’70s showed there were mutagens in hair dyes and in fireproof materials in children’s pajamas. Ames helped get the chemicals banned.
But then, Ames told me, “People started using our test and finding mutagens everywhere, in cups of coffee, in plants we eat, in broiled hamburgers. Most mutagens turned out to be carcinogens. I started getting a more realistic view of the world.”
Ames and his colleague Lois Gold concluded that the popular assumption that man-made chemicals are more likely to be carcinogenic than natural substances are wrong. Ames told us that in “high-dose animal cancer tests, half of all chemicals tested, whether natural or man-made, are carcinogens. Exposure to man-made chemicals that are carcinogens is minuscule compared to the exposure to natural carcinogens in our diet. Thousands of new chemicals have been introduced over the past forty years. If they were giving people cancer, then there should be an epidemic of cancer in this country, but there isn’t.”
Half of all chemicals ever tested cause cancer. At least, if you shove obscene amounts of them into small mammals, of course. Doesn’t that put a little bit more perspective on these “scientific studies”? In fact, I find only one use for these studies, and that’s rationalizing my own behavior.
Of course, I can be accused of being a bit dismissive of risk. After all, I need to have a limb halfway hanging off before I’m willing to go see a doctor. When someone says “hey Brad, let’s go jump out of airplanes”, my first thought is to check my schedule to see when I have an open weekend. My wife is at the other extreme; when she has a few headaches over the course of a week, suddenly she becomes convinced she has a brain tumor and wants to go to emergency for a CAT scan… I’ll bet that a proper level of managing risk is somewhere in between.
But what I’ve never understood is why some people spend all their time worrying about the most arcane things like plane crashes, yet drive without a seat belt. Or they worry about getting cancer from grapefruit, yet they are 60 lbs overweight and smoke. Or they worry about the threat of terrorism, yet leave their doors unlocked and garages open every night.
It’s almost as if people subconsciously need something to worry about, but know that they can’t worry about their own behavior. After all, if they start worrying that their own behavior is dangerous, they’ll be hypocrites if they don’t change it. Worrying about what you can’t control is pointless.
I was thinking of this the other day, when contemplating my vacation. I’m going to be going to Hawaii for Labor Day weekend. North Korea is apparently taking aim at Hawaii. That doesn’t bother me, though. Let’s look at the chances. First, they’d have to choose the time I’m there to fire their missile. Second, the missile would have to work properly enough to even come close. Third, their guidance system would have to be good enough that they’d hit one of the islands. Fourth, they’d have to choose Maui, since that’s where I’ll be. Fifth, they’d have to have a sizable enough weapon to hit me. If all those things happen, and I go up in a mushroom cloud, I’m cool with it. I refuse to let that miniscule chance change my decision to go spend 6 days in a tropical paradise.
But again, I’m an odd case. I’m not worried one bit about cancer, because I’m relatively sure that by the time I reach an age where I’m likely to develop cancer, they’ll have cured it already. But I watch people consistently spending time making themselves miserable worrying about things that are unlikely to happen. If you spend your time worrying about the bad things that might happen, you’re not spending it enjoying the good things which do happen.
Bad things happen in the world, that much is fact. It’s smart to do your best to protect yourself from the likeliest of bad things to happen, at least when you can. But you should never let yourself be paralyzed by fear of things that are highly unlikely to happen.
InsureBlog linked with Cavalcade of Risk (4th Edition)
MedBillManager Blog linked with Cavalcade of Risk Number FOUR
« Previous Page — Next Page »
I’m with you Brad. Just because you get an offer doesn’t mean you have to accept.
Comment by Lucy Stern — August 24, 2006 @ 8:07 am