Monday, May 13, 2013
Are we going to have to say goodbye to the Gulf Coast?
I know that the oil spill is a tragedy for those who live and work on the Gulf oast. The tourism ad fishing industries are facing huge problems. I feel really sorry for those who work in those industries.
And I know that BP should be held accountable. It seems they are trying to pull a fast one, with the guys supposedly working to clean up while the President was there, and who were not allowed to tell the media person where they were from, or what their specific job was.
But in the face of all the money lost and the snaky behavior of BP, the bigger picture seems to be excaping. And it is the same as all the times the tree-huggers have warned about the possibility of such a catastrophe. It seems that the MONEY lost is more im[portant than the fact that the coastal areas may be ruined, perhaps forever!
Maybe we are just getting what we deserve, because we are a bunch of selfish people who onbly think about me, me, me and have no care for our environment unless it means more money for us.
Saturday, July 25, 2009
The pot calling the kettle black?
Recently a story was in our local paper about another Ponzi scheme, this time engineered by some guy who is involved in the racing business. It is said that he bilked millions out of people.
OK, if the people were put into the fake "investments" by some financial advisor they thought they caould trust, then I probably feel sorry for them.
However, so far the people who say they lost money in the scheme got involved on their own. So, sorry, my giva-a-damn IS busted!
Why? Because the people who just handed over wads of cash to the swindler did it because they thought they were "special". They thought that because they were special they were being allowed to invest their money. They thought that no one else knew about the investments, that they were singled out by the swindler becuse they were special and DESERVED to make something like 18% on their investment.
Well, they were right, they ARE special. In the sense that some kids ride the "special" bus!
IMHO, those who lost their money (and one guy claims he lost everything he had) DESERVED to lose out! Anyone so arrogant that they think they are so special they deserve to make about ten times what everyone else makes on investments SHOULD lose their money.
And those who are SO stupid that they thought a return of 18% was even possible BELONG on the "special bus"? Maybe that is where they will wind up, especially if they lost everything!
OK, if the people were put into the fake "investments" by some financial advisor they thought they caould trust, then I probably feel sorry for them.
However, so far the people who say they lost money in the scheme got involved on their own. So, sorry, my giva-a-damn IS busted!
Why? Because the people who just handed over wads of cash to the swindler did it because they thought they were "special". They thought that because they were special they were being allowed to invest their money. They thought that no one else knew about the investments, that they were singled out by the swindler becuse they were special and DESERVED to make something like 18% on their investment.
Well, they were right, they ARE special. In the sense that some kids ride the "special" bus!
IMHO, those who lost their money (and one guy claims he lost everything he had) DESERVED to lose out! Anyone so arrogant that they think they are so special they deserve to make about ten times what everyone else makes on investments SHOULD lose their money.
And those who are SO stupid that they thought a return of 18% was even possible BELONG on the "special bus"? Maybe that is where they will wind up, especially if they lost everything!
Monday, July 20, 2009
ATTENTION: Car Manufacturers
How can the auto makers get back on track and start pumping up the economy again?
How about this idea. There are MILLIONS of people in this country who, for one reason or another, simply CANNO get the financing to purchase a brand new vehicle. Maybe they have a glitch on their credit report. Maybe their income is pretty low. Maybe they are in the middle of a divorce, with resulting credit problems. Maybe money is just not being loaned by the banks. Whatever.
How about bringing those people right into the new car marketplace?
OK, so what if they have a glitch on their credit. They STILL probably need a vehicle, and in many, many cases they are forced to buy from one of those payday loan places. That means the buyer is paying about DOUBLE the interest rate that someone who buys a new vehicle is paying, PLUS they are often getting some clunker that will barely keep running long enough for the buyer to make half the payments due. In MANY, MANY cases such buyers are paying hundreds of dollars EVERY TWO WEEKS and still are getting crap for their money.
So, how about this. Let such buyers bring, to a DEALERSHIP, proof that they have been making the usurious payments, for 6 months, on a regular basis (no late payments) Then, take the clunker in trade, work out some deal to pay it off at a REAL value (the payday guys need to get real on this, we all know they are making their profit in about the first six months anyway!) , not the inflated price the payday motors charged, and sell the buyer a brand new vehicle.
Even if such buyers were charged a slightly higher rate of interest, their payments would probably be substantially lower than what they are already paying at the payday motors, thus they would not be as strapped for cash and much more likely to keep up the payments.
And, since this would result in MANY more units sold, it could not help but start the automakers on the road to recovery.
So, GM, Ford and Chrysler, take heed. If YOU guys start making more sales to those who otherwise would not be able to buy a new vehicle, that means YOU would be selling more new vehicles!!!! Live dangerously. Do the right thing. It cannot possibly cause more financial woes than what you already have!
Get your act together, make vehicles available to EVERYONE, and start paying back the public money you have taken!!!
How about this idea. There are MILLIONS of people in this country who, for one reason or another, simply CANNO get the financing to purchase a brand new vehicle. Maybe they have a glitch on their credit report. Maybe their income is pretty low. Maybe they are in the middle of a divorce, with resulting credit problems. Maybe money is just not being loaned by the banks. Whatever.
How about bringing those people right into the new car marketplace?
OK, so what if they have a glitch on their credit. They STILL probably need a vehicle, and in many, many cases they are forced to buy from one of those payday loan places. That means the buyer is paying about DOUBLE the interest rate that someone who buys a new vehicle is paying, PLUS they are often getting some clunker that will barely keep running long enough for the buyer to make half the payments due. In MANY, MANY cases such buyers are paying hundreds of dollars EVERY TWO WEEKS and still are getting crap for their money.
So, how about this. Let such buyers bring, to a DEALERSHIP, proof that they have been making the usurious payments, for 6 months, on a regular basis (no late payments) Then, take the clunker in trade, work out some deal to pay it off at a REAL value (the payday guys need to get real on this, we all know they are making their profit in about the first six months anyway!) , not the inflated price the payday motors charged, and sell the buyer a brand new vehicle.
Even if such buyers were charged a slightly higher rate of interest, their payments would probably be substantially lower than what they are already paying at the payday motors, thus they would not be as strapped for cash and much more likely to keep up the payments.
And, since this would result in MANY more units sold, it could not help but start the automakers on the road to recovery.
So, GM, Ford and Chrysler, take heed. If YOU guys start making more sales to those who otherwise would not be able to buy a new vehicle, that means YOU would be selling more new vehicles!!!! Live dangerously. Do the right thing. It cannot possibly cause more financial woes than what you already have!
Get your act together, make vehicles available to EVERYONE, and start paying back the public money you have taken!!!
Saturday, July 18, 2009
What is the problem with working on health care reform?
WHAT is wrong with Congress that they cannot seem to work out some plan for health care reform?
And WHY do they keep telling us that any plan will most likely raise our taxes by a great amount?
Is it just to scare us so they can avoid doing any reform work? Is it as a sop to the insurance companies, who provide so much in the way of campaign contributions?
First, our present system works like this. MILLIONS of people have 'private' health insurance. That is, those people either belong to some "plan" through their employer or they have coverage that they totally pay for out-of-pocket.
Second, the present system is FOR PROFIT. That means the insurance companies, using the PREMIUMS paid by the insured, pay a negotiated amount for every covered service. THAT means the insurance companies make a deal with all the doctors (and other providers) who participate in any given plan, to pay a certain percentage of the billed amount for office visits, surgeries, any kind of treatments etc. provided by doctors.
That means that if your DOCTOR charges $100 for an office visit, the insurace company may negotiate with the doctor to pay $65 for each office visit, and you (the insured) pay a co-pay of $10-30 (or more) for each office visit. What THAT means is that your doctor agrees to accept the amount the company will pay, PLUS your co-pay as total payment for the office visit, even though a person with NO insurance must pay the entire $100.
Please pay attention!
The same applies to ALL medical care. Hospitals negotiate. Other providers (like labs, imaging facilities etc) ALL negotiate how much they will accept from the COMPANY and how much your CO-PAY will be.
Now, the premiums you pay to the company are called PREMIUMS for a reason. A premium is an amount of money paid OVER AND ABOVE the cost of some goods or services! THAT means that your insurance company, after negotiating what THEY will pay to your care providers, and after perhaps not APPROVING some treatments (no matter how necessary) and after PAYING for every charge for some good or service they have negotiated, ARE MAKING A HUGE PROFIT. THAT means that even after ALL medical claims are PAID, the insurance company is still getting RICH off the backs of those who pay the PREMIUMS (YOU!!!!)
Now, with reference to who makes the decisions for your health care. Is there ANYONE who thinks that for every single claim you have for some medical office visit, treatment, prescription, etc, there is some DOCTOR who sits in an office and decides if the treatment, medication etc is NECESSARY and thus will be paid for? DREAM ON.
The way it works is this. A board of doctors or some medical group decides on what treatments, medications, etc to PAY FOR, how much (by negotiating) will be paid for each thing. THEN, when a CLAIM is filed by your provider (doctor, imaging office, pharmacist, etc) a CLAIME SPECIALIST (a CLERK) processes the claim! A doctor does NOT make your medical decisions (as fas as the insurance company is concerned)! The decisions are made WAY IN ADVANCE, and apply to EVERYONE, not just you. And YOUR DOCTOR makes decisions sometimes based on what your PLAN will cover! Patients also make decisions for their own care based on what their plan will pay!
So, based on criteris set for the entire GROUP, the claims specialist processes the claim, and determines (based on your PLAN) how much will be paid, or if the claim will be paid at all or denied for some reason. And even after paying all the CLERKS to process claims, the insurance companies are STILL making a huge PROFIT.
So, what THAT means is thatYOU are not only paying for the medical care you receive from doctors, for the medications you get from your pharmacist, but also for all the expenses of running the insurance companies (paying the salaries of all the clerks etc) AND creating a huge profit for the insurance companies that enables the CEOs and head honchos to get RICH and creates a HUGE profit for the shareholders in the insurance companies. YOU ARE PAYING FOR THAT.
So, let's look at how a single payer, government national health plan would work, if organized correctly.
First, a BOARD OF DOCTORS and medical professionals (just like in the current system) would make decisions about acceptable treatments and medications that would be paid for under a single payer system. In other words, it would be based on exactly the same criteria as our present system. And no, a doctor will NOT be sitting in some office processing claims. A CLERK would do so. JUST LIKE OUR PRESENT SYSTEM!!!!! And, just luke our present system, our DOCTORS (and we the patients) might often make decisionos on treatment plans and medications, based on the items allowed by the PLAN!
Second, ALL the people covered under such a plan could pay SOMETHING toward the cost of the plan. Employed people could pay a premium (and possible LESS than they are currently paying) to be covered. Employers could pay a portion of the cost, exactly like they do now, except perhaps somewhat less than they currently pay. Why could the premiums be less? Becausae the COST of the national system would ONLY be to (1) pay those who process claims, the clerks, and (2) the cost to pay the doctors and pharmacists etc for the actual care. There would NOT be that huge profit that SOMEONE (you) now have to pay for. This would also allow SMALL employers and their employees to pay into the system for coverage. RATES could be somewhat based on the size of the employer's company, much as the premiums for coverage under our present system. (large employers negotiate a much better rate than a small company)
Now, for perhaps the most controversial part of national health care. Who will pay for the unemployed, the indigent, the elderly, the really poor and all those 'not on the grid' who could not even afford small premiums for national coverage. Well, who pays for them now?
WE ALL DO.
Under our present system those without coverage are getting health care from a number of umbrella agencies. Clinics, medicaid, emergency room visits, etc.
And, remember, we ALL pay for health care for EVERYONE in our plan, if we have private comverage!
Think not? Ask yourself this. If you work for a company for 20 years, and never once have to see a doctor, but have paid health care plan premiums for those 20 years, what happens to the money? When you retire does the company give you back your premiums? Don't hold your breath! ALL the premiums paid to insurance companies goes to pay ALL the claims of ALL covered people! NO ONE gets their money back if they never use the system.
So, in effect, YOU are paying for the health care of EVERY person in your plan!!!!!
So, CONGRESS needs to get with it and work out some health care reform plan that will (1) give EVERYONE coverage, and (2) finance the coverage by those covered and businesses paying premiums to the government.
Remember this. If the insurance companies are providing coverage now and still making a profit, the government could at least nearly break even, based on all citizens paying a portion of the cost.
And WHY do they keep telling us that any plan will most likely raise our taxes by a great amount?
Is it just to scare us so they can avoid doing any reform work? Is it as a sop to the insurance companies, who provide so much in the way of campaign contributions?
First, our present system works like this. MILLIONS of people have 'private' health insurance. That is, those people either belong to some "plan" through their employer or they have coverage that they totally pay for out-of-pocket.
Second, the present system is FOR PROFIT. That means the insurance companies, using the PREMIUMS paid by the insured, pay a negotiated amount for every covered service. THAT means the insurance companies make a deal with all the doctors (and other providers) who participate in any given plan, to pay a certain percentage of the billed amount for office visits, surgeries, any kind of treatments etc. provided by doctors.
That means that if your DOCTOR charges $100 for an office visit, the insurace company may negotiate with the doctor to pay $65 for each office visit, and you (the insured) pay a co-pay of $10-30 (or more) for each office visit. What THAT means is that your doctor agrees to accept the amount the company will pay, PLUS your co-pay as total payment for the office visit, even though a person with NO insurance must pay the entire $100.
Please pay attention!
The same applies to ALL medical care. Hospitals negotiate. Other providers (like labs, imaging facilities etc) ALL negotiate how much they will accept from the COMPANY and how much your CO-PAY will be.
Now, the premiums you pay to the company are called PREMIUMS for a reason. A premium is an amount of money paid OVER AND ABOVE the cost of some goods or services! THAT means that your insurance company, after negotiating what THEY will pay to your care providers, and after perhaps not APPROVING some treatments (no matter how necessary) and after PAYING for every charge for some good or service they have negotiated, ARE MAKING A HUGE PROFIT. THAT means that even after ALL medical claims are PAID, the insurance company is still getting RICH off the backs of those who pay the PREMIUMS (YOU!!!!)
Now, with reference to who makes the decisions for your health care. Is there ANYONE who thinks that for every single claim you have for some medical office visit, treatment, prescription, etc, there is some DOCTOR who sits in an office and decides if the treatment, medication etc is NECESSARY and thus will be paid for? DREAM ON.
The way it works is this. A board of doctors or some medical group decides on what treatments, medications, etc to PAY FOR, how much (by negotiating) will be paid for each thing. THEN, when a CLAIM is filed by your provider (doctor, imaging office, pharmacist, etc) a CLAIME SPECIALIST (a CLERK) processes the claim! A doctor does NOT make your medical decisions (as fas as the insurance company is concerned)! The decisions are made WAY IN ADVANCE, and apply to EVERYONE, not just you. And YOUR DOCTOR makes decisions sometimes based on what your PLAN will cover! Patients also make decisions for their own care based on what their plan will pay!
So, based on criteris set for the entire GROUP, the claims specialist processes the claim, and determines (based on your PLAN) how much will be paid, or if the claim will be paid at all or denied for some reason. And even after paying all the CLERKS to process claims, the insurance companies are STILL making a huge PROFIT.
So, what THAT means is thatYOU are not only paying for the medical care you receive from doctors, for the medications you get from your pharmacist, but also for all the expenses of running the insurance companies (paying the salaries of all the clerks etc) AND creating a huge profit for the insurance companies that enables the CEOs and head honchos to get RICH and creates a HUGE profit for the shareholders in the insurance companies. YOU ARE PAYING FOR THAT.
So, let's look at how a single payer, government national health plan would work, if organized correctly.
First, a BOARD OF DOCTORS and medical professionals (just like in the current system) would make decisions about acceptable treatments and medications that would be paid for under a single payer system. In other words, it would be based on exactly the same criteria as our present system. And no, a doctor will NOT be sitting in some office processing claims. A CLERK would do so. JUST LIKE OUR PRESENT SYSTEM!!!!! And, just luke our present system, our DOCTORS (and we the patients) might often make decisionos on treatment plans and medications, based on the items allowed by the PLAN!
Second, ALL the people covered under such a plan could pay SOMETHING toward the cost of the plan. Employed people could pay a premium (and possible LESS than they are currently paying) to be covered. Employers could pay a portion of the cost, exactly like they do now, except perhaps somewhat less than they currently pay. Why could the premiums be less? Becausae the COST of the national system would ONLY be to (1) pay those who process claims, the clerks, and (2) the cost to pay the doctors and pharmacists etc for the actual care. There would NOT be that huge profit that SOMEONE (you) now have to pay for. This would also allow SMALL employers and their employees to pay into the system for coverage. RATES could be somewhat based on the size of the employer's company, much as the premiums for coverage under our present system. (large employers negotiate a much better rate than a small company)
Now, for perhaps the most controversial part of national health care. Who will pay for the unemployed, the indigent, the elderly, the really poor and all those 'not on the grid' who could not even afford small premiums for national coverage. Well, who pays for them now?
WE ALL DO.
Under our present system those without coverage are getting health care from a number of umbrella agencies. Clinics, medicaid, emergency room visits, etc.
And, remember, we ALL pay for health care for EVERYONE in our plan, if we have private comverage!
Think not? Ask yourself this. If you work for a company for 20 years, and never once have to see a doctor, but have paid health care plan premiums for those 20 years, what happens to the money? When you retire does the company give you back your premiums? Don't hold your breath! ALL the premiums paid to insurance companies goes to pay ALL the claims of ALL covered people! NO ONE gets their money back if they never use the system.
So, in effect, YOU are paying for the health care of EVERY person in your plan!!!!!
So, CONGRESS needs to get with it and work out some health care reform plan that will (1) give EVERYONE coverage, and (2) finance the coverage by those covered and businesses paying premiums to the government.
Remember this. If the insurance companies are providing coverage now and still making a profit, the government could at least nearly break even, based on all citizens paying a portion of the cost.
Monday, June 29, 2009
Bernie Madoff is not the only crook in his Ponzi scheme.
Today Bernie Madoff was sentenced for his crooked acts in establishing a Ponzi scheme that bilked hundreds out of vast sums of money, some losing their entire life savings.
It is said that others involved in this scheme are also under investigation, including Madoff's two sone, his accountant, and others who ran his "business".
But the courts cannot touch those who made this whole scheme possible, and who are now feeling the impact of the collapse of the house of cards. The investors themselves.
Oh, you think that we should all feel sorry for those duped in this scheme? And why should we? It is likely that ALL those who gave their money to Madoff did so with the expectation of receiving huge returns. In fact, one number that has been talked about is that some hoped to receive returns of up to 18% on their investments!
Whoa! Wait just a minute here. Is there ANYONE who thinks that a legitimate investment is going to generate 18% returns? Or, did those investors have a pretty good idea that whatever Bernie was doing to be able to claim such returns, it was not exactly kosher! But the money poured in for Bernie to "invest".
That fact tells me that the investors wanted to make what appears to be unrealistic profits, and did not really care HOW they did it, just as long as THEY did not get caught or lose their money.
It is scary that so many rich people are so greedy. And what else is scary is, how did so many rich people GET rich, when they appear to be so stupid? It makes one wonder just how they made their money in the first place. Did they also do something a little (or a long way) over the line?
While I do have some sad feelings for any who lost their money because THEY had some money manager who wanted an unrealistic return, I have no sympathy for those who just wanted that 18% return, all the while knowing it had to be a scam of some kind!
It is said that others involved in this scheme are also under investigation, including Madoff's two sone, his accountant, and others who ran his "business".
But the courts cannot touch those who made this whole scheme possible, and who are now feeling the impact of the collapse of the house of cards. The investors themselves.
Oh, you think that we should all feel sorry for those duped in this scheme? And why should we? It is likely that ALL those who gave their money to Madoff did so with the expectation of receiving huge returns. In fact, one number that has been talked about is that some hoped to receive returns of up to 18% on their investments!
Whoa! Wait just a minute here. Is there ANYONE who thinks that a legitimate investment is going to generate 18% returns? Or, did those investors have a pretty good idea that whatever Bernie was doing to be able to claim such returns, it was not exactly kosher! But the money poured in for Bernie to "invest".
That fact tells me that the investors wanted to make what appears to be unrealistic profits, and did not really care HOW they did it, just as long as THEY did not get caught or lose their money.
It is scary that so many rich people are so greedy. And what else is scary is, how did so many rich people GET rich, when they appear to be so stupid? It makes one wonder just how they made their money in the first place. Did they also do something a little (or a long way) over the line?
While I do have some sad feelings for any who lost their money because THEY had some money manager who wanted an unrealistic return, I have no sympathy for those who just wanted that 18% return, all the while knowing it had to be a scam of some kind!
Friday, June 26, 2009
We honor some who have died. Some we should not.
The old saying that deaths come in threes certainly proved true this past week. First, Ed McMahon, longtime Tonight Show announcer and cohort, as well as product spokesman and talent show host, passed away. I did not of course know Mr. McMahon, but in all the years I knew who he was I do not remember ever hearing any bad stories about him. So, I honor him and share the sorrow of his passing.
Then, Farrah Fawcett, one of the best known "Angelss", as well as an honored and gifted actress, lost her battle with cancer. And, like Ed McMahon, I have never read any really bad stories about her. In fact, most of what I know about het is admirable. Therefore, I honor her life and share in the sorrow of her passing.
I simply CANNOT honor the third famous person who died this week, Michael Jackson.
It is not only that he (to all accounts) seemed very weird. It is not only that his appearance became a joke and that his lavish lifestyle bordered on the ridiculous.
No, the reason I cannot honor Jackson is his other 'behaviors', which I find repulsive. I doubt there is a person alive who does not know that Jackson was tried for child molestation. I doubt that there is anyone who does not know that he was aquitted of all charges. So, as far as the COURTS go and as far as the legal system goes, he was innocent.
The thing I find so disgusting about Jackson is NOT the things he was charged with in court, but the things that were ADMITTED to have happened, or that were documented by the media as fact.
How can ANYONE who claims to be a decent, moral persoon idolize a grown man who would dangle a BABY off a balcony? And exactly why was the child not removed from the home? Had Jackson been POOR, the Child Welfare folks would have been at his door the second the photo appeared on the news! And a poor person would have had little or no chance of ever getting their child back.
And, what kind of a grown man thinks it is acceptable to have little boys sleep with him, or come to his home for 'sleepovers'? If any man who would describe himself as decent agrees with such behavior, I'd like that man to have the guts to state publicly that it's OK.
Decent grown men do NOT invite the neighbor kids to spend the night! If a poor man, or really any man who was not grossly rich did this, once again not only would the Child Protective Services be on their case, but the cops would be hauling them off to jail!
So, I cannot POSSIBLY honor Michael Jackson. I do not dispute that he was talented. But merely being talented (or rich) does NOT excuse behavior that potentially puts children at risk.
It will be interesting in years to come what those children who 'slept over' at Jackson's home have to say about the experience. Say, in about 50 years, when the money runs out!
IMHO, Michael Jackson's behavior made him a person NOT to be admired. I can only hope that his sojourn in Bahrain (or wherever he was) helped him grow to love extreme heat!
Then, Farrah Fawcett, one of the best known "Angelss", as well as an honored and gifted actress, lost her battle with cancer. And, like Ed McMahon, I have never read any really bad stories about her. In fact, most of what I know about het is admirable. Therefore, I honor her life and share in the sorrow of her passing.
I simply CANNOT honor the third famous person who died this week, Michael Jackson.
It is not only that he (to all accounts) seemed very weird. It is not only that his appearance became a joke and that his lavish lifestyle bordered on the ridiculous.
No, the reason I cannot honor Jackson is his other 'behaviors', which I find repulsive. I doubt there is a person alive who does not know that Jackson was tried for child molestation. I doubt that there is anyone who does not know that he was aquitted of all charges. So, as far as the COURTS go and as far as the legal system goes, he was innocent.
The thing I find so disgusting about Jackson is NOT the things he was charged with in court, but the things that were ADMITTED to have happened, or that were documented by the media as fact.
How can ANYONE who claims to be a decent, moral persoon idolize a grown man who would dangle a BABY off a balcony? And exactly why was the child not removed from the home? Had Jackson been POOR, the Child Welfare folks would have been at his door the second the photo appeared on the news! And a poor person would have had little or no chance of ever getting their child back.
And, what kind of a grown man thinks it is acceptable to have little boys sleep with him, or come to his home for 'sleepovers'? If any man who would describe himself as decent agrees with such behavior, I'd like that man to have the guts to state publicly that it's OK.
Decent grown men do NOT invite the neighbor kids to spend the night! If a poor man, or really any man who was not grossly rich did this, once again not only would the Child Protective Services be on their case, but the cops would be hauling them off to jail!
So, I cannot POSSIBLY honor Michael Jackson. I do not dispute that he was talented. But merely being talented (or rich) does NOT excuse behavior that potentially puts children at risk.
It will be interesting in years to come what those children who 'slept over' at Jackson's home have to say about the experience. Say, in about 50 years, when the money runs out!
IMHO, Michael Jackson's behavior made him a person NOT to be admired. I can only hope that his sojourn in Bahrain (or wherever he was) helped him grow to love extreme heat!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
