Saturday, August 20, 2005
...And Another Thing
What sort of message are we sending to our youth when those 199 think they can go to college?
Congrats to NKU
They finally have minimum standards for admission:
Something will be missing when classes start Monday at Northern Kentucky University - 199 potential students.
For the first time in the school's 37-year history, admission standards have replaced an open enrollment policy that welcomed anyone with a high school diploma.
Admission has been denied to 199 applicants who failed to meet NKU's new minimum standards for high school grades and college entrance exam scores.
No offense, but how dumb are the 199 rejected applicants...and how many are from Newport.
Something will be missing when classes start Monday at Northern Kentucky University - 199 potential students.
For the first time in the school's 37-year history, admission standards have replaced an open enrollment policy that welcomed anyone with a high school diploma.
Admission has been denied to 199 applicants who failed to meet NKU's new minimum standards for high school grades and college entrance exam scores.
No offense, but how dumb are the 199 rejected applicants...and how many are from Newport.
The Age of the Information Monopoly Is Over
The nation's second-largest real estate brokerage is expected to announce today a plan to pool all U.S. residential property listings on its website, a move that would create a formidable national competitor to industry-backed Realtor.com.
The move by Re/Max International Inc. also could eventually help reduce consumers' costs of buying and selling homes, as competition with other Web-based brokerages heats up.
Online real estate companies and consumer advocates have long complained about the real estate industry's efforts to limit access to property listings on the Internet. They see it as an attempt to thwart competition from Web-based upstarts, which typically charge lower commissions or charge referral fees.
The move by Re/Max International Inc. also could eventually help reduce consumers' costs of buying and selling homes, as competition with other Web-based brokerages heats up.
Online real estate companies and consumer advocates have long complained about the real estate industry's efforts to limit access to property listings on the Internet. They see it as an attempt to thwart competition from Web-based upstarts, which typically charge lower commissions or charge referral fees.
"I Respectfully Decline to Participate"
I'm not a huge fan of Bob Costas, but that may change:
Friday, Aug 19
I "Respectfully Declined To Participate" With Last Night's LKL, Bob Costas ExplainsAs TVNewser reported exclusively this morning, Bob Costas refused to host Larry King Live last night, because he didn't want to talk about Natalee Holloway and Dennis Rader for an hour. CNN has sent TVNewser statements from Costas and LKL's EP:
"I didn't think the subject matter of Thursday's show was the kind of broadcast that I should be doing. I suggested some alternatives but the producers preferred the topics they had chosen. I was fine with that, and respectfully declined to participate. There were no hard feelings at all. It's not a big deal. I'm sure there are countless topics that will be mutually acceptable in the future." -- Bob Costas
Friday, Aug 19
I "Respectfully Declined To Participate" With Last Night's LKL, Bob Costas ExplainsAs TVNewser reported exclusively this morning, Bob Costas refused to host Larry King Live last night, because he didn't want to talk about Natalee Holloway and Dennis Rader for an hour. CNN has sent TVNewser statements from Costas and LKL's EP:
"I didn't think the subject matter of Thursday's show was the kind of broadcast that I should be doing. I suggested some alternatives but the producers preferred the topics they had chosen. I was fine with that, and respectfully declined to participate. There were no hard feelings at all. It's not a big deal. I'm sure there are countless topics that will be mutually acceptable in the future." -- Bob Costas
Most Overrated NFL Linebacker
According to former NFL great Chris Carter:
Most overrated: Brian SimmonsThe Cincinnati Bengals' eight-year veteran sometimes disappears in games. He shouldn't, though. He has the ability to be a great player. The Bengals' defense needs to improve if Cincinnati is to finally finish above .500 after back-to-back 8-8 seasons.
I tend to agree. Good player, but not great. Considerably overpaid.
Most overrated: Brian SimmonsThe Cincinnati Bengals' eight-year veteran sometimes disappears in games. He shouldn't, though. He has the ability to be a great player. The Bengals' defense needs to improve if Cincinnati is to finally finish above .500 after back-to-back 8-8 seasons.
I tend to agree. Good player, but not great. Considerably overpaid.
Tuesday, August 16, 2005
Not Bad Work If You Can Get It
Sometimes failure (i.e. getting worse as an aging NBA player) pays off:
DALLAS -- Michael Finley was waived late Monday night by the Dallas Mavericks, who took advantage of a one-time amnesty provision that will allow them to avoid luxury taxes on the $51.8 million owed their captain over the next three seasons.
The Mavs spent all day Monday exploring trade options, and waited until just before the late-night deadline to release Finley and take advantage of the provision in the NBA's new labor agreement.
Finley becomes an unrestricted free agent and is still guaranteed the money from his Mavericks contract, plus whatever he gets from a new team.
...The Mavs avoid a dollar-for-dollar tax on Finley's $15.9 million salary for the 2005-06 season. The two-time All-Star is due $17.3 million and $18.6 million over the final two seasons of the seven-year contract he signed in 2001.
That's $51.8 million NOT to play.
DALLAS -- Michael Finley was waived late Monday night by the Dallas Mavericks, who took advantage of a one-time amnesty provision that will allow them to avoid luxury taxes on the $51.8 million owed their captain over the next three seasons.
The Mavs spent all day Monday exploring trade options, and waited until just before the late-night deadline to release Finley and take advantage of the provision in the NBA's new labor agreement.
Finley becomes an unrestricted free agent and is still guaranteed the money from his Mavericks contract, plus whatever he gets from a new team.
...The Mavs avoid a dollar-for-dollar tax on Finley's $15.9 million salary for the 2005-06 season. The two-time All-Star is due $17.3 million and $18.6 million over the final two seasons of the seven-year contract he signed in 2001.
That's $51.8 million NOT to play.
This is Embarrassing
WASHINGTON – Like pardons and executive orders, vetoes are among the cherished privileges of the Oval Office. Ike liked them. So did presidents Truman and Cleveland - and both Roosevelts.
But apparently not George W. Bush. In fact, well into the fifth year of his presidency, he has yet to issue a single veto.
But apparently not George W. Bush. In fact, well into the fifth year of his presidency, he has yet to issue a single veto.
Bad News for TV and Print Media
Julie Roehm has more than $2 billion to spend this year, and the way she's been spending it worries executives at News Corp., the Washington Post Co., and virtually every other media company on the planet. As Chrysler's director of marketing communications, Roehm, 34, oversees a budget that Advertising Age ranks as the sixth-largest pool of ad dollars in the nation...
Roehm rarely misses a chance to talk about how delighted she is with online advertising. Last year she spent 10% of the budget online; this year she is allotting closer to 18%; next year, she says, she will allocate more than 20%. Do the math: In 2006 roughly $400 million of Chrysler's money that used to go into TV, newspaper, and magazine ads will be spent on the Internet. Says Roehm: "I hate to sound like such a marketing geek, but we like to fish where the fish are."
Roehm rarely misses a chance to talk about how delighted she is with online advertising. Last year she spent 10% of the budget online; this year she is allotting closer to 18%; next year, she says, she will allocate more than 20%. Do the math: In 2006 roughly $400 million of Chrysler's money that used to go into TV, newspaper, and magazine ads will be spent on the Internet. Says Roehm: "I hate to sound like such a marketing geek, but we like to fish where the fish are."
Monday, August 15, 2005
Maybe Money Does Buy Happiness After All
MONEY can buy you happiness - but only if you are richer than your neighbours, according to the results of research released yesterday.
Sociologists found that it was not strictly true to say that being well-off will not make a person happy.
But it depends on whether a person is able to "keep up with the Joneses".
Researchers in the United States examined the "hedonic treadmill hypothesis" that suggests people are in a continual wealth race with their neighbours.
Measurements were taken of the age, the total family income and the general happiness of a group of people aged 20 to 64.
The results showed that the richer people were relative to their peers of the same age, the happier they tended to be.
Glen Firebaugh, from Pennsylvania State University, who led the study, said: "We find, with and without controls, that the higher the income of others in one's age group, the lower one's happiness.
"Families whose income earners are in jobs with flat income trajectories are likely to become less happy over time.
"Thus the relative income effect observed here implies adverse effects for some individuals over the working years of their life cycles."
Relative income was much more important than absolute income when determining the happiness of individual Americans.
Because of the relative effect, continued income growth within rich countries such as the US is irrelevant to overall happiness, according to Mr Firebaugh.
"Rather than promoting overall happiness, continued income growth could promote an ongoing consumption race where individuals consume more and more just to maintain a constant level of happiness," he added.
While income was important, the best predictor of happiness was good physical health, the researchers found.
Sociologists found that it was not strictly true to say that being well-off will not make a person happy.
But it depends on whether a person is able to "keep up with the Joneses".
Researchers in the United States examined the "hedonic treadmill hypothesis" that suggests people are in a continual wealth race with their neighbours.
Measurements were taken of the age, the total family income and the general happiness of a group of people aged 20 to 64.
The results showed that the richer people were relative to their peers of the same age, the happier they tended to be.
Glen Firebaugh, from Pennsylvania State University, who led the study, said: "We find, with and without controls, that the higher the income of others in one's age group, the lower one's happiness.
"Families whose income earners are in jobs with flat income trajectories are likely to become less happy over time.
"Thus the relative income effect observed here implies adverse effects for some individuals over the working years of their life cycles."
Relative income was much more important than absolute income when determining the happiness of individual Americans.
Because of the relative effect, continued income growth within rich countries such as the US is irrelevant to overall happiness, according to Mr Firebaugh.
"Rather than promoting overall happiness, continued income growth could promote an ongoing consumption race where individuals consume more and more just to maintain a constant level of happiness," he added.
While income was important, the best predictor of happiness was good physical health, the researchers found.
Finally, A College President With Backbone
The NCAA is a dinosaur. The major conferences should just pull out.
CHARLES E. KUPCHELLA
President University of North Dakota
An Open Letter to the NCAA:
The quiet serenity of our beautiful campus was disturbed early August 5 by news reports that the NCAA had decided to address the Indian nickname issue. The early reports were unclear; the words mascot, nickname, and logo were used interchangeably, and the loaded words “abusive” and “hostile” were invoked without definition and without any real clear idea as to how they were being applied. We don’t have a mascot, and our logo was designed by a very well-respected American Indian artist. We couldn’t imagine that these reports would apply to us.
Later, we saw the full release. While it looked like the action taken by the NCAA was insulting, and a flagrant abuse of power, we knew that good, well-meaning people were involved in the decision and we wanted to consider our reaction carefully.
We were initially stunned by the charge “abusive” and “hostile,” and then angry. We reflected and gave it a week before drafting this response. I must admit to sinking at one point during the past week to the notion that my Association was guilty of “political correctness run amok” as suggested by some papers.
We want to file an appeal, but first we need to know the basis for your decisions. We need the answers to some questions first, in other words.
I do not wish to take up the issue, here, of any absolute or general “correctness” of using American Indian imagery. Those on both sides of the issue have long ago made up their minds, and no amount of talking over many years seems to have moved anyone from one side of the issue to the other. Suffice it to say, some choose to be insulted by the use of these terms; others are befuddled by this reaction to what they consider to be an honor. What I would like to take up here is a matter of the appropriateness and legality of the NCAA’s action. I mean to take up the issue of whether the NCAA has gone over the edge and out of bounds in the action announced on Friday.
Is it the use of Indian names, images, and/or mascots to which you are opposed? If it is all of the above, which logos, images, and mascots do you indict by your announcement? Is it only certain ones? As I said, a very respected Indian artist designed and created a logo for the University. The logo is not unlike those found on United States coins and North Dakota highway patrol cars and highway signs. So we can’t imagine that the use of this image is “abusive” or “hostile” in any sense of these words.
Is it the use of the names of tribes that you find hostile and abusive?
Not long ago I took a trip to make a proposal to establish an epidemiological program to support American Indian health throughout the Upper Great Plains. On this trip I left a state called North Dakota. (Dakota is one of the names the indigenous people of this region actually call themselves.) I flew over South Dakota, crossing the Sioux River several times, and finally landed in Sioux City, Iowa, just south of Sioux Falls, South Dakota. The airplane in which I traveled that day was called a Cheyenne.
I think you should find my confusion here understandable, since obviously if we were to call our teams “The Dakotans,” we would actually be in more direct violation of what apparently you are trying to establish as a rule, even though this is the name of our state. This situation, of course, is not unlike that faced by our sister institution in Illinois.
Is it only when some well-meaning people object to the use of the names of tribes? If so, what standard did you use to decide where the line from acceptable to “hostile” and “abusive” is crossed? We note that you exempted a school with a certain percentage of American Indian students. We have more than 400 American Indian students here. Who decided that a certain percentage was okay, but our percentage was not? Where is the line between okay and hostile/abusive?
We have two Sioux tribes based here in North Dakota. One has, in fact, objected to our use of the name, “Sioux,” applied to our sports teams. The other said it was okay, provided that we took steps to ensure that some good comes of it, in educating people and students about the cultural heritage of this region. This mix of opinions is apparently not unlike that faced by our sister institution in Florida.
Is it only about applying names to sports teams? If so, would this be extended to the use of the names of all people, or is it just American Indians? Why would you exempt the “Fighting Irish” from your consideration, for example? Or “Vikings,” which are really fighting Scandinavians, or “Warriors,” which I suppose could be described as fighting anybodies? Wouldn’t it be “discrimination on account of race” to have a policy that applies to Indians but not to Scandinavians or the Irish, or anybody else for that matter? This seems especially profound in light of a letter to me from President Brand (8/9/05) in which he, in very broad-brush fashion and inconsistent with the NCAA’s recent much narrower pronouncement, said, “we believe that mascots, nicknames or images deemed hostile or abusive in terms of race, ethnicity or national origin should not be visible at our events.” (my emphasis)
As to the flagrant abuse of power question, I want to make sure I have this straight. We’ve recently built some magnificent facilities costing well over $100 million, under rules permitting us to host championship tournaments and otherwise participate fully in NCAA sanctioned activities, in which the very architecture of the building incorporates names and images of American Indian people. Do you really expect us now to spend large amounts of money to erase what we consider to be respectful images and names of Indian people who inhabited this region in the interest of the NCAA Executive Committee?
Hostile and abusive??
Help me understand why you think “hostile and abusive” applies to us. We have more than 25 separate programs in support of American Indian students here receiving high-end university educations. Included among these is an “Indians Into Medicine” program, now 30+ years running, that has generated 20 percent of all American Indian doctors in the United States. We have a similar program in Nursing, one in Clinical Psychology, and we are about to launch an “Indians into Aviation” program in conjunction with our world-class Odegard School of Aerospace Sciences. I am very proud when I visit reservations in our state to see that a large number of the teachers, doctors, Tribal College presidents, and other leaders are graduates of the University of North Dakota.
Do you really expect us to host a tournament in which these names and images are covered in some way that would imply that we are ashamed of them?
Concerning tournaments already scheduled: Is the NCAA taking the position that it can actually unilaterally modify a contract already made? Perhaps the charge (sometimes heard) that the NCAA exhibits too much of the arrogance that comes from its status as a monopoly – apart from the question of whether it’s an effective organization – does indeed have a basis.
If the NCAA has all this power, why not use it to restore intercollegiate athletics to the ideal of sportsmanship by decoupling intercollegiate athletics from its corruption by big budgets? Why not use the power to put a halt to the out-of-control financial arms race that threatens to corrupt even higher education itself?
Yes, I know that in theory the NCAA is actually an association, and that UND is a member of it, and therefore it’s really we who are doing all of these things to ourselves, or failing to do all of these things ourselves. But is the NCAA really a democratic organization? Why did we not put these issues to a vote by all member schools??
In his USA Today essay, Myles Brand proclaimed that this is a teachable moment, suggesting that the NCAA decision is “aimed at initiating a discussion on a national basis about how American Indians have been characterized . . . .” Great idea! Let’s have the discussion – one that we should have had before this ruling was handed down, one that actually includes American Indians and puts this in the perspective of all that is important to them at this time in history. And while we are at it, why not also address the state of intercollegiate athletics – whether or not student-athletes at some schools are being exploited, and whether or not there is an out-of-control financial “arms race” threatening the integrity of higher education itself.
In considering how to appeal, we find it exasperating that we can’t tell what the basis for your initial decision was and how you singled us out in the first place. In a letter from Myles Brand to me (8/9/05) he suggests that we could, in an appeal, argue that our symbols or mascots do not create a hostile or abusive environment. But his letter also seems to suggest that as long as some think the environment is hostile, case closed.
By the way, the last time this issue was stirred up on our campus, a formal charge was made to the Office for Civil Rights that the use of our logo or nickname created a hostile environment here at the University. The Office for Civil Rights sent a half-dozen people to our campus. They fanned out across campus and after more than a week here, found no such thing. Did the Executive Committee find some things they missed, perhaps? Or does a committee in Indianapolis trump the Office for Civil Rights here, on the ground, in North Dakota?
Finally, I expect that we will file an appeal, because should we wish to take this issue to court, the courts would undoubtedly ask if we have exhausted all administrative remedies. Please send us the appropriate application forms, and give us an indication of how the appeal will be heard and when. If the timing of this appeal were such that your deadline occurs before the appeal is resolved, we would ask that the deadline be put off, otherwise we may well have to go to the expense of seeking an injunction halting the imposition of these policies until all of our questions can be answered satisfactorily.
We thank you in advance for considering our questions.
Sincerely,
Charles E. KupchellaPresident
CHARLES E. KUPCHELLA
President University of North Dakota
An Open Letter to the NCAA:
The quiet serenity of our beautiful campus was disturbed early August 5 by news reports that the NCAA had decided to address the Indian nickname issue. The early reports were unclear; the words mascot, nickname, and logo were used interchangeably, and the loaded words “abusive” and “hostile” were invoked without definition and without any real clear idea as to how they were being applied. We don’t have a mascot, and our logo was designed by a very well-respected American Indian artist. We couldn’t imagine that these reports would apply to us.
Later, we saw the full release. While it looked like the action taken by the NCAA was insulting, and a flagrant abuse of power, we knew that good, well-meaning people were involved in the decision and we wanted to consider our reaction carefully.
We were initially stunned by the charge “abusive” and “hostile,” and then angry. We reflected and gave it a week before drafting this response. I must admit to sinking at one point during the past week to the notion that my Association was guilty of “political correctness run amok” as suggested by some papers.
We want to file an appeal, but first we need to know the basis for your decisions. We need the answers to some questions first, in other words.
I do not wish to take up the issue, here, of any absolute or general “correctness” of using American Indian imagery. Those on both sides of the issue have long ago made up their minds, and no amount of talking over many years seems to have moved anyone from one side of the issue to the other. Suffice it to say, some choose to be insulted by the use of these terms; others are befuddled by this reaction to what they consider to be an honor. What I would like to take up here is a matter of the appropriateness and legality of the NCAA’s action. I mean to take up the issue of whether the NCAA has gone over the edge and out of bounds in the action announced on Friday.
Is it the use of Indian names, images, and/or mascots to which you are opposed? If it is all of the above, which logos, images, and mascots do you indict by your announcement? Is it only certain ones? As I said, a very respected Indian artist designed and created a logo for the University. The logo is not unlike those found on United States coins and North Dakota highway patrol cars and highway signs. So we can’t imagine that the use of this image is “abusive” or “hostile” in any sense of these words.
Is it the use of the names of tribes that you find hostile and abusive?
Not long ago I took a trip to make a proposal to establish an epidemiological program to support American Indian health throughout the Upper Great Plains. On this trip I left a state called North Dakota. (Dakota is one of the names the indigenous people of this region actually call themselves.) I flew over South Dakota, crossing the Sioux River several times, and finally landed in Sioux City, Iowa, just south of Sioux Falls, South Dakota. The airplane in which I traveled that day was called a Cheyenne.
I think you should find my confusion here understandable, since obviously if we were to call our teams “The Dakotans,” we would actually be in more direct violation of what apparently you are trying to establish as a rule, even though this is the name of our state. This situation, of course, is not unlike that faced by our sister institution in Illinois.
Is it only when some well-meaning people object to the use of the names of tribes? If so, what standard did you use to decide where the line from acceptable to “hostile” and “abusive” is crossed? We note that you exempted a school with a certain percentage of American Indian students. We have more than 400 American Indian students here. Who decided that a certain percentage was okay, but our percentage was not? Where is the line between okay and hostile/abusive?
We have two Sioux tribes based here in North Dakota. One has, in fact, objected to our use of the name, “Sioux,” applied to our sports teams. The other said it was okay, provided that we took steps to ensure that some good comes of it, in educating people and students about the cultural heritage of this region. This mix of opinions is apparently not unlike that faced by our sister institution in Florida.
Is it only about applying names to sports teams? If so, would this be extended to the use of the names of all people, or is it just American Indians? Why would you exempt the “Fighting Irish” from your consideration, for example? Or “Vikings,” which are really fighting Scandinavians, or “Warriors,” which I suppose could be described as fighting anybodies? Wouldn’t it be “discrimination on account of race” to have a policy that applies to Indians but not to Scandinavians or the Irish, or anybody else for that matter? This seems especially profound in light of a letter to me from President Brand (8/9/05) in which he, in very broad-brush fashion and inconsistent with the NCAA’s recent much narrower pronouncement, said, “we believe that mascots, nicknames or images deemed hostile or abusive in terms of race, ethnicity or national origin should not be visible at our events.” (my emphasis)
As to the flagrant abuse of power question, I want to make sure I have this straight. We’ve recently built some magnificent facilities costing well over $100 million, under rules permitting us to host championship tournaments and otherwise participate fully in NCAA sanctioned activities, in which the very architecture of the building incorporates names and images of American Indian people. Do you really expect us now to spend large amounts of money to erase what we consider to be respectful images and names of Indian people who inhabited this region in the interest of the NCAA Executive Committee?
Hostile and abusive??
Help me understand why you think “hostile and abusive” applies to us. We have more than 25 separate programs in support of American Indian students here receiving high-end university educations. Included among these is an “Indians Into Medicine” program, now 30+ years running, that has generated 20 percent of all American Indian doctors in the United States. We have a similar program in Nursing, one in Clinical Psychology, and we are about to launch an “Indians into Aviation” program in conjunction with our world-class Odegard School of Aerospace Sciences. I am very proud when I visit reservations in our state to see that a large number of the teachers, doctors, Tribal College presidents, and other leaders are graduates of the University of North Dakota.
Do you really expect us to host a tournament in which these names and images are covered in some way that would imply that we are ashamed of them?
Concerning tournaments already scheduled: Is the NCAA taking the position that it can actually unilaterally modify a contract already made? Perhaps the charge (sometimes heard) that the NCAA exhibits too much of the arrogance that comes from its status as a monopoly – apart from the question of whether it’s an effective organization – does indeed have a basis.
If the NCAA has all this power, why not use it to restore intercollegiate athletics to the ideal of sportsmanship by decoupling intercollegiate athletics from its corruption by big budgets? Why not use the power to put a halt to the out-of-control financial arms race that threatens to corrupt even higher education itself?
Yes, I know that in theory the NCAA is actually an association, and that UND is a member of it, and therefore it’s really we who are doing all of these things to ourselves, or failing to do all of these things ourselves. But is the NCAA really a democratic organization? Why did we not put these issues to a vote by all member schools??
In his USA Today essay, Myles Brand proclaimed that this is a teachable moment, suggesting that the NCAA decision is “aimed at initiating a discussion on a national basis about how American Indians have been characterized . . . .” Great idea! Let’s have the discussion – one that we should have had before this ruling was handed down, one that actually includes American Indians and puts this in the perspective of all that is important to them at this time in history. And while we are at it, why not also address the state of intercollegiate athletics – whether or not student-athletes at some schools are being exploited, and whether or not there is an out-of-control financial “arms race” threatening the integrity of higher education itself.
In considering how to appeal, we find it exasperating that we can’t tell what the basis for your initial decision was and how you singled us out in the first place. In a letter from Myles Brand to me (8/9/05) he suggests that we could, in an appeal, argue that our symbols or mascots do not create a hostile or abusive environment. But his letter also seems to suggest that as long as some think the environment is hostile, case closed.
By the way, the last time this issue was stirred up on our campus, a formal charge was made to the Office for Civil Rights that the use of our logo or nickname created a hostile environment here at the University. The Office for Civil Rights sent a half-dozen people to our campus. They fanned out across campus and after more than a week here, found no such thing. Did the Executive Committee find some things they missed, perhaps? Or does a committee in Indianapolis trump the Office for Civil Rights here, on the ground, in North Dakota?
Finally, I expect that we will file an appeal, because should we wish to take this issue to court, the courts would undoubtedly ask if we have exhausted all administrative remedies. Please send us the appropriate application forms, and give us an indication of how the appeal will be heard and when. If the timing of this appeal were such that your deadline occurs before the appeal is resolved, we would ask that the deadline be put off, otherwise we may well have to go to the expense of seeking an injunction halting the imposition of these policies until all of our questions can be answered satisfactorily.
We thank you in advance for considering our questions.
Sincerely,
Charles E. KupchellaPresident
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
