Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Burn After Reading
If you liked Fargo and O Brother, Where Art Thou? you may find yourself, like I was, wondering where the heck this movie was going.
Labels: Reviews
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Securities Analysis
Economics in college starts with a course numbered 101. Since apparently those in charge of some of our largest financial institutions never had that course, I offer herewith a short overview of the topic. And no, economics isn't really dismal at all. It's fairly simple. I give you Economics 001.
The link under the title of this post takes you to the Amazon listing for the newest edition of the famous book Securities Analysis, by Benjamin Graham and David Dodd. There was no field called "Securities Analysis" before this book appeared. That there now is speaks volumes for how influential this volume has been. (Amazon has special re-issues of older editions for collectors, by the way.)
The book includes a long-term analysis of real value increase for various types of investment, tracked over a period of seventy-five years. This is real increase in value, not simply stuff that costs more dollars to buy.
Hey, you'll say, real estate, right? No, sorry. Real Estate, long term, appreciates a teensy-tiny bit, but not very much.
Oh, then bonds and other debt, right? No, actually, over the long term, if you want to lose money, then debt is the way to go. Not giving other people loans directly, like a bank, but investing in debt securities, like Wall Street has been doing so much of the recent decades. In a word, neither debt securities or real estate will do much for you long term.
Real estate will preserve value, but not increase it. Debt won't even do that.
What has been going on during this wonderful "Ownership" decade? Speculation in real estate and debt! Wowie! Can there be a connection between that fact and our current economic problems? Maybe? Could be? The book Securities Analysis came out in 1940. Maybe the war took people's mind off of the simple facts it presents. I couldn't say, but obviously the business schools aren't using this volume for anything more serious than a doorstop these days.
I'm not entirely kidding when I say we should consider shutting down Harvard and Yale and other prominent business colleges. Just look at the damage they do!
But, back to the topic at hand, you might ask, "What does appreciate in terms of real value over the long term?" The answer is productive industries. That is, factories that make things that people want to buy. Automobiles, for instance, or steel, or lines notebook paper, or corn chips or any thing that someone is willing to pay for. How much do stocks in manufacturing appreciate? Over seventy-five years the total gain in value was twenty-five percent. Put another way, over three-quarters of a century, making things people want to buy returned 125% of the investment it took to start the enterprise in the first place.
[That may sound like a small amount, but remember that over those decades many, many people made a good living producing the manufactured goods.]
So, if you want to make money and keep on making money, the thing to do is to produce something that people want to buy and keep selling it to them. Great googley-moogley, General Motors can't even seem to figure out how to make an automobile that people want to buy! How in heck can we expect to make money off of General Motor's debt? We can't, that's how. There's no way, no how, nada to be gotten from a company that has forgotten how to make items of value.
Oh, they can sell them. The automakers convinced Americans to buy SUVs because the SUVs are cheaper to make (fewer regulations for safety and fuel economy) and more profitable. Unfortunately, compared to most foreign automotive products, the average US-made SUV is like a poor cousin that looks like a car, but is so poorly put together that, sooner or later, and these days it's sooner, people are going to quit buying them. Still, the success of marketing SUVs and other products of, really, questionable value, led GM and others to put money into marketing and promotion that should have gone into making the product better and better. That, in short, is why GM is in trouble, and why Toyota sells so many pickup trucks these days.
GM's troubles are a part of the larger problem of not sticking to the fundamentals of a sound economy. Those fundamentals are, according to the guys who literally wrote the book, producing things of value and selling them for more than it cost you to produce them. All the slick marketing in the world won't overcome a cheaply made truck. And, all the wishful thinking in the world won't turn a debt security into a good investment.
Got all that? Okay, then.
Class dismissed!
The link under the title of this post takes you to the Amazon listing for the newest edition of the famous book Securities Analysis, by Benjamin Graham and David Dodd. There was no field called "Securities Analysis" before this book appeared. That there now is speaks volumes for how influential this volume has been. (Amazon has special re-issues of older editions for collectors, by the way.)
The book includes a long-term analysis of real value increase for various types of investment, tracked over a period of seventy-five years. This is real increase in value, not simply stuff that costs more dollars to buy.
Hey, you'll say, real estate, right? No, sorry. Real Estate, long term, appreciates a teensy-tiny bit, but not very much.
Oh, then bonds and other debt, right? No, actually, over the long term, if you want to lose money, then debt is the way to go. Not giving other people loans directly, like a bank, but investing in debt securities, like Wall Street has been doing so much of the recent decades. In a word, neither debt securities or real estate will do much for you long term.
Real estate will preserve value, but not increase it. Debt won't even do that.
What has been going on during this wonderful "Ownership" decade? Speculation in real estate and debt! Wowie! Can there be a connection between that fact and our current economic problems? Maybe? Could be? The book Securities Analysis came out in 1940. Maybe the war took people's mind off of the simple facts it presents. I couldn't say, but obviously the business schools aren't using this volume for anything more serious than a doorstop these days.
I'm not entirely kidding when I say we should consider shutting down Harvard and Yale and other prominent business colleges. Just look at the damage they do!
But, back to the topic at hand, you might ask, "What does appreciate in terms of real value over the long term?" The answer is productive industries. That is, factories that make things that people want to buy. Automobiles, for instance, or steel, or lines notebook paper, or corn chips or any thing that someone is willing to pay for. How much do stocks in manufacturing appreciate? Over seventy-five years the total gain in value was twenty-five percent. Put another way, over three-quarters of a century, making things people want to buy returned 125% of the investment it took to start the enterprise in the first place.
[That may sound like a small amount, but remember that over those decades many, many people made a good living producing the manufactured goods.]
So, if you want to make money and keep on making money, the thing to do is to produce something that people want to buy and keep selling it to them. Great googley-moogley, General Motors can't even seem to figure out how to make an automobile that people want to buy! How in heck can we expect to make money off of General Motor's debt? We can't, that's how. There's no way, no how, nada to be gotten from a company that has forgotten how to make items of value.
Oh, they can sell them. The automakers convinced Americans to buy SUVs because the SUVs are cheaper to make (fewer regulations for safety and fuel economy) and more profitable. Unfortunately, compared to most foreign automotive products, the average US-made SUV is like a poor cousin that looks like a car, but is so poorly put together that, sooner or later, and these days it's sooner, people are going to quit buying them. Still, the success of marketing SUVs and other products of, really, questionable value, led GM and others to put money into marketing and promotion that should have gone into making the product better and better. That, in short, is why GM is in trouble, and why Toyota sells so many pickup trucks these days.
GM's troubles are a part of the larger problem of not sticking to the fundamentals of a sound economy. Those fundamentals are, according to the guys who literally wrote the book, producing things of value and selling them for more than it cost you to produce them. All the slick marketing in the world won't overcome a cheaply made truck. And, all the wishful thinking in the world won't turn a debt security into a good investment.
Got all that? Okay, then.
Class dismissed!
Labels: Politics, Reviews, Social Commentary
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Sexist Attacks on Palin Must End!
I'd love to do this rant myself, but instead, just click here and read a better writer's take on this issue.
S.
S.
Labels: Politics, Social Commentary
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Tina Fey Does Sarah Palin
Believe it or not, I'm not Tina Fey's biggest fan. We might even be related for all I know, but there are comedians I like better. However, I did watch her portrayal of Sarah Palin on SNL, and I was amazed at how well she channeled the appearance and mannerisms of the Governor.
As for the commentary from both sides, screw 'em. It's really funny, and for the record it hits Hillary just as hard. "I didn't want a woman to be president, I wanted me to be president!"
The link in the title is a Google search. There are many places to view this video. Pick one. You'll be glad you did.
Steve
As for the commentary from both sides, screw 'em. It's really funny, and for the record it hits Hillary just as hard. "I didn't want a woman to be president, I wanted me to be president!"
The link in the title is a Google search. There are many places to view this video. Pick one. You'll be glad you did.
Steve
Put an Economy in Your Tank?
The US economy is a pretty hot topic right now. Recent events have given a boost to Obama and caused McCain to scramble. Well, that's all well and good for the game they're playing, but it doesn't get at any solutions.
The reason that government can't get at the solution is that government isn't the root of the problem, whatever "I fight Republicans" McCain might say. The enemy, as a famous cartoonist once liked to say, is us.
Economics is all voodoo, really. If everybody thinks things are going well, then things are going well. If money is circulating freely, then it's easy to think things are going well. When the flow of money gets interrupted, it gets harder to believe in prosperity. Money, in case you didn't know, has to move around to be of any use, which is a tenet of Economics 101. What happened recently was that there was a bubble in real estate prices, caused, as are all bubbles, by unbridled enthusiasm causing undue speculation. The government can hardly be expected to tell people how to feel, so getting a bubble under control is a problem. In fact, bubbles, like the dot com bubble in the nineties, and like the real estate bubble in the, what are these years, two-thousands maybe, tend to expand until they burst. Then sometimes the government is called in to clean up the mess.
In the current case, you'll note that the agencies set up to help people buy houses, which had worked well for decades, suddenly found themselves overburdened. Prior to those agencies being created, it was almost impossible for a would-be homeowner to get a mortgage, and if you did it had a huge balloon payment after five or ten years. Essentially, you had five to ten years to pay off the place, or you were out the door. How much better it has been for everyone after Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were created during the Great Depression. Home ownership has become the norm, and quite a few people, as I read today, actually pay off their mortgages and own their homes outright. Over thirty percent, according to an article in today's paper. That's fantastic, compared to the way things used to be.
Unfortunately, the people, always a dicey group when it comes to common sense, managed to find a way to abuse the system set up to help people buy homes. When it worked for a few the ideas on how to do it spread until too many people were abusing the system, buying things they really never would be able to pay off. Lately we've seen the results.
My point, then, is that McCain and Obama are having a good time saying nasty things about each other over the credit crisis. ("Worst financial crisis since the Depression!") But that's all it is, just two guys who for some pathological reason want the world's worst job, sniping at each other. The truth, while less glamorous, is that we all caused the current financial mess, and we'll all have to fix it. That is the case no matter who wins this upcoming election.
I guess that moving seven-hundred billion dollars all of a sudden should have some sort of effect, huh?
S.
The reason that government can't get at the solution is that government isn't the root of the problem, whatever "I fight Republicans" McCain might say. The enemy, as a famous cartoonist once liked to say, is us.
Economics is all voodoo, really. If everybody thinks things are going well, then things are going well. If money is circulating freely, then it's easy to think things are going well. When the flow of money gets interrupted, it gets harder to believe in prosperity. Money, in case you didn't know, has to move around to be of any use, which is a tenet of Economics 101. What happened recently was that there was a bubble in real estate prices, caused, as are all bubbles, by unbridled enthusiasm causing undue speculation. The government can hardly be expected to tell people how to feel, so getting a bubble under control is a problem. In fact, bubbles, like the dot com bubble in the nineties, and like the real estate bubble in the, what are these years, two-thousands maybe, tend to expand until they burst. Then sometimes the government is called in to clean up the mess.
In the current case, you'll note that the agencies set up to help people buy houses, which had worked well for decades, suddenly found themselves overburdened. Prior to those agencies being created, it was almost impossible for a would-be homeowner to get a mortgage, and if you did it had a huge balloon payment after five or ten years. Essentially, you had five to ten years to pay off the place, or you were out the door. How much better it has been for everyone after Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were created during the Great Depression. Home ownership has become the norm, and quite a few people, as I read today, actually pay off their mortgages and own their homes outright. Over thirty percent, according to an article in today's paper. That's fantastic, compared to the way things used to be.
Unfortunately, the people, always a dicey group when it comes to common sense, managed to find a way to abuse the system set up to help people buy homes. When it worked for a few the ideas on how to do it spread until too many people were abusing the system, buying things they really never would be able to pay off. Lately we've seen the results.
My point, then, is that McCain and Obama are having a good time saying nasty things about each other over the credit crisis. ("Worst financial crisis since the Depression!") But that's all it is, just two guys who for some pathological reason want the world's worst job, sniping at each other. The truth, while less glamorous, is that we all caused the current financial mess, and we'll all have to fix it. That is the case no matter who wins this upcoming election.
I guess that moving seven-hundred billion dollars all of a sudden should have some sort of effect, huh?
S.
Labels: Politics, Social Commentary
Something About Nevada
I mean something about the local races in my area. We have two Senators, neither of which is up for re-election this year. Good for them. One of them is Harry Reid. In case you think he's Satan in a suit, he's got at least four more years. Sorry about that.
But there is one race of interest. My district is represented by John Porter. He's been doing that for a while now. The Democratic challenger is Dina Titus, who we last saw almost beating the embarrassment that is our governor two years ago. She runs a good race, but objectively she has one or two things working against her. She has a southern accent, and she's a Democrat. I don't mind either of those things, but a lot of people do. Still, it's apparently a close race.
I say that because Porter has attack ads running demonstrating that Titus is "out for herself," as opposed as being for "us," and Titus of course is answering with her own version of the truth. Some of what they say is true, some is borderline, some is pulled out of somebody's, um, ear. But my point is that it is a close enough race to engender that sort of thing, which is a novelty for Southern Nevada. Apparently, around Clark County we are becoming more liberal, which must be consternating to our friends up in Elko County, to say the least. (I'll worry more about that when they reject our tax contributions, but that's another story.)
In any event, I really don't think Porter has done a bad job at all, but he has some real competition. This is the lady who almost beat out the Republican for governor, and there are those, mostly those who don't like to see Nevada laughed at, who now wish that she had. Porter, who I'd have thought had his district sewed up pretty well, is fighting for his job.
Just goes to show, you never know.
S.
But there is one race of interest. My district is represented by John Porter. He's been doing that for a while now. The Democratic challenger is Dina Titus, who we last saw almost beating the embarrassment that is our governor two years ago. She runs a good race, but objectively she has one or two things working against her. She has a southern accent, and she's a Democrat. I don't mind either of those things, but a lot of people do. Still, it's apparently a close race.
I say that because Porter has attack ads running demonstrating that Titus is "out for herself," as opposed as being for "us," and Titus of course is answering with her own version of the truth. Some of what they say is true, some is borderline, some is pulled out of somebody's, um, ear. But my point is that it is a close enough race to engender that sort of thing, which is a novelty for Southern Nevada. Apparently, around Clark County we are becoming more liberal, which must be consternating to our friends up in Elko County, to say the least. (I'll worry more about that when they reject our tax contributions, but that's another story.)
In any event, I really don't think Porter has done a bad job at all, but he has some real competition. This is the lady who almost beat out the Republican for governor, and there are those, mostly those who don't like to see Nevada laughed at, who now wish that she had. Porter, who I'd have thought had his district sewed up pretty well, is fighting for his job.
Just goes to show, you never know.
S.
Labels: Politics
Monday, September 15, 2008
Today's Headline
Bank of America Issues Strong "Buy" Order for Merrill-Lynch!
Labels: headlines
Sunday, September 14, 2008
LAVO Again
Well, I am getting hip at last. Yesterday evening Tami and I went to the Grand Opening Party of Lavo, in the Palazzo, on the World Famous Las Vegas Strip and Wallet Cleaning Facility. Only our wallets were safe. In fact, I took Sheldon Addleston for $6.42 on a penny slot machine while waiting for Tami. Two bucks isn't a big win, maybe, but as a percentage on a penny bet it ain't hay!
Anyway, Lavo was too crowded to see properly when we went for the Press Party a couple of weeks ago. Now I can report more fully on the amenities.
They have a dance floor above which is an inverted bowl ceiling with figures apparently swimming around in it. Nice touch. There were a couple of ladies in the dance club doing things to each other with what looked like feather dusters, and a couple more downstairs in a bathtub using sponges. Those ladies, of course, reinforce what I've been saying for years about how you can get paid for doing absolutely anything. (They all would have been legally dressed on the street, and get your mind out of the gutter!)
There is a midget waving an ostrich plume over a woman who looks a bit like Queen Latifah. They were there before, too, so I think maybe they're permanent.
There are what amount to go-go dancers all over the club upstairs. The dancers and the cocktail waitresses wore the identical peach colored cocktail dresses and oddly shaped heels. I tried a mojito, which wasn't bad, but I have no idea what they'll charge you at retail. The food was good, too, and for us the same price as the liquor.
On the dance floor were lights moving around and coming up and going down that looked to me like Klingon text from Star Trek. Maybe it wasn't, but that's what it looked like to me. The truth is, if I were in my twenties I'd love the place a lot. I am, of course, too old for that ***t, but if I weren't, I'd be there all the time.
S.
Anyway, Lavo was too crowded to see properly when we went for the Press Party a couple of weeks ago. Now I can report more fully on the amenities.
They have a dance floor above which is an inverted bowl ceiling with figures apparently swimming around in it. Nice touch. There were a couple of ladies in the dance club doing things to each other with what looked like feather dusters, and a couple more downstairs in a bathtub using sponges. Those ladies, of course, reinforce what I've been saying for years about how you can get paid for doing absolutely anything. (They all would have been legally dressed on the street, and get your mind out of the gutter!)
There is a midget waving an ostrich plume over a woman who looks a bit like Queen Latifah. They were there before, too, so I think maybe they're permanent.
There are what amount to go-go dancers all over the club upstairs. The dancers and the cocktail waitresses wore the identical peach colored cocktail dresses and oddly shaped heels. I tried a mojito, which wasn't bad, but I have no idea what they'll charge you at retail. The food was good, too, and for us the same price as the liquor.
On the dance floor were lights moving around and coming up and going down that looked to me like Klingon text from Star Trek. Maybe it wasn't, but that's what it looked like to me. The truth is, if I were in my twenties I'd love the place a lot. I am, of course, too old for that ***t, but if I weren't, I'd be there all the time.
S.
Labels: Reviews
Pork Barrel Spending, Earmarks, and the President
One of the issues McCain has been raising is the one about Earmarks and Pork Barrel Spending. His running mate, in particular, has been making hay with that "Bridge to Nowhere" issue. They both are, of course, blowing smoke all over the place.
That is because the United States Senate is composed of one-hundred people who each represent a State, not the interests of the United States, and not the interests of any particular district. It's a great thing when your state gets that new army base, highway, research institute, testing ground, or bridge. I don't fault Palin at all for seeking and accepting Federal money for Alaska. That's what the Governor ought to do, and when one of her Senators was working to do just that, everything was working as designed. I do wonder why she's denying what was, after all, simply doing her job.
Okay, no I don't. McCain is trying to say that he'll cut out such earmarked spending. Horse Hockey! He will do no such thing. As the Senator from Arizona he's been working on behalf of Arizona for years, and doing a decent job of it. As President he has absolutely no power to stop the Senate from doing a single thing that the Senate wants to do. The House of Representatives, maybe, can slow down Senatorial proceedings, if they get organized enough. The President, though, hasn't got a snowball's chance.
So, McCain, quitcher lyin' about that, willya?
But, while we're on the subject, here's a link to check out. It's from the Tax Foundation. It's a chart showing Federal Taxes Paid vs. Federal Spending Received by State, 1981-2005. Alaska is right up near the top, so it is easy to see that in 2005, the last year reported, that State collected $1.84 in Federal aid for every dollar it paid in. That puts it at the third-highest reimbursed State in the nation. Just because it's handy, I can report that Alabama, another famously "Red" state that hates the Federal Government (Heart of Dixie and all that) received $1.66 for every dollar it paid in that same year. Alabama was #7.
I had to check my state. We received $0.49 for every dollar we paid, which makes us #49 in the nation for receiving earmarked spending. Just wanted you to know that I know whereof I speak.
To pull a few more out of my ear, South Dakota ranked #8, Montana #11, Maine #13. Amongst "Blue" states where those dangerous Liberals hold sway, California ranked #43 ($.78 per dollar), Massachusetts was #40, ($.82 per dollar), and New York #42 ($.79 per dollar.)
Not to put too fine a point on it, but the current people calling themselves "conservatives" should be ashamed of themselves. Whiny and spoiled children is more like it. All that, and they put us into the deepest financial hole that the country's been in in many decades. And that after that damned, horrid, evil, anti-christian, how can I come up with a bad enough adjective, Bill Clinton saddled us with not only eight years of peace and prosperity, but a budgetary surplus to boot! No wonder the Conservative base is upset: They think that their livelihood of sucking at the public teat is endangered by an Obama candidacy!
And as for Nevada. #49? Harry Reid, what have you been up to?
Steve
That is because the United States Senate is composed of one-hundred people who each represent a State, not the interests of the United States, and not the interests of any particular district. It's a great thing when your state gets that new army base, highway, research institute, testing ground, or bridge. I don't fault Palin at all for seeking and accepting Federal money for Alaska. That's what the Governor ought to do, and when one of her Senators was working to do just that, everything was working as designed. I do wonder why she's denying what was, after all, simply doing her job.
Okay, no I don't. McCain is trying to say that he'll cut out such earmarked spending. Horse Hockey! He will do no such thing. As the Senator from Arizona he's been working on behalf of Arizona for years, and doing a decent job of it. As President he has absolutely no power to stop the Senate from doing a single thing that the Senate wants to do. The House of Representatives, maybe, can slow down Senatorial proceedings, if they get organized enough. The President, though, hasn't got a snowball's chance.
So, McCain, quitcher lyin' about that, willya?
But, while we're on the subject, here's a link to check out. It's from the Tax Foundation. It's a chart showing Federal Taxes Paid vs. Federal Spending Received by State, 1981-2005. Alaska is right up near the top, so it is easy to see that in 2005, the last year reported, that State collected $1.84 in Federal aid for every dollar it paid in. That puts it at the third-highest reimbursed State in the nation. Just because it's handy, I can report that Alabama, another famously "Red" state that hates the Federal Government (Heart of Dixie and all that) received $1.66 for every dollar it paid in that same year. Alabama was #7.
I had to check my state. We received $0.49 for every dollar we paid, which makes us #49 in the nation for receiving earmarked spending. Just wanted you to know that I know whereof I speak.
To pull a few more out of my ear, South Dakota ranked #8, Montana #11, Maine #13. Amongst "Blue" states where those dangerous Liberals hold sway, California ranked #43 ($.78 per dollar), Massachusetts was #40, ($.82 per dollar), and New York #42 ($.79 per dollar.)
Not to put too fine a point on it, but the current people calling themselves "conservatives" should be ashamed of themselves. Whiny and spoiled children is more like it. All that, and they put us into the deepest financial hole that the country's been in in many decades. And that after that damned, horrid, evil, anti-christian, how can I come up with a bad enough adjective, Bill Clinton saddled us with not only eight years of peace and prosperity, but a budgetary surplus to boot! No wonder the Conservative base is upset: They think that their livelihood of sucking at the public teat is endangered by an Obama candidacy!
And as for Nevada. #49? Harry Reid, what have you been up to?
Steve
Labels: Politics, Social Commentary
Saturday, September 06, 2008
The Front Fell Off
I just got a copy of this video from my brother in Ohio. Besides getting the brunt of the brutal campaign ads this year, Ohio is fighting a nasty economic downturn, so anyone living there can use some entertainment. Click the title of this post, or this link, to see an Australian politician talking about an oil tanker. One of which "the front fell off." It was towed . . . oh, well, just click the link and you'll see. It's a funny one, for sure!
Labels: Info, Politics, Reviews, Social Commentary
Tuesday, September 02, 2008
Abstinence Only Strikes Again
Mostly I agree with Obama that family isn't a part of politics. And I don't think any more or less about Governor Palin because her daughter is pregnant, either. Her business. But it does illustrate the problem with an inflexible approach to a complex problem. Telling a teenager to "just not have sex" is like telling them "just don't eat anything at all." It may make you feel better, but it won't stop them. I don't imagine that a social conservative ever really told her children how sex works, because, well, it may make them want to try it out. Trouble is, sex is an instinct, not exactly a choice, although some people claim to have chosen against doing it. Teenagers are squirrely, at the best of times, though, and expecting one to behave just because you taught "abstinence" is pretty damned silly.
The only way to get them to control their behavior is to be straight about the consequences, and to tell them how to go about it without ruining their futures. Maybe Palin's daughter wanted to marry that guy, maybe she would've anyway, but I'm thinking that is unlikely. Now she's stuck with the results of a lapse of what little reason she had as a teenager, sort of condemned by her own ignorance.
And, sorry, Obama, but that isn't the sort of thinking I want going on in a high-ranking official. Maybe McCain should've put some more thought into his choice. Or not. His campaign, his problem.
S.
The only way to get them to control their behavior is to be straight about the consequences, and to tell them how to go about it without ruining their futures. Maybe Palin's daughter wanted to marry that guy, maybe she would've anyway, but I'm thinking that is unlikely. Now she's stuck with the results of a lapse of what little reason she had as a teenager, sort of condemned by her own ignorance.
And, sorry, Obama, but that isn't the sort of thinking I want going on in a high-ranking official. Maybe McCain should've put some more thought into his choice. Or not. His campaign, his problem.
S.
Labels: Politics, Social Commentary
