For those of you not up to date, a few of the major internet providers were wanting to be able to regulate what their customers could and could not view on the internet. This included blocking certain sites, throttling torrents, etc. The FCC recently took them to court trying to legally prohibit them from doing so, and won.
The phrase "net neutrality" means quite literally keeping the internet neutral. That means unrestricted. So anybody who says "net neutrality" is referring to the concept that the internet should be unrestricted to all. If they do not mean that, they are getting the term wrong.
This is a clip from Fox News about that recent court ruling and they get it entirely wrong. They believe (incorrectly) that the FCC is trying to regulate the internet, when in fact the FCC is trying to PREVENT the internet providers like (Cox and Comcast) from regulating the internet. The FCC is trying to keep the internet free and unrestricted by stopping the corporate internet providers by blocking things from customers and/or charging for different parts of the internet. The FCC is the good guys in this one.
Fox News not only got this outright wrong, but blatantly stopped the guy from defining it and then closed the segment. They spun it off as some kind of difference of opinion, but in reality they simply got their facts completely and utterly wrong. Fox News has always been insanely biased and full of shit, but apparently they have now stopped even attempting to hide their disregard of facts and logic.
It's just... WOW. "Wow" is the only appropriate word for it. Well that and "disturbing" and "dismaying" I suppose.
Remember, BOTH people on the two "sides" of this want unregulated internet. One simply doesn't know that that's what he's getting and is upset due entirely to his own misunderstanding (and refusal to take the time to understand).
Jesus Christ. It's amazing.
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Monday, May 3, 2010
Plutonomy, poker, imigration
Plutonomy/Plutocracy: goo.gl/BmdL
Poker over the past few days 4-tabling: goo.gl/cjLv
Immigration Effects: goo.gl/d3ag
.
Poker over the past few days 4-tabling: goo.gl/cjLv
Immigration Effects: goo.gl/d3ag
.
Saturday, May 1, 2010
How crazy would Americans today get if they heard these verdicts?
Edit: These have nothing to do with my thoughts on immigration; I just laugh thinking about how crazy people would get if these laws were recent. Also, as a note, just because they aren't recent doesn't mean they aren't Supreme Court rulings.
Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886)
"Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws," applies to all persons "without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality," and to "an alien, who has entered the country, and has become subject in all respects to its jurisdiction, and a part of its population, although alleged to be illegally here."
Wong Wing v. U.S. (1896)
Citing the first case I listed, in the case of Wong Wing v. US, The Supreme Court further applies the citizenship-blind nature of the Constitution to the 5th and 6th amendments, stating "... it must be concluded that all persons within the territory of the United States are entitled to the protection guaranteed by those amendments, and that even aliens shall not be held to answer for a capital or other infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law."
Plyler v. Doe (1982)
In Plyler v. Doe, the Supreme Court struck down a Texas law prohibiting enrollment of illegal aliens in public school. In its decision, the Court held, "The illegal aliens who are plaintiffs in these cases challenging the statute may claim the benefit of the Equal Protection Clause, which provides that no State shall 'deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.' Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is a 'person' in any ordinary sense of that term… The undocumented status of these children vel non does not establish a sufficient rational basis for denying them benefits that the State affords other residents."
Thanks to this page, made by the research of Robert Longley for pointing these laws out.
How outraged would modern Americans be...???
.
Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886)
"Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws," applies to all persons "without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality," and to "an alien, who has entered the country, and has become subject in all respects to its jurisdiction, and a part of its population, although alleged to be illegally here."
Wong Wing v. U.S. (1896)
Citing the first case I listed, in the case of Wong Wing v. US, The Supreme Court further applies the citizenship-blind nature of the Constitution to the 5th and 6th amendments, stating "... it must be concluded that all persons within the territory of the United States are entitled to the protection guaranteed by those amendments, and that even aliens shall not be held to answer for a capital or other infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law."
Plyler v. Doe (1982)
In Plyler v. Doe, the Supreme Court struck down a Texas law prohibiting enrollment of illegal aliens in public school. In its decision, the Court held, "The illegal aliens who are plaintiffs in these cases challenging the statute may claim the benefit of the Equal Protection Clause, which provides that no State shall 'deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.' Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is a 'person' in any ordinary sense of that term… The undocumented status of these children vel non does not establish a sufficient rational basis for denying them benefits that the State affords other residents."
Thanks to this page, made by the research of Robert Longley for pointing these laws out.
How outraged would modern Americans be...???
.
Saturday, April 24, 2010
Capitalism: Idea vs. Application
I saw news story about a large medical insurance company, which through a programmed computer algorithm, would search for errors in the paperwork and application process of women who just got breast cancer. This way, they could get the monthly premiums from the women up until the point at which they needed coverage, and then they could drop them via a legal technicality. The “investigative report” done on this looked into the cases of 90 women recently dropped, and found that EVERY SINGLE ONE had a policy cancellation that was ridiculous. None of the drops of the admittedly small sample of women were legitimate. Even if that's a skewed number, which it undoubtedly is, it still shows at the very least that the large majority of women who are dropped from their policy are highly likely to deserve to keep their policy. The newscaster was outraged at the insurance company. I was simply confused by his outrage.
What did he expect? Insurance companies lose money on sick patients. They are in the business of making money. Ergo, it is in their best interest to find a way to not cover people when they get sick. This is a very simple logical fact. It is also one of the LOGICAL DEMONSTRATIONS of why anarcho-capitalism (completely unregulated free market capitalism) does not work.
The idea of the completely free market is a very good one on paper; or rather, it seems like it should be. By pitting companies against each other in the marketplace of the public opinion (which translates into the public's dollars), the poor ones must necessarily fail, and the good ones will do well, which will allow them to hire people (including people form the failures), produce products cheaper, donate more to charity and public good, and generally raise the level of well-being of the society in which they are a part. And even though it leaves a disparity between the best off and the worst off, “a rising tide floats all ships.” Win-win.
That's the idea. But even on paper, it doesn't work. Even on paper, there are variables missing which pollute the idea from the inside. Those variables, along with the problems of practical application of the good aspects, are the reasons why a truly free market cannot work.
The first crack in the free market dam is that of the problem of monopoly. Once a company has passed the economist's “survival of the fittest” test, it is now dominant in its industry and it has resources and a loyal customer base which its potential rivals do not. Therefore the playing field, which initially started level, is now forever skewed. If a small company can still buck the odds and rise up any significant amount, the bigger one has the means to buy the small on out or to squash them before they present a meaningful threat.
In short, after the initial settings of the free market “game” (in the Game Theory sense), the playing field cannot ever be level again. This is why we have developed anti-trust laws against the formation of monopolies. If a company gets too big, it is required by law to break itself apart into competing factions.
This law fails in two blatant respects, and possible more. The first failure of that law is that companies will always break themselves apart in the most profitable way. They won't make the M1 division compete with the M2 division. They will simply tear off the arm that is the R&D department, and then subcontract out to that “new company” for their R&D. Now the company is legally smaller, but with no actual breaking up of the monopoly.
The second major failure of anti-monopoly laws is that there is a limit on how you can prove collusion between companies. If two companies suddenly alter their prices to maximize net profits between the two, but Company A benefits and Company B looses, but Company A sends a check over to B to more than offset that difference, it's pretty clear what's going on. But if the top oh let's say five health insurance companies slowly alter their prices and products and “happen” to meet at a optimal equilibrium, and pay each other in other ways not covered by legal regulation, they haven't broken the law and you cannot prove what their intent was. After all, companies will reach equilibrium naturally on their own. And mathematical models which estimate the time this will take only give probabilities, and the estimates can be a very wide range. It would take centuries and hundred or thousands of companies to even begin to have what might constitute statistical proof. And at what point can you say well there's enough companies that they can't stifle a new startup in that industry, so it's no big deal. It seems intuitively to me that it would be more than five or six.
Maybe they're just getting lucky. Maybe it's just a sign that the American Public is really concerned about their health when the insurance companies are showing record profits during the second worst economic crisis in the history of the United States. But I doubt it.
The second crack in the dam of the free market theory is time. Even if it could be shown that it worked on paper, (which I maintain that once all the variables are in place, it doesn't), it only works in the “long term”. Any good gambler will tell you that the long term is the only term to play for. Even if the short term sucks, you are better overall playing the correct long term strategy. The problem with this implementation into the free marketplace is that the longterm is a minimum of thousands or tens of thousands of years. And almost nobody cares about anything except the next 60 (or less).
If a drug that can cure AIDS is developed by one company, the proper strategy of selling it (or selling anything for that matter) is to sell at a price at which a large percentage of the population cannot afford it. They do a simple calculation which assume X% of people can afford the drug at the price of $Y, do some remedial calculus to find the optimal price, and maximize profit. If they sell more than that, they lose money due to the costs of overproduction; if they sell less, they lose money because they miss out on selling to people who are ready to buy and can afford it—the company is just not producing enough.
With something miraculous like an AIDS cure, this translates into an initial price which is unfathomably high, such that almost nobody can afford it without going into large amounts of debt. This is the right price because these people and their families will generally choose to go into debt if it means prolonging their life or the life of a loved one. It may take decades (or longer) before enough of the cure has gotten around to where the “correct” price is low enough that most people can afford it. And in the meantime, tens of millions of people will die horrible and painful deaths. The time it takes for the market to normalize is far beyond the scope of the individual who needs the drug. He lives and dies for the short term.
Even if it worked on paper, we must play the market for the short term. (And of course there is regulation for this type of thing--but that's my whole point, regulation is very necessary.) This is something the economists don't want to hear. It hurts us overall they cry. If 200 people needed $1 to live out their lives, and 1 person had 700 dollars, and it cost $100 to transfer 200 of his dollars across the population, even though that population is left with a net of $600 (as opposed to the previous 700), that sacrifice and redistribution is worth-while to the population at large. Even if that 1 guy is super pissed.
Now that sounds horrible and communist and blah blah blah, but the fact is that is merely a description of what taxes are. Society needs roads and schools and police and firemen, and somebody has to pay for it. And the guy making $10K a year or less just can't afford his fair share. He may be a drain and you may resent him, but don't you want to live in a society that has a minimum standard for its poor? Or do you not? The problem with those of you who do not is that if you let him die, the “poor” class doesn't go away. They have kids. And even if all the poor people died off, the class structure would simply alter to make somebody else defined as poor.
Hoarding your money doesn't help anybody or fix the problem. It takes that money out of the economy and hurts other people. That's why we have taxes. If you make $10, you have to give away $3 or $4 so that there are roads and police and schools, and if you ever lose your job and have no money, that $3 or $4 that other people pay will help you out. It's about setting a minimum standard of quality of life and being a part of a functional society.
The problem is that even that (horrible communist blah blah blah) way of doing things isn't even what happens. The richest people in the world PAY FAR LESS TAXES THAN THE MIDDLE CLASS. This is because corporate law is setup differently than the laws for people. If you are a person and you make $10, you get $7 in your paycheck, and you have that $7 to spend on food and necessities. If you are a company and you make $10, you buy your food and necessities FIRST, and then you pay taxes on what, if any, is left after you spend that $10. This is actually how the law works. I don't remember what year is was, but it was '05 or after, fairly recently, that Exxon Mobile paid NO TAXES to the U.S. government. (Edit: it was 2009)
As I explained with simple math earlier, if you take and take and take out of the pool that is the economy and don't give any back, THE POOR RUNS DRY.
There are many, many more variables and logical outlines of why unbridled, unregulated capitalism simply cannot work. Myself and other liberals get a rap about hating capitalism, but that's not true. We simply understand that it can only function and be a force for good in the world with tons and tons of regulation. We understand there is a line to be drawn, and that an ungodly amount will prevent innovation and keep companies out of the market, but we recognize that no regulation is also extraordinarily disastrous. Many people, smart people, don't. They haven't thought past the simple model and the fact that the long term is generally the right way to play the game. I like capitalism and recognize it can be a force for innovation and a tide that rises all boats, but facts are facts, and as the Freakonomics authors put it, people respond to incentives.
This is why I was surprised that the newscaster was outraged. What do you expect? This is also why all fundamental rights of man MUST BE SOCIALIZED to an extent. Not entirely, but to an extent.
Socialized health care works. Period. That's a fact. It cannot be disputed. If you disagree, you are wrong plain and simple. Please go look up all the countries in the world with socialized health care, and aggregate their social welfare statistics and length of life. I have done this. Yes, I actually did the research. So until you have, shut it.
Aren't you glad that there are police and roads and schools and on and on? Have you even taken the fucking time to wonder why ALL OF THE BASIC NECESSITIES are either run by the government or have a government component, a public option. You can use UPS and FedEx, but you have the option of using the U.S. Postal Service. You may not like the lines at the post office, but you can't dispute its cost or results. It works. And it works cheaply. Because there is no profit incentive.
Capitalism needs regulation in order to work. It just can't work left to its own devices. Nobody likes giving away their hard earned money, but that's the cost of being a part of society. There are many arguments to be made about how much regulation, but the current system doesn't work (and the system proposed by TV republicans can't work). Of course health insurance companies are going to cancel policies of sick people. Of course companies are going to try to buy lawmakers. Of fucking course. It's in their best interest. The system is fundamentally flawed and needs a complete re-haul. Basic human rights NEED a socialized component. Profit incentives need to be regulated when they interfere with the public good. Long term ideas that royally screw the short term need to be altered even if it is at some long term cost, for the well-being of current society. The fact that the rich have more power to control and buy legislation that helps them is a problem for the rest of society.
I'd be happy to hear ideas and arguments against anything I've said, but I have to be honest: I've been arguing about this sort of thing for years, and not one person has been cognizant of the facts and stayed logically consistent (and kept their position when it differed from mine). I'm open to the possibility though, so let's hear it. But don't expect any respect if you haven't done the research or fail with logic.
What did he expect? Insurance companies lose money on sick patients. They are in the business of making money. Ergo, it is in their best interest to find a way to not cover people when they get sick. This is a very simple logical fact. It is also one of the LOGICAL DEMONSTRATIONS of why anarcho-capitalism (completely unregulated free market capitalism) does not work.
The idea of the completely free market is a very good one on paper; or rather, it seems like it should be. By pitting companies against each other in the marketplace of the public opinion (which translates into the public's dollars), the poor ones must necessarily fail, and the good ones will do well, which will allow them to hire people (including people form the failures), produce products cheaper, donate more to charity and public good, and generally raise the level of well-being of the society in which they are a part. And even though it leaves a disparity between the best off and the worst off, “a rising tide floats all ships.” Win-win.
That's the idea. But even on paper, it doesn't work. Even on paper, there are variables missing which pollute the idea from the inside. Those variables, along with the problems of practical application of the good aspects, are the reasons why a truly free market cannot work.
The first crack in the free market dam is that of the problem of monopoly. Once a company has passed the economist's “survival of the fittest” test, it is now dominant in its industry and it has resources and a loyal customer base which its potential rivals do not. Therefore the playing field, which initially started level, is now forever skewed. If a small company can still buck the odds and rise up any significant amount, the bigger one has the means to buy the small on out or to squash them before they present a meaningful threat.
In short, after the initial settings of the free market “game” (in the Game Theory sense), the playing field cannot ever be level again. This is why we have developed anti-trust laws against the formation of monopolies. If a company gets too big, it is required by law to break itself apart into competing factions.
This law fails in two blatant respects, and possible more. The first failure of that law is that companies will always break themselves apart in the most profitable way. They won't make the M1 division compete with the M2 division. They will simply tear off the arm that is the R&D department, and then subcontract out to that “new company” for their R&D. Now the company is legally smaller, but with no actual breaking up of the monopoly.
The second major failure of anti-monopoly laws is that there is a limit on how you can prove collusion between companies. If two companies suddenly alter their prices to maximize net profits between the two, but Company A benefits and Company B looses, but Company A sends a check over to B to more than offset that difference, it's pretty clear what's going on. But if the top oh let's say five health insurance companies slowly alter their prices and products and “happen” to meet at a optimal equilibrium, and pay each other in other ways not covered by legal regulation, they haven't broken the law and you cannot prove what their intent was. After all, companies will reach equilibrium naturally on their own. And mathematical models which estimate the time this will take only give probabilities, and the estimates can be a very wide range. It would take centuries and hundred or thousands of companies to even begin to have what might constitute statistical proof. And at what point can you say well there's enough companies that they can't stifle a new startup in that industry, so it's no big deal. It seems intuitively to me that it would be more than five or six.
Maybe they're just getting lucky. Maybe it's just a sign that the American Public is really concerned about their health when the insurance companies are showing record profits during the second worst economic crisis in the history of the United States. But I doubt it.
The second crack in the dam of the free market theory is time. Even if it could be shown that it worked on paper, (which I maintain that once all the variables are in place, it doesn't), it only works in the “long term”. Any good gambler will tell you that the long term is the only term to play for. Even if the short term sucks, you are better overall playing the correct long term strategy. The problem with this implementation into the free marketplace is that the longterm is a minimum of thousands or tens of thousands of years. And almost nobody cares about anything except the next 60 (or less).
If a drug that can cure AIDS is developed by one company, the proper strategy of selling it (or selling anything for that matter) is to sell at a price at which a large percentage of the population cannot afford it. They do a simple calculation which assume X% of people can afford the drug at the price of $Y, do some remedial calculus to find the optimal price, and maximize profit. If they sell more than that, they lose money due to the costs of overproduction; if they sell less, they lose money because they miss out on selling to people who are ready to buy and can afford it—the company is just not producing enough.
With something miraculous like an AIDS cure, this translates into an initial price which is unfathomably high, such that almost nobody can afford it without going into large amounts of debt. This is the right price because these people and their families will generally choose to go into debt if it means prolonging their life or the life of a loved one. It may take decades (or longer) before enough of the cure has gotten around to where the “correct” price is low enough that most people can afford it. And in the meantime, tens of millions of people will die horrible and painful deaths. The time it takes for the market to normalize is far beyond the scope of the individual who needs the drug. He lives and dies for the short term.
Even if it worked on paper, we must play the market for the short term. (And of course there is regulation for this type of thing--but that's my whole point, regulation is very necessary.) This is something the economists don't want to hear. It hurts us overall they cry. If 200 people needed $1 to live out their lives, and 1 person had 700 dollars, and it cost $100 to transfer 200 of his dollars across the population, even though that population is left with a net of $600 (as opposed to the previous 700), that sacrifice and redistribution is worth-while to the population at large. Even if that 1 guy is super pissed.
Now that sounds horrible and communist and blah blah blah, but the fact is that is merely a description of what taxes are. Society needs roads and schools and police and firemen, and somebody has to pay for it. And the guy making $10K a year or less just can't afford his fair share. He may be a drain and you may resent him, but don't you want to live in a society that has a minimum standard for its poor? Or do you not? The problem with those of you who do not is that if you let him die, the “poor” class doesn't go away. They have kids. And even if all the poor people died off, the class structure would simply alter to make somebody else defined as poor.
Hoarding your money doesn't help anybody or fix the problem. It takes that money out of the economy and hurts other people. That's why we have taxes. If you make $10, you have to give away $3 or $4 so that there are roads and police and schools, and if you ever lose your job and have no money, that $3 or $4 that other people pay will help you out. It's about setting a minimum standard of quality of life and being a part of a functional society.
The problem is that even that (horrible communist blah blah blah) way of doing things isn't even what happens. The richest people in the world PAY FAR LESS TAXES THAN THE MIDDLE CLASS. This is because corporate law is setup differently than the laws for people. If you are a person and you make $10, you get $7 in your paycheck, and you have that $7 to spend on food and necessities. If you are a company and you make $10, you buy your food and necessities FIRST, and then you pay taxes on what, if any, is left after you spend that $10. This is actually how the law works. I don't remember what year is was, but it was '05 or after, fairly recently, that Exxon Mobile paid NO TAXES to the U.S. government. (Edit: it was 2009)
As I explained with simple math earlier, if you take and take and take out of the pool that is the economy and don't give any back, THE POOR RUNS DRY.
There are many, many more variables and logical outlines of why unbridled, unregulated capitalism simply cannot work. Myself and other liberals get a rap about hating capitalism, but that's not true. We simply understand that it can only function and be a force for good in the world with tons and tons of regulation. We understand there is a line to be drawn, and that an ungodly amount will prevent innovation and keep companies out of the market, but we recognize that no regulation is also extraordinarily disastrous. Many people, smart people, don't. They haven't thought past the simple model and the fact that the long term is generally the right way to play the game. I like capitalism and recognize it can be a force for innovation and a tide that rises all boats, but facts are facts, and as the Freakonomics authors put it, people respond to incentives.
This is why I was surprised that the newscaster was outraged. What do you expect? This is also why all fundamental rights of man MUST BE SOCIALIZED to an extent. Not entirely, but to an extent.
Socialized health care works. Period. That's a fact. It cannot be disputed. If you disagree, you are wrong plain and simple. Please go look up all the countries in the world with socialized health care, and aggregate their social welfare statistics and length of life. I have done this. Yes, I actually did the research. So until you have, shut it.
Aren't you glad that there are police and roads and schools and on and on? Have you even taken the fucking time to wonder why ALL OF THE BASIC NECESSITIES are either run by the government or have a government component, a public option. You can use UPS and FedEx, but you have the option of using the U.S. Postal Service. You may not like the lines at the post office, but you can't dispute its cost or results. It works. And it works cheaply. Because there is no profit incentive.
Capitalism needs regulation in order to work. It just can't work left to its own devices. Nobody likes giving away their hard earned money, but that's the cost of being a part of society. There are many arguments to be made about how much regulation, but the current system doesn't work (and the system proposed by TV republicans can't work). Of course health insurance companies are going to cancel policies of sick people. Of course companies are going to try to buy lawmakers. Of fucking course. It's in their best interest. The system is fundamentally flawed and needs a complete re-haul. Basic human rights NEED a socialized component. Profit incentives need to be regulated when they interfere with the public good. Long term ideas that royally screw the short term need to be altered even if it is at some long term cost, for the well-being of current society. The fact that the rich have more power to control and buy legislation that helps them is a problem for the rest of society.
I'd be happy to hear ideas and arguments against anything I've said, but I have to be honest: I've been arguing about this sort of thing for years, and not one person has been cognizant of the facts and stayed logically consistent (and kept their position when it differed from mine). I'm open to the possibility though, so let's hear it. But don't expect any respect if you haven't done the research or fail with logic.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Thursday, February 4, 2010
And it's JANUARY by a nose!
By a margin of about $50, January just beat out August as my worst poker month ever (professionally), with me winning just under $400 for the entire month. Ugh!
After a minor freakout, and with the help of a friend, I have reflected about how well I am doing even in the face of yet another 20+ buy-in down turn, and happy and confident, starting anew, I am rushing head first into February ready to play (and win!) my butt off. I have to put in a lot of hands because I am taking a 2.5 week trip near the end of February and my semi-pipe dream of ever moving up in stakes has still not happened, so I can't afford to be out of work very long.
So I'm playing like mad, and looking forward to an excellent month, and leaving the disgusting past few weeks behind!!!
.
After a minor freakout, and with the help of a friend, I have reflected about how well I am doing even in the face of yet another 20+ buy-in down turn, and happy and confident, starting anew, I am rushing head first into February ready to play (and win!) my butt off. I have to put in a lot of hands because I am taking a 2.5 week trip near the end of February and my semi-pipe dream of ever moving up in stakes has still not happened, so I can't afford to be out of work very long.
So I'm playing like mad, and looking forward to an excellent month, and leaving the disgusting past few weeks behind!!!
.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Man I hate bad runs
They're so mentally disturbing. With each bad day it becomes harder and harder to get myself mentally ready for the next day of play because i just expect to get pummeled. I have had one winning day in the last nine days (20K hands) that I've played. I just can't win. It really fucking stinks to work hard for over a week straight and be down $500. I'm still up $450 for the month, but I'm gonna have to dip into my bankroll/savings a little bit to pay bills which really sucks. I guess I've been running pretty well for a few months now so it's bound to happen eventually but god it just screws with my head to just lose all in after all in, small pot after small pot. You know those days where your blue line is about even and your red line goes steadily down because your semi-bluffs never hit and you opponent shows you the best hands he can have... over and over and over.
I hate it when people tell me bat beat stories so I won't ramble on about this much longer. But this is my blog and I want to vent!
I hate it when people tell me bat beat stories so I won't ramble on about this much longer. But this is my blog and I want to vent!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)