Here's that Cliff's Notes version of an old joke: a U.S. Senator spends his whole life fighting for single-payer (Medicare for all) health care. He loses a lot of battles. Towards the end of his life, people ask the Senator, "will the U.S. ever have single payer health care?" The Senator says, "yes, but not in my lifetime."
The Senator dies, goes to heaven and gets a special audience with God. He only has one question, "God, will the U.S. ever have a single payer health care system?" God yes, "yes. But not in my lifetime."
I've been working for universal health care reform since 1993-94 when I fought for it at Public Citizen in Washington DC at the height of the Clinton reform effort. The past few years I do it by working to pass public financing of elections.
Don't get me wrong, I'm glad that the folks in Sacramento like Senator Sheila Kuehl (D-Santa Monica), Senator Don Perata (D-Oakland) and consumer groups are giving it another try. But despite Schwarznegger's stated intentions and leadership on the issue, and the crying public need, it still seems that there's very little that can be done as long as health care controls a huge percentage of the Gross Domestic Product and the interests that are benefiting from the current system disproportionately fund campaigns.
That's why I like AB 583 by Loni Hancock, a bill which creates a pilot project for public financing of elections for the Governor's race as well as one assembly and one senate seat. The bill has passed the Assembly and is in the Senate Elections Committee where it died last legislative term despite Senate Pro Tem leader Don Perata's promise that it wouldn't.
This year Senator Perata is a co-author of the reform legislation. If he wants to eventually get universal health care, I think it's essential that California start moving seriously in the direction of public financing of elections. AB 583 is a good way to start.
Saturday, June 23, 2007
Friday, June 22, 2007
Public Outcry: "Garamendi, Name the Smelt!"
Delta--With the number of smelt in the California Delta dwindling daily, the public is an uproar calling for Lt. Governor John Garamendi to name the remaining smelt.
"Let's get real," said Gloria Gussmacher, a petite resident of the Delta region, "while the rest of the state government seems powerless to stop the daily smelt slaughter, there is one man who can help--Lt. Governor John Garamendi. Please Mr. Garamendi, these smelt are going to their deaths nameless and afraid. Please Mr. Garamendi, name the smelt!"
The Lt. Governor has already established clear naming jurisdiction over whales who have made their way within the Delta region. Recently he made headlines by naming a mother and calf "Delta and Dawn" as they explored the Sacramento River.
But does the Lt. Governor have the authority to name anything but sea mammals? And who is looking into the problem?
"Frankly, I'm upset. The Lt. Governor keeps holding these press conferences and workshops to discuss what happened with the whales. But they already have names!!! Meanwhile the smelt are dying daily, and we have no idea what to put on their graves," said 10 year old Emily Stevens, an avid smelt watcher.
Others have suggested that the Lt. Governor could spare 3 or 4 members of his staff to at least research whether he has the authority to name tiny fish.
And some have gone straight to a solution. Apparently there are only about 2 fish left, the popular and obvious choice for their names seems to be "Smelta and Spawn."
But will the Lt. Governor leap into action? Or will he remain focussed on the animals he has already named? Stay tuned.
"Let's get real," said Gloria Gussmacher, a petite resident of the Delta region, "while the rest of the state government seems powerless to stop the daily smelt slaughter, there is one man who can help--Lt. Governor John Garamendi. Please Mr. Garamendi, these smelt are going to their deaths nameless and afraid. Please Mr. Garamendi, name the smelt!"
The Lt. Governor has already established clear naming jurisdiction over whales who have made their way within the Delta region. Recently he made headlines by naming a mother and calf "Delta and Dawn" as they explored the Sacramento River.
But does the Lt. Governor have the authority to name anything but sea mammals? And who is looking into the problem?
"Frankly, I'm upset. The Lt. Governor keeps holding these press conferences and workshops to discuss what happened with the whales. But they already have names!!! Meanwhile the smelt are dying daily, and we have no idea what to put on their graves," said 10 year old Emily Stevens, an avid smelt watcher.
Others have suggested that the Lt. Governor could spare 3 or 4 members of his staff to at least research whether he has the authority to name tiny fish.
And some have gone straight to a solution. Apparently there are only about 2 fish left, the popular and obvious choice for their names seems to be "Smelta and Spawn."
But will the Lt. Governor leap into action? Or will he remain focussed on the animals he has already named? Stay tuned.
Thursday, June 21, 2007
I love you, Chuck Calderon
I'm here to impart some shocking news. After 15 years of examining Congressmen and California state legislators at close range, I've determined that they are human beings. In fact, I think a mistake that many public interest advocates make (and lord knows I was one of 'em) is forgetting the degree to which they are dealing with human beings not some sort of super race, or robot version of ourselves, but ourselves.
Like people, legislators breathe, eat, sleep, have dysfunctional upbringings, and experience a full range of human emotions.
We tend to remember that they lust for power, praise and money and that they respond to pressure from constituents out of fear for their political future. But we tend to forget that most basic human desire, the need for love and understanding and compassion. The need to belong. The need to be okay with themselves and their own core values. And yes, they all have core values, even if they don't seem to be driven by them.
I am mindful of a story about Martin Luther King Jr. prior to his first face to face meeting with Attorney General Bobby Kennedy. As he prepared for the meeting with his closest advisors and allies, they talked trash on Bobby--he was white, he was Catholic, he was never going to understand, the administration would never help--they despaired of getting through to him.
King said something to the effect of "no, we can't go into this meeting with any of that in our minds. We have to love this man as we love ourselves. We are not going to anything else to prepare for this meeting but pray for the love and understanding of this man." And so they did. They prayed and focussed on love of Bobby Kennedy for several days prior to the meeting. And when they went in, they made history.
Too often here in Sacramento, I've been a party to preparation for meetings where we have the idea that the legislator we're talking to is a lost cause, an asshole, a coward, a sell-out. I doubt it would go over well if I asked us to hold Chuck Calderon in love, for example (a California Democrat whose voting and legacy has been a constant challenge to liberals).
But I have noticed that even a Chuck Calderon wants to think of himself as a good guy. Even a Chuck Calderon wants to believe that he does what he does for the benefit of all. He tells himself that siding with a business interest against a consumer group thereby killing bills that would advance the rights of working people is seeking "balance" or protecting jobs. He has a strong rationale for all he does.
Who among us has not rationalized harmful behavior? I know I have. I have hurt people I loved and come up with a way that it is okay. Ultimately it is this weakness, this humanity that binds us together, not our strength, or show of force. Ultimately, I can't help but think that love is the missing ingredient in public policy.
I love you, Chuck Calderon, for you are me.
Like people, legislators breathe, eat, sleep, have dysfunctional upbringings, and experience a full range of human emotions.
We tend to remember that they lust for power, praise and money and that they respond to pressure from constituents out of fear for their political future. But we tend to forget that most basic human desire, the need for love and understanding and compassion. The need to belong. The need to be okay with themselves and their own core values. And yes, they all have core values, even if they don't seem to be driven by them.
I am mindful of a story about Martin Luther King Jr. prior to his first face to face meeting with Attorney General Bobby Kennedy. As he prepared for the meeting with his closest advisors and allies, they talked trash on Bobby--he was white, he was Catholic, he was never going to understand, the administration would never help--they despaired of getting through to him.
King said something to the effect of "no, we can't go into this meeting with any of that in our minds. We have to love this man as we love ourselves. We are not going to anything else to prepare for this meeting but pray for the love and understanding of this man." And so they did. They prayed and focussed on love of Bobby Kennedy for several days prior to the meeting. And when they went in, they made history.
Too often here in Sacramento, I've been a party to preparation for meetings where we have the idea that the legislator we're talking to is a lost cause, an asshole, a coward, a sell-out. I doubt it would go over well if I asked us to hold Chuck Calderon in love, for example (a California Democrat whose voting and legacy has been a constant challenge to liberals).
But I have noticed that even a Chuck Calderon wants to think of himself as a good guy. Even a Chuck Calderon wants to believe that he does what he does for the benefit of all. He tells himself that siding with a business interest against a consumer group thereby killing bills that would advance the rights of working people is seeking "balance" or protecting jobs. He has a strong rationale for all he does.
Who among us has not rationalized harmful behavior? I know I have. I have hurt people I loved and come up with a way that it is okay. Ultimately it is this weakness, this humanity that binds us together, not our strength, or show of force. Ultimately, I can't help but think that love is the missing ingredient in public policy.
I love you, Chuck Calderon, for you are me.
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
Craig's List is God
I have determined that's Craig's List is God--not figuratively, and not in the sense that we're all, like, God, but, literally, Craig's List is God.
Craig's List has all the qualities of God:
It is ever present, all-knowing, all powerful.
It is free most places.
It is a consistent loving presence.
It is all-sufficiency--meaning it fulfills all your needs.
It always says yes.
The more specific you are, the more you know about what you want, the more quickly and particularly Craig's List fulfills your deepest desires.
What am I talking about?
It's this: there are always lots of ads on Craig's List for everything under the sun. As in all things, if you don't rely on what you perceive 'out there' to determine what you get, you can be disappointed. Hence, if you simply browse on Craig's List kind of looking at want ads, looking at furniture ads, looking at housing swaps, hoping that something may catch your eye, you will find things. Just as you will see things outside of you in the world that you desire all the time.
If you email the people who put up those ads, you may be the one that gets to buy it, live in it, work for it or own it, but you may not. It's hit and miss, a crap shoot--sometimes you win, sometimes you lose.
On the other hand, instead of looking outside yourself to see if someone has what you vaguely want, how about you look inside yourself. Figure out what it is that you want with a great deal of specificity, and place a free ad on Craig's List--voila!
Now it's a different story--in Craig's world, the advertiser always wins. The people answering your ad are now in a crap shoot--but you're lucky every time.
An example: I wanted to find a cheap apartment to rent in Manhattan for a few nights--a real place that someone lived, not a hotel. There were two adults and 4 kids among us. Most of the apartments were too small or fancy. Everything suitable turned me down. So I placed an ad, "two law professor moms seek any manhattan abode big enough for 1 10 year old, 2 8 year olds and a two year old from August 1 to August 10, will pay up to $100 a night." Within hours, I get all kinds others-- one of them is perfect, we stayed there and all was well.
This has happened over and over again for me on Craig's List. Recently I came to the realization that this is exactly how God works. If I am clear about what I want and place my free ad with audacious specificity--God comes through, lickity spit. It's when I'm vague and "shopping" for happiness, that I falter.
How good it is to know that Craig's List is God.
Craig's List has all the qualities of God:
It is ever present, all-knowing, all powerful.
It is free most places.
It is a consistent loving presence.
It is all-sufficiency--meaning it fulfills all your needs.
It always says yes.
The more specific you are, the more you know about what you want, the more quickly and particularly Craig's List fulfills your deepest desires.
What am I talking about?
It's this: there are always lots of ads on Craig's List for everything under the sun. As in all things, if you don't rely on what you perceive 'out there' to determine what you get, you can be disappointed. Hence, if you simply browse on Craig's List kind of looking at want ads, looking at furniture ads, looking at housing swaps, hoping that something may catch your eye, you will find things. Just as you will see things outside of you in the world that you desire all the time.
If you email the people who put up those ads, you may be the one that gets to buy it, live in it, work for it or own it, but you may not. It's hit and miss, a crap shoot--sometimes you win, sometimes you lose.
On the other hand, instead of looking outside yourself to see if someone has what you vaguely want, how about you look inside yourself. Figure out what it is that you want with a great deal of specificity, and place a free ad on Craig's List--voila!
Now it's a different story--in Craig's world, the advertiser always wins. The people answering your ad are now in a crap shoot--but you're lucky every time.
An example: I wanted to find a cheap apartment to rent in Manhattan for a few nights--a real place that someone lived, not a hotel. There were two adults and 4 kids among us. Most of the apartments were too small or fancy. Everything suitable turned me down. So I placed an ad, "two law professor moms seek any manhattan abode big enough for 1 10 year old, 2 8 year olds and a two year old from August 1 to August 10, will pay up to $100 a night." Within hours, I get all kinds others-- one of them is perfect, we stayed there and all was well.
This has happened over and over again for me on Craig's List. Recently I came to the realization that this is exactly how God works. If I am clear about what I want and place my free ad with audacious specificity--God comes through, lickity spit. It's when I'm vague and "shopping" for happiness, that I falter.
How good it is to know that Craig's List is God.
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Elizabeth Edwards is Inspiring
You need to watch Elizabeth Edwards' inspiring speech captured by the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights at their recent annual "Rage for Justice" Awards Dinner.
I believe her when she says that she and John Edwards are running for President because they want to speak out against the current policies. She speaks from her heart but with a depth and specificity that we rarely hear from mainstream candidates (or their wives).
It is imperative that we begin to work for a progressive viable Democratic candidate who has actual conviction and the courage of those convictions. I think John Edwards may just be that candidate.
Listen and tell me what you think.
I believe her when she says that she and John Edwards are running for President because they want to speak out against the current policies. She speaks from her heart but with a depth and specificity that we rarely hear from mainstream candidates (or their wives).
It is imperative that we begin to work for a progressive viable Democratic candidate who has actual conviction and the courage of those convictions. I think John Edwards may just be that candidate.
Listen and tell me what you think.
Monday, June 18, 2007
4 Snouts Up for The House of the Scorpion
(:)(:)(:)(:) for The House of the Scorpion by Nancy Farmer. This is the best "children's" book I have read in years. Anyone who likes good fiction should read it.
Written from the perspective of a brilliant, inquisitive growing boy who is painfully (and uniquely--from our perspective) different from other children, the book beautifully examines the many forks in the road of human moral development. Each painful experience we have (and he has many) shapes us and gives us an opportunity to choose compassion, love and redemption, or to choose bitterness, isolation and hatred as a matter of survival. Sometimes we start down one fork, only to cross over to the other.
This perfect coming of age story is set in a compelling yet subtly revealed back-drop of a futuristic North America that plays out one set of disturbing consequences to the current environmental, trade, immigration and labor practices.
Although the cover boasts a Newberry Award and other accolades, none of the blurbs on the back really do the book justice, perhaps because they are pitched to the target market: people buying books for 13 year olds. The target market should indeed buy this book, but so should everyone else.
Written from the perspective of a brilliant, inquisitive growing boy who is painfully (and uniquely--from our perspective) different from other children, the book beautifully examines the many forks in the road of human moral development. Each painful experience we have (and he has many) shapes us and gives us an opportunity to choose compassion, love and redemption, or to choose bitterness, isolation and hatred as a matter of survival. Sometimes we start down one fork, only to cross over to the other.
This perfect coming of age story is set in a compelling yet subtly revealed back-drop of a futuristic North America that plays out one set of disturbing consequences to the current environmental, trade, immigration and labor practices.
Although the cover boasts a Newberry Award and other accolades, none of the blurbs on the back really do the book justice, perhaps because they are pitched to the target market: people buying books for 13 year olds. The target market should indeed buy this book, but so should everyone else.
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
Mark Leno Ends the Suspense on Clean Money
Having written before how the Assembly Appropriations Committee was keeping me in suspense, I am remiss in not stating precisely that Assemblymember Mark Leno (D-San Francisco), chair of the Assembly Appropriations Committee, ended the suspense last week by bringing a streamlined, pilot project of public financing out of committee. AB 583 by Loni Hancock, as I reported yesterday, will go to the floor of the California Assembly today for a vote.
This is significant not only because it will be the first floor vote in California on a real clean money bill, but because of what it says about Mark Leno.
As Chair of Assembly Appropriations Committee, Leno is in a position to (and indeed is expected to) raise a lot of money from special interest groups. Last week, he was appropriately taken to task for holding a fundraiser the night before his committee's biggest hearing of the year so far--the one where they decide which major bills live or die.
Believe it or not, holding it the night before was actually an improvement over the practice of former Assembly Appropriations Chair (now Senator) Carole Migden (also D-San Francisco) (against whom Leno is running for State Senate). At least one year, I can remember Migden breaking for lunch in the middle of huge Appropriations hearing, announcing that she hoped to "see us all across the street at a little event"--her big fundraiser. After the event, she moved the business of the committee to the most important issues.
Either way, fundraising of powerful committee chairs right before or during a huge hearing is distasteful at best and unethical at worst. If memory serves, another former Assembly Appropriations Chair Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) declined to hold "events" (insider speak for fundraisers) anywhere close to the hearings he would run--a better choice.
Still, in moving AB 583, a bill which would benefit no well-heeled special interest and only the people of California, out of Assembly Appropriations Committee, Leno paves the way for a new era of politics in California. He is to be applauded for his leadership and courage.
This is significant not only because it will be the first floor vote in California on a real clean money bill, but because of what it says about Mark Leno.
As Chair of Assembly Appropriations Committee, Leno is in a position to (and indeed is expected to) raise a lot of money from special interest groups. Last week, he was appropriately taken to task for holding a fundraiser the night before his committee's biggest hearing of the year so far--the one where they decide which major bills live or die.
Believe it or not, holding it the night before was actually an improvement over the practice of former Assembly Appropriations Chair (now Senator) Carole Migden (also D-San Francisco) (against whom Leno is running for State Senate). At least one year, I can remember Migden breaking for lunch in the middle of huge Appropriations hearing, announcing that she hoped to "see us all across the street at a little event"--her big fundraiser. After the event, she moved the business of the committee to the most important issues.
Either way, fundraising of powerful committee chairs right before or during a huge hearing is distasteful at best and unethical at worst. If memory serves, another former Assembly Appropriations Chair Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) declined to hold "events" (insider speak for fundraisers) anywhere close to the hearings he would run--a better choice.
Still, in moving AB 583, a bill which would benefit no well-heeled special interest and only the people of California, out of Assembly Appropriations Committee, Leno paves the way for a new era of politics in California. He is to be applauded for his leadership and courage.
Tuesday, June 05, 2007
Clean Money to Assembly Floor
SACRAMENTO - Last Thursday, an amended version of the Clean Money and Fair Elections Act of 2007 (AB 583) was voted out of the Assembly Appropriations Committee by a vote of 12 to 5. The bill now moves on for a vote of the full Assembly, most likely on Wednesday. If enacted, the amended version of AB 583 (Hancock, D-East Bay) would create voluntary, fully-funded public financing for the 2010 Governor's race, one open Assembly seat, and one open Senate seat.
In its amended form, AB 583 will serve as a pilot program and allow California voters and candidates to see how a Clean Money system would actually work in California. "We applaud Appropriations Chair Mark Leno and Assemblymember Hancock for adopting this creative answer to the question of whether a system which works so well in Arizona and Maine can be properly scaled for California. We know that it can, and we are excited about the possibility of testing the system on the offices which the public feels are primary magnets for outsized campaign contributions. AB 583 will help restore faith in California's government," said Susan Lerner, Executive Director of the California Clean Money Campaign.
Clean Money systems have been adopted across the country; Arizona and Maine started public-financing state elections 7 years ago, Connecticut's legislature passed a Clean Money bill last year, North Carolina provides public financing for judicial races, and New Mexico just instituted a similar system for its judicial elections. New Mexico also established a pilot Clean Money program for elections for its Public Regulations Commission, while New Jersey has a pilot program for public financing of three legislative districts.
Speaking after the Committee vote, Assemblymember Hancock said, "AB 583 is an effective way for the public to test how well the full public funding of campaigns system runs. AB 583 will go a long way to restoring faith in our campaign financing system."
In its amended form, AB 583 will serve as a pilot program and allow California voters and candidates to see how a Clean Money system would actually work in California. "We applaud Appropriations Chair Mark Leno and Assemblymember Hancock for adopting this creative answer to the question of whether a system which works so well in Arizona and Maine can be properly scaled for California. We know that it can, and we are excited about the possibility of testing the system on the offices which the public feels are primary magnets for outsized campaign contributions. AB 583 will help restore faith in California's government," said Susan Lerner, Executive Director of the California Clean Money Campaign.
Clean Money systems have been adopted across the country; Arizona and Maine started public-financing state elections 7 years ago, Connecticut's legislature passed a Clean Money bill last year, North Carolina provides public financing for judicial races, and New Mexico just instituted a similar system for its judicial elections. New Mexico also established a pilot Clean Money program for elections for its Public Regulations Commission, while New Jersey has a pilot program for public financing of three legislative districts.
Speaking after the Committee vote, Assemblymember Hancock said, "AB 583 is an effective way for the public to test how well the full public funding of campaigns system runs. AB 583 will go a long way to restoring faith in our campaign financing system."
Monday, June 04, 2007
Hillary Nightmare Starting to Come True
It's happening, people. Hillary Clinton is scooping up prime endorsements and fattening her campaign account at an alarming rate. It's starting to look possible, even probable, that she will win the Democratic nomination (hence lose Democrats the White House).
But, Sara, hold on, you say. Remember Howard Dean whose victory was "all but assured" in November of 2003, how can you say anything in June of 2007? Answer: I can't. And believe me, I'm hoping for the front-runner mantle to eventually smother her. I have a sneaking suspicion that the Hollywood stars, politicians and union leaders that Billary is able to snooker into endorsing her cannot deliver the average Democratic voter to Clinton in the primary.
Aside from a giddy group of professional women who go verklempt at the idea of someone in the White House who has been at the business end of a tampon, most Democratic voters, whether they like Hillary or not, intuitively get that she's just the person to lose us the White House.
Don't get me wrong, I don't absolutely hate her. There are things I admire about her and she's obviously got some real strengths as a candidate and a campaigner. The problem is, as I've stated over and over, a poor combination of factors:
1) She voted for the war. In an election that will be decided on the basis of the war, how can we rally around her? How can she distinguish herself from a Republican who wasn't in Congress? (like Guiliani?)
2) She is the poster child for all the Christian right hates: the "feminazi" who is out to force your daughter to have an abortion, wear a business suit and marry a man named Gloria. Hillary Clinton as top of the ticket could energize and motivate an otherwise dispirited band of conservatives to prevent the "Hollywood elite" from re-taking our country.
3) She's not a "feminazi" -- she's a pragmatic centrist who as far as I can tell has no closely held beliefs other than it's better to be in power than out of power. So if she's the Democratic candidate and we want to forestall four more years of Republicanism, we're forced to rally around and cheer for someone who may or may not stop the war and protect our civil liberties and most assuredly will not stop the encroachment of big corporate control of our government--paving the way for the 2008 summer blockbuster, "Ralph Nader III: Curse of the Toxic Tomato."
In short, I'd urge us all not to leave this completely to chance. I think we should begin looking very closely at Edwards and Obama (and, no, sorry to my real lefty friends, not Dennis Kucinich--although we may agree with all he says, he's not viable and that's that) and start giving them some early time and money.
I still don't know where to come down between Barak and Edwards. I'm going to read Dreams from my Father by Obama, which I have heard is great. Keep me posted on what you hear and what you think.
But, Sara, hold on, you say. Remember Howard Dean whose victory was "all but assured" in November of 2003, how can you say anything in June of 2007? Answer: I can't. And believe me, I'm hoping for the front-runner mantle to eventually smother her. I have a sneaking suspicion that the Hollywood stars, politicians and union leaders that Billary is able to snooker into endorsing her cannot deliver the average Democratic voter to Clinton in the primary.
Aside from a giddy group of professional women who go verklempt at the idea of someone in the White House who has been at the business end of a tampon, most Democratic voters, whether they like Hillary or not, intuitively get that she's just the person to lose us the White House.
Don't get me wrong, I don't absolutely hate her. There are things I admire about her and she's obviously got some real strengths as a candidate and a campaigner. The problem is, as I've stated over and over, a poor combination of factors:
1) She voted for the war. In an election that will be decided on the basis of the war, how can we rally around her? How can she distinguish herself from a Republican who wasn't in Congress? (like Guiliani?)
2) She is the poster child for all the Christian right hates: the "feminazi" who is out to force your daughter to have an abortion, wear a business suit and marry a man named Gloria. Hillary Clinton as top of the ticket could energize and motivate an otherwise dispirited band of conservatives to prevent the "Hollywood elite" from re-taking our country.
3) She's not a "feminazi" -- she's a pragmatic centrist who as far as I can tell has no closely held beliefs other than it's better to be in power than out of power. So if she's the Democratic candidate and we want to forestall four more years of Republicanism, we're forced to rally around and cheer for someone who may or may not stop the war and protect our civil liberties and most assuredly will not stop the encroachment of big corporate control of our government--paving the way for the 2008 summer blockbuster, "Ralph Nader III: Curse of the Toxic Tomato."
In short, I'd urge us all not to leave this completely to chance. I think we should begin looking very closely at Edwards and Obama (and, no, sorry to my real lefty friends, not Dennis Kucinich--although we may agree with all he says, he's not viable and that's that) and start giving them some early time and money.
I still don't know where to come down between Barak and Edwards. I'm going to read Dreams from my Father by Obama, which I have heard is great. Keep me posted on what you hear and what you think.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)