The American Dilemma and How We Can Fix It

Archive for the ‘sports’ Category

VETERINARIANS AND IMMIGRATION

Every so often I get sucked into the manufactured hoopla of the day – and yesterday was one of those days.  It was Derby Day for the 141st time.  I used to enjoy the races until I saw one at Belmont in New York in which one of the horses broke his leg during the course of the race and was destroyed.  That soured me on the Sport of Kings.  But from time to time I have watched a leg of the Triple Crown and with nothing more important to do, I tuned in yesterday.

I had attended one of these events in person – the 100th running.  I had some friends who lived in the Cherokee Park area of Louisville who had kindly invited a friend and me to spend the weekend with them in their home.  It was a festive day indeed, with the ladies wearing outrageously bright, large hats and the mint juleps being poured with abandon.

Unfortunately, perhaps it’s a Yankee thing, but bourbon and I don’t agree.  I think it might be the high sugar content of the liquor – but even a small quantity makes me extremely ill.  But when you’re at Derby Day it’s an unwritten rule that you are expected to go with the flow.  So I accepted the julep after making an appropriate protestation and sipped at it very slowly.  And in the course of many hours at Churchill Downs sipped many more.  The result, of course, was predictable.  To borrow a phrase from Sir Winston, “I was drunk; I was horribly drunk; I was disgustingly drunk.”

Fortunately, or unfortunately, depending on how you look at it, I was able to hold on to the bourbon in my stomach throughout the Derby and the other races after which we returned to my friends’ home.  I teetered to the lavatory in my room and knew that I had to relieve myself of all those mint juleps.  Unfortunately, I was so blotto that I couldn’t distinguish between the toilet (which had water in it) and the aquarium which also had water in it and a fair number of salt water fish.  So I inadvertently lifted up the cover to the tank, thinking it was the toilet lid, and out came spilling many mint juleps.  The result was that I felt a bit better but the alcohol was toxic to the fish – all of whom I killed in this process.

That was the last time that I received an invitation to attend the Derby.  Actually, that was also the last time I heard from these friends.  Alas.

Back in the days when Dad and I would attend the races, I remember that there were some outstanding jockeys.  The names Eddie Arcaro and Willie Shoemaker come to mind.  And as I watched the hour long pre-Derby show, I was struck at how things had changed.  Back in the fifties and sixties, the vast majority of the jockeys were Anglos (although that is a term that wasn’t in common use at the time).  At this year’s Derby, I would guess that at least three quarters of them riding in the big race were Hispanic.

And this, of course, started me thinking.  Is the real reason for Obama’s non-policy on immigration and a refusal to tighten the southern border merely a ploy to get more future jockeys into the country?  Is he merely distracting the public’s eye with his golf games when he really is a horse racing aficionado?  While I don’t have a definitive answer to that question it is something to think about.

We are now all familiar with the term “vetting” as it applies to politics.  Simply stated, it means that the prospective candidate’s background has been thoroughly reviewed (though I’ve never been clear by whom) and that there aren’t any nasty little bits of past history which would disqualify her or him from the office for which they are either running or to which they might be appointed.  The term actually comes from horse racing.  Veterinarians were supposed to examine horses to make sure that they had not been given any illegal substances which would enhance their performance.

This first thought naturally led me to a second thought.  Thanks to our veterinarians and technology, we now have the ability to “chip” our dogs and cats so that if they get lost, there is a record of the person to whom they belong so that they can be returned.  It’s a simple and virtually painless process.  So that thought led me to a third thought.

How hard would it be not only to have an identification chip but to have a GPS chip implanted in our pets.  Rather than wait for someone to turn Hondo or Tinkerbell in, we would be able to determine where they were and go right out and bring them home.  And if it works for our pets, why not do the same for those who immigrate to the country illegally?

Statistically, we know that eighty per cent of those who come into the country through our southern border do not show up at their scheduled immigration hearing and just blend invisibly into the population at large.  We could fix that problem with the use of a chip such as the one I have described.  Don’t show up at your hearing and you get picked up and sent back to whence you came.  “Hasta la vista, Baby.”

We have always and should continue to welcome people to the United States who want to make a better way of life for themselves and their families.  And we should actively develop an immigration policy which favors people with special skills that would benefit the country and its people.  But seriously, how many jockeys do we really need?

THE BIG FIGHT AND PRISON REFORM

On Saturday, May 2nd there will be a big fight in Las Vegas – just in case you missed hearing about it.  Floyd Mayweather, Jr. and Manny Pacquiao will duke it out at the MGM in what is billed as “the fight of the century.”  (That would seem to be a bit premature as the century is only fifteen years old and who knows what is yet to come).

It is estimated that this fight will generate an insane amount of revenue and that Mayweather and Pacquiao will each earn in excess of $100 million in their 60/40 split.  Since boxing is inherently a violent sport and we know that all liberals would rather hand out flowers and give the peace sign to all passersby than engage in anything combative, I can only assume that conservatives whom the left points to regularly as being instigators of war, dissension and all the ills with which mankind is burdened will be the only people in attendance either in person or via the miracle of Pay Per View.

Further cementing my argument that only conservatives will have the desire to watch this contest is the left’s insistence on bringing to justice and avoiding any of those who engage in perpetrating the “War on Women,” (ISIS being a notable exception) is Mayweather’s rather checkered past in this regard.  His conviction in 2012 of domestic abuse resulted in an 87 day jail term of which he served 60 days.  Apparently the Australian government takes this sort of thing rather more seriously than the American people at large since they denied a visa to Mayweather to come to the Land Down Under to do a promotional tour.

It seems to me rather an anomaly that while we give lip service to the evils of violence, (note the recent protests regarding the violence allegedly inflicted on Freddie Gray in Baltimore, MD by six members of that city’s police department) we not only condone but actively participate in an act of violence because we define it as a sport, boxing.  This certainly demonstrates the human ability to be on both sides of an issue.  While we do not yet know how the charges which have been leveled against the officers who were involved in Mr. Gray’s apprehension and subsequent unfortunate death will be determined in a court of law, we do know that many professional and amateur fighters have died as a result of injuries that they sustained in the ring.

http://www.ranker.com/list/famous-people-who-died-of-boxing/reference

In some regard we have made the “sport” of boxing a bit more civilized than when the ancient Greeks participated in it in the early Olympics.  Then the fighters were matched irrespective of weight and rather than the soft gloves we use today, hard leather straps were wrapped around the fists of the fighters which often resulted in scarring when a solid punch was landed.  Of the three “combat sports,” boxing, wrestling and pantakrion, (a combination of the techniques of the first two), boxing was considered the most dangerous.

As we approach “the big fight” on Saturday, I was startled to learn that a ringside seat in the arena can cost a six figure price.  All to watch two men beat the tar out of each other.  Whatever the outcome of the fight, that we are still so involved as a species in not only witnessing but vicariously participating in what can only be described as a controlled act of violence speaks volumes to our evolution as people.  How much further might we go to satisfy our apparent blood lust?

The left has made the argument that our prisons are bursting at the seams and there is an over-representation among that population of minorities.  Both parts of that statement are true – although the reasons might be subject to debate.  While they have no difficulty supporting abortion on demand, they are horror struck that people are adjudged as having committed crimes that are so heinous as to be deemed worthy of the death penalty.  They point to the fact that we have more people on death row than the rest of the world combined.  That may be because organizations like ISIS don’t normally have a complex process of appeals that lasts for decades and generally dispense summary beheading.  I have also heard some on the most extreme fringe of the political spectrum argue that life in prison itself is “cruel and unusual punishment.”

Here’s a thought that would lower the prison population of people with life sentences or on whom the death penalty has been imposed, would both save us a boatload of money by reducing the numbers of those whom society has to support in our penal institutions and would raise a significant amount of money from blood lusting viewers.  I owe the origination of this thought to the fact that I happened to watch a broadcast of “Gladiator” the other night.

We offer those on death row and those with life sentences the opportunity to get out of jail by participating in a gladiatorial style conflict – a battle to the death. Whether the inmate chose to participate would be at her or his sole discretion.   If the participant survives three of these bouts, she or he is freed.  Now how simple is that?  If we were to implement this it would result in a guaranteed minimum reduction in the number of these criminals by at least 75%.  And consider that if four million people are willing to pay $100 to watch the Mayweather/Pacquiao fight on television, can you imagine what they would be willing to pay to watch a battle to the death?

You might, as a civilized person, recoil from this modest proposal.  I can certainly understand that.  Or perhaps you’re simply concerned that we are going to release some number of known violent criminals back into society.  But we know that under former DOJ Attorney General Eric Holder, hundreds of known violent offenders were let back into the general population.  At least those who were sufficiently depraved would have a few minutes of entertainment and the money from these fights could be heavily taxed to fund research into what there is in our DNA that allows far too many of us to act out violently and hopefully find a vaccine to prevent it in the future.

GET A ROOM

What do football and wealthy liberal donors have in common?  Apparently, not very much.

You may remember the controversy that was roiled up over the name of the NFL’s Washington Redskins team.  Outcries of racism surfaced faster than videos of MIT professor Jonathan Gruber calling the American people “stupid” for buying into the lies that were used to pass Obamacare.

The outrage extended to the highest levels of our elected government with soon-to-be-former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid spearheading the effort in writing a letter (co-signed by many colleagues with a similar limited mental capacity) demanding that the team’s name be changed.  Fortunately, because the good senator had altered the Senate’s rules, no filibuster on the content of the letter was permitted.

This issue, of course, superseded the need to vote on any of the 340 bills that the House had sent to the Senate and which are presently accumulating dust somewhere in that upper chamber (possibly in violation of an EPA regulation regarding the permissible amount of dust that may be accumulated before it constitutes a health hazard).  It is likely that OSHA may soon weigh in on this matter as well.

So what does this manufactured “controversy” have to do with liberal donors?  We know that liberals, being liberals, have etched into their DNA an inherent abhorrence of racism in any form and are dedicated to stomping it out wherever it rears its ugly head.

This week the Democracy Alliance, a coalition of well-heeled liberal donors dedicated to electing leftists in state and national office got together to discuss strategy going forward to the 2016 elections.  The meeting took place in Washington, D. C. – at the Mandarin Oriental Hotel, an extremely attractive property and one of the city’s finest.

Stop.  Did no one tell these self-styled do-gooders that “Oriental” is a pejorative term and is denigrating to Asians?  It has been officially deleted from the PC Handbook and no longer exists as a word.  And there they are, patronizing what obviously is a racist hotel.

Hopefully the reality of the situation may have dawned on some of these contributors and, if they decided to hook up for a little afternoon delight, they booked themselves into a Motel 6.

THIS UNCERTAIN WORLD

There are times that I lean back in my chair and think to myself, “Self.  Maybe the left is right.  (I really like that sentence for its internal absurdity).  Wouldn’t it be a wonderful world and a fabulous life if we all could have whatever we wanted without having to work for it; if we could know in advance what the next wonderful thing in store for us was; if we had no anxiety, no worries, no care; if we didn’t have to be concerned about our future because it would be clear to us what that would be?”

What would be the practical effect of actually knowing the future – even an assured future where everyone’s material wants were met?  I think the answer is – boredom – and the introduction of more anxiety.

Although it seems paradoxical as we all strive to eliminate uncertainty from our lives, it is uncertainty which makes life both interesting and challenging.  If we truly knew the future there would be no reason to watch a sporting event – or for that matter play it.  Imagine how inspired an infielder on the Yankees would feel if he knew that his team was going to lose to the White Sox that day by a score of 7 – 3.

The casinos would close their doors in short order.  Since 22 was the next number to come up on the roulette wheel, that’s where all bets would be.  And if we knew that a five was the next card that would be dealt, the astute blackjack player would take a hit on his 16, despite the fact that the dealer was showing a bust card.  Horse races would be a thing of the past and we’d have to find a different way to spend our Saturday and Sunday afternoons as football would hold no appeal.

There would be no stock market and no market for stocks.  Knowing the unfortunate end that it would meet, we would never have built the Challenger and we would have saved the lives of the seven astronauts who were on board.  We would not have spent months of air time discussing the mysterious disappearance of Malaysia Flight 370 as, knowing its fate, the Malaysian government would not have allowed it to fly and no passenger would have boarded it.

In such a world of certainty there would be no room for a Shakespeare or an Ibsen or a Hitchcock.  Drama and suspense can not exist unless there is the possibility of alternate endings.  The comedy clubs would close because we would all know the punch line.  In such a world would Michelangelo have begun the long process of painting the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel or Mozart composed his tremendous volume of work knowing that despite his genius he would never escape a state of perpetual poverty and be buried in a pauper’s grave?

Of course there is one other and perhaps the most frightening aspect of living in a world certain.  Each of us would know the exact time and means by which death would show up at our doorstep and come for us.  It would be as though we, like the “replicants” that were brought into being in “Blade Runner,” had an internal clock built into us by our maker, a clock that was sealed at the factory and which was constantly winding down, bringing us ever more closely to the moment we took our final breath.

What would people who lived in such an environment do with their time and their lives?  I suspect that it would be very little.  This would be a world in which ennui would have been raised to its ultimate expression.  There would be little incentive to succeed and no repercussions for failure.  This would be a world in which people saw little reason for hope and no reason for change.  It would be a world in which we had given over our lives and activities to fate – and accepted that “what would be would be.”

And if one day, we learned that a massive meteor was headed directly toward us and would impact the Earth three years later, would we be able to marshal the fortitude to try to defend ourselves from this potentially life-destroying event?  Or would we sit back and thank our lucky stars that finally something out of our control had come to put an end to our insufferable misery?

FOLLOW THE LIEDER

 

Despite his brief thirty-one years, Franz Schubert was one of the most prolific composers of the classical age.  Among other compositions, he had more than six hundred secular songs (lieder) to his credit.  “Die Forelle” is one of the most charming and best known of these.

I’m fairly certain that when Schubert composed this song he was thinking little more than of an encounter between the fish and fisherman – which ended badly for the trout.  But as I listened to this lovely song I thought to myself that there is a clear analogy between the story Schubert told and our world today.

Perhaps you’ve heard President Obama’s recent statement that, “This is the world’s most tranquil period in human history.”  I know that he recently went to Colorado to fund raise.  Perhaps he stopped at one of the recently opened marijuana shops and picked up a stash of weed.

Domestically we have an influx  of illegals entering the country.  Sadly, some of them are trying to escape horrible conditions in their home countries and we all, if we are compassionate, have concern for them – whether they are children or adults.  But before we offer our largesse to these visitors, ought we not have at least as much concern for our own citizens – particularly our black citizens – who live in our inner cities and are subject to as much violence as any of these newcomers?  Two thirds of American voters believe that is the case.

In addition to NSA spying on everyone in the world with a phone or an email account we now find out that the CIA which is supposed to operate only internationally has been prying into the private affairs of U. S. senators.  More is being revealed daily that the “phony scandal” at the IRS seems to be a calculated plan to destroy the administration’s opposition politically.  Whether the sole perpetrator of the conspiracy was Lois Lerner or whether others were both willing and involved participants remains to be learned.

We as a nation have now given Obamacare it’s worst approval rating since it began to be implemented.  This FUBAR law has yet to see its most important implications but those will be coming soon as insurers review their pool of customers (as best they can as there are many who think they are insured but are regularly being denied coverage since healthcare.gov’s back end still isn’t function correctly despite the system’s $800 million cost) and consumers who don’t like the law now are in for a big surprise as they receive their premium notices for 2015 and the employer mandate kicks in finally.

Internationally – well, where do we even start?  There is a mini war going on in Ukraine.  Two weeks after the downing of MH 17 there are still the bodies of eighty victims rotting in the fields.  An Ebola epidemic is breaking out in west Africa – with possible worldwide consequences should it be exported.  Hamas has already broken this weekend’s 72 hour cease fire with Israel – hours after it was adopted.  ISIS claims to have taken over and is now in control of Benghazi, Libya.  This list is far from complete.  If this is tranquility then it is hard for me to imagine what turmoil must look like.

With this litany of issues that are fomenting, what do we see our government doing?  The quick answer is that like our clever fisherman who stirred up the waters to muddy the hapless trout’s perspective, the administration is trying to focus the public’s attention on things like a purported impeachment effort (this is pure hype) and the injustice that heaps opprobrium on any caring citizen because of the Washington Redskins team name.  To quote one of my favorite political pundits of all time, Charlie Brown, “Good grief.”

The president and his administration have added an entirely new meaning to the expression, “Muddying up the waters.”  It’s only a shame that those who voted for a second four year Obama administration and now regret that decision hadn’t the perspicacity to see what so many of us realized in 2008 and got hooked when the waters were still clear.

SUPPLY AND DEMAND

With MLB’s announcement yesterday of thirteen player suspensions, once again the issue of illegal drug usage is on our radar screen.  It’s not quite three weeks since Cory Monteith died of a self-inflicted heroin overdose.  How many others lacking his high profile have died as a result of drug abuse in that same period is unknown as their deaths don’t make the news.

Obviously the PED’s that apparently enjoy widespread usage among professional athletes don’t, as far as we know, have the same potential for killing their users.  But as long as they are illegal and the powers that be within baseball wield their considerable authority to censure offenders, they do have a negative effect.  They destroy the dreams of millions of kids who look to these athletes as their idols.

It’s interesting to note that, if we continue to regulate which drugs are legal and which are not – in my view an unwise position – that MLB has taken a far more effective approach to dealing with the problem than does our Federal government under the aegis of the DEA.  MLB attacked the problem at the consumption level – while the DEA attacks the problem at the production level.

Whether or not you accept my argument that all drugs should be de-criminalized and made available through regulated dispensaries, I believe we can all agree that there is one reason that people manufacture drugs.  There is a lot of money in it.

Why do people use them?  That is probably a far more complex problem.  Why would a thirty-one year old such as Monteith with an established career and a bright future risk that all for a fix?  But finding the reason that he or any other drug user engages in his habit is less important than acknowledging that they do.

We found with Prohibition that we cannot eliminate the source (alcohol) simply because we have made it illegal.  And we found that despite its illegality, people who wanted a drink found ways to fulfill their desires.  Why we do not apply what we should have learned from that lesson to cocaine or heroin or marijuana or any other mind-altering drug is confusing.

We love reading stories about the fact that the latest cartel “El Jefe” has been apprehended – as though that will make any difference at all.  Returning to my original thesis that where there is a lot of money involved, there will always be someone willing, if not anxious to step in and replace a fallen “leader”.  In fact, many of these former leaders were sent to an early retirement at the hands of their successors.

Pouring money into the sinkhole of trying to eliminate the production of illegal drugs at its source is about as fruitful as trying to empty the Pacific Ocean by using a ladle.  After years of conducting the losing “War On Drugs” we should have by now realized that.

The CDC reported that in 2010 there were 37,792 deaths attributable to illegal drug abuse.  That compares to 25,440 deaths that were attributable to mis-use of alcohol.  Alcohol has been regulated for nearly a century and I suspect has far wider usage than illegal drugs.  I would be willing to bet that the number of people who at least occasionally enjoy a hard drink or a beer is five hundred times the number of people who shoot heroin or snort cocaine.

Perhaps that multiplier of five hundred that I pulled out of thin air is far too high.  Let’s adjust it down to something that may seem more reasonable to you – ten.  But even at that ridiculously low level – it would suggest that we should be seeing well over one quarter million annual deaths due to demon rum.  The government’s own statistics say that assumption is false.

Why then do we resist the libertarian concept of decriminalizing drug usage?  There are a number of answers to that question.

First, we believe that drug usage leads to drug dependency which leads to ruined lives.  That is probably an argument with which I would agree.  But isn’t that what happens now?  And the fact that these drugs can only be obtained from criminals exposes the user to additional danger than he or she would experience by purchasing these same drugs from a dispensary.

Second, we are protecting our children from becoming drug abusers.  That is a laudable goal but is patently untrue.  A pusher doesn’t care if you’re at death’s door or twelve years old – as long as you have the money to buy your fix.  A dispensary would be able to weed out those who have not attained a majority (and the presumed ability to make an intelligent decision regarding whether they wanted to purchase a drug).  And the sad truth is that a lot of our kids are getting their first highs by raiding their parents’ stash of pain killers (which are, of course, legally prescribed drugs).

Third, drugs are “de facto” bad.  We should not give the perception of endorsing them by legalizing them.  That is simply a value judgment.  However, as in the case of alcohol, not everyone shares that opinion.  Does a person have the right to impose his values on everyone else?  If so, you must be enamored with the present administration.

The benefits of decriminalizing drugs are also several.

First, the street value of the commodity would fall in price.  This might be the most effective way of actually putting the cartels out of business.  Furthermore, by regulating the distribution through dispensaries we could tax the product and test it for “safety”.  Many of those who die from drug overdoses are people who purchased “tainted” products.

Second, the gangs that are now the distributors for drugs and who are responsible for multiple murders every year, would also be put out of business.  Of the 31,500 plus murders that were the result of gunshots in 2010, well over half of those were believed to be related to drug transactions and rivalries between two gangs of drug pushers.

Third, we would be able to identify current drug users and develop rehabilitation programs to assist these users which they would have to attend in order to continue receiving their ongoing distributions.  Those drug users seldom receive any sort of assistance under our present arrangement.

Those MLB players who received suspensions yesterday were taking those substances in order to improve their value as a negotiable commodity.  Once again, money is at the core of their actions.  We would be naïve to believe that when players are already making multi-millions of dollars a year that they will not be able to get access to any sorts of drugs they want – PED’s or otherwise.

It’s really long past time that we had a mature debate on our drug policies.  For myself, I hope that I never feel so low that I contemplate turning to them for comfort.

If we look at those baseball players and other pro athletes who have turned to drugs to enhance their performance, we should honestly ask ourselves one question.  In our demand as consumer/spectators for more thrilling games and better performances, aren’t we fans really the pushers?

THE NFL (NATIONAL FELONS’ LEAGUE)

Baseball may officially be America’s national game – but the truth of the matter is that it’s football that really turns us on.  It also turns on the books in Las Vegas and elsewhere who make far more money on football than on all other sports combined.  Given the fact that the casinos come up with bizarre but fun “teaser cards” each week during both college and the NFL’s seasons, I was a little surprised that I couldn’t place a wager on whether or not there was going to be a Super Bowl XLVIII in 2014.

Since the last Super Bowl we’re averaging more than one player arrest per week with offenses ranging from using illicit substances, DUI , being in possession of unlicensed firearms and most seriously murder.  So I began thinking at our current arrest rate, will there be enough players left to field two teams when the next Super Bowl rolls around.

Football is a violent game played by people who are in large part, violent people.  And if you examine the backgrounds of many pro players, they come from inner city environments where the only escape is either becoming proficient in a sport and going pro, selling drugs or making it in the entertainment industry.

They are not intellectuals but we push them through our colleges and universities so that our alumni will contribute massive amounts of money to their alma mater.  And then we hand them multi-million dollar contracts which would overwhelm even the most stable and balanced person and which wreak havoc with the minds of kids who often didn’t go a full week as children with regular meals on their table.

There is no rational person who would not want to escape a life of poverty and hopelessness – so I don’t lay the blame at the players’ feet.  They are doing what they need to do to survive.  The fault really lies with us – the fans, the teams, the media and the league as we let loose our blood lust every Sunday and the teams accommodate us by taking our money.

We live our sublimated violent dreams through the players and while we commiserate over a serious injury on the field, it is soon forgotten as we look  forward to next week’s battles.  Perhaps our greatest concern over these injuries is how it will affect the line for the wagers we anticipate making the next Sunday.  There is no better example of the saying, “Give the people what they want” than professional football.  Unless it was the gladiators in the Roman Coliseum.  No, I take that back.

Yesterday in Brazil, a referee got into a dispute with a fútbol player and fatally stabbed him.  Before the player died en route to the hospital, the crowd stoned the referee to death, quartered his body and decapitated him, impaling his head on a wooden stake.  I guess by comparison that makes our game almost seem like a lady’s club tea party.  That event in Brazil should be disturbing to anyone who claims he or she is a human being.

Is there a solution to the NFL’s woes?

Well, if there is it is certainly not going to come from the fans.  It must come from the team owners, the league itself and most importantly from the media that broadcast their games.  They are the ones who really fuel the money pots that the NFL teams are filling to overflowing.  They are the ones who have the clout to say, “You know, unless you start writing some moral clauses into your contracts and enforce them, we’re going to reduce the amount of money we pay you per season.”  But is there an incentive for them to do that – other than being good corporate citizens?  Not really.  And doing the right thing in today’s America is, for the most part, a relic of a former time.

There will, no doubt be a Super Bowl XLVIII in February next year.  By then we will probably see an expansion in the number of arrests of NFL players beyond the current 38.   From the league’s standpoint I guess they will consider these “acceptable losses.”

And as for us fans, we will continue to buy and wear the jerseys that proclaim our devotion to this player or that.  In fact, they may turn out to be good investments – should Sunday’s hero wind up being incarcerated.

Does anybody have an O. J. Simpson jersey for sale?

Tag Cloud