Have I said this before? I love the food at Antonio's!!!! We stopped there yesterday and I ordered one of the two or three menu items I always get, substituting fettucini for linguini. Oh, my! It was the best meal I've ever had there. Have I said that before, too? I'll bet I have. The bread was as great as ever (and I am not a "bread person," often considering it something merely to fill me up so I don't eat as much of the good stuff) and the pasta y fagioli was wonderful, just perfect. So, then, what about the "Fettucini del Mar?" Heavenly, just heavenly! I loved it. In a single word, "Yummy!!!!!"
I feel a bit better today, but Fri, Sat, Sun I was a bit sore, well, more than "a bit." I wasn't suffering from flu-like aches and pains, not at all. But I was sore, as if I had played in a football or rugby game the day before. I was that sore! It felt like use/usage aches rather than those associated with some sort of illness. Ugh, but better today. And, I get leftover Antonio's food for lunch or dinner!!!!
Monday, November 22, 2010
Mon AM Thoughts
"Mon AM?" It seems much later than that, since I've been up since 1 AM!
Driving through a neighborhood in the West Side of Detroit yesterday was just devastating to me. I've been thinking about it since. There were many abandoned homes, most boarded up. And this was a vibrant neighborhood--back when I was a kid. There were parks and school yards where we used to come and play. The homes were working class, small by comparison to what most people seem to be able to afford today, but well kept. There are still some homes that are well tended there, but some are not. What was just, well, devastating to me was how many of them had bars on the front doors and windows--all of them had bars! Poverty or even below average income shouldn't require one to turn his house into a fortress. People shouldn't have to live like that, barring their homes in fear of break-ins. What went wrong--and when? (I know better than to ask "why" because that affixes blame and blame is counterproductive. It's more important to move on. Of course, I'm being facetious--note all the vowels in alpha order in that word!--even sarcastic. Most certainly we should blame people when things go wrong, for a variety of reasons. Not the least of which, we should know who or whose ideas fouled up things so those people never get to make decisions again!) So, this is how people must live--or at least think they must live? What is wrong and why can't that be fixed? I refuse to accept that "poverty" or some other sociological term is responsible. I just wanted to cry, right there and in the open, out loud.
Why can't we just come out and say things we really mean or want to say? I know we can't, for many reasons, many of them good ones. But, it sure is frustrating at times. Sometimes we can hint, but must draw back when getting too close to the line. Is that more frustrating or not? Hmmm....
Driving through a neighborhood in the West Side of Detroit yesterday was just devastating to me. I've been thinking about it since. There were many abandoned homes, most boarded up. And this was a vibrant neighborhood--back when I was a kid. There were parks and school yards where we used to come and play. The homes were working class, small by comparison to what most people seem to be able to afford today, but well kept. There are still some homes that are well tended there, but some are not. What was just, well, devastating to me was how many of them had bars on the front doors and windows--all of them had bars! Poverty or even below average income shouldn't require one to turn his house into a fortress. People shouldn't have to live like that, barring their homes in fear of break-ins. What went wrong--and when? (I know better than to ask "why" because that affixes blame and blame is counterproductive. It's more important to move on. Of course, I'm being facetious--note all the vowels in alpha order in that word!--even sarcastic. Most certainly we should blame people when things go wrong, for a variety of reasons. Not the least of which, we should know who or whose ideas fouled up things so those people never get to make decisions again!) So, this is how people must live--or at least think they must live? What is wrong and why can't that be fixed? I refuse to accept that "poverty" or some other sociological term is responsible. I just wanted to cry, right there and in the open, out loud.
Why can't we just come out and say things we really mean or want to say? I know we can't, for many reasons, many of them good ones. But, it sure is frustrating at times. Sometimes we can hint, but must draw back when getting too close to the line. Is that more frustrating or not? Hmmm....
Sunday, November 14, 2010
Greed?
One of the lessons of history is the truth is not necessarily "somewhere in the middle," but where we find it. For instance, for decades apologists for Stalin held that "only" about 1 million Ukrainians were killed by Stalin in '33-'34. Anti-Stalinists (no, don't ask how anyone could not be "anti-Stalin" because I have no idea) claimed the number was closer to 3or 4 million. So, traditional historians said the number was "somewhere in the middle," about 2 million or so deliberately starved to death, shot, etc., by the monster Stalin. Well, later research revealed that the number was somewhere in excess of 10 million dead! The truth is where we find it.
So, who and what is greedy? Here we go again.... Of course, Wall Street, Big Oil, The Bankers, all CEOs, etc. are greedy, almost by definition. OK, what about these folks? I saw numerous SUVs and other vehicles flying past me on the expressway today. I had the cruise set at 71-71 mph. Many had to be going at least 80. So, how greedy are they? They, with no regard for the cost to others, in terms of real money, help to nations that aid and abet terrorism, etc., drive along getting less than 20 mpg. And, again with no regard for others, they jeopardize others' lives. It can't be disputed that "speed kills." So, what is so important in their lives that they can drive in such greedy manners?
OK, what about runners? At a race this AM, many slower runners lined up at the front, forcing much faster runners (not necessarily me!) to run around them. Many of the slower runners were already walking, tired out, by mile one in a 10K race. And, from what I could tell, most of them had those ear buds, unable to hear or even consider others around them. I suppose, once upon a time, one might argue that the slower runners had a right to be up front so they could get their fastest times, too. Not now, not with timing chips. In fact, their times wouldn't be at all affected by lining up in a more considerate position. But the faster runners are again hosed since they must negotiate in and around and through the globs of slower ones. And, to lock oneself in his/her own little world with head sets on in a race? Nah, none of that is greedy, all about me!
That leads me to what I was initially going to post. The recent tragic spate of teen-age suicides can be linked to greed or, at least, self-centeredness. And, of course, young people today are taught to be greedy, self-centered by the schools who focus on self-esteem, self-concept. How many students are taught that their opinions can't be wrong, that they are as valid, legitimate as any others' opinions? What hogwash! Any teacher who teaches that, who stresses that should be fired immediately or, at the very least, put through a reindoctrination program! No, not every opinion is valid. Yes, students' opinions can be wrong. Now this is America and people, even students, have a right to their own opinions. But having a right to an opinion doesn't validate that opinion. One who thinks it should be "St. Adolf Hitler" is wrong!!!!! So, with students being taught this self-concept, self-image, nothing they think is wrong, why wouldn't they put themselves in positions of thinking they can write, say, do anything they want? Why wouldn't they think they could bully someone else? And, not to blame those who commit suicide, but what about that self-image, self-centeredness, etc. stuff on them? No doubt I am all wet on this, but I there is a distinct correlation in the past few decades between student suicides and this whole "God didn't make any junk," self-concept, self-image junk.
Out to read....
So, who and what is greedy? Here we go again.... Of course, Wall Street, Big Oil, The Bankers, all CEOs, etc. are greedy, almost by definition. OK, what about these folks? I saw numerous SUVs and other vehicles flying past me on the expressway today. I had the cruise set at 71-71 mph. Many had to be going at least 80. So, how greedy are they? They, with no regard for the cost to others, in terms of real money, help to nations that aid and abet terrorism, etc., drive along getting less than 20 mpg. And, again with no regard for others, they jeopardize others' lives. It can't be disputed that "speed kills." So, what is so important in their lives that they can drive in such greedy manners?
OK, what about runners? At a race this AM, many slower runners lined up at the front, forcing much faster runners (not necessarily me!) to run around them. Many of the slower runners were already walking, tired out, by mile one in a 10K race. And, from what I could tell, most of them had those ear buds, unable to hear or even consider others around them. I suppose, once upon a time, one might argue that the slower runners had a right to be up front so they could get their fastest times, too. Not now, not with timing chips. In fact, their times wouldn't be at all affected by lining up in a more considerate position. But the faster runners are again hosed since they must negotiate in and around and through the globs of slower ones. And, to lock oneself in his/her own little world with head sets on in a race? Nah, none of that is greedy, all about me!
That leads me to what I was initially going to post. The recent tragic spate of teen-age suicides can be linked to greed or, at least, self-centeredness. And, of course, young people today are taught to be greedy, self-centered by the schools who focus on self-esteem, self-concept. How many students are taught that their opinions can't be wrong, that they are as valid, legitimate as any others' opinions? What hogwash! Any teacher who teaches that, who stresses that should be fired immediately or, at the very least, put through a reindoctrination program! No, not every opinion is valid. Yes, students' opinions can be wrong. Now this is America and people, even students, have a right to their own opinions. But having a right to an opinion doesn't validate that opinion. One who thinks it should be "St. Adolf Hitler" is wrong!!!!! So, with students being taught this self-concept, self-image, nothing they think is wrong, why wouldn't they put themselves in positions of thinking they can write, say, do anything they want? Why wouldn't they think they could bully someone else? And, not to blame those who commit suicide, but what about that self-image, self-centeredness, etc. stuff on them? No doubt I am all wet on this, but I there is a distinct correlation in the past few decades between student suicides and this whole "God didn't make any junk," self-concept, self-image junk.
Out to read....
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
The Tea Party
Sometimes it is grating that so many self-anointed elitists run down the Tea Parties. I wonder if they realize that, without the Tea Parties, the Dems would have done much better and many Reps who were elected would have been the spineless legislators of the past few decades.
I still keep hearing that the Tea Partiers are "racists," "bigots," etc., that "they have no ideas." Now I know I've written about that before, that just because people have ideas different from others doesn't mean they aren't ideas. They're just different ideas and, because others don't agree with them, doesn't mean they aren't ideas or even good ideas. Looking around at things the way they are now, maybe some of the "good" ideas of the past 50 years haven't really been so "good." Of course, the self-anointed elitists, who know better than anyone else about everything, would surely never concede that, would they?
And what about the leadership in both parties. What arrogant fools! They equate the Tea Parties with the common folks, you know, US! And listen to the fools, how they run us down, how we don't really know what's best for us, how they have all the answers. Yep, they've sure solved a lot of problems, haven't they?
No doubt, the Tea Partiers do have some less than desirable characters. But should we begin to list the scoundrels in the major parties? How about listing those who have shown themselves to be very stupid? Oh, I forgot...that doesn't matter.
I still keep hearing that the Tea Partiers are "racists," "bigots," etc., that "they have no ideas." Now I know I've written about that before, that just because people have ideas different from others doesn't mean they aren't ideas. They're just different ideas and, because others don't agree with them, doesn't mean they aren't ideas or even good ideas. Looking around at things the way they are now, maybe some of the "good" ideas of the past 50 years haven't really been so "good." Of course, the self-anointed elitists, who know better than anyone else about everything, would surely never concede that, would they?
And what about the leadership in both parties. What arrogant fools! They equate the Tea Parties with the common folks, you know, US! And listen to the fools, how they run us down, how we don't really know what's best for us, how they have all the answers. Yep, they've sure solved a lot of problems, haven't they?
No doubt, the Tea Partiers do have some less than desirable characters. But should we begin to list the scoundrels in the major parties? How about listing those who have shown themselves to be very stupid? Oh, I forgot...that doesn't matter.
What's Next?
OK, NO FUN ALLOWED!!!!
So, San Francisco is joining the list of communities eviscerating Happy Meals. Toys can't be included with the HMs because, apparently, they entice the youngsters to eat HMs. That the toys are fun and enjoyable, I guess, doesn't matter. SF, and other places, are going to make us fit--or at least not as obese--whether we like it or not. Perhaps SF and other local, state, and the federal gov't should pay more attention to what they are really supposed to do, not raise our kids. It's not as if these gov'ts have any kind of superlative record in the governing departments.
And the schools! Talk about letting an institution that can't get its own act straight reaching out to fix something that isn't any of its business. Maybe the schools should focus a bit more on teaching reading, writing, thinking, math, history, etc. instead of worrying about if kids have cupcakes or cookies or candy bars in their lunches! If the schools have enough money to pay "food police," then maybe all their cries of "poverty" are as bogus as most of us think. And here's the latest one I heard. The state of Michigan passed a law outlawing flavored waters in the schools, well, at least banning them from being sold there. Just what we need, a marriage of incompetents: those running the state and those running the schools.
BTW, I haven't received a peep from any of the 7 school board members here regarding my suggestion that we consider changing school names from "places" (lake) and trees ("oak") to those of important persons, such as Lincoln, Washington, Douglass, etc. I guess, though, it's nicer to have something named "Country Oaks" or "Oak Valley" or "Spring Mills" (how nice!) than named after someone who made a difference. What better way to reinforce an idea--that people have and can make a difference.
Oh, I'm getting a headache!
So, San Francisco is joining the list of communities eviscerating Happy Meals. Toys can't be included with the HMs because, apparently, they entice the youngsters to eat HMs. That the toys are fun and enjoyable, I guess, doesn't matter. SF, and other places, are going to make us fit--or at least not as obese--whether we like it or not. Perhaps SF and other local, state, and the federal gov't should pay more attention to what they are really supposed to do, not raise our kids. It's not as if these gov'ts have any kind of superlative record in the governing departments.
And the schools! Talk about letting an institution that can't get its own act straight reaching out to fix something that isn't any of its business. Maybe the schools should focus a bit more on teaching reading, writing, thinking, math, history, etc. instead of worrying about if kids have cupcakes or cookies or candy bars in their lunches! If the schools have enough money to pay "food police," then maybe all their cries of "poverty" are as bogus as most of us think. And here's the latest one I heard. The state of Michigan passed a law outlawing flavored waters in the schools, well, at least banning them from being sold there. Just what we need, a marriage of incompetents: those running the state and those running the schools.
BTW, I haven't received a peep from any of the 7 school board members here regarding my suggestion that we consider changing school names from "places" (lake) and trees ("oak") to those of important persons, such as Lincoln, Washington, Douglass, etc. I guess, though, it's nicer to have something named "Country Oaks" or "Oak Valley" or "Spring Mills" (how nice!) than named after someone who made a difference. What better way to reinforce an idea--that people have and can make a difference.
Oh, I'm getting a headache!
Friday, November 5, 2010
Mixed Reactions
I guess, numerically/quantitatively, I am happy with the results of Tue's election. I imagine what the pundits are saying, but anyway one looks at them, the results are staggering. The Reps demolished the Dems. Even more so than nationally, the state results tell the picture--more than 680 party changes in state legislature seats!!!! Yet, I am concerned/bothered by more than one thing.
First, Obama and the other self-anointed elites are not likely to pay attention to the message. They might not even get it. But, assuming they do, what do we peons know? We're stupid; they know it and have told us. They are smarter than we are and know what's best for us better than we do. So, why would the election have anything to do with anything? He needs to be defeated in 2012, preferably in the primaries.
Second, the Republicans have to have heard the message. While they are exchanging hugs and high fives all over the country, the Republicans must realize what we are telling them. They must behave responsibly, not like the ersatz Republicans of the past dozen years. Here's where I favor a third or new party. I don't trust the Republicans, who've shown again and again in the recent past that they lack integrity and courage.
Third, it is devastating to me that people like Reid, Murkowski, Dingell, Peters, etc. can be re-elected. How????? Oh, I understand, I guess, how and why. But, I don't understand either. Dingell was facing a top-flight candidate, Rob Steele. The man is intelligent, wants to serve (he isn't a career politician and doesn't need the money or headaches). He had the right ideas. Yet, he lost, by 15 points or more. How? I know it's the closest race Dingell has ever had and he was running scared, but so what? He won. Dingell, on the radio more than once, laughed in our faces, pretty much calling us stupid. He claimed to have been the author of the ObamaCare bill, but admitted he hadn't read the whole thing. When questioned, he said he knows what's good for us better than we do. (Well, I have some news for him. I'm no genius, but I've heard him talk and he isn't smarter than I am!) Steele was characterized as "one of those rich guys" or something in that vein. He's a cardio-surgeon. Is being a "rich guy," which would seem to indicate he's a successful surgeon, a bad thing? Is having money a bad thing? Maybe we should ask the thousands of people whose lives he has saved or extended what they think about hims being successful or even wealthy! And Peters.... Granted, the Reps threw a lollipop at him, not a very strong candidate in opposition. But, Peters outspent the Rocky guy by two times and his ads were disingenuous, if not dishonest. The "fair tax" that Rocky supports is not "a 23% increase in taxes," not at all. And to claim that Peters is "independent" is a laugh. He voted lock, stock, and barrel with Obama and Pelosi when it counted. When the Dems didn't "need" his vote to pass stuff, he was released from a "yes" vote so he could claim "independence." I suppose that Reid barely pulling out a victory over Angle is a strong statement--couldn't a much, much better opponent be found? Yet, that he had so resort to shady tactics--could the LV casino owners have exerted much more pressure on their employees to vote for Reid?--and even voter fraud--the reports of Reid's name already being marked on absentee and early voting ballots?--should be some consolation, but it's not. I guess I just don't like it when the bad guys win--ever.
Maybe I'll perk up in time....
First, Obama and the other self-anointed elites are not likely to pay attention to the message. They might not even get it. But, assuming they do, what do we peons know? We're stupid; they know it and have told us. They are smarter than we are and know what's best for us better than we do. So, why would the election have anything to do with anything? He needs to be defeated in 2012, preferably in the primaries.
Second, the Republicans have to have heard the message. While they are exchanging hugs and high fives all over the country, the Republicans must realize what we are telling them. They must behave responsibly, not like the ersatz Republicans of the past dozen years. Here's where I favor a third or new party. I don't trust the Republicans, who've shown again and again in the recent past that they lack integrity and courage.
Third, it is devastating to me that people like Reid, Murkowski, Dingell, Peters, etc. can be re-elected. How????? Oh, I understand, I guess, how and why. But, I don't understand either. Dingell was facing a top-flight candidate, Rob Steele. The man is intelligent, wants to serve (he isn't a career politician and doesn't need the money or headaches). He had the right ideas. Yet, he lost, by 15 points or more. How? I know it's the closest race Dingell has ever had and he was running scared, but so what? He won. Dingell, on the radio more than once, laughed in our faces, pretty much calling us stupid. He claimed to have been the author of the ObamaCare bill, but admitted he hadn't read the whole thing. When questioned, he said he knows what's good for us better than we do. (Well, I have some news for him. I'm no genius, but I've heard him talk and he isn't smarter than I am!) Steele was characterized as "one of those rich guys" or something in that vein. He's a cardio-surgeon. Is being a "rich guy," which would seem to indicate he's a successful surgeon, a bad thing? Is having money a bad thing? Maybe we should ask the thousands of people whose lives he has saved or extended what they think about hims being successful or even wealthy! And Peters.... Granted, the Reps threw a lollipop at him, not a very strong candidate in opposition. But, Peters outspent the Rocky guy by two times and his ads were disingenuous, if not dishonest. The "fair tax" that Rocky supports is not "a 23% increase in taxes," not at all. And to claim that Peters is "independent" is a laugh. He voted lock, stock, and barrel with Obama and Pelosi when it counted. When the Dems didn't "need" his vote to pass stuff, he was released from a "yes" vote so he could claim "independence." I suppose that Reid barely pulling out a victory over Angle is a strong statement--couldn't a much, much better opponent be found? Yet, that he had so resort to shady tactics--could the LV casino owners have exerted much more pressure on their employees to vote for Reid?--and even voter fraud--the reports of Reid's name already being marked on absentee and early voting ballots?--should be some consolation, but it's not. I guess I just don't like it when the bad guys win--ever.
Maybe I'll perk up in time....
Monday, November 1, 2010
Election Eve
I'm nervous about the results of tomorrow's election. I think it could be a watershed election, even though voters are not selecting a President. It will indicate which direction the US will go--maybe. I've blogged and had op-eds about the "message" aspect of this election. If the so-called "right" people are elected, but don't get the message.... Will, then, 2012 be too late?
Again, I don't understand how people can vote for some candidates? Do they just blindly believe what their unions tell them? Are they getting freebies from the gov't and "credit" these candidates for them? Do they really believe these candidates should be representing us, I mean really? Have they no sense of pride, after having some of these candidates pretty much call us "stupid?"
I was thinking about "greed" again the other day. I heard again from a guy about the "greedy" oil companies, Wall Street, the banks, etc. Yep, I suppose they are greedy. But what about those gas station owners who charge 9 or 10 cents more a gallon for credit purchase than for cash? I understand that credit might, might, cost them more, hence the higher price. But, first, why are some station owners' costs covered with 3 or 4 cents more while others crank it up to 9 or 10 or more per gallon? Second, isn't the extra charge for credit purchases on the individual purchase, not on the gallons? So, a credit purchase on a fill-up costs $1.50 or more for paperwork? Baloney!!!! Third, when at all possible, I don't stop at those stations that have higher credit than cash prices. I'd imagine I'm not the only one who does that. They, then, are losing my business. I even will go out of my way, not far, but some, to avoid the credit stations. And, what about the greed of those who say "I'm retired; I don't care any more?" Don't they care about the futures of their own kids and grandkids? They just care about themselves? Isn't that greedy? What about those who bemoan the state of who they call "the unfortunate" in this country, yet drive around in SUVs, take several extended vacations, have several thousand dollar houses, etc., instead of living far more modestly and giving the money they don't spend on themselves to "the unfortunate?" Isn't that greedy (and hypocritical)? I don't begrudge them their vehicles, trips, homes, etc. It's the self-righteousness and hypocrisy that get me.
I guess I don't believe in "karma," but it's good that MSU got smashed the other day in Iowa. Reinstating that player was wrong, sent the wrong message.... It's just what the university needs, what with the rest of the country seeing Detroit and Michigan as they do. Now, how do they view MSU? It's win at all costs. Likely most people believe that for their own schools and teams, but not for others (just a little more hypocrisy). But, in the player's defense, if it's true he blew the minimum on the breathalyzer.... Well, I think the law is far too strict. I'm not at all in favor of drunk driving, but one glass of wine or two beers in a couple hours? C'mon.... The legislators, once again, fell victim to lobbyists with sob stories to tell. Again, I'm not in favor of drunk driving, have had family members victimized by drunk driving, etc. But to throw on a person the penalties and related costs of having two beers or a glass of wine in two hours is ridiculous. Now, that is especially so when we haven't done as much for talking on cell phones or texting while driving. Cell phone usage, statistically, is just as dangerous as drunk driving and texting, according to some studies, is 20 times more dangerous. Again, people not thinking....
What a game it must have been to watch! Amherst beat Tufts last Sat, 10-7....that is, 10 touchdowns to 7 touchdowns. Yep, 70-49, the Lord Jeffs over the Jumbos. BTW, what great nicknames, too! Two tough games in a row coming up, the Bantams of Trinity and the Purple Cows of Williams.
Again, I don't understand how people can vote for some candidates? Do they just blindly believe what their unions tell them? Are they getting freebies from the gov't and "credit" these candidates for them? Do they really believe these candidates should be representing us, I mean really? Have they no sense of pride, after having some of these candidates pretty much call us "stupid?"
I was thinking about "greed" again the other day. I heard again from a guy about the "greedy" oil companies, Wall Street, the banks, etc. Yep, I suppose they are greedy. But what about those gas station owners who charge 9 or 10 cents more a gallon for credit purchase than for cash? I understand that credit might, might, cost them more, hence the higher price. But, first, why are some station owners' costs covered with 3 or 4 cents more while others crank it up to 9 or 10 or more per gallon? Second, isn't the extra charge for credit purchases on the individual purchase, not on the gallons? So, a credit purchase on a fill-up costs $1.50 or more for paperwork? Baloney!!!! Third, when at all possible, I don't stop at those stations that have higher credit than cash prices. I'd imagine I'm not the only one who does that. They, then, are losing my business. I even will go out of my way, not far, but some, to avoid the credit stations. And, what about the greed of those who say "I'm retired; I don't care any more?" Don't they care about the futures of their own kids and grandkids? They just care about themselves? Isn't that greedy? What about those who bemoan the state of who they call "the unfortunate" in this country, yet drive around in SUVs, take several extended vacations, have several thousand dollar houses, etc., instead of living far more modestly and giving the money they don't spend on themselves to "the unfortunate?" Isn't that greedy (and hypocritical)? I don't begrudge them their vehicles, trips, homes, etc. It's the self-righteousness and hypocrisy that get me.
I guess I don't believe in "karma," but it's good that MSU got smashed the other day in Iowa. Reinstating that player was wrong, sent the wrong message.... It's just what the university needs, what with the rest of the country seeing Detroit and Michigan as they do. Now, how do they view MSU? It's win at all costs. Likely most people believe that for their own schools and teams, but not for others (just a little more hypocrisy). But, in the player's defense, if it's true he blew the minimum on the breathalyzer.... Well, I think the law is far too strict. I'm not at all in favor of drunk driving, but one glass of wine or two beers in a couple hours? C'mon.... The legislators, once again, fell victim to lobbyists with sob stories to tell. Again, I'm not in favor of drunk driving, have had family members victimized by drunk driving, etc. But to throw on a person the penalties and related costs of having two beers or a glass of wine in two hours is ridiculous. Now, that is especially so when we haven't done as much for talking on cell phones or texting while driving. Cell phone usage, statistically, is just as dangerous as drunk driving and texting, according to some studies, is 20 times more dangerous. Again, people not thinking....
What a game it must have been to watch! Amherst beat Tufts last Sat, 10-7....that is, 10 touchdowns to 7 touchdowns. Yep, 70-49, the Lord Jeffs over the Jumbos. BTW, what great nicknames, too! Two tough games in a row coming up, the Bantams of Trinity and the Purple Cows of Williams.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
