Saturday, February 11, 2006

Past the Super Bowl

The Carnival of Comedy was delayed by snow (or so I'm led to understand). But the Right Wing Duck has saved the day as the Carnival hits XLI -- one more than the Super Bore.

Proportional representation: No way

Curiosity Killed the Cat has raised the question of proportional representation. He asked, in a discussion we’ve been having on the David Emerson debate, if I could support a proportional representation system.
The concept of proportional representation, while fine-sounding and all, is based on several premises I find at best wanting and at worst false and contrary to the real spirit of representative democracy under which we in North America operate (albeit under different modes).
Let’s look at some of those premises.
1. People vote for the party.
Many people do vote the straight party ticket, undoubtedly. Many others, though, vote the individual candidate, not the party. Voters don’t necessarily follow the party line and jump from side to side, depending upon the candidates and their views on the candidate.
Regulars here know my leanings are quite conservative. Those views are most often presented by candidates of the Republican Party. Not always, though. True confession: I have voted for a few Democrats in my day. I’m not displeased with my decision to vote for the Real Bob Casey, who served two terms as Pennsylvania governor. I didn’t buy all of his ideas, but in each race, he was the more conservative candidate. (Irony: In fact, his opponent in his second race, Barbara Hafer, jumped parties not too long ago and is now a Democrat.)
I’ve also voted for Democrats in local municipal elections. In fact, I did so this year because the Democrat candidate opposed a wage tax increase, while his opponent supported it. (BTW -- the Republican won. Our taxes are going up for open space preservation, a concept about which I could rage at length.)
So the assumption that a vote for a party’s candidate in a given district, riding, etc., is false often enough to damage -- fatally, in my mind -- this premise.
2. Only a (fill in the blank) can represent a (fill in the blank’s) interests.
This is not only a blatantly false premise, but an insulting one as well.
It assumes a monolithic worldview based upon a single gender, racial, ethnic or socio-economic characteristic. Identity politics, they call it.
That view is wrong, wrong, wrong.
It’s a fundamental denial of the individual as an individual. It also tends to attract those on the extremes of the ideological spectrum (primarily on the left, to be sure, but it happens on the right, too).
Anyone who speaks while claiming to represent “the people” usually really means “this is what I want the people to…”. Replace the word “people” with any identity group, and you get the same result. It’s a usurpation of the individual’s thoughts. And as far as I’m concerned, you can forget about that.
A proper representative, be he/she MP, Representative, Senator (yes, Canada, you should be electing your Senators -- and Cat, you still haven’t responded to me on that one), should work to represent everyone in his/her purview.
A representative chosen for “identity politics” reasons owes no consideration to those outside the boundaries of that particular identity.
Representatives are supposed to consider ALL -- repeat, ALL -- views… or at least give some lip service to the concept. Proportional representatives owe no such debt. That’s flat-out wrong and contrary to the principles upon which representative governments were established in North America.
3. Who does the proportional representative truly represent?
“The views of the party to which they belong” is the usual argument.
Who are they supposed to represent?
All of the people, not just their political colleagues.
There’s no loyalty to the public as a whole. (Granted, there’s not a helluva lot right now, but at least there is the possibility that a representative could dissent enough from the views of his/her constituents to be booted out on his/her ear in a future election.) The loyalty is to the party -- and, as we’ve seen in the recently-ousted Paul Martin Jr. government, sometimes it’s not even that, but a loyalty to the individual who provided the incentives to power (think Stronach, Brison, Dosanjh, Murray, etc.).U.S. residents can find parallels to the Nixon years.
4. Who picks the proportional representatives?
This is really a corollary thought to the above presentation. I do not see a viable system for selecting proportional representatives that includes voter choice as a means of determination. That leaves matters in the hands of the party leadership cadres, none of whom can and should be trusted (that means ALL political parties, y’all).
Trust me on this one -- the percentage of hacks would be mind-boggling.
At any rate, proportional representatives reduce the impact of the voting public on their representatives, not increase it. It means larger representative districts, because there would be fewer directly elected. It’s a transfer of power from the people to the politicians… again, never a good thing.
I don’t doubt that many supporters of proportional representation sincerely believe that it would correct some imperfections in the current system.
I also don’t doubt that greater imperfections would be created by a proportional representation system.
Cat, I told you this would be a long response. But I hope you get my drift.
And where DO you stand on election of senators?

Friday, February 10, 2006

Gretzky and the Sopranos (?)

"The writers for the Sopranos are probably taking notes about this. It’ll probably show up as an episode of the Sopranos next year." -- George Anastasia, veteran organized crime reporter for the Philadelphia Inquirer, on the Tocchet/Gretzky gambling investigation

Now it appears that Wayne Gretzky, hockey's Great One, at the least knew about his friend (and assistant coach in Phoenix) Rick Tocchet's gambling involvements.
The Philadelphia Inquirer is reporting today -- based on multiple unnamed sources -- that there's a wiretap tape somewhere with Gretzky and Tocchet discussing keeping Gretzky's wife out of the investigation into gambling that led to Tocchet and two New Jersey men being charged this week. Other news sources had the information from only one source.
In an audio on the Inky's Web site (available here in RealPlayer or WMP), Anastasia laid out three possible connections to the Philadelphia crime family:
1. Some wiseguys placed bets with the operation.
2. The operation "laid off" bets with a family-run betting operation. (Laying off bets is common practice if an operation gets too much action on one side of the bet. For example, if too much action is on one team, say the Steelers in the Super Bowl, the operation will "lay off" some of its action to another bookmaker to avoid taking a financial beating.)
3. The Philadelphia family muscled in on the action.
In the audio feed, Anastasia said that it's possible that the family did muscle in, demanding some cut of the action as tribute, but he also said that it's not as likely as it would have been a decade ago. The Philly family isn't anywhere near what it used to be, thanks to a series of wars within the family and years of battering by federal and local prosecutors.
Anastasia also said that there's a lot of what he called "peripheral" information leaking out about this case... I got the feeling that the leaking was more than he was used to seeing (and, remember, well-timed leaks accompany nearly all organized-crime prosecutions, so Anastasia is in a position to know about that).
Still, the bottom line looks less than great for the Great One.
Stay tuned.

Thursday, February 09, 2006

T-shirts that will get you places

From the Haute Couture desk at either orr comes this guide to Getting Tossed From the State of the Union Address:

You want to be a disruptive force. It's in your blood. You love the attention it brings you.
So you need a t-shirt that will get you ejected from the State of the Union address.
We've got a bunch of 'em for you.
10. The "United States of Halliburton" t-shirt. The vice-president takes his abuse in this creation from the house of Kos.
9. The Saint Osama t-shirt. This depicts the noted al-Qaeda bankroller with a halo. Of course, this is wishful thinking, because they don't offer halos where Osama's going, nor will they have 72 virgins at his disposal.
8. The "Impeach Sam Alito" t-shirt. This is a hot-off-the-presses, brand-new model, sponsored by NARAL and the Anti-Christian Lunatics Union. Endorsed by Goria Sternum.
7. The "Ban Bush, Not Books" t-shirt. Sponsored by Librarians against the Patriot Act.
6. The "I Was Bought by Jack Abramoff" t-shirt. This creation carries pictures of Tom DeLay and other congressmen caught up in the scandal. There is a model that carries the pictures of Democrats bought by Abramoff, but it's available only in XXXXXXXXXL, so they'll all fit.
5. The "Hugo Chavez Is My Hero" t-shirt. This shows the Venezuelan crackpot despot with Cindy Sheehan, Bobby Kennedy Jr., and other Democratic icons. Not endorsed by Citgo (they want your money).
4. The "I Didn't Sleep With Bill Clinton" t-shirt. This is a limited-edition product, since few leftoids are interested.
3. The "I Outed Valerie Plame" t-shirt. This is another one of those risque offerings, as it depicts Ms. Plame, the CIA sort-of-operative, in what can only be described as a compromising position with Rosie O'Donnell.
2. The "Koran Flushers Association" t-shirt. A popular item among the anti-dhimmitude crowd, this shows not only the Koran being flushed down a giant toilet, but Osama, the nutcase in Iran, and several other Islamofascist leaders being flushed down with the Koran.
1. The naked Hillary Clinton t-shirt, with the motto "Hillary Rocks My Socks." This may not bring immediate ejection, since the law enforcement types who will be charged with removing you from the gallery will be nauseated and need some time to recover. And, if they don't recover quickly enough, the crowd will assault you intensely. The side benefit of this is that getting a few Moveon morons arrested for felonious assault is always a good thing.
So what if it's late? Deal with it.

Grab the brass ring...

...while taking a ride on the latest Carnival of Satire.

Wednesday, February 08, 2006

Hockey betting: This is getting really ugly

The Great One in a gambling scandal?
This is getting really ugly in a hurry.
FOR FIVE YEARS, authorities say, New Jersey State Trooper James J. Harney and James A. Ulmer were two-fisted bookies, using up to five cell phones apiece allegedly to take wagers of tens of thousands of dollars from their affluent and famous clientele across the country.
Financing their illegal sports-betting operation, allegedly, was one of the most popular Flyers of all time: combative right winger and four-time All-Star Rick Tocchet, now 41 and an associate coach of the Phoenix Coyotes.
Tocchet was served with a criminal complaint Monday and was expected to travel to New Jersey to answer charges of promoting gambling, money laundering and conspiracy, New Jersey State Police Col. Rick Fuentes said. The complaint informs Tocchet of authorities' intention to formally charge him.
The betting operation allegedly paid off the mob, making "tribute" payments to one-time underboss Joseph "Mousie" Massimino until he was jailed in 2004, and then to others, a New Jersey law-enforcement official said.
One superstar bettor was Wayne Gretzky, hockey's "Great One" and Tocchet's boss, who allegedly was placing heavy bets through Gretzky's wife, supermodel-actress Janet Jones, to both Harney and Ulmer, according to New Jersey law-enforcement sources.
"Oh, really? I don't know. You'd have to ask her that," said Gretzky, the Coyotes' head coach and part owner, when asked by a reporter about his wife placing bets. He did not return calls from the Daily News about whether he'd placed bets through her.

Just what hockey needs now, eh?

Some things to think about

Okay, everybody.
Let's take a good hard look at the current kerfluffle in the Great White North.
Many conservatives are up in arms over a pair of new Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Cabinet appointments.
There are two themes at play here, themes that show that conservatives are buying into the left-created structure of contemporary politics.
1. Optics are everything.
You don't here the phrase "optics" down here in the States. More's the pity. It nails the point quite well.
Think back a few short months ago to the reign of Mr. Harper's predecessor. If you had to point out a characteristic theme of the Martin regime, it was "optics are everything." Big, showy presentations, outlandish spending promises -- and no follow-through. It's the initial thought that counts, after all.
Think, too, of the U.S. Clinton administration... an eight-year exercise in public relations and spin and damned little else.
The left has turned optics into the end game. And many of us are following along.
Yes, the optics stink. But what is Mr. Harper's end-game? It occurs to me (and others, as Steve Janke has catalogued) that the end-game is a sea change in the way Ottawa works. Unfortunately, in order to change the rules, you've got to get into the game. Conservatives are now in the game.
Trust, but verify.
2. The perfect is the enemy of the good.
Steve picked this line up from a David Warren post (see Angry for details). I've seen it in other forms in recent years.
In a perfect world, the controversial appointments would not have to have happened.
However... this ain't a perfect world. It's a grubby, messy sphere.
If you think back over the last 40 years or so, and the deconstructions of society foisted upon us by leftism (not liberalism -- in the dictionary sense, today's conservatives are far more liberal than those who wear the label proudly), it's because in virtually every case, the left didn't see perfection, so it engineered removing the standards or lowering them as to render them virtually useless.
"Defining deviancy down" is how the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan, perhaps the last great moralist of the U.S. Democratic Party, phrased it.
If it's not perfect, throw it out.
Isn't that, at heart, what is being said here?
That's not the direction we want to pursue, I believe.
From those two points, there are others that must be made before I shut up.
1. Conservative revolutions take time.
Look down here for just a moment, if you will.
The conservative movement in the U.S. began in earnest in the 1964 presidential election. Yes, William F. Buckley Jr. was out there with National Review (disclosure: I subscribe to it), but it wasn't until a cantankerous, blunt-spoken Arizonan named Barry Goldwater ran for president that it began to take root.
Of course, Goldwater was defeated. Badly.
Conservatives took what could have been a death-blow with the Nixon disaster. As a conservative, Nixon was a farce. As an honest politician, he was a nightmare.
The movement survived.
Then the Reagan "revolution" came. We made significant progress.
The bumbling of Clinton's first two years made the Contract with America revolution possible in 1994, which gave conservatism a real opportunity.
Our current president isn't all that conservative in many regards, and some of the "conservative" leaders in Congress just might be as venal as their Democratic predecessors. But we're still in the game (though you wouldn't believe it if you only got your info from the MSM). Conservative thought and theories of governance are on the rise.
2. Don't underestimate the current leadership.
It occurs to me that a lot of people have lost quite a bit in underestimating Mr. Harper.
The Liberals, for example, lost their government.
Think about the Fortier appointment, which stinks from an optics standpoint.
You now have the Liberal opposition crying loud and hard about the appointment.
What standing will they have when Mr. Harper presents a proposal for an elected Senate? Their own words in the Fortier case will hoist their collective petards. They're in a corner now and really can't get out.
What credibility will they gain in Montreal for ripping Mr. Fortier, who is Montreal's man in Cabinet? None, I'd venture to say.
And, given the rash of scandals emanating from Public Works, wouldn't you want a bright spotlight on it as the abuses are uncovered, as they will be?
As for the Emerson appointment, Mr. Emerson is moving into a high-risk portfolio, one for which he is well-qualified. At least, I've not seen anyone denigrate his resume for reasons beyond political affiliation. Wouldn't you want the best for the job, especially if it's someone who finds that he can live within the philosophical structure of the governing party in place?
And aren't we seeking to expand our base, so that we can reverse the decline of the past decades?
Remember, too, that there was a fair amount of glee mixed in with the angst over losing a chance to topple the Martinites when Ms. Stronach departed because she was clearly in it for the power, not for the principles.
Unlike contemporary leftism, conservatism does not and should never march in lockstep. We can disagree, within the spirit of conservatism (something Buckley said 40 years ago). These debates are a perfect example of it.
And there should never be blind trust placed in any government -- the first principle of conservatism.
Trust, but verify.
When the actions start is when it will be time to kick it into high gear.

Tuesday, February 07, 2006

Oh, man...

This hurts...
EWING, N.J. (AP) - Phoenix Coyotes assistant coach Rick Tocchet financed a nationwide sports gambling ring in which about a dozen current NHL players placed bets, authorities said Tuesday.
Tocchet, a former NHL star, was served with a criminal complaint Monday and was expected to travel from his Arizona home to answer charges of promoting gambling, money laundering and conspiracy, state police Col. Rick Fuentes said.
Fuentes said an investigation into the New Jersey-based ring discovered the processing of more than 1,000 wagers, exceeding $1.7 million US, on professional and college sports, mostly football and baseball. He declined to identify the NHL players who made wagers.
Authorities said Tocchet and state police Trooper James J. Harney were partners in the operation, with the ex-NHL forward providing the financing.

Given the fact that this is close to Philly, this could get real ugly.
Philly's traditional organized crime family, while decimated pretty badly, is still functional and doesn't like competition.
And it's another blow to the image of New Jersey cops, who don't need any more bad pub.

Emerson: Get over it

The B.T. sphere is up in arms in a big way over the crossing over of David Emerson to join Prime Minister Stephen Harper's cabinet (and isn't it cool to write that?).
One man's advice: Get over it.
Fact: Canadian politicians are far more prone to cross the aisle at a federal level than their U.S. counterparts.
I can think of only two U.S. members of Congress who switched parties since 1990: Vermont Sen. James Jeffords, who went from R to Independent (Democrat) and Louisiana Rep. Billy Tauzin, who went from D to R.
In the past year alone, you've had David Kilgour and Pat O'Brien bolt the Liberals for independent status, in addition to the infamous Stronach and Brison defections from the Conservatives to the Liberals. And Kilgour was originally a PC, I recall.
So you have to figure that party-switching is as much a part of Canadian life as the moose, the mountains and the Mounties (see song below).
Fact: Emerson appears to be quite well-qualified for the portfolio he's been handed. The biggest trade issue between the U.S. and Canada is the ongoing softwood dispute. Emerson's been in the industry. I'd be willing to bet that there's a tentative agreement on this dispute within six months (I say tentative because of those nasty meddling U.S. courts, to which the U.S. industry will run in a split-second.).
Fact: The Toronto Red Star doesn't like it. From noted Paul Martin bootlicker James Travers (whose Senate seat went up in flames on Jan. 23):
Harper is Prime Minister today because voters imposed change. Over almost 13 years, Liberal ethics became an oxymoron and entitlement a repeating embarrassment that made taxpayers nauseous.
So it's disturbing that among the good and bad choices that are always part of cabinet compromises are two ugly enough to suggest it's business as usual.

Remember this: It's Mr. Harper's job now to govern. In a perfect world, Mr. Emerson's services wouldn't have been needed (with a CPC majority).
Be practical here. Be realistic. It's a long road.
There will be other, more important matters ahead on which we have to focus our vigilance.
As noted pop philosopher and geriatric rocker Mick Jagger (and didn't the Stones seem pretty lame on the Super Bowl halftime show?) once sang...
You can't always get what you want.
But if you try sometime, you just might find that you get what you need.

Kate, Steve and Captain Ed have strong pieces on this also.

Sunday, February 05, 2006

The author responds (trying to keep this alive)

NOTE: This post appears to have disappeared from my archive, thanks to Blogger. Hence, the post redux...

The author whose work inspired this post has responded.
Hey, yoo hoo, conspiracy theorists! It was me. Yes, I visited this web site on Friday morning. I've taken this perverse pleasure in checking out blogs to see how the stuff I write is being received in the current hothouse atmosphere. It's fascinating (and easy to do through the wonders of Google. I'm not a regular eitherorr visitor.)
Just so you know, the lede was not a brain fart. It was supposed to be ironic. You know, `natural governing party' clearly in disarray after losing election, full of recriminations -- as I thought the story made clear. Apparently this was lost on your readership. My fault. Too clever by half.
What I'm having trouble understanding is why the very rich sense of humour so evident in many of these blogs abandons so many of you whenever you consider the MSM. Do you think we're all drones?
By the way, I've never worked for the London Free Press.
Cheers, Bruce
Bruce, I give you credit for standing up.
But your attempt at irony didn't really belong in a news story. Commentary? Hell, yeah. Bring it on. But in a straight news story? I dissent.
It is ironic that you used quotes around the phrase "natural governing party" in your comment. That, to me -- and I'm looking at this as someone who has worked with words and the people who write them for a long, long time -- is the key to the displeasure. The absence of those quotes gives the casual reader the impression that it's fact, not just opinion or a slogan. Most readers don't stay much past the first few graphs of a story, as I'm sure you know. If the story had appeared with the quotes around "natural governing party", I really think your effort might have worked a lot better.
I don't fault your effort in trying to be ironic as much as I fault the editors who didn't challenge where you were trying to go and steer you into a better path toward your goal.
As for the distrust of the MSM, it's long-standing, as you also probably know. It stems from the apparent antipathy toward those who don't share the mindset of the "liberal elite." If you think such elites don't exist, I refer you to the book "The New Elite" by David Lebedoff. It's about 25 years old now, but its themes still ring true. I would also note that Mr. Lebedoff described himself in the book as a small-l liberal Democrat from Minnesota.
I commend you for joining the fray. I just think on this one, you blew it.


Well done Bob. Bruce, I would add that bloggers are not being paid by a newswire service to provide clear stories for publication throughout Canada. I take great pleasure in reading a great deal and I most definitely missed the irony. Without the quotes the context is entirely different. I suppose we can let the "conspiracy theorists" comment slide as more irony. I join Bob in commending you for answering your critics. -- BBS 4 Feb 03.34 am

Just read my own second paragraph - that's what you get for posting at 3:30 in the morning. Oh well! -- BBS 4 Feb 03.35 am

In the ever shrinking world, MSM is having a tough time dealing with the issue of being "factual". Most excellent Bob ... -- ABF 4 Feb 11.28 am

Cheers, folks. My reference to conspiracy theorists was a response to the race to get screenshots of the offending original material, as if CP or newspapers were attempting to shred documents or hide some deep dark secret. Stuff gets rewritten all the time, sometimes due to reader complaints, more often due to tight deadlines, tired and overworked reporters or sloppy editing. That being said, people who write about politics all day long often get too close to the subject and need to be reminded that readers in Pennsylvania might not follow what we think is an obvious inside joke. As for placing natural governing party inside quotation marks, in my view that moves the reference from irony to outright sarcasm -- which is why I didn't do it. Again, too clever by half. That's why I check blogs to see how this stuff is being received. It is enlightening.Still, I'm willing to take my lumps in the blogosphere rather than reduce my reporting to See Spot Run. Just don't accuse me of being a Liberal apologist. It simply ain't true.
-- Bruce 4 Feb 12.12 pm

Bruce, thanks for taking the time to respond on all this, and for being willing to engage with folks who might pile on for all you know. Most folks on the right strongly perceive a media bias -- one of the reasons the blogosphere, at this point, is so tilted to the right. Of course, I know that there are those on the left who would argue that the MSM is *part* of the "Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy", and press people often get caught in the middle. But I think if you do listen around the 'sphere, you might find out some reasons why people don't buy newspapers so much anymore, and only rely on wire services as comparative sources, to find out "what's really going on". -- Meg Q 5 Feb 03.12 am

Gotta admire a reporter who will venture into the blogosphere,well done Bruce, but you must admit,when people see Mr."I'm entitled to my entitlements" get his severance package, we get a little pissed at anything that might come close to praising soon to be ex PMPM and the rest of the lyin' assclowns.. Paul Martin lies in the House: -- Platty 5 Feb 03.30 am

"Again, too clever by half."Kudos for coming in and speaking up on the forums that are soon to take over your job. But why the dispariging remark as noted above? Or did you forget to put that one in parentheses also??? It is far to easy to fall back on the "I was misunderstood" excuse. Every word a reporter writes should reflect nothing BUT the facts, or carry a disclaimer stating otherwise. And no, I am not singling out any particular paper/news media. They are all guilty of this. -- Justthinkin 5 Feb 03.49 am

Bruce - I too want to commend you on checking to see how your words are being received - I suppose you could say that blogs have become one giant editor (good or bad). From the response you obviously received regarding this particular story (yes, I was one that e-mailed directly to the paper) - you get a sense of the frustration that those of us on the right have been feeling that since the election it has been Why did the Liberals lose, When will they choose a leader, Who will be the leader, Who won;t be the leader and why. So when I read that another MSM reporter has written a story about Canada's Natural Governing Party - to me it is just more of the Liberal Group Hug that I seem to see and hear since the election. I sure missed any irony.So kudos to you for replying and hopefully our comments give you food for thought about how what you write is actually being perceived. -- Alberta Girl 5 Feb 07.11 am

Bruce's replies seem to indicate the curiosity of an inquiring mind, and the mindset of one whose mind is already made up about conservatives. Interesting contrast, what?Still, kudos for jumping in. Cheers -- 49erDweet 5 Feb 11.58 am

As I'm reading his comments, I'm wondering about any professional accountability in the media. There are too many Jane "That's news to me " Tabers and lines like Bruce used, without the 'pros' being called to account. One commenter said the news is supposed to be the facts. When it commes out of the CP wires,that should give it dependability. Some readers can weed out the editorial slants, on both sides.Most cannot pick thru a 'news' story, and understand the facts, let alone weed out the so-called sarcasm. So what is happenning. Media bias, or unprofessional conduct? Either way, I'll get my facts from more dependable sources, not MSM. VF -- Vicki 5 Feb 04.30 pm

Add to my list of examples of why I cannot trust MSM...The heil "cut and paste error"...please give your CBC heads a shake...unbelievable! VF -- Vicki 5 Feb 05.39 am

When news stories are written, they should be written to the readership, not to the pundits and other reporters. I think that recognizing this fact and correcting the problems such reporting causes would do wonders for the circulation of our nation's (America's) newspapers. Sometimes it pays to venture outside of your little clique once in a while. -- Nightcrawler 5 Feb 06.05 am

Good on you for venturing in to clear all this up, Bruce. Might I suggest, though, that perhaps in light of the fact that the printed word conveys no facial expressions or vocal tones to convey the intent of the writer, it might have been best to steer clear of the phrase. Cheers to you and yours. -- Dante 5 Feb 07.48 pm

Who said this?

"From the writings of Hitler during the 1930s and Mein Kampf to the polemics of bin Laden in the 1990s, there is ample evidence that sometimes when people write and say that they hate you and ... they want to destroy you, in fact they mean it and will try."

Hint: It was a U.S. Democrat.

Answer here.

(Hat tip to Kate.)

Super Bowl

Pittsburgh 21, Seattle 10.
We are pleased!