We watch the Olympics all day so you don't have to. Sorry to see Katie Ledecky not win the Gold medal in the 400 meter freestyle, taking the silver. But it was the second-best time she’s ever had in the race, only behind her own world record. She is swimming in all four individual freestyle events, so she has three more to go, but her best races are the 800 meter (a race she hasn’t lost in nine years and has the top 24 best times ever in the world) and 1500 meter races. So, I look forward to those. As I’m sure, so is she. One of the treats of vegetating in front of the TV all day watching even the obscure or lesser-profile sports is that you occasionally get to see some wonderful moments. And the good news is that not only can I wax poetic about them (or just at length) , I decided to track down as many videos as I can, and so can show you at least some of those moments In the Triathlon, the surprise winner was Kristian Blummenfelt of Norway. But it’s worth mentioning especially because of his weirdly wonderful reaction the last couple hundred yards of the race. The triathlete who’s considered the best runner in the world is Alex Yee of Great Britain. And he was in second place. As Blummenfelt neared the finish line, he clearly was expecting Yee to accelerate and close the gap, if not overtake him – yet it was Blummenfelt who was increasing the gap…and he clearly was stunned by that and couldn’t believe it. Continually checking back behind him and then shaking his head, and grabbing his forehead in disbelief. Before finally letting out a “Viking yell” (as the announcer rightly described it) and flopping to the ground at the finish line, stunned that he won and by so much. Happily, we have the video. It’s only about 4-1/2 minutes, but if you don’t want to watch the whole thing, jump to the 2:30 mark. The most joyous celebration I saw came in Taekwondo, an event I wouldn’t have come across or likely watched if not for vegetating in front of the TV. That’s when 18-year-old Anastasia Zolotic became the first-ever American to win a women’s gold medal Her reaction was explosively joyous and endearing to see. I have a partial video, but unfortunately it only has about three seconds of her reaction before cutting to the medal ceremony. However, even those few seconds will give you an idea what I’m referring to, just from her face. What also stood out was the NBC announcer’s response to it all. As I’ve said here often, I don’t like it when analysts act as PR cheerleaders, which usually happens because they’re part of the sport and know each other. In this case, NBC seems to have only assigned one person to Taekwando, and that being the case it had to someone who knew the sport – and clearly knew the people and was a PR cheerleader. But his joy was so palpable, I can only accept it in this case, at least for his call of the victory. I don’t know his name, but he went totally out of his mind, and his call was -- “We’re under 10 seconds. I’m losing it slowly -- and surely because in two seconds…we have the FIRST…woman…gold…medal…in…Olympic…history!!! Anastasia Zolotic did the thing! This is what we’ve been waiting for, working for, dreaming about!!!. This is a moment in time! I can’t take it. I can’t take it. I can’t take it. I can’t take it. I can’t take it.” Here’s the video. You’ll get to hear some of the beginning of that call, and as I said a couple seconds of Anastasia Zolotic’s disbelieving, joy-filled face. But – if you’re interested in taking a small amount of effort and seeing the whole minute-and-a-half of Anastasia Zolotic’s exuberant celebration, I found a link to it on the NBC Olympics site. It’s a different announcer for their online service, for some reason – the fellow is a Scotsman wi’ a fine brogue – but the footage is the same. It’s the full Taekwondo event, so you have to jump to the 167:00 mark. But it’s easy, and just click here. And another wonderful reaction in an less-popular event I wouldn’t have seen otherwise was when a member of the women’s fencing team, Lee Kiefer, was the first-ever Gold medal by an American man or woman to win in induvial foil. Happily, I do have the moment on video. Her winning point starts around the 3:00 mark, and the look of joyous disbelief is a treat, along with the reaction of her coach. And I would be bereft if I didn’t mention American Will Shaner winning the first Gold medal for an American in Men’s Air Rifle. I mention this though for an odd reason: when I was a summer camp counselor at Camp Nebagamon, I ran the air riflery program for around four years. A few things – first, it wasn’t a program I especially liked or wanted, but I got placed in it, did a good job, and I’m guessing no one else wanted to ever run it, I got stuck there every year. And also, unlike this profoundly high-end Olympic Air Riflery, at our end these were really more what you’d think of as BB guns, that you filled will pellets. The sort of thing that ‘Ralphie’ got as a Christmas gift in A Christmas Story. And they were not remotely the most powerful at that. (As a test, I once put an air rifle’s muzzle up against a blown-up balloon, shot the gun…and it didn’t pop the balloon! To be fair, I’m sure if there was more distance between the air rifle and balloon, it most definitely would have popped it, and could cause damage to someone. But this still showed how little power it had upfront before it could build up enough force. Indeed, there was so little power that on a windy day, their accuracy level plummeted.) But then, these air rifles were notoriously inaccurate on their own, even without wind, and it tended to require adjusting your aim until you figured out which way the sights were off. What’s also memorable during that time I headed up the program is a story much too long to tell properly in full, but the very short version is that I always felt it a bit weird that I had a fairly low air riflery “rank” as the head of the program, while some of the young campers were higher than me, a few much higher. So, one day during Rest Period, it happened that all my campers were gone – half were out on canoe trips and coming back in, and the other half had left for canoe trips. So, I had about 90 minutes all to myself – and I went out to the air riflery range, lined up lots of targets and started shooting at them almost like an assembly line, going through each position (prone, sitting, kneeling, standing) and then putting out more and more and more targets until finally – I passed through every rank up to Expert, which is the second highest other than Distinguished, which was incredibly difficult. So, congrats to Will Shaner. And we therefore honor a fellow air rifleman with a video of his Gold medal victory. And boy howdy, is his air rifle a WHOLE LOT more sophisticated and powerful than what we had at Camp Nebagamon. Balloons would not be safe around him… More to come.
0 Comments
When you see the listing for "ROC," that is name given to the the Russian team that was temporarily banned by several years back for major doping violations, so huge that even the IOC couldn't turn a blind eye. It stands for Russian Olympic Committee – but what’s hilarious (and I’ve never heard mentioned) is that this designation is, of course, the name given to the team competing, not the committee. We see "Team USA" on many of the country's uniforms, not "Member USA Committee," who are the officials and bureaucrats. So, by all rights, the Russians should be called the Russian Olympic Team. Or ROT. Which would be fitting for their cheating. But I’m sure the IOC realized, oops, no, we can’t have that, someone come up with another acronym, quick.
What I’m about to write is an actual proposal made by a major Republican Senate candidate in Ohio, and discussed on Fox & Friends for how great an idea it is. It is all true. It is also all insane, but it’s still true.
I must say up front that I am sure that the candidate will insist that he wasn’t making this as a workable proposal to be enacted, but only as a foundational theory of what’s wrong in the country. And I’m sure that the “Fox News” hosts would say that they acknowledged on-air that it wasn’t actually workable, but is a foundational theory of what’s wrong in the country. The problem with all that is – workable or not, they were all discussing it as something truly, honestly, actually worth thinking about. And in reality, it’s quite insane and makes full-fascist look benign. The only thing it is – is a foundational theory of what’s profoundly, fundamentally wrong with today’s Republican Party. There is no explaining it away by “What we meant” and “You’re taking it all out of context.” That’s because it’s clear what they meant, and the full context is there on tape. They explain so in complete, precise detail. That it was discussed any further than “Hey, here’s something that’s insane, fascist, and against every concept of democracy” says all you need to know about it and them and all Republicans listening to it, nodding in agreement. And yes, I know that this is an odd, really long disclaimer with which to start, but I figured it’s best to get it out of the way up front, because as you’ll see it’s absolutely needed – and to bury it to the end would get people rolling their eyes after only a couple of paragraphs and give up and think, at best, it’s all just an early April Fool’s joke, or a parody from The Onion. So, to be clear, the point isn’t that what these far-right voices are discussing is in any manner of existence something they’ll try to contend is workable. Rather, the point is that just discussing it at length as a meaningful concept shows what the foundation of today’s Republican Party is. So, what is it? The Senate hopeful in question is J.D. Vance, a very successful venture capitalist who wrote the popular memoir, recently made into a movie, Hillbilly Elegy. He is hoping to get the Republican nomination as U.S. Senate candidate from Ohio. I wrote about him here when he said of one of the proposals in President Biden's family bill that "'Universal Day Care' is class warfare against normal people." That’s barely cracking the surface of the loony things said by Vance, who has redefined hypocrisy and pandering, even by Mitch McConnell standards – having spoken out strongly against Trump several years ago, and now has retracted all of that, saying that he fully supports everything about Trump. Last week, at the Intercollegiate Studies Institute’s conference on the Future of American Political Economy, Vance outdid himself, which is saying a lot, and railed against the “childless left.” "Let's give votes to all children in this country, but let's give control over those votes to the parents of the children" No, honest, he said that here n a speech that even The Federalist described as “fiery,, and much more, including naming many of the childless left who he thought worthy of denying democracy to. Mr. Vance has gone full insane and, as I said, has made full-fascist look benign. On every level this is truly nuts. His overall point – to save you having the words burned into your cornea and embedded in your head – is that childless people (apparently all of whom are on the left) don’t have a stake in the future, and so shouldn’t have a voice in it. So, let’s allow every child to have a vote, however young they are – but give full control of that vote to their parents. This raises oh-so many questions. But just for starters -- This suggests that it’s only the left that is childless, so where does that leave all those on the childless right? Does this mean all the Lindsey Grahams of the right will be unfairly disadvantaged? What if the two parents disagree on what the children’s votes should be? Who gets to break the tie? I assume that since this is a Republican idea the deciding vote would go to the father, since he’s a male. For that matter, what if the parents of a child are divorced and each of them gets remarried. Does each parent get one-quarter of the decision? Or only the natural parents? But what if a child adopted? Do the natural parents get to control the vote? Or the adoptive parents? What if it’s the natural parents, but they’re unknown? Is the child out of luck? If a mother is pregnant “with child,” does that count as being eligible for a vote? And if so, when does viability kick in for getting that vote. After the first trimester, or later? But since so many on the far-right consider a zygote to be a human life, does that still qualify, even if you can’t yet determine a child’s gender? What if one has children but sadly they died? Do they stop being their children, or can parents still control their votes in perpetuity? Do parents still get to control their child’s vote once the child turns 18? If so, does the child still get to vote themselves when they come “of age”? But wouldn’t that violate the principle of one person-one vote? However, if the now-adult can’t control their own vote because they are still officially a child, does that mean one loses controlling your own vote forever as long as your parents are alive? (But then, even once a parent dies, aren’t you still always their child?) Do parents get to control the votes of their grandchildren? Or only their immediate children? Here’s a big deal: how will the Republican Party react to black families with lots of children? And won’t this cause a huge problem for overpopulation in the country? If all children get the vote, and parents get to control the vote of those children, wouldn’t there be pressure by political parties for them members to give birth to as many votes as possible? In fact, won’t this put pressure on minors having children? And if they do, who controls the vote of that child – its parents who are minors, or their parents who are legally responsible for their minor children? Finally – well, okay, not “finally,” since there are still so many other questions – there’s one other question that impacts the very foundation of Republican Party and conservative philosophy. After all, J.D. Vance's point is that a childless adult (apparently all of whom are on the left...) has nothing at stake in the game, and so they shouldn't have a voice in voting. So, how does this insane voting theory jibe with men deciding on issues that impact only a woman's body? Or white people deciding on issues black people's lives? And what about rich people? Since they own land and other property, don’t they have more “at stake” in the country than those who are poor? Shouldn’t the rich control more votes? Yes, this is all crazy and deeply fascist. But hey, that’s J.D. Vance for you. Pandering, hypocrisy and idiocy. And the leading contender to be the Republican Party nominee for the U.S. Senate. And none of this even takes into consideration that the hosts of Fox & Friends thought this was such a great concept and discussed it with enthusiasm. (And you can watch the video of it at this link, as well.) “I think it's an interesting idea," said host Will Cain. "I'm into interesting ideas. Let's think about it. Let's talk about it. He's saying childless leaders are making decisions that are short-term in mind, not focused on the long-term future health of this country because they don't have a stake in the game. Parents have a stake in the game, they have children so give parents a bigger say. Well, for starters, no, it’s not an “interesting idea.” It’s an idiotic idea – not just on general anti-democratic principle, but because it’s totally unworkable and wildly unconstitutional and could never be implemented. It’s also idiotic because it’s based on Vance’s unsupportable idea that he pulled from his butt that only parents think about long-term health of the country. Never mind that many parents are probably thinking about struggling with today and paying today’s bills for their family, trying to figure out how to get their children in college, not how to get other people’s children in college, too – while those without children (including young adults not yet even married) have more freedom and flexibility in their lives to think about making this a better world. But then, the reality is that having children has little to do with whether you think about making this a better world. In fact, I’d suggest that “making this a better world” is the foundation of liberalism, while holding on to what’s good in the past is the core of conservatism. "I don't know about that solution, that seems not feasible," said co-host Rachel Campos-Duffy who has nine children. "But I will say that I agree with the premise of it, that it is absolutely true that people like [Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez], Pete Buttigieg -- you can name the left-wing politicians, people who think that we should legalize marijuana because they don't have kids and they don't really have a stake in what that looks like." On the positive end, Ms. Campos-Duffy had the presence of mind to acknowledge that this idiotic, insane idea doesn’t “seem” feasible. By the way, I don’t know the public position that Rep. Ocasio-Cortez or Sec. Buttigieg have taken on legalizing marijuana. And I wouldn’t be surprised if Ms. Campos-Duffy does either. But even if she does, I would suggest strongly that the only politicians throughout the country who think we should legalize marijuana are not just those without kids. In fact, many probably support such a proposal specifically because they do have kids and know exactly what “that looks like.” Host Cain decided to jump back in and exacerbate his already nutty position. "And if you're Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez -- our favorite comrade -- and you've said the world is going to end in 12 years, what do you care?" he continued. I have never seen Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez even hint that the world was going to end in 12 years. And I’m certain that Will Cain hasn’t either. But I would add that if she ever did, her point would not be, “Well, let’s give up and just smoke pot,” but rather – “Folks, we have to do something right now to make absolutely sure that doesn’t happen!!!” And that’s without even considering his smarmy “our favorite comrade” crack. Never mind that Republicans have been trying to smear liberals with this tripe for 70 years since Sen. Joe McCarthy (R-WI) helped pave the way for the fascist Blacklist. And never mind, too, that Mr. Cain clearly doesn’t show a clue that he knows what a communist is – and that’s most-definitely not Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. But if he actually is as virulently anti-communist as he wants you to believe, then he should have been outraged by Trump sending love letters to Chinese President Xi, North Korea’s Dear Leader Kim Jong-Il and playing fealty to Vladimir Putin. But of course, he’s been silent about that. Because he’s clueless. Again, none of this is has anything to do with whether J.D. Vance can actually push through a law where all children have the vote but their parents control those votes. Nor whether support of this by “Fox News” has any meaning. He can’t and it doesn’t. But it speaks to who today’s far-right fascist Republican Party is because they think it’s a great idea, if only. And a "great idea" without even thinking it through. I don't just mean all those question I asked above that they clearly haven't thought through, but I mean this -- why in the world does J.D. Vance and the Fox & Friends hosts and probably so many of their viewers think this is a :great idea" because there are most Republican children in America???!!! If Republicans actually thought there were more Republicans and Republican children in the country, they not only wouldn't be trying to pass voter suppression laws, the would be doing everything they could to make 100% sure that as many Americans could vote as possible. But they don't do that. Because they seem to think that there as a lot more Democrats in the country than Republicans. And they think it's "great idea" to get even more Democrats to vote, by giving parents the votes of their children? Great, swell. That's how totally unthinking these far-right fascists are. But here's the thing -- even though I think Democrats would wildly benefit from this proposal...I think it's idiotic, anti-democratic and if any Democratic politician ever was crazy enough to suggest it, I be as virulent in saying this. But then this is a pure GOP fascist thing. "Do you want to pass AOC's America off to America or J.D. Vance's?" Ms. Campos-Duffy asked. "American Marxists want to tear down the American family." Given that J.D. Vance’s America is fascist, unconstitutional, insane and wildly unworkable, I don’t believe that any American should want to pass that off as the country future. And given that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s America is of a sustainable future that benefits everyone – Democrat and Republican alike – and wants to promote fairness and equality to all – Democrat and Republican alike, whether you have children or not – promotes and tries to pass laws to end child poverty with child tax credits, give parental pregnancy leave extensions, pushes education, offers programs to end child hunger and much more -- with one vote (and one vote only) for every qualified American, that seems to be a far, far, far better answer. Because, also, America’s fascists want to tear down America. Skateboarding is a new Olympics event this year, and yesterday was their first day in competition. The participants are impressively skilled and very athletic, and many of their moves are seriously talented. But I’m not a fan of it as an Olympic sport. If others are, fine by me. I just find something that relies on “tricks” as its foundation and has to be judged isn’t high on my list of interests for why I watch the Olympics. (I feel the same about most “extreme” snowboarding events in the Winter Olympics. And honestly, figure skating only barely passes the bar for me – though it does for many reason, none of which are worth going into here.) Skateboarding can be fun to watch – and I know the Olympics are always trying to attract younger viewers for TV. That doesn’t make something an Olympic sport to me, but filler. Again, the contestants are athletic and wildly talented – but so are ballet dancers, and that’s not an Olympic sport. (Yet.) I don’t think anyone is “wrong” for liking skateboarding as an Olympic sport, I get it – and I watched it for a short while – but for me, it’s bizarre that baseball and softball are only periodic Olympic sports (they won’t be included in four years in Paris), but skateboarding now is. Having said that, NBC did a wonderful feature on American skateboarder Nyjah Huston, the current world champion, who lives in Laguna Beach, California, and it was very moving and fascinating. Basically, it dealt with his father moving the family from the U.S. to Puerto Rico and built a retreat based on the money Nyjah had won in skateboarding competitions as an 11-year-old, and conditions got highly abusive. And from there, the story took a fascinating turn. I wish NBC had a section of their Olympics website that collected all their features in one location – including the always-wonderful ones that Mary Carrillo does (and often don’t get aired). But they never really have, and that’s not only a huge shame, but a major waste of a easy resource. Happily, some of their feature videos do get posted on YouTube and, though they’re difficult to track down, sometimes I’m able to. And I was able to find this one on Nyjah Huston. And it was a treat to see the opening round of the whitewater canoe slalom, which is one of my favorites of the lesser sports. It’s so odd and different from most sports, but is also really adventurous and looks great, like something out of The African Queen, The River Wild or True Grit 2, as the athletes go spinning and swirling around through the crashing waves. I don’t tend to watch boxing during the year, but enjoy it during the Olympics. In large part, that’s because Olympic boxing is based on getting points and not just clobbering the other person. However, NBC has made a change in their announcing team which will get me watching less. Not so much for changing the main punch-by-punch announcer, though I’m sorry for it. For the past several Olympics that has been handled by Fred Roggin, who is the local KNBC sports announcer here in Los Angeles. I’m not a big Roggin fan – he’s been too much into his sizzle as the story, but I like him well enough, and he did a solid job with boxing. But the analyst for a long time has been Teddy Atlas, and he’s just great. A longtime well-regarded trainer, Atlas was the kind of boxing lifer you’d imagine who’s been punched in the head his share of times with a growl and nose to match. He was a wonderful analyst, not just detailed but also gave the “why” to things. And most of all, he couldn’t care less what country a person was from – he just loved loved loved boxing, and was as straightforward honest and objective as they come. The new announcer and analyst are fine, no worse than that, and no better. They did tell an interesting story about a woman flyweight boxer for Team USA, Virginia Fuchs, who as Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, often manifesting itself like brushing her teeth for a half hour. But she’s been treating it for several years and finds boxing an important outlet for it and for controlling her OCD, to the point that she made the U.S. boxing team. I’m sorry that the U.S. men’s basketball team has been so problematic this year, losing a few games in the Olympic trails, including to low-ranked Nigeria. And then losing today in the opening round to France, 83-76. But there’s one good thing about it – finally, it seems like calling every men’s Olympic basketball team the “Dream Team” has probably been put to bed, at last. There is only one Dream Team, and that is the only team that should ever have been given that name. It was a name given to the 1992 Olympic squad because it was the greatest collection of basketball players on one team. If all it had was Michael Jordan, Magic Johnson and Larry Bird – on the same team – that would have been enough to have earned the name of Dream Team. But it wasn’t only those three. It had ten players who were named to the “50 Greatest NBA Players of All-Time” list on the NBA’s 50th anniversary – in addition to Jordan, Johnson and Bird, there were Charles Barkley, Patrick Ewing, David Robinson, Karl Malone, Scottie Pippen, John Stockton and Clyde Drexler. That’s 20% of the greatest players ever in the NBA were on that one team – along with several other top players at their peak, like Chris Mullin. That’s a Dream Team. And why it was called the Dream Team. It wasn’t because they were good players or wonderful players or the best players that year from the NBA. They were 10 of the 50 greatest players in the history of the league. More to come.
This week’s episode is a new one – though I almost didn’t post it. Not for any reason of quality, but because I have no idea how to spell the contestant’s name. (There’s a glitch from the American Public Radio folks, and for the past several months, every collection of new “Piano Puzzlers” has been listed with the exact same contestant name, “Claire Nalven” of Waltham, Massachusetts.) Usually, I can figure it our, or it’s from the archive, and I’ve already posted it. But this one…absolutely no idea, and I think you’ll be understanding. The contestant is “Tajus Schrinivasin” from Middlebury, Vermont. Or something like that. At least I have the Middlebury, Vermont part right! As for the Puzzler, I didn’t get either part, but it’s a fun one. I thought I had a few different guesses with the hidden song, but each time it went off in a different direction. I think I could have possibly gotten the composer style, but I was too focused on working out the hidden song that, in the end, I just made a stab and was wrong.
Every Olympics, I read about how beautiful and wonderful the Opening Ceremonies are, and I almost always find them reasonably interesting at best. And I found last night's the same. There are always absolutely great things about the event, but I generally find them very disjointed -- no story connecting things, just random vignettes. (And often ones based on the concept that weird is inherently artistic, moving and meaningful.) Furthermore, any show that requires a narrator telling you everything that's going on and what all the running around represents -- which is almost always the case with Olympic Opening Ceremonies -- the person who put the show together didn't do as good a job with their razzle-dazzle as they think. I also want to know about the country's culture and less about shifting equipment around. I did admire the use of technology (the drones were especially amazing), though there is a balance needed, and ultimately the point about the Olympics -- and most productions -- is the people, and technical wizardry should augment that and now turn the show into being like watching an animated film that could have been produced in any computer studio. And I thought the presentation of .the song "Imagine" was very well done...though not nearly as touching as so many comments suggest. For a song about all people living life in peace together, I thought it was strange to have the individual singers not only recorded in a blank, barren environment, but separate from one another, detached. It's a song about how "the world will be as one," and their version had each singer alone. It's possible that COVD restrictions kept them from being in Japan -- though they managed to get thousands of athletes there in the stadium. And at the very least, they could have done something with the videos to show the singers visually overlapping one another. And not in their separate boxes. I love the story of how U.S. Olympic softball player Madilyn Nickles got her nickname. And a nickname by which she's pretty much only know. In fact, on her UCLA team's webpage, it only lists her by her nickname. Her given name of "Madilyn" is nowhere to be found in her bio. When she was a young girl playing softball, her father could never get her attention because there were so many other little girls with the names Madilyn and Madison and Madeline and all manner of versions for Maddie, and when he called her she wouldn't recognize it was for her, and wouldn't respond. So, instead he gave her a nickname that would easily stand out. And it stuck completely, so that ever since then she's been -- "Bubba." There's a new event for women this Olympics, called 3x3 basketball. I find it incredibly strange, but fun -- and it's so fast-paced you almost get out of breath just watching. It may be a bit too fast-paced to the point of becoming dizzying, but ultimately that seems almost the point. It's like a scrappy game of schoolyard pickup hoops. The rules take a bit of adjusting to, but they're not terribly difficult. (Basically, a basket is one point, and outside the circle is two points, and the winner is who gets to 20 points first in 10 minutes. And play is non-stop, even after a basket is made -- the other team grabs the ball and throws it outside the circle before they can score.) It's more than that, but that's the general idea.) I like the rowing sports, but there's a challenge broadcast the team and sculls events that TV hasn't solved yet. There's no sense of where the finish line is, and perspective of where the boats are in relation to one another (and the finish line) is a bit off. They do run a graphic when the racers pass certain marks, but it's not as substantive as most racing events. But my favorite rowing competition is the whitewater races, which is reasonably new to the Olympics and, for me, one of the better "new" events in recent years. It's so vibrant and rambunctious compared to normal rowing -- and even compared to most other sports -- as you watched racers maneuver around twisting rapids, that I'm just enthralled by it. So, I await its entry into the Games soon... More to come. |
AuthorRobert J. Elisberg is a political commentator, screenwriter, novelist, tech writer and also some other things that I just tend to keep forgetting. Feedspot Badge of Honor
Categories
All
|
© Copyright Robert J. Elisberg 2024
|