Someone on YouTube put six current country songs …
… together:
I’m not sure if Sir Mixalot did this because he could, or in order to make a statement about current country music, derided by some as “Walmart country.”
It’s not as if this can’t be done in other genres too:
The number one British album today in 1965 was “The Rolling Stones No. 2”:
The number one single today in 1965:
Today in 1970, an album was released to pay for the defense in a California murder trial.
You didn’t know Charles Manson was a recording “artist,” did you?
The term “March Madness” describes the college basketball postseason and high school state tournaments.
It could also describe figuring out your own schedule if you’re a basketball announcer.
Last week, I announced two college conference tournament games and two high school girls’ regional games. My first game of this week was Tuesday, which went to overtime. I will be in Monroe for a girls’ sectional semifinal, followed Friday by a trip to Spring Green for a boys’ regional semifinal. Saturday will include one of three potential night boys’ games, possibly preceded by a girls’ sectional final game, the winner of which goes to state.
I am done announcing college basketball for the year, but Division I March Madness kicks in next week with conference tournaments, followed the week after that by the NCAA men’s and women’s tournaments.
Sports Illustrated’s and CBS’ Seth Davis used the week before conference tournaments to bring up an issue it says is getting worse — pace and scoring, or lack thereof, in the college game. Davis’ story begins with the 2000 Final Four, in which Wisconsin trailed Michigan State 19-17 at halftime of one national semifinal. From there:
The more things change, the more they … get worse. College basketball is slower, more grinding, more physical and more, well, offensive than it has been in a long, long time. The 2014-15 season is shaping up to be the worst offensive season in modern history. Through Feb. 22, teams were averaging 67.1 points per game. That is the lowest average since 1952. The previous low for that span was set just two years ago. This more than reverses the gains that were made last season, after the rules committee made adjustments to clamp down on physical defense and make it harder to draw a charge. Thanks to lax enforcement by officials and a foolish decision to reverse the block/charge modification, scoring declined by 3.79 points per game. That is the steepest single-season drop on record.
Millions of people are preparing set their sights on college basketball for March Madness, but the sport is not ready for its close-up. All season long, there have been games where the winning team struggles to reach 50 points. Halftime scores in the 19-17 range have been a nightly occurrence. And because too many coaches use too many time outs, games become interminable during the last few minutes. As a result, this game is in danger of turning off casual fans while losing ground with the younger set, who have more choices than ever before.
“I have great concerns,” says Dan Gavitt, the NCAA’s vice president of men’s basketball championships. “The trends are long-term and unhealthy. I think some people understand the urgency of it, but there are others who think the rhetoric is sensationalized and that it’s not as bad as people make it out to be. There are enough people concerned that there is movement to get things done.”
That concern prompted the NCAA to announce earlier this month that it will experiment with a 30-second shot clock (instead of the current 35) and a bigger arc under the basket (to make it harder to draw a charge) during the postseason NIT next month. That is a hopeful sign, but the approach is still too cautious, too incremental. If we’re going to summon the requisite urgency to reverse the tide, we have to start by calling the situation what it is.
College basketball is facing a crisis. It’s time for an extreme makeover.
First: Let’s be honest about why this is a “crisis.” It is not because one style of basketball is preferable to another, or all the others. It is because of a fear of dwindling fan interest, which means fewer eyeballs watching games in person and on TV, and thus less money being spent on each. College basketball is a business because all sports past the high school level that charge admission are business sectors within the entertainment world.
Davis suggests five rules changes because …
For a long time, the attitude among college basketball’s cognoscenti has been that the game should look distinct from its professional counterparts. That is reasonable, but right now the game is too distinct, not just from the NBA but also from other sports like football and hockey. Here are five rules changes that would push the pendulum back in the right direction:
1. The shot clock should be shortened to 30 seconds.
Some prominent coaches, like Syracuse’s Jim Boeheim and Villanova’s Jay Wright, who both have extensive international experience, would like to see the clock reduced to 24 seconds, which is the case in the NBA and FIBA. Reducing it to 30 would speed up the game while allowing college basketball to remain distinctive. “Why wouldn’t we go to 30? That’s a better question,” asks Dukecoach Mike Krzyzewski. “We didn’t go to 30 in the first place because the women had it. People wanted to be different. It’s not hard to figure out. A shorter clock means more possessions, and more possessions means more points.”
History shows that to be the case. When the 45-second clock was trimmed to 35 for the 1993-94 season, scoring went from 73.6 points per game to 75.0. Those gains were short-lived, but it supports the idea that a shorter clock helps.
2. The arc under the basket should be extended to four feet.
It wasn’t until the 2010-11 season that the rules committee established a secondary defender could not take a charge under the basket. At first, the committee declined to put down an arc, and when it did in 2011, it was placed at three feet. That is one foot shorter than the NBA’s circle, and it is obviously insufficient. “That thing is like a bee bee on a four-lane highway. It’s a joke,”Michigan State coach Tom Izzo says. “That’s the NCAA and our coaches saying we are not going to be the NBA. I look at it as, the NBA plays a hundred games a year. Let’s learn from them.”
Izzo is so opposed to the charge call that he refuses to teach his players to take them. He believes it is dangerous, and he does not want to be hypocritical. There is a place for this play—charges are called regularly in NBA games—but there is broad consensus that too many collisions reward the defense. Plus, it’s the toughest call a referee has to make. Says Adams, “A four-foot restricted arc would help unclog an area that’s an officiating headache.”
3. The lane should be wider.
The college lane is 12 feet wide. The NBA’s is 16 feet. FIBA’s used to be shaped like a trapezoid, but in 2010 it adopted the NBA’s 16-foot rectangle. The college lane should have that same width, but even an increase to 14 feet would be an improvement. A wider lane would push post players away from the basket, which in turn would force them to learn to shoot with touch as opposed to just backing down and powering to the rim. That’s what players do—they adapt. A wider lane would also create more space for drivers, allowing players to showcase their athleticism better.
4. The three-point line should be deeper.
The goal here isn’t to make the shot more difficult; it’s to create more space. That’s why the line was moved in 2008 from its original distance of 19′ 9″, to the current 20′. With a wider lane, the college line will need to be extended again. If the committee pushed it to 22′ 2″, which is where FIBA has it, that would preserve some distinction with the NBA’s distance of 23′ 9″.
5. There should be fewer time outs. …
Even before a coach calls a single time out, he is guaranteed nine stoppages of play—four media time outs per half, which last 2 minutes, 15 seconds each, plus a 15-minute halftime. That’s 33 minutes, or almost another entire game, to talk to his team. Yet, on top of those breaks, a coach is also granted four 30-second time outs and one 60-second time out. One of those 30-second time outs is referred to as the “use-it-or-lose-it” time out because teams only get to call three 30-second time outs in the second half. In other words, the rules actually incentivize a coach to call a time he out he wouldn’t otherwise take.
Sure, the refs need to speed up their replay reviews, but reducing the number of time outs is the best way to shorten the game. Former Big East commissioner Mike Tranghese complains that “the college game in the last two minutes is absolutely awful.” Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany, who heads a competition committee that studies these issues, agrees. “We’ve got to find ways to expedite the last few minutes,” he says. “The games are slowing down to the point where the only people who are going to watch are diehard fans of those two teams.” …
Unfortunately, the men who call all those time outs are the same ones who write the rules. College basketball coaches are fierce competitors. They’re under a lot of pressure. They are not about to relinquish control. “Coaches have always felt that if you take time outs away from them, it’s like taking their first born,” says Art Hyland, the rules committee’s secretary editor.
Which brings us to the heart of the issue. The primary reason college basketball faces a scoring crisis isn’t the rules. It isn’t the refs, it isn’t the players, it isn’t the officiating coordinators, it isn’t the conference commissioners, and it isn’t the television networks. It’s the coaches. …
Unfortunately, it’s impossible to legislate offensive creativity. The only way to spur more people to coach that way is to create rules that force them to. …
No wonder the game is stuck in reverse. Though the people who serve on the rules committee are no doubt earnest and diligent, they are naturally protective of their own interests. A slower, rougher game benefits teams with lesser talent. Byrd, for example, says he likes the shot clock where it is because “I don’t think you can really run your offense in 30 seconds,” even though most of the planet seems to be able to do just that.
And what do you do if you’re a coach whose players aren’t quick and tall enough to prevent the gazelles at Kansas and North Carolina from driving through the lane and finishing at the rim? You manipulate the rulebook so it’s easier to push a driver, bump a cutter, shove a post player or draw a charge.
There is a place for upsets, of course, but they should happen because underdogs executed better, not because they were allowed to grab their speedier opponents. “I hear people complain and say, well if you do these things, the teams with the better players are going to win,” ESPN analyst Jay Bilas says. “And I’m thinking, did you really just say that? That’s like saying if we took all the sprinters and let them run in a straight line, the fastest guy would win. That’s the whole point.” …
When it comes to solving intractable problems, we are often told that where there’s a will, there’s a way. But the way out of college basketball’s mess is clear. The question is, do the people who run the sport have the will to come up with a plan and see it through?
Plenty of other sports have done it. Over the last two decades, the NFL and college football have greatly diminished the degree to which defenders can impede the progress of receivers, and they have outlawed excessive hits on quarterbacks. That begat the spread offense and the wide-open, pass-happy, no-huddle, high-scoring games that electrify football fans every fall weekend. Likewise, the NHL instituted a slew of new rules following the 2004-05 work stoppage, including clamping down on obstruction, the elimination of the rule against the two-line pass, and installing a trapezoid behind the net, which limited goalies’ abilities to play the puck. The changes have been widely praised for improving the aesthetic of the game, but scoring has flatlined due to improved goaltending. As another effort, the NHL before the 2013-14 season enacted a rule limiting the size of goalies’ equipment.
The NBA offers the best blueprint. Before the start of the 2000-01 season, then-commissioner David Stern tapped Jerry Colangelo, the general manager of the Phoenix Suns, to chair a special committee that was assigned to eliminate “all the muggings,” as Colangelo puts it. They devised prohibitions against hand-checking and other tactics that had tipped the advantage too far to the defense. There were many games that got bogged down in fouls early on, but eventually the coaches and players adapted.
Colangelo, who is now the chairman of USA Basketball’s board of directors, believes college basketball needs to go through the same transition. “Basketball ultimately is a game of fluidity,” he says. “It took about two years for everyone to adjust, but that dissipates over a period of time. You pay that price, but in the long-term that’s what was in the best interests of the game.”
Those who have coached American college players for Team USA in recent years swear that when our kids play in FIBA tournaments, they score points. They make shots. They’re rewarded for beating their man off the dribble. Turns out all they need is a shorter clock, some more space, and a tighter whistle. “Anything you can do to increase freedom of movement is going to increase scoring,” says VCUcoach Shaka Smart, who has served as an assistant coach for USA Basketball’s under-18 and under-19 teams the last three years. “The players just kind of figured out how to play with the 24-second shot clock. We as coaches did, too, because you can’t run too many multiple sets. If you really want to increase scoring, you have to make the rules more to the advantage of the offense as opposed to the unbelievable advantage the defense has right now.”
College and high school basketball in Wisconsin is dominated by two styles of play — the Bo Ryan school, and the Dick Bennett school. They’re not dissimilar, but there is one important difference. Bennett’s approach is based on defense as the first five or so priorities. Ryan’s approach is based on defense and offensive efficiency — essentially, score as close to every time you have the ball, regardless of your tempo. That means working the swing offense (which by now I think every team in the state runs), getting good shots, and limiting mistakes, meaning missed shots, turnovers and allowing the defense to rebound a miss.
Wisconsin is leading the country in offensive efficiency, though the Badgers are nowhere near the top in offensive points per game. Bennett is retired, but his son, Tony, coaches at Virginia, which has been in the top two in the nation in defensive efficiency all season. (Should Wisconsin and Virginia meet in the NCAA tournament, bet the under.)
I support all five of Davis’ proposed rule changes. (I would like to see at least two timeouts replaced by quarter breaks instead of two halves, since it is not logical for high school and the pros to have four quarters but college have two halves.) I firmly believe those moves will only temporarily speed up the game, because good coaches will find out ways within the rules to neutralize their own talent disadvantages (see Bennett, Dick).
I firmly believe those moves will only temporarily speed up the game, because good coaches will find out ways within the rules to neutralize their own talent disadvantages (see Bennett, Dick) and maximize what they have. If the NCAA is serious about entertaining fans (and again, college basketball is a business), it needs to commit to a continual process of changing the rules, similar to the NFL.
Some may claim that rules changes aren’t necessary, pointing at the popularity of March Madness, when even casual fans fill out brackets using scientific and, well, less-scientific approaches (blue uniforms, mascots you like, etc.). The issue isn’t getting people to pay attention to March Madness; it’s getting people to pay attention to the regular season, when everybody plays, not just the top 68 teams in the country, and to keep fans watching games besides your favorite team’s games.
Today in 1955, Elvis Presley made his TV debut, on “Louisiana Hayride” on KWKH-TV in Shreveport, La.
The number one album today in 1966 was Herb Alpert and the Tijuana Brass’ “Going Places”:
The number one single today in 1966:
Dennis Prager explains the enmity of Barack Obama for Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu:
And the answer is due to an important rule of life that too few people are aware of:
Those who do not confront evil resent those who do.
Take the case at hand. The prime minister of Israel is at the forefront of the greatest battle against evil in our time — the battle against violent Muslims. No country other than Israel is threatened with extinction, and it is Iran and the many Islamic terror organizations that pose that threat.
It only makes sense, then, that no other country feels the need to warn the world about Iran and Islamic terror as much as Israel. That’s why when Benjamin Netanyahu speaks to the United Nations about the threat Iran poses to his country’s survival and about the metastasizing cancer of Islamist violence, he, unfortunately, stands alone.
Virtually everyone listening knows he is telling the truth. And most dislike him for it.
Appeasers hate those who confront evil.
Given that this president is the least likely of any president in American history to confront evil — or even identify it — while Benjamin Netanyahu is particularly vocal and eloquent about both identifying and confronting evil, it is inevitable that the former will resent the latter.
The negotiations with Iran over its nuclear weapons program are today’s quintessential example. Those who will not confront a tyranny engaged in terror from Argentina to the Middle East, and which is committed to annihilating another country, will deeply resent Israel and its leader.
For those who doubt the truth of this rule of life, there are plenty of other examples.
Take the Cold War.
Those who lived through it well recall that those who refused to confront communism vilified those who did. Indeed, they vilified anyone who merely labeled communism evil. When President Ronald Reagan declared the Soviet Union an “evil empire,” he was excoriated by those who refused to do so. Yet, if the words “evil” and “empire” have any meaning, they perfectly applied to the Soviet Union.
But to those who opposed Reagan, these words could not be applied to the Soviet Union.
New York Times columnists lambasted the president for using such language. The newspaper’s most prestigious columnist at the time, James Reston, condemned Reagan for his “violent criticism of Russians as an evil society.”
Anthony Lewis accused Reagan of using “simplistic theology.” Reagan was using “a black and white standard to something that is much more complex.”
Tom Wicker wrote that “the greater danger” than the spread of communism “lies in Mr. Reagan’s vision of the superpower relationship as Good versus Evil.”
Columnist Russell Baker added his contempt for Reagan’s characterization of the Soviet Union. And, in a long Times article under the headline, “Reagan’s Gaffe,” an unnamed “strategist” for former Vice-President Walter Mondale told the newspaper that “Mr. Reagan had undercut diplomatic efforts of recent months” — exactly as the Times and the Obama administration now describe Benjamin Netanyahu doing to the negotiations with Iran.
(For a detailed description of the reactions to Ronald Reagan’s anti-communism, see Ann Coulter’s book, “Treason.”)
Some 20 years later, when President George W. Bush characterized the regimes of North Korea, Iraq and Iran as an “Axis of Evil,” he was likewise lampooned — as if those mass murderous tyrannies were not evil.
In short, those who refused to characterize the Soviet Union as evil loathed Ronald Reagan and other anti-communists for doing so; and those who objected to the “Axis of Evil” label placed on North Korea, Iran, and Iraq loathed George W. Bush and his supporters. The loathing of Benjamin Netanyahu is simply the latest example of the rule that those who will not confront evil will instead confront those who do. (It’s much safer, after all.)
The Grammy Awards premiered today in 1959. The Record of the Year came from a TV series:
Today in 1966, John Lennon demonstrated the ability to get publicity, if not positive publicity, when the London Evening Standard printed a story in which Lennon said:
Christianity will go. It will vanish and shrink. I needn’t argue with that; I’m right and I will be proved right. We’re more popular than Jesus now; I don’t know which will go first — rock and roll or Christianity. Jesus was all right, but his disciples were thick and ordinary. It’s them twisting it that ruins it for me.
Lennon’s comment prompted Bible Belt protests, including burning Beatles records. Of course, as the band pointed out, to burn Beatles records requires purchasing them first.
The number one single today in 1967:
Today in 1973, Pink Floyd began its 19-date North American tour at the Dane County Coliseum in Madison.
The PJ Media headline asks an interesting question: “What is the future of fiction?”
Many conservatives are upset that American Sniper and director Clint Eastwood were (predictably) snubbed at the Oscars; but they shouldn’t be. The fact that a film with an overtly conservative message, directed by an openly conservative pop-culture icon, has grossed more than $400 million is a sign that conservative messages hold a powerful resonance with the American public.
American Sniper is hardly an aberration.
When high-quality entertainment that reflects conservative and/or libertarian ideals is presented to the public, it finds a broad and enthusiastic audience. From the various Marvel Films superhero barn-burners to novels by authors such as James Patterson, Brad Thor, and the late Vince Flynn; from graphic novels like Frank Miller’s 300 to TV shows like Downton Abbey, great stories with conservative sensibilities have proven to be commercial winners.
Note what all of these examples have in common, though: none of them are political polemics. Rather, they are well-crafted pieces of middle-brow entertainment, aimed first and foremost at telling a compelling story that (as any great story does) reveal truths about the human condition. Any specific political or ideological message is, thankfully, secondary.
It’s exciting (and rare) when a surge of creativity jibes with consumer preferences. In fact, I believe we are witnessing the start of a great renaissance in conservative creative culture. As the Publisher of Liberty Island, I’m continually impressed at the quality of the short fiction and novels that come across my desk from self-described conservatives and libertarians. These are not folks who can get their scripts produced in Hollywood or on Broadway, nor can they expect mainstream publishing houses to take a chance on their novels. However, they are the farm team, the next generation of conservative creators who will replace the Eastwoods and the Flynns.
Like any renaissance, this one requires nurturing and encouragement of nascent creators and that is a job we take very seriously. All of this has come with a surprising finding: we’ve found that the greatest enemy of creative conservatives isn’t the liberal cultural establishment; after all, it’s easy to bypass gatekeepers in the age of digital distribution.
Rather, the real enemy is a DC-based conservative establishment that is indifferent or outright hostile to cultural pursuits. They argue that building a conservative counterculture is a waste of time, and will make no difference. Some even go so far as to argue that middlebrow culture is inherently liberal or corrupting.
It’s as if the right side of the conservative brain has atrophied to such a degree that the people who claim to speak for us can’t see beyond the next election cycle or next Sunday’s news shows.
The very people who claim the legacy of Ronald Reagan denigrate the medium that made his career, and made him the extraordinary leader that he was. Reagan understood the power of the narrative; and he further understood that the story of the average man doing extraordinary deeds defined both conservatism and American exceptionalism.
That, more than any policy choices, is the legacy Reagan left to conservatives. And I firmly believe that the next Reagan will be found not among politicians and lawyers and investment bankers but among writers and directors and actors.
I have no idea how I missed this before, but I did, and I’m kinda wishing now that a clever and competent reader hadn’t put it on our FB page, because I read it, and now my head hurts from all of the ridiculousness in this article.
It’s written by an English teacher, and it’s about grammar and how oppressive and racist it can be. No joke. And because it’s written by someone who ostensibly cares a great deal about correct syntax and proper sentence construction, it’s written really well. Unfortunately, it just says a lot of really really really ridiculous stuff.
Because the author is a social justice warrior (I know), she has a problem with “grammar snobbery in social justice movements” and believes that “purporting one form of English as elite is inherently oppressive.”
She believes there’s “a difference between understanding grammar and demanding it.” She explains that there are two schools of thought about what entails successful communication; specifically:
Prescriptive grammar– which is what “grammar snobs” champion – says that there’s such a thing as one true, honest, pure form of a language and that only that version is correct or acceptable.
Descriptive grammar, on the other hand, argues that however a language is being used to communicate effectively is correct – because that is the basic purpose of language.
She uses an example whereby a Facebook comment that said, “That their was an example of cissexism” might be corrected by a “prescriptive” grammarian, but a “descriptive” grammarian would simply know that the intent was to use the word “there” in place of “their” and they wouldn’t kick up a fuss about it, because essentially the point was successfully communicated.
And she actually suggests that positioning the “prescriptive” grammarian as better than the “descriptive” grammarian is OPPRESSIVE. Why? Because the dictionary was created by “a white supremacist, heteropatriarchal system.” I’m not even making that up. In fact, she insists that people who desire and expect correct grammar (prescriptive grammarians) are, OF COURSE, “privileged.” Educationally privileged. Class privileged. Native Language privileged. Ability privileged. White privileged.
That last one is important, because it leads the Everyday Feminism author to a big fat discussion about “sounding white” and giving African American Vernacular English (AAVE, colloquially known as ebonics) credit for being perfectly grammatically correct and as perfectly English as the standard English we are taught in gradeschool. To think or say otherwise is racist, naturally.
I don’t care how many linguistic professors want to come at me and argue that AAVE is a legitimate English dialect, and that it has its own rules about tense and its own grammatical structure. Legitimizing a bastardized form of the English language by slapping a “dialect” label on it is pointless. It doesn’t matter that it “makes sense” to people who speak it to one another. So does Pig Latin. That still doesn’t make it proper English. If it did, it would be taught in schools. The reason it isn’t is because it makes sense for there to be one common standard language spoken and taught across a nation. That’s what successful communication is built on.
But the Everyday Feminism author insists that positioning “the English that white people are more likely to speak as THE English” means we’re “creating a hierarchy where white people are on top.” And, obviously, that’s racist, you racist proper English speakers.
The Everyday Feminism author says that language is ever-evolving, which I don’t argue at all. The fact that words like “texting” and “LOL” and “brb” are now recognized words in the English language is proof positive of that. But that doesn’t mean we should legitimize text-speak as an authentic dialect. Recognizing grammatically correct English as the standard isn’t elitist or snobbish or privileged. It’s just CORRECT.
Today in 1966, Neil Young, Stephen Stills and Richie Furay formed the Buffalo Springfield.
The number one British single today in 1967:
Today in 1971, the South African Broadcasting Corp. lifted its ban on broadcasting the Beatles.
Perhaps SABC felt safe given that the Beatles had broken up one year earlier.
Last week, the New York Times had to retract the main point of a column it published that blamed Gov. Scott Walker for something that took place before he was elected governor.
Well, to paraphrase Ronald Reagan twice, there they go again. Politico reports:
The Daily Beast has retracted an article from one of its college columnists that claimed that the Wisconsin governor’s budget would cut sexual assault reporting from the state’s universities.
The post, published Friday, cited a report from Jezebel that wrongly interpreted a section of the state budget to mean that all assault reporting requirements were to get cut altogether.
In fact, the University of Wisconsin system requested the deletion of the requirements to get rid of redundancy, as it already provides similar information to the federal government, UW System spokesman Alex Hummel told The Associated Press on Friday.
The Daily Beast retracted thusly:
The Daily Beast is committed to covering the news fairly and accurately, and we should have checked this story more thoroughly. We deeply regret the error and apologize to Gov. Walker and our readers. This story should be considered retracted.
Jezebel added:
“We reported this piece without full context, and while this piece conveys factual information, omission of that context for that information presents an unfair and misleading picture. We regret the error and apologize.”
As Rich Galen points out, “Right Facts + Wrong Context = Bad Reporting.”
The Jezebel “reporter” initially was something less than apologetic …
Ran an update on the Walker piece. Find another thing to be outraged about sweet, sweet Walkerites.
— Natasha VC (@natashavc) February 28, 2015
Also, I’m not gonna apologize for reporting what was in the budget. Because that was in the budget. Ask your gov. to apologize for bad optix
— Natasha VC (@natashavc) February 28, 2015
At a time when there is HEAVY scrutiny on state/fed/colleges, a proposal to delete standing regulations, requires more tact.
— Natasha VC (@natashavc) February 28, 2015
… until, perhaps, an adult talked to her, because this then followed:
(1) I realize now that it would have been worth a follow up phone call to Walker’s office.
— Natasha VC (@natashavc) February 28, 2015
(2) So, you guys, Walker folk and media pundits alike, I screwed up.
— Natasha VC (@natashavc) February 28, 2015
(3) I know I said I wasn’t going to say sorry but I hope you won’t fault me for changing my mind.
— Natasha VC (@natashavc) February 28, 2015
Steve Prestegard.com: The Presteblog 