I opened my international political economy textbook from my basic college international political economy class and I found this. It's about developing countries, but the principles are clear. What are our political leaders reading?
"Economic crises emerged in the early 1980s in large part as a consequence of governments' decision to cover their budget and current-account deficits with foreign loans. Using foreign loans to finance budget and current-account deficits is not an inherently poor choice. But two factors made this decision a particularly bad one for developing countries in the 1970s. First, many of the funds that governments borrowed were used to pay for large infrastructure projects or domestic consumption, neither of which generated the export revenues needed to repay the loans. As a result, the amount that developing countries owed to foreign lenders rose, but their ability to repay the debt did not.
Second, between 1973 and 1982, developing countries were buffeted by three international shocks: an increase in the price of oil, a reduction in the terms of trade between primary commodities and manufactured goods, and higher interest rates on the foreign debt those countries accumulated. These shocks increased the amount of foreign debt that developing countries owed to foreign banks, raised the cost of paying that debt, and greatly reduced export earnings."
It goes on to explain how India of the 70s and 80s, at the time recognized as "one of the most regulated economies in the world," accumulated inefficiencies in state-run enterprises that dominated their manufacturing sector. "The government responded to flagging growth by expanding its expenditures sharply throughout the 1980s. The resulting budget deficit contributed to a persistent trade deficit, which the government financed by borrowing from abroad. By1990 India had become vulnerable to a balance of payments crisis."
Our government is currently embarking on a dramatic deficit spending spree. Deficit spending means the money they spend does not exist, yet. In order to spend, the government must either print money, which means assigning assumed future value to pieces of paper (think Dumb and Dumber, with Harry and Lloyd returning the briefcase of ransom money with IOUs. "We're good for it." Uuuh-huh). Otherwise, the government can get money through loans from foreign banks such as China. As you can see above, this is a dangerous cycle.
I guess my point here is that the redistribution of capital or incurring of foreign loans by the government is leading us into crisis. "Stimulus", social programs, or taxes on the wealthy do not change any of the fundamental problems with the economy, but may in fact exacerbate them.
*Oatley, Thomas. International Political Economy: Interests and Institutions in the Global Economy. 3rd. ed. New York: Pearson Education, Inc., 2008.
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Revenge of the Democrats
Yesterday, I watched some of the stimulus bill conference between House and Senate leaders. In that small portion of the stimulus bill proceedings I saw some of the reasons why this Democrat regime will fail and what the next two or four years will be like.
I am particularly referring to the point in the conference when Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa (yes, a Republican providing input to the stimulus proceedings. Good news, right? Keep reading) admonished the Democratic leaders in the future to be more inclusive in forming major legislation. He was firm, but not antagonistic; conciliatory, by referencing how his own party had shut out Democrats in the past, citing certain incidents in the past involving Rep. Charles Rangel; traditional, by appealing to the history of major legislative work done in the Senate and its bipartisan character; and he was aspirational, not offering condemnation but supplication for a more cooperative future. He said, "I could talk about the substance of the bill, but the point is: we could have a better substance with more votes and got the job done better." It was fair and only about how the legislators work together, not any policy issues.
How did Harry Reid respond to his colleague of more than twenty years and his senior in terms of years served in the Senate? He murmured, "I appreciate you my Republican colleagues complaining about conferences. But you did all yours in secret. We haven't done that. This is an open conference." Reid also stated, "No one needs to lecture me on deficits, because you invented them. Republicans invented deficits." He answered with recriminations about how Republicans shut them out of conferences in the past and handled past legislation. He injected policy differences into the discussion. Not once did he acknowledge the goodwill and wisdom behind Sen. Grassley's comments or actually respond to this offer to work together better in the future. He tried to balance the vengefulness of this statement with empty platitudes and flattery for his colleagues ("One of my friends is Thad Cochran."), but it was clear what his point was. "WE won and you guys were jerks, so I don't really care what you think."
I don't know if there is a more clear indicator that the purpose of the Democrats is revenge. They are still reveling in the victory over the barbarian Republicans and taking every opportunity to reassert that victory. The mask of goodwill has already fallen off. This just reaffirms my last post that said that hubris would be the downfall of the Democrat Party. The lights have come up and the confetti has been swept off the floor, but the Democrats are still dancing.
People are beginning to realize this, too. Check out the open from the last Saturday Night Live:
Let's just hope the Democrats realize that it's time to move forward before it does serious damage to our country. Or is it too late now?
I am particularly referring to the point in the conference when Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa (yes, a Republican providing input to the stimulus proceedings. Good news, right? Keep reading) admonished the Democratic leaders in the future to be more inclusive in forming major legislation. He was firm, but not antagonistic; conciliatory, by referencing how his own party had shut out Democrats in the past, citing certain incidents in the past involving Rep. Charles Rangel; traditional, by appealing to the history of major legislative work done in the Senate and its bipartisan character; and he was aspirational, not offering condemnation but supplication for a more cooperative future. He said, "I could talk about the substance of the bill, but the point is: we could have a better substance with more votes and got the job done better." It was fair and only about how the legislators work together, not any policy issues.
How did Harry Reid respond to his colleague of more than twenty years and his senior in terms of years served in the Senate? He murmured, "I appreciate you my Republican colleagues complaining about conferences. But you did all yours in secret. We haven't done that. This is an open conference." Reid also stated, "No one needs to lecture me on deficits, because you invented them. Republicans invented deficits." He answered with recriminations about how Republicans shut them out of conferences in the past and handled past legislation. He injected policy differences into the discussion. Not once did he acknowledge the goodwill and wisdom behind Sen. Grassley's comments or actually respond to this offer to work together better in the future. He tried to balance the vengefulness of this statement with empty platitudes and flattery for his colleagues ("One of my friends is Thad Cochran."), but it was clear what his point was. "WE won and you guys were jerks, so I don't really care what you think."
I don't know if there is a more clear indicator that the purpose of the Democrats is revenge. They are still reveling in the victory over the barbarian Republicans and taking every opportunity to reassert that victory. The mask of goodwill has already fallen off. This just reaffirms my last post that said that hubris would be the downfall of the Democrat Party. The lights have come up and the confetti has been swept off the floor, but the Democrats are still dancing.
People are beginning to realize this, too. Check out the open from the last Saturday Night Live:
Let's just hope the Democrats realize that it's time to move forward before it does serious damage to our country. Or is it too late now?
Friday, January 30, 2009
Hubris
Hubris. Get to know that word. It's going to be a popular one in a few years for describing the Democrat party.
For several years, the Democrat party was in opposition. Republicans either held the legislative houses or the Presidency. However, the Democrat party has not been in opposition since 2006 and now are control both the executive and the legislative branch. The problem is that for the past few years they have continued to act as an opposition party, even after they gained Congress. Their main theme was not active government and leadership, but opposition. The 110th Congress was widely recognized for its inactivity, especially in the face of some dramatic difficulties in America. Yet their problems were always pinned on the Republican party, not the actual problems themselves. If only the Republicans weren't in the way, they could make things better. They should have been more careful about what they wished for.
The Democrats are now exceedingly in control and they must perform. There are no more excuses. However, they have not been acting as a governing party or practicing good governance. They are unschooled in the discipline of power. This is not the first time this has happened in politics. In 1979, Joe Clark and the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada rose quickly to power and gained control of the government for the first time in many years. Once in power, their actions were undisciplined and too drastic (slogan was "Short term pain for long term gain") and by 1980 were booted out and power firmly returned to the Liberal party for another four years. They were simply unprepared to actually govern as they were only prepared to oppose.
Today, in the Washington Post Eugene Robinson wrote about the backwardness of the Republican Party. He wrote,
"What I've been hearing from Republicans in both the House and Senate has been a kind of attenuated, distorted echo of the economic doctrine that the party has preached, if not always practiced, since the Reagan years. It's perfectly appropriate, of course, to ask whether a specific spending proposal would have the desired stimulative effect; indeed, some items were removed from the stimulus bill for that reason. But underlying the Republican criticism has been a familiar formula: more tax cuts, fewer spending initiatives.
But Americans know that this philosophy has already taken us as far as it could. Americans know that taxes can be cut by only so much before the federal government's effectiveness inevitably suffers."
He eventually concluded, "There is abundant evidence suggesting that we are in a new political era with new rules and a new lexicon." This is going to be the downfall of the Democrats.
Democrats have mistakenly identified their electoral victory as an absolute triumph of their ideas. They are not just the ones in power, they are morally, intellectually, and politically right. Republican ideas and criticisms are not to be heeded because they are from an entirely alien era.
In a January 17 article in the Washington Post, Peter Beinart wrote about how President Bush had been right about the surge and the Democrats needed to accept and acknowledge that for their own sakes. He wrote,
"Because Bush has been such an unusually bad president, an entire generation of Democrats now takes it for granted that on the big questions, the right is always wrong. Older liberals remember the Persian Gulf War, which most congressional Democrats opposed and most congressional Republicans supported -- and the Republicans were proven right. They also remember the welfare reform debate of the mid-1990s, when prominent liberals predicted disaster, and disaster didn't happen.
Younger liberals, by contrast, have had no such chastening experiences. Watching the Bush administration flit from disaster to disaster, they have grown increasingly dismissive of conservatives in the process. They consume partisan media, where Republican malevolence is taken for granted. They laugh along with the "Colbert Report," the whole premise of which is that conservatives are bombastic, chauvinistic and dumb. They have never had the ideologically humbling experience of watching the people whose politics they loathe be proven right."
Democrats are mistaking popularity for moral rectitude. This hubris will lead them into trouble. They will be lucky if it doesn't take them down by 2012. Beyond that, the response will be decisive. Lets just hope their irresponsibility doesn't cost us all.
For your further contemplation, I'll add yet another block quote.
“It is just like the case of a man who learns by heart the angers and desires of a great, strong beast he is rearing, how it should be approached and how taken hold of, when – and as a result of what – it becomes most difficult or most gentle, and, particularly, under what conditions it is accustomed to utter its several sounds, and, in turn, what sort of sounds uttered by another make it tame and angry….Knowing nothing in truth about which of these convictions and desires is noble, or base, or good, or evil, or just, or unjust, he applies all these names following the great animal’s opinions – calling what delights it good and what vexes it bad. He has no argument about them but calls the necessary just and noble, neither having seen nor being able to show someone else how much the nature of the necessary and the good really differ….So, does this man seem any different from the man who believes it is wisdom to have figured out the anger and pleasures – whether in painting, music, or, particularly, in politics – of the multifarious many who assemble?” Plato, Republic
For several years, the Democrat party was in opposition. Republicans either held the legislative houses or the Presidency. However, the Democrat party has not been in opposition since 2006 and now are control both the executive and the legislative branch. The problem is that for the past few years they have continued to act as an opposition party, even after they gained Congress. Their main theme was not active government and leadership, but opposition. The 110th Congress was widely recognized for its inactivity, especially in the face of some dramatic difficulties in America. Yet their problems were always pinned on the Republican party, not the actual problems themselves. If only the Republicans weren't in the way, they could make things better. They should have been more careful about what they wished for.
The Democrats are now exceedingly in control and they must perform. There are no more excuses. However, they have not been acting as a governing party or practicing good governance. They are unschooled in the discipline of power. This is not the first time this has happened in politics. In 1979, Joe Clark and the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada rose quickly to power and gained control of the government for the first time in many years. Once in power, their actions were undisciplined and too drastic (slogan was "Short term pain for long term gain") and by 1980 were booted out and power firmly returned to the Liberal party for another four years. They were simply unprepared to actually govern as they were only prepared to oppose.
Today, in the Washington Post Eugene Robinson wrote about the backwardness of the Republican Party. He wrote,
"What I've been hearing from Republicans in both the House and Senate has been a kind of attenuated, distorted echo of the economic doctrine that the party has preached, if not always practiced, since the Reagan years. It's perfectly appropriate, of course, to ask whether a specific spending proposal would have the desired stimulative effect; indeed, some items were removed from the stimulus bill for that reason. But underlying the Republican criticism has been a familiar formula: more tax cuts, fewer spending initiatives.
But Americans know that this philosophy has already taken us as far as it could. Americans know that taxes can be cut by only so much before the federal government's effectiveness inevitably suffers."
He eventually concluded, "There is abundant evidence suggesting that we are in a new political era with new rules and a new lexicon." This is going to be the downfall of the Democrats.
Democrats have mistakenly identified their electoral victory as an absolute triumph of their ideas. They are not just the ones in power, they are morally, intellectually, and politically right. Republican ideas and criticisms are not to be heeded because they are from an entirely alien era.
In a January 17 article in the Washington Post, Peter Beinart wrote about how President Bush had been right about the surge and the Democrats needed to accept and acknowledge that for their own sakes. He wrote,
"Because Bush has been such an unusually bad president, an entire generation of Democrats now takes it for granted that on the big questions, the right is always wrong. Older liberals remember the Persian Gulf War, which most congressional Democrats opposed and most congressional Republicans supported -- and the Republicans were proven right. They also remember the welfare reform debate of the mid-1990s, when prominent liberals predicted disaster, and disaster didn't happen.
Younger liberals, by contrast, have had no such chastening experiences. Watching the Bush administration flit from disaster to disaster, they have grown increasingly dismissive of conservatives in the process. They consume partisan media, where Republican malevolence is taken for granted. They laugh along with the "Colbert Report," the whole premise of which is that conservatives are bombastic, chauvinistic and dumb. They have never had the ideologically humbling experience of watching the people whose politics they loathe be proven right."
Democrats are mistaking popularity for moral rectitude. This hubris will lead them into trouble. They will be lucky if it doesn't take them down by 2012. Beyond that, the response will be decisive. Lets just hope their irresponsibility doesn't cost us all.
For your further contemplation, I'll add yet another block quote.
“It is just like the case of a man who learns by heart the angers and desires of a great, strong beast he is rearing, how it should be approached and how taken hold of, when – and as a result of what – it becomes most difficult or most gentle, and, particularly, under what conditions it is accustomed to utter its several sounds, and, in turn, what sort of sounds uttered by another make it tame and angry….Knowing nothing in truth about which of these convictions and desires is noble, or base, or good, or evil, or just, or unjust, he applies all these names following the great animal’s opinions – calling what delights it good and what vexes it bad. He has no argument about them but calls the necessary just and noble, neither having seen nor being able to show someone else how much the nature of the necessary and the good really differ….So, does this man seem any different from the man who believes it is wisdom to have figured out the anger and pleasures – whether in painting, music, or, particularly, in politics – of the multifarious many who assemble?” Plato, Republic
A Change in the Wind
On Wednesday I felt a slight change in the wind. It was almost as if something deep within the earth's crust was shifting, but I noticed it. On Wednesday, the $819 billion stimulus was passed, but no Republicans voted for it. On Wednesday, the Republican party stood for principle again and stood up to the political-media establishment that does not want questions asked of their actions. This is the beginning of change to come.
This bill was a mistake and House Republicans had the wisdom to see it and the guts to stand against it. A stimulus plan is not a bad idea. THIS stimulus plan IS a bad idea. The way it is constructed and inspired is like an accumulation of pork barrel spending. Furthermore, there is no way that the government can retain any measure of satisfactory oversight on the spending. The government is not capable of spending money economically. It can only spend politically, meaning supporting some and freezing out others for political gain.
With debate, study, and discipline this bill could have been trimmed to a suitable size and a perhaps become more suitably targeted. However, the conduct of this bill has been highly polemicized by both the Democratic party and the media. The recovery of our nation's economy could have been a point of unification and a combined effort to carefully plan our steps forward. Instead, it has been turned into panic. The Democrats and the media have not stopped to question the bill, only to incite fear of it not passing. They worked up a scare and then demonized anyone who questioned them. This is not political leadership; this is mobocracy.
I think when 2012 comes around, Republicans will point back to this as one of their defining moments. They stood up against the scare tactics; they stood up against the demonization; they stood up against the establishment. Three years hence, this bill will be considered a mistake and will become an embarrassment to the Democrat party. The Republicans did the right thing and the American people will recognize that.
This bill was a mistake and House Republicans had the wisdom to see it and the guts to stand against it. A stimulus plan is not a bad idea. THIS stimulus plan IS a bad idea. The way it is constructed and inspired is like an accumulation of pork barrel spending. Furthermore, there is no way that the government can retain any measure of satisfactory oversight on the spending. The government is not capable of spending money economically. It can only spend politically, meaning supporting some and freezing out others for political gain.
With debate, study, and discipline this bill could have been trimmed to a suitable size and a perhaps become more suitably targeted. However, the conduct of this bill has been highly polemicized by both the Democratic party and the media. The recovery of our nation's economy could have been a point of unification and a combined effort to carefully plan our steps forward. Instead, it has been turned into panic. The Democrats and the media have not stopped to question the bill, only to incite fear of it not passing. They worked up a scare and then demonized anyone who questioned them. This is not political leadership; this is mobocracy.
I think when 2012 comes around, Republicans will point back to this as one of their defining moments. They stood up against the scare tactics; they stood up against the demonization; they stood up against the establishment. Three years hence, this bill will be considered a mistake and will become an embarrassment to the Democrat party. The Republicans did the right thing and the American people will recognize that.
Friday, December 12, 2008
Back Where I Come From
Tomorrow morning I'm flying home. I'm not flying to my parents house, to my hometown, or my old place. I'm flying HOME. If there is one thing that I learned out here, and I suspect I will learn anywhere I go, I've learned that I know where my home is and who makes it home. I can't say I will always stay there and I probably won't, but wherever I go I know that there is one place where my heart is at rest.
Yet, I am torn. Basically, I love my home. I love my community. I love my friends. Most of all, I love my family. Can I ever leave these behind?
Coming up to my DC trip I was preparing myself, although half-heartedly, to be "home-less" and prepared to go wherever the wind would take me. Essentially, I was trying to keep myself personally and emotionally uprooted in order to move more easily. But it wasn't true. I am not homeless. Lynden will always be home and where my heart rests peacefully.
But it is not yet my time to rest in peace. My life is still before me and the more I see, learn, and develop here, the more I know that I must face and engage the world. I feel the responsibility of knowing. I wanted to look, but once I've seen I cannot go back. God gives us sight so that we may go and do. This is not my statement of intention to save the world or declaration of having figured it all out, but it is my acceptance of responsibility for what God gave me.
The more I learn, the more I realize I don't know. The more I know (as a verb, not a collection of truths), the more I must give of myself. I wished to know the world, but did not realize the cost. Knowing is not about static facts, but dynamic relationship. Relationship can only be and grow as each entity gives of itself. I wished to know the world from my tower and retreat from its harshness into the loving folds of northwest Washington life. I fear that I sacrificed this peace for the pursuit of my passions.
I cannot say that I fell into these pursuits or that they are bad. It has been the call of God. I do not mean the call of God as we popularly hope for and envision. There were no moments of revelations, "signs," or wet fleeces. Instead, I found the call of God written on my heart, as it is in everyone's. God created man in His image and so inscribed His heart upon all the hearts of men that in knowing our own hearts and the hearts of others we may know God more. Thus have I been drawn into the learning of the ways of the world in power and institutions, how they move and influence human life, and how God is revealed or denied in them.
The pursuit of our passions is hardly a happy occasion. When God reveals His interests and passions in ourselves and others, He will also then reveal His great sorrows. He opens our eyes not to the pain of others, but primarily to His pains, if we will see them honestly. There is so much that is broken in this world. You can imagine the pain of a potter discovering the shards of his pottery on the ground. The scariest and most sorrowful part is that these pains will continue. The world groans in the pains of childbirth and God mourns the pain as it does not end. We must accept that there are deep sorrows about the world that will always be present and to care about them is to ever be sorrowful along with our Master. It is only out of true sorrow that joy can come.
Joy is a tragic love that never reaches its peaceful consummation of its love, but remains love triumphant. To love something not in spite of its ugliness, but in its whole brokenness is true joy. Only that can withstand the greatest powers this world can muster. It is not sweet; it is not pleasant; it is not easy. It is love and it is joy.
Suffice to say, the realization of our passions and the joy of God is the realization of great sorrows and the sacrifice of ourselves to the healing of these sorrows. This is where I am often finding myself these days, especially now as I review the beauty and peace of my home. I have found something beautiful to which I want to retreat and in which to hide myself and be at peace. Yet, I feel and I fear that I have already given myself away. I cannot hide away. I have seen and felt the passions God placed in me and seen and felt them in who He is. Therefore, I must live as my Master shows love in Christ. I must sacrifice my right to my peace if I am to love God.
Who knows where this may take me and how much or how little I will do by the world's standards, but I do know I cannot retreat; I cannot hide. I must heed the sign of Jonah. Contrary to what I thought earlier in this DC adventure with the "home-less" idea I do not have to stop loving my home and uproot that part of my heart. I must keep loving it as God loves it.
But I must learn to willfully deny myself the consummation of that love much the way Christ surrendered His place in heaven and connection to God to become a sacrifice for world. Not because the world was where He wanted to be, but because He loved His Father so much and His Father so loved the world. This is not to put me on par with Jesus or Lynden on par with heaven, but it is an expression of a desire to follow Christ more and more deeply. It's not very pretty, but it is beautiful. It's not very happy, but it is love.
I am torn, but in the tearing my life is being made whole. I'm flying home, but after that, who knows?
(Picture by Caitlin Honcoop. I included this picture because it focused in on something along the wayside that is usually passed by in light of more grand impressions. When the focus is placed on this thing, it shows the struggle and the beauty of life. In the harshest of places and bitterest of struggles, a rock at the alpine level, life springs forth and grows into something beautiful. It reflected some of the themes I was grasping at in my writing. Good pic, Cait.)
Saturday, December 6, 2008
Antietam and Harper's Ferry
My roommate Ben escorted myself and the ASP program intern Abigail around Western Maryland on Saturday. The main features we visited were Antietam and Harper's Ferry.
Antietam, as in Civil War Battle of Antietam, was a large area, which is now preserved as a park. It was used for the movie Gods and Generals for good reason, because A. it was the actual site of the battle they filmed and B. it's very old and very beautiful. It is not extravagant or colorful, but instead sprawls in wizened grayness across the landscape this time of year. Old-style fences wind and cross all over. Monuments and plaques mark the many placements of regiments, divisions, and commanders. In places, a farm or a church still stand from that time.
We were all impressed by the size of the area. The battle clearly took place over a wide area and it was interesting to catch glimpses of what it must have been like here and there.
We swung through Boonsboro and Sharpsburg as well, both very small but very old towns. Ben took us through his town, Hagerstown, and past his church which was founded in 1770. The town was founded in 1774. Crazy.
The other main highlight was Harper's Ferry. That was the place where John Brown and his followers raided the armory and prepared to arm a slave revolt, but were thwarted by the US military. The historic part of town is tiny and is perched on a point where the Potomac splits into two directions. The buildings cling to their rocky perch with weathered resistance. A beautiful little church stands out. I wish I had a picture of the view of this, but the only view is from a busy bridge.
We went to a Christmas vocal performance in the church and walked around the town a little before heading home.
The West Coast just does not have these kind of things at all. There is history seemingly in the air here. Some of the fields, hills, and houses watched a new world revolt in war and still seem unfazed by the shaking and shifting of the world. This is a very special place.
Thursday, December 4, 2008
National Christmas Tree Lighting
We were privileged to attend the National Christmas Tree Lighting on its 85th anniversary. President George W. Bush and the First Lady Laura Bush were in attendance. Everything was very organized and ran very smoothly. The US Army Band was the main source of music and accompaniment for the evening. Along with them was the Enterprise High School Encores, a very talented and energetic performance choir.
The first performer was Jon Secada, a very good singer and Broadway performer. The next was Rissi Palmer who was pretty good. The real magic was Kaitlin Maher. She's four years old and she sings. She debuted on America's Got Talent and she's become very popular since. I am usually unimpressed by child performers and their blatant and cheesy sentimentalities. But Kaitlin Maher was just too cute. I was dumbstruck by just how cute she was. So sweet and just plain magic. She sang really well, but she was tiny and still can't say r's. We were freaking out and the whole crowd was like putty in her hands. Brilliant.
The next performers were called Step Afrika!, a step group that involves an almost hip-hop tap-dance in a group with a lot of flair, creativity, and precision. The next performer was Phil Vassar, I was pleased to learn. He's a favorite of mine and he did not disappoint. Lastly, Santa came out and sang with Rissi Palmer and Kaitlin Maher. Then he performed a special number called "Christmas in Texas," I believe. The President loved it. Throughout the musical numbers you could see him bobbing his head to the music and really getting into it. After that number all the performers came out and sang together.
Then the Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne introduced the President who gave a brief message. Then Laura Bush and the daughters of two US soldiers in Iraq pushed the button to turn on the lights. The President and First Lady proceeded out onto the stage for a brief sing-a-long and the final fanfare.
It was a really fun show, even without the presence of the President of the United States. So much fun. We had great seats. We had seats about 20 rows back from the stage almost right in the middle. Overall, it was a very fun and festive occasion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)