Over at the Faculty Lounge, Jacqueline Lipton asks whether audio books are worth the candle.  Meanwhile, Bainbridge links to a really boring, but usefully concise, audio report on the SEC's proxy rules.  It all is a reminder that one way to manage a bit of knowledge acquisition in the midst of all the rest of the multitasking is through one's iPod.  I can attest that there's nothing quite like a little 3 AM Niall Ferguson or Jean Bethke Elshtain while walking a very small child up and down a corridor.

But as I have noted before, audio really isn't the best way to catch up on the current literature.  For one thing, not much of it is on line, and even if you could get your fancy new Kindle to read it in computerese, audio takes a lot of time.  Still, the uChannel podcasts can keep you broadminded, EconTalk has a great roster of economists, and the occasional Planet Money or Fresh Air interview can be really useful financial crisis coloratura.  As for audiobooks, the classics are crushingly difficult for me to finish, and really, most fiction doesn't work unless it is very abridged, and very action-packed.  I like histories, particularly short histories, and I admit I haven't yet found the perfect law related audiobook.

So that's how I use audio, and between commutes, snow shoveling, and so on, I use it often.  Always looking for more recommendations, though (I even subscribed to AudioFile for a while, where every audiobook is reviewed, and they are all above average).  If you have some, do put them in the comments.

Permalink | Books | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Bookmark

So I received a Kindle for Christmas, and the first book I have read on it is Stieg Larsson's The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo.  For those of you who have not entered a bookstore, big-box store or airport in the past six months or year, know that the book has been on the paperback best-seller lists for six months, and in hard cover before that.  The second book, The Girl Who Played with Fire, in the Millennium trilogy, as it is known, is on the hard cover best-seller list, and U.S. readers are anxiously awaiting the U.S. release of the third book.As if this success wasn't enough to evoke interest, note that the Swedish author presented all three manuscripts to a publisher and then died shortly thereafter; he died intestate and now the battle begins among his father, brother and girlfriend of 30 years.

But what is interesting to me is the anti-speculation sentiment.  Little wonder, as Larsson was a supporter of the Communist party and was also a journalist committed to uncovering conspiracies, though generally the political kind.  The first book begins with our hero, Mikael Blomkvist, a Swedish financial reporter and magazine owner, up against his target, a financial wizard who wins the first round.  During one conversation that Blomkvist has concerning Wennerstrom's dealings, a stark contrast between stock and property speculation and companies that "actually produce something.  The backbone of Swedish industry and all that."

After that, the bulk of the book is an engaging mystery story filled with intrigue, loose ends, clues, and surprising twists and turns.  A very satisfying $7 spent on my Kindle.  Yes, the main subjects are capitalists, but there are good ones and bad ones, and even our hero is a capitalist with a magazine to run and a board to meet with.  Then we get to the very end.  Blomqvist is being interviewed by a television financial reporter about a sudden decline in the Stockholm Stock Exchange.  Here are Blomkvist's remarks:

The idea that Sweden's economy is headed for a crash is nonsense. . . .You have to distinguish between two things--the Swedish economy and the Swedish stock market. The Swedish economy is the sum of all the goods and services that are produced in this country every day. There are telephones from Ericsson, cars from Volvo, chickens from Scan, and shipments from Kiruna to Skovde. That's the Swedish economy, and it's just as strong or weat today as it was a week ago. . . .The Stock Exchange is something very different. There is no economy and no production of goods and services. There are only fantasies in which people form one hour to the next decide that this or that company is worth so many billions, more or less. It doesn't have a thing to do with reality or with the Swedish economy. . . .It only means that a bunch of heavy speculators are now moving their shareholdings from Swedish companies to German ones. So it's the financial gnomes that some tough reporter should identify and expose as traitors. They're the ones who are systematically and perhaps deliberately damaging the Swedish economy in order to satisfy the profit interests of their clients."

Permalink | Books | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Bookmark

I'm pleased to announce that, in time for the holidays, there's a timely book available for your delectation.  Import Safety: Regulatory Governance in the Global Economy includes contributions from Cary Coglianese, Adam Finkel, Michael Trebilcock, Andrew Guzman, Ken Bamberger, Tim Buthe, Jacques DeLisle, Tom Baker, yours truly, and a host of others.  The Penn Press's blog announcement is here.

The book tackles an increasingly international problem of regulatory governance.  As Cary Coglianese put it in the preface:

For centuries, governments have imposed legal obligations on businesses in order to protect consumers from harmful products.  Bavaria’s Purity Law of 1516, one of the first consumer safety statutes in Europe, purported to protect consumers from unsafe beer, and both British judges and legislators established principles of tort and fraud that provided some protections throughout the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.  Today, consumer protection depends significantly on laws and institutions established first during the Progressive Era early in the last century and then later in the period following the profound social movements of the 1960s and 1970s. 

We have now entered a new era that calls out for further legal change.  The existing regulatory framework for consumer protection arose within a business climate much different from that of today’s globalized economy.  Protecting consumers through proactive regulation has never been easy, but now such regulatory efforts face new challenges, owing to expansive growth in trade and rapid changes in technologies and economic conditions.  Each year, more food, drugs, and other goods move across national borders than any single government can inspect and test by itself.  Government officials face a growing set of regulatory targets abroad.  Just identifying producers of ingredients and products in other countries poses daunting challenges; holding such foreign companies accountable for unsafe products presents still further administrative and legal obstacles.

Speaking of import safety, this conference looks pretty interesting as well.  So never let it be said that the Glom, offering you written and in personam means to get up to speed on safe imports, is afraid to be of service.  Some of us will also be talking about the book and the issues presented by it at the Society for Risk Analysis's annual meeting in Baltimore next Tuesday.  Please come say hello if you are there.

Permalink | Books | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Bookmark

My co-author and deal professor par excellence Steven Davidoff is out with his first book this week.  Gods at War is about the transformation (continuation?) of dealmaking into something quite personality driven, with troublesome results.  But, in being an account of the latest boom and bust in M&A, it is about much more than that, with meaty takes on the material adverse change clause, the fall of private equity, and, not least, the importation of the deal perspective into the financial crisis. 

 

As Steve observes:

Highly recommended, and there's much more here.  I've seen the book in previews, my published copy is already on its way.  Indeed, I'd say that it's your top holiday choice.  At least, it certainly is one of them, but there are other candidates too, more about them to come.

While I'm at it, you should be looking at the DealBook crisis conference, in which Steve and I will be participating, along with luminaries like Gary Gorton, Lucian Bebchuk, Leo Strine, David Skeel, Lynn Stout, and a host of other luminaries.

Permalink | Books | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Bookmark

So, my confession today is that I loved the book "The Time Traveler's Wife."  (I have not seen the movie.)  I was very afraid to read it because I just knew that at some point, the logic of the main character, Henry, going back and forth in time would unravel, there would be inconsistencies, and I would get mad.  But it didn't.  The book really held together.  I read just yesterday, that my amateur assessment is echoed by a physicist, who says that the book's premise works, based on what physicists believe would be true about time travel.

Just one nugget.  I have often heard folks say (and probably echoed myself) that time travel will never be possible; otherwise, people from the future would be here telling us about it.  (And yes, I guess they could be undercover or keep it a secret, but that wouldn't last long.)  According to Dr. Goldberg, should time-travel ever be made possible, which I guess most physicists don't believe it will, that point in time would mark the beginning of time travel in either direction.  You can't go back in time unless there's an "off-ramp" there, as he puts it.  Read the whole thing -- and read "The Time Traveler's Wife" in your spare time!

Permalink | Books | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Bookmark

I have forced hundreds of people to sit through presentations of my paper on windfalls (due out tomorrow, no matter what).  Some people, like Gordon, have seen it twice.  And none of my geeky Com-Con friends bothered to tell me about Windfall, aka Wendy Gordon, doomed tragic heroine and member of The Outsiders?  Sigh.

Not being limited by reading the actual comics, I'm fascinated by Windfall.  She lived a life marked by huge swings in fortune, enduring tragedy and trauma at times, and being part of a superhero team at other times.  She also brings swings in fortune to others -- saving some, asphyxiating others.  Windfall can control the wind.  Yes, she can fly!

Permalink | Books | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Bookmark

Lately I've been reading foreign mysteries - I totally get why The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo was the second best selling novel in the world last year, and the latest Boris Akunin was pretty good.  But lawyer novels set in real life are also an interest.  That often leads to what you might call chick lit.  Jill Davis’s Ask Again Later fits the bill: work is at a law firm, father is a lawyer, as is protagonist.  I can relate to that.  But in between bursts of witty dialogue is a plot that kinda meanders around prosaic family and therapist issues and that features an utterly unconvincing breakup with a lovely boyfriend at the beginning.  Of course, they get back together at the end, the way they did in Julie Buxbaum’s novel on the same sort of subject (lawyer, unconvincing early breakup, therapist, &c).  I sense a trend.  Maybe these authors want to think about a what if: what if I chucked my generally nice guy?  But I say boo to it.  There’s no drama – the only question is whether after the older and wiser reunion there will be a chapter on the new baby.  And the random early breakup makes it hard to understand the main character.  While real, flawed protagonists are fine, overcoming pointlessly self-inflicted wounds is less fun to read about than, you know, making one’s way in the outside world.

Permalink | Books | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Bookmark

The NYT yesterday had an article that picked up on the "successful women lawyers love Nancy Drew "called "Nancy Drew' Granddaughters."  (Earlier Washington Post story here.)  Everyone from Sonia Sotomayor to Sandra Day O'Connor is confessing a deep love for the series.  So, here's my confession (Sorry, Mom) -- I hated Nancy Drew. 

My mom (who is actually closer to age to the woman cited in these articles than I am) loved Nancy Drw and had the whole series in little yellow hardbacks.  Not only did she try to pawn these off on my sister and I, but then she ordered another set through a "book-of-the-month" club.  (My mom loved these clubs -- this is why we have every Dr. Seuss book known to man.)  But even with a choice between yellow cover and light purple cover, the Nancy Drew books were boring!  In the late 1970s, did I really want to read a story about someone's female friend named George, who must be a tomboy because she had short hair and wore "dungarees"?  What are dungarees?  Is it some sort of medieval self-torture device like a hair shirt?  Being blond, I wanted to identify with the Bess character, who was "pleasingly plump" and sort of dumb.  And Nancy had "titian-colored" hair.  What is that?  And poor Ned.  I just wanted to take him aside and say, "Dude, she's just not that in to you. ( I did, however, watch "The Hardy Boys/Nancy Drew Mysteries" series on Sunday evenings -- but just for Shaun Cassidy.)

So, when women born in the late 1960s and 1970s become Supreme Court justices and Presidents and Secretaries of State, will they pretend they liked Nancy Drew?  Or will they confess what they really read?  Judy Blume.  My friends and I didn't gobble up Nancy Drew volumes from the library like candy.  We surreptitiously passed Forever back and forth a million times.  Just as Nancy Drew mysteries were rare in that they portrayed a smart, courageous female star, Judy Blume books were rare in that they had honest and frank discussions of topics girls faced but could get no information on:  divorce, puberty, birth control pills.

Will my daughter be a "Judy Blume Granddaughter"?  I don't know.  She has also not succombed to my mom's Nancy Drew indoctrination.  (She liked the 2007 Emma Roberts movie, though.)  She used to like Blume's "Fudge" books (aimed at about 4th grade), but last summer I gave her the "pre-teen" books:  Are You There God, It's Me, Margaret," "It's Not the End of the World," etc.  She read them, but she found them sad and depressing.  The kids in the books had real problems, and they were kind of bringing her down.  Books about teenagers whose boyfriends are secretly vampires are much more entertaining than 12 year-olds who can't decide whether to be Jewish or Protestant or whose parents are getting a divorce.  I guess she'll be part of the "Stephanie Meyer generation."

Permalink | Books| Supreme Court | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0) | Bookmark

A lot of (not particularly good) buzz is being made about Chris Anderson's new book, Free.  Great concept, great title, but not so good reviews. (Here's another one.)  I'm not yet persuaded to buy the book ($17 on Amazon) or read it for free online at his blog The Long Tail, but here's Anderson's Wired piece on the same topic from last year.  There are a lot of memes in the book, but the interesting part is twofold:  first, behavioral economics tell us that people react to "free" pricing in irrational ways, ways that aren't a linear path from cheap pricing.  Second, and more interesting, the business model is moving to free pricing, with recoupment of costs by other means.  What is interesting in this to me is how society becomes used to free and then is not willing to pay for things we think are actually free, but actually aren't.

For example, once a week or so, one of my Facebook friends joins some group entitled something like "Keep Facebook Free."  Yes, Facebook is "free," (provided you have a computer, interest service, etc.)  Facebook adopted the business model of generating revenue through advertising.  Except it doesn't really work, which is why the only businesses that advertise on Facebook seem to people con artists selling acai berry diets (also for "free," but that's a different story).  So, every so often, a newspaper will run an article that repeats rumors that Facebook will start charging a fee to users, and Facebook will deny the rumours.  And Facebook users go up in arms.  But imagine 15 years ago, someone telling you about a site where you could create a profile, post pictures, communicate with old friends, link to articles, etc., and I bet you wouldn't have said that no one would pay for that.  That's a lot to get for free from strangers!  Now, Facebook could adopt another model -- charging a small number of people for a "premium" Facebook, for example.  However, Facebook chose not to charge a fee for claiming a "user name," but it could have tried.  Facebook is just one example of a site that people spend hours on without paying a fee, and most without even clicking on an ad:  Twitter, YouTube, many major newspapers, etc.

Another, less hip, example is Webkinz, which I've blogged about before.  Webkinz was one of the first toy companies to sell you a $12 stuffed animal with a code.  Take the code to the website, and voila, you open a virtual world of fun and excitement.  For "free."  Of course, you have to buy the stuffed animal, and presumably, your rights to the site expire 12 months after you've logged on your last animal.  Because 12 months never pass between our Webkinz animal purchases, I wouldn't know, but apparently to continue your account, your "renewal" is the purchase of a new Webkinz.  At one point, I was asked my a friend to sign some petition to keep Webkinz "advertising free" when it started experimenting with ads.  The site is for kids, and advertising is evil for kids, etc.  But, advertising would also keep the website "free," or possibly keep the stuffed animals from rising in price.  No one seemed to understand that the website wasn't free.  So now, there is almost no third-party advertising, and parent scan turn off what little third-party ads there are, and users are offered a "deluxe" fee-based membership.

When I was a kid, I grew up thinking TV content was free, and so was radio content.  (Yes, you have to have a TV and a radio, etc.)  Then came cable, and then premium cable (without ads).  Now we have premium radio even.  But I think there is still a segment that believes that TV is free -- notice the outcry over switching to digital television.  Now, to young people, it might be a stretch for anyone to think that television broadcasting is free, but it used to be.  In 30 years, internet entertainment and content may also develop to a point where most people pay for content, and the days of all content being free in return for advertising attention may seem like a relic of the past as well.  Some things have moved in the opposite direction -- phones in the 1970s were rented from Bell at an exorbitant price, then purchased for a reasonable price, and now a lot of cell phones are free.  Except that phones are beginning to be more than phones, and now cost more, like the iPhone.  Chris Anderson thinks we are all moving to the zero price; I wonder if he's wrong.

Permalink | Books| Economics | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0) | Bookmark

David Brooks has an editorial today, Ward Three Mentality, that is strongly reminiscent of Bonfire of the Vanities, a brilliant book by Tom Wolfe chronicling the events of the 1980s mostly through the perspective of a bond trader who fancies himself a "Master of the Universe."  (Unfortunately, the legacy of the book was utterly destroyed by its being made into one of the worst movies of all time, with the bizarre cast of Tom Hanks (as the bond trader), Melanie Griffith and Bruce Willis.)

Brooks' editorial today pits the ultra-wealthy against a group he calls the "Ward Three" community.  I've never lived in Washington, D.C., but I get the picture:  "Ward Three is a section of Northwest Washington, D.C., where many Democratic staffers, regulators, journalists, lawyers, Obama aides and senior civil servants live. . . .On any given Saturday, half the people in Ward Three are arranging panel discussions for the other half to participate in.  They live in modest homes with recently renovated kitches and Nordic Track machines crammed into the kids' play areas downstairs. . . .As lawyers, TV producers and senior civil servants, they make decent salaries, but 60 percent of their disposable income goes to private school tuition and study abroad trips.  They have little left over to spend on themselve,s which generates deep and unacknowledged self-pity ["Sublimated Liquidity Rage"]. . .At work they are flattered and feared.  But they still have to go home and clean out the gutters because they can't afford full-time household help ["Status-Income Disequilibrium"]. . . As law school grads, they resent B-school grads.  As Washingtonians, they resent New Yorkers.  As policy wonks, they resnt people with good bone structure.  In short, people in Ward Three disdain three things;  cleavage, hunting and dumb people who are richer than they are."

In short, this was one of the conflicts in Bonfire:  the assistant district attorney who can't figure out how to pay for a nanny and takes the subway to work, carrying his Johnston & Murphy shoes to change into later versus the bond trader, who can't really describe what he does to his son and has a mistress with ample cleavage.

Obviously, the conflict Brooks sees today still has plenty of fodder for a new novel on class, society, greed and money twenty years later.  Who would be the archetype for Sherman McCoy, our hated bond trader?  The ADA?  Surely the journalist (Bruce Willis) would be a blogger.

Permalink | Books | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Bookmark

This book came over the transom; it is a formerly private listserv now reduced to print, comprised of some very bright sparks charged with mulling Bill Gates' idea of putting capitalism to work on alleviating social problems. Among economists, Ed Glaeser is enthusiastic, while Bill Easterly, Steven Landsburg, Richard Posner, and Greg Clark prefer greedy capitalism to the creative variant.  Lots of other big thinkers weigh in as well. Glaeser has this notable suggestion on page 82:

If more corporations are going to be "creative," then we surely need to consider new contractual forms that reflect the fact that firms may want to do other things in addition to making money for their shareholders. For example, firms can certainly have two types of voting shares, one of which goes to investors and the other of which goes to workers. The legal obligation of the firm under this structure would be to return a decent profit to shareholders and to cater to their empowered workers' desire to do something good.

Dual class voting?  Public service and private gain reflected in stock classes?  What is this guy, a lawyer?  Anyway, quite thought-provoking.

Permalink | Books | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | Bookmark

The University of Illinois has a very nice tradition of selecting a book for the library in honor of recently tenured professors.  I have to say that I missed the first deadline because I was paralyzed at having to pick just one book!  Anyway, I have chosen my book now and a book plate will be placed in this book with my name on it.  I am very appreciative of this honor.

So, what book did I choose?  My kids guessed (wrongly) that I chose either "Guess How Much I Love You" or "Love You Forever."  (The letter I received said I could choose "anything from a children's book to a treatise.")  However, although I do fuss over these books at bedtime, I don't generally read them in my spare time.  (If I had chosen a children's book, it would have been "I Love You the Purplest."

Instead, I chose Clarence Darrow For the Defense by Irving Stone.  I was required to read it in American History, 11th grade, and I think I adopted the principles embodied in the stories there as my polestars.  Like Atticus Finch, but rumpled and real.

What would you have picked?

Permalink | Books | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0) | Bookmark

Here is the front page of the leading Canadian daily last weekend. The graphic is very impressive, and the headline, An Economic Crisis Descends into Farce, is more charitable than some other foreign headlines, notably in Asia. The same issue has Eric Helleiner’s Depression book recommendations.

Apropos reading lists, Adam Levitin recommends Maury Klein’s Rainbow’s End.

I tend to the dishy comparative. Here are my top three choices of the week. 

• Paul Blustein’s The Chastening is the best telling of the last time U.S. Treasury personnel graced glossy covers. Chapter 3, which tells of the Thai central bank’s battle with the derivatives markets, is especially racy. Chapter 10 sheds light on crisis policy coordination, and Chapter 11 on LTCM puts the story well-told by Roger Lowenstein in global perspective. I have been assigning The Chastening to my International Finance class for the past few years; I think I will do it again this year despite the new cataclysm. The book’s advantage as a teaching tool is that it covers so many different aspects of the financial industry – banks, securities and currency markets, derivatives, hedge funds, etc. And it makes for great fixins to one tough textbook.
• Gillian Tett’s Saving the Sun is about the demise of Long-Term Credit Bank, but it is really a window on Japan’s crisis of the 1990s. Like Blustein, Tett is a money journalist, which makes for lucid, savvy prose. She is also an anthropologist (biiig plus in my book). Lots of scary déjà vu moments for the current adventure – though Adam Posen’s warning against overwrought Japan comparisons should relieve you some.
• Finally, it may be a sin to put a classic by one of the greatest economic historians ever in the same string as dishy journalism, but I hope Charles P. Kindleberger’s spirit takes it as a compliment. I find his writing in Manias, Panics, and Crashes:  A History of Financial Crises so utterly zany that I cannot resist. I will be sure to reprise this recommendation in a serious academic reading list as I atone next week.

Permalink | Books | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Bookmark

That is from Chapter 1 ("A Disquieting Suggestion") of Alasdair MacIntyre's After Virtue, which is this semester's book in the Faith and Intellect Seminar for faculty here at BYU. The hypothesis to which MacIntyre refers is this: "We possess ... simulcra of morality, we continue to use many of the key expressions. But we have -- very largely, if not entirely -- lost our comprehension, both theoretical and practical, of morality."

The book is over a quarter century old, but I expect this to be a lively seminar. This is my third book in three semesters at BYU, and I am surprised that more people don't take the opportunity to attend. We usually get about 15-20 people, and a number of them are not faculty. I guess we are all busy, and I know that many people are not interested in reading books selected by others, given that their own reading lists are bulging at the seams. Still, this is a nice opportunity to benefit from the insights of others around campus while having a romp through the history of moral philosophy.

Permalink | Books | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Bookmark

Our friends at orgtheory are hosting a Book Forum on Steve Teles' Rise of the Conservative Legal Movement. I haven't read the book, but it seems to focus on just what you might expect: law and economics, the Federalist Society, and conservative public interest firms (e.g., Institute for Justice). Teles traces the movement to the late 1970s, and it certainly was in full swing by the time I attended law school at Chicago in the late 1980s.

My first direct contact with CLM was in 1985, when I visited Clint Bullock at the Institute for Justice in Washington DC. I was an undergraduate in the DC Circuit Executive's office, and I was incredibly impressed with his work. And I thought the humble offices were cool.

The secretaries at my internship were encouraging me to go to Chicago for law school, rather than any number of other top law schools. Chicago had the right values, they said. Well, I didn't just take their word for it -- and it certainly made a difference that Chicago happened to be close to Wisconsin -- but that's where I ended up two years later. Once at Chicago, I was initially drawn to the Federalist Society because they had the best speakers and food (most money) ... and because I have always had a libertarian leaning.

I ultimately became an officer in the law school chapter of the Federalist Society, then founded a lawyer's division in Delaware. I have been the adviser to student chapters at Lewis & Clark and Wisconsin, but they don't need me here at BYU. Anyway, I don't spend much time with the Federalist Society anymore, but Teles' book sounds like a nice trip down memory lane.

In addition to a stroll down memory lane for me, the book seems to have some very interesting stories to tell law professors. This is from Teles' first post at orgtheory:

L&E was successful in law schools in part because of the pre-existing weakness of the fields it was attacking. Doug Baird, who went on to become Dean of the Chicago Law School, told me that in the 1970s, "it was clear that…doing great work was easy…I used to say that this was just like knocking over Coke bottles with a baseball bat…I remember writing articles where the time between getting the idea and getting it accepted from a major law review was four days." (p.100) That suggests that to account for the success of L&E, we need an approach that looks both at the pre-existing regime in the law schools (especially in private law), and not just on what the agents trying to bring it down were doing. That is, there was an opportunity that, in the 1970s, meet a set of mobilized agents. I think that you can’t explain what happened with the explosion of law and economics without dealing with the structural vulnerability in the legal academy that agents were able to exploit (along with the fact that the immune system of the legal academy was much lower in areas like bankruptcy that had lost much of the ideological interest that they once had).

Doug Baird's comment will seem shocking to those outside of the legal academy. It brings to mind a conversation I once had with a colleague that getting something published in a law review was no great accomplishment: "I could start a brand new article right now and have something publishable -- somewhere, maybe even somewhere respectable -- by the end of the weekend." That's merely a function of having way more outlets for publication than we have good product to fill those outlets. Still, I think there is no question we have come a long distance in the past 30 years.

Permalink | Books | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Bookmark