I'm not a truck person. I don't like SUVs, I will never buy a minivan, and to be quite honest, I think most suburban Americans need to get over themselves and stop thinking they "need" a 19 mpg, 6 passenger vehicle to commute 1 person 5 miles to work.
I also hate most commercials for SUVs and trucks. I'm tired of hearing about towing capacity, and nothing pisses me off more than seeing one of these stupid vehicles driving off-road, destroying some natural habitat for the sake of a pleasure drive. The commercials that equate patriotism with driving a truck or SUV are almost as bad, and make me actively plan to not buy a truck. Ever.
That said, I saw a commercial for a Toyota Tacoma while watching the Tampa Bay/Jacksonville game on Sunday that almost made me want to buy a truck. It's a completely ridiculous ad, but so unexpected and different from anything that's out there, that it's totally awesome. Here it is:
Honestly, while it's a little irritating that Blizzard sold out to Toyota like that, the way that the commercial plays on the inside jokes of the game (guys who play night elf female characters, the whole Leeroy Jenkins meme, etc.) is pretty clever. It caught me completely off-guard, and as a result, I've paid more attention to this ad than any other car ad for a long time. Of course, I'm in the correct demographic, as I play the game, but still, advertisers should take this ad to heart: unexpected ads get attention.
Monday, October 29, 2007
Monday, October 22, 2007
How Transparent Can You Be?
I grew up in the great state of Wisconsin, home of the Green Bay Packers, cheese curds, and unbelievably lenient liquor laws. Did you know that in Wisconsin, you can order alcohol in a restaurant at any age, as long as a parent or guardian is with you? When I worked as a waitress, the bartenders told me about this father and his 12 year old daughter who would come in on Sunday mornings and drink Bloody Marys. Slightly disturbing, but legal.
I was also used to liquor stores being open after noon on Sunday, and most grocery stores having a liquor annex, where you could buy any sort of alcohol you wanted, from tequila to Zima to a nice Cabernet.
So when I moved to Minnesota, I was in for a bit of a shock. No alcohol in restaurants for anyone under 21, period. No liquor stores open on Sundays. And, perhaps most inconvenient, the only alcohol sold in grocery stores has an alcohol content of 3.2% or lower.
These days, certain groups are pushing to pass legislation that would legalize the sale of wine in Minnesota grocery stores. A group named Minnesota Smart opposes this legislation; every time I go to the liquor store, I see the Minnesota Smart poster that says the following:
9 out of 10 Minnesotans agree that increased exposure of children to alcohol is a bad idea.
Now, let's set aside for a minute the fact that I would like to see wine in grocery stores, and that I'm not necessarily sure that treating alcohol as some sort of forbidden thing only for adults is the best way to teach children about alcohol. I honestly haven't looked at both sides of the Minnesota-wine-in-grocery-stores debate, and so I'm not really in a good position to judge the validity of Minnesota Smart's overall position.
What I AM in a position to judge is the ridiculous transparency of this ad. Who do they think they're kidding? If this sign were at a school, or a community center, it would be believable. But you put it up at a liquor store and expect me to believe that the real reason you oppose this legislation is for the sake of the children? C'mon folks, I'm not that dumb.
It's clear that the real reason that liquor stores are concerned about this proposed legislation is that they don't want their profits to fall. And that could be a perfectly reasonable argument in and of itself--"Don't vote for this because it will put a lot of small stores out of business and move the money to the hands of big box grocery stores." But instead, they choose the overly paternalistic, patronizing approach of appealing to our sentimental morality.
And the real kicker is, this liquor store that I frequent is less than 100 yards away from the grocery store. It's in the middle of an outdoor shopping center, and right next to a large condo/apartment complex. Kids walk past it all the time. It's clear that this store plays up the convenience of people doing their grocery and liquor shopping at the same time. And yet, this is the very thing that they choose to play up in their ads against this legislation.
It's such a disingenuous, transparent approach that if the issue shows up on the ballot, I'm tempted to vote for it, just because I'm angry at being taken for such an idiot. And because a glass of wine with dinner does sound like a good thing.
I was also used to liquor stores being open after noon on Sunday, and most grocery stores having a liquor annex, where you could buy any sort of alcohol you wanted, from tequila to Zima to a nice Cabernet.
So when I moved to Minnesota, I was in for a bit of a shock. No alcohol in restaurants for anyone under 21, period. No liquor stores open on Sundays. And, perhaps most inconvenient, the only alcohol sold in grocery stores has an alcohol content of 3.2% or lower.
These days, certain groups are pushing to pass legislation that would legalize the sale of wine in Minnesota grocery stores. A group named Minnesota Smart opposes this legislation; every time I go to the liquor store, I see the Minnesota Smart poster that says the following:
9 out of 10 Minnesotans agree that increased exposure of children to alcohol is a bad idea.
Now, let's set aside for a minute the fact that I would like to see wine in grocery stores, and that I'm not necessarily sure that treating alcohol as some sort of forbidden thing only for adults is the best way to teach children about alcohol. I honestly haven't looked at both sides of the Minnesota-wine-in-grocery-stores debate, and so I'm not really in a good position to judge the validity of Minnesota Smart's overall position.
What I AM in a position to judge is the ridiculous transparency of this ad. Who do they think they're kidding? If this sign were at a school, or a community center, it would be believable. But you put it up at a liquor store and expect me to believe that the real reason you oppose this legislation is for the sake of the children? C'mon folks, I'm not that dumb.
It's clear that the real reason that liquor stores are concerned about this proposed legislation is that they don't want their profits to fall. And that could be a perfectly reasonable argument in and of itself--"Don't vote for this because it will put a lot of small stores out of business and move the money to the hands of big box grocery stores." But instead, they choose the overly paternalistic, patronizing approach of appealing to our sentimental morality.
And the real kicker is, this liquor store that I frequent is less than 100 yards away from the grocery store. It's in the middle of an outdoor shopping center, and right next to a large condo/apartment complex. Kids walk past it all the time. It's clear that this store plays up the convenience of people doing their grocery and liquor shopping at the same time. And yet, this is the very thing that they choose to play up in their ads against this legislation.
It's such a disingenuous, transparent approach that if the issue shows up on the ballot, I'm tempted to vote for it, just because I'm angry at being taken for such an idiot. And because a glass of wine with dinner does sound like a good thing.
Monday, October 15, 2007
Blog Action Day
Today is Blog Action Day, which is the day where lots of bloggers write on one subject in an attempt to really raise consciousness about a certain issue. This year's issue is the environment, which works out pretty well for me, since I was thinking of writing a post like this anyways.
On Friday, Al Gore was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize jointly with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Reading comments about this award are interesting. About half the articles/posts/etc. that I've read discuss the implications of this for Gore's political career: will he run for President? if not, which Democratic candidate will he endorse? Is Hillary Clinton "green" enough for Gore to support?
The other half of the comments I've read are Gore-bashing comments, suggesting that, for any number of reasons, Gore doesn't deserve the award. Among the most-cited reason is that global warming isn't a problem, and that this is all a liberal European, anti-American conspiracy to try to influence American politics.
Honestly, I have a hard time understanding the reasoning behind rejecting global warming as valid. And I'm not just saying this to make a rhetorical point, or to criticize those who think this way--it's just that I legitimately do not understand why so many people are so invested in rejecting the idea of global warming.
For me, my reasons for not understanding go something like this:
It seems that there are two possibilities--either global warming is a problem, or it's not. If global warming isn't a problem, and we work to change it, nothing enormously bad will happen. If global warming is a problem, and we don't work to change, the consequences will be devastating. In other words, the cost of being wrong about global warming is much more significant if you don't act to fix global warming. It's sort of like Pascal's Wager, but about the environment, rather than God.
Now, some people say that working to stop global warming will hurt the economy, because we will be stunting the growth of big businesses, and that limiting the use of fossil fuels will really slow the economy down. Oh, and individual households will be hurt because they'll be spending more on things like eco-friendly cars, appliances, and food. I can understand this objection in the short term, I guess, but honestly, in the long term, going green seems like it's a huge economic benefit.
To start on the individual level...
Yes, replacing appliances with more energy efficient ones will have a large initial start-up cost, but once you do, you'll save lots of money monthly. Turning down the furnace or air conditioner will again use less energy, and in the winter, a slightly cooler house will give you a good excuse to snuggle up to your significant other! My husband and I ride the bus, instead of driving and parking when we go to work, so we're able to own one car and avoid the ridiculous gas prices and parking rates. The compact fluorescent light bulbs are more expensive than incandescent, but they use less energy and last longer, again saving money (plus, a lot of stores offer pretty hefty rebates for those things). Buying local produce that's in season is more energy-efficient than buying imported fruits or vegetables, and it's usually fresher, better-tasting, and cheaper. I could keep going, but from my experience, there are a lot of things that you can do to "go green" that are not only relatively easy to do, but will save you pretty significant money in the long run.
For corporations, the initial cost of going green is perhaps more significant, but the potential for future innovation and cost-savings is endless. There is forever the complaint that so many American jobs are getting outsourced, that the US can't compete against powers like China, and that the US economy is becoming too service-based, rather than production-based. Well, here's our big chance! There is seemingly endless potential for US companies to develop greener products and processes--energy sources, cars, air filters, etc. Not only could developing these products and processes lead to overall lowered energy consumption, but it could give the economy the kick-start it needs by making the US a cutting-edge innovator in the area of clean technology.
I guess to me, the fight against global warming is also a fight against unnecessary consumption and waste. Releasing less crap into the air and water will always seem better to me, even if it has nothing to do with global warming. Clean air, clean water, and a stable climate seem like things that should be desirable to everyone, which is why I have such a big problem understanding why so many people are so resistant to even considering the fact that people like Al Gore might be right.
I, for one, do think that he's right. I think that his consistent stance on the environment for the last several decades shows that this is not some political agenda, but rather, a deep, impassioned belief in working to make the world a better place. So, congratulations Mr. Gore. And thank you for making the environment a key issue in this next presidential election, even without your participation.
On Friday, Al Gore was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize jointly with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Reading comments about this award are interesting. About half the articles/posts/etc. that I've read discuss the implications of this for Gore's political career: will he run for President? if not, which Democratic candidate will he endorse? Is Hillary Clinton "green" enough for Gore to support?The other half of the comments I've read are Gore-bashing comments, suggesting that, for any number of reasons, Gore doesn't deserve the award. Among the most-cited reason is that global warming isn't a problem, and that this is all a liberal European, anti-American conspiracy to try to influence American politics.
Honestly, I have a hard time understanding the reasoning behind rejecting global warming as valid. And I'm not just saying this to make a rhetorical point, or to criticize those who think this way--it's just that I legitimately do not understand why so many people are so invested in rejecting the idea of global warming.
For me, my reasons for not understanding go something like this:
It seems that there are two possibilities--either global warming is a problem, or it's not. If global warming isn't a problem, and we work to change it, nothing enormously bad will happen. If global warming is a problem, and we don't work to change, the consequences will be devastating. In other words, the cost of being wrong about global warming is much more significant if you don't act to fix global warming. It's sort of like Pascal's Wager, but about the environment, rather than God.
Now, some people say that working to stop global warming will hurt the economy, because we will be stunting the growth of big businesses, and that limiting the use of fossil fuels will really slow the economy down. Oh, and individual households will be hurt because they'll be spending more on things like eco-friendly cars, appliances, and food. I can understand this objection in the short term, I guess, but honestly, in the long term, going green seems like it's a huge economic benefit.
To start on the individual level...
Yes, replacing appliances with more energy efficient ones will have a large initial start-up cost, but once you do, you'll save lots of money monthly. Turning down the furnace or air conditioner will again use less energy, and in the winter, a slightly cooler house will give you a good excuse to snuggle up to your significant other! My husband and I ride the bus, instead of driving and parking when we go to work, so we're able to own one car and avoid the ridiculous gas prices and parking rates. The compact fluorescent light bulbs are more expensive than incandescent, but they use less energy and last longer, again saving money (plus, a lot of stores offer pretty hefty rebates for those things). Buying local produce that's in season is more energy-efficient than buying imported fruits or vegetables, and it's usually fresher, better-tasting, and cheaper. I could keep going, but from my experience, there are a lot of things that you can do to "go green" that are not only relatively easy to do, but will save you pretty significant money in the long run.
For corporations, the initial cost of going green is perhaps more significant, but the potential for future innovation and cost-savings is endless. There is forever the complaint that so many American jobs are getting outsourced, that the US can't compete against powers like China, and that the US economy is becoming too service-based, rather than production-based. Well, here's our big chance! There is seemingly endless potential for US companies to develop greener products and processes--energy sources, cars, air filters, etc. Not only could developing these products and processes lead to overall lowered energy consumption, but it could give the economy the kick-start it needs by making the US a cutting-edge innovator in the area of clean technology.
I guess to me, the fight against global warming is also a fight against unnecessary consumption and waste. Releasing less crap into the air and water will always seem better to me, even if it has nothing to do with global warming. Clean air, clean water, and a stable climate seem like things that should be desirable to everyone, which is why I have such a big problem understanding why so many people are so resistant to even considering the fact that people like Al Gore might be right.
I, for one, do think that he's right. I think that his consistent stance on the environment for the last several decades shows that this is not some political agenda, but rather, a deep, impassioned belief in working to make the world a better place. So, congratulations Mr. Gore. And thank you for making the environment a key issue in this next presidential election, even without your participation.
Monday, October 8, 2007
You Won't Catch My Kid Wearing That!
In church this weekend, there was a little girl, about 6 months old, 2 rows behind us. Of all the kids in church, she was the only one who was consistently fussy, and at several points during the service, she had to be taken out of the sanctuary because she was disrupting things. She was also wearing a shirt that said, "This is my princess shirt." Coincidence? Maybe, but then again, maybe not.
I'm sure you've all seen kids wearing shirts like this. For girls, they are shirts that imply that they're princesses or angels. For boys, they
suggest that if there's trouble, the boy has caused it but it's not his fault. And there are a lot of shirts like this out there. These two examples come from CafePress.com, where all you have to do is type "princess" or "spoiled" into the search box, and dozens, if not hundreds of results pop up.
Let me be blunt. I hate shirts like this. If my children ever get shirts like this as gifts, they will be donated to Goodwill. I hate the idea of some spoiled kid running the household, and parents just thinking it's cute. And so instead of disciplining the child, the parents celebrate the fact that they are raising a spoiled brat. There's something really wrong with that mindset to me. I know that many people probably just think the shirts are cute, and for them, they're not really indicative of their parenting styles. But honestly, I don't understand what is cute about suggesting that your child is so spoiled that he or she can't take "no" for an answer.
My husband tells me that I'm overreacting about this, and I really need to get a life. Probably so. But I've been watching for proof for my theory, and every time I've seen a kid wearing a shirt like this, he or she has been causing some sort of trouble, whether it's crying in church or running like a hooligan around the mall. Maybe it's a coincidence, but I'm not going to take that chance on my kids.
I'm sure you've all seen kids wearing shirts like this. For girls, they are shirts that imply that they're princesses or angels. For boys, they
Let me be blunt. I hate shirts like this. If my children ever get shirts like this as gifts, they will be donated to Goodwill. I hate the idea of some spoiled kid running the household, and parents just thinking it's cute. And so instead of disciplining the child, the parents celebrate the fact that they are raising a spoiled brat. There's something really wrong with that mindset to me. I know that many people probably just think the shirts are cute, and for them, they're not really indicative of their parenting styles. But honestly, I don't understand what is cute about suggesting that your child is so spoiled that he or she can't take "no" for an answer.
My husband tells me that I'm overreacting about this, and I really need to get a life. Probably so. But I've been watching for proof for my theory, and every time I've seen a kid wearing a shirt like this, he or she has been causing some sort of trouble, whether it's crying in church or running like a hooligan around the mall. Maybe it's a coincidence, but I'm not going to take that chance on my kids.
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
Silly Students
So, since I should be grading papers instead of writing this, I thought I'd use my students as fodder for today's post. Here are the top three things my students have done recently that have irritated me:
3. A guy came to me at the beginning of class and said, "I have to leave for a meeting in 20 minutes. Is that ok?" Here's what I wanted to tell him: "Well, you can see the attendance policy. You get to miss 2 classes without consequences. After that, it starts to count against you. And why are you scheduling things during class and then telling me about it? Do you really want to make it clear to your instructor that you put her class at the bottom of your priority list? So, no. It's not ok that you leave, but if you want to, go for it. You're an adult, and you're in college. I certainly won't stop you."
2. On Thursday, a student handed in his most recent assignment, which was to write a letter to the editor of a publication of his choice. One of the assignment requirements is that he try to persuade his reader that his point of view was right. That's right. Being persuasive was a key part of the assignment. So, this student hands in his letter and says, "Just so you know, I wrote this letter to be more informational than persuasive." How am I supposed to respond to that? This guy tells me that he just ignored one of the assignment requirements, and I'm supposed to take his letter and say, "Oh, thank you! I'm so glad that you decided, on your own, that the assignment wasn't what you wanted to do. It's great to see that sort of initiative. This will serve you really well in the real world, when you decide to change the specifications on a bridge that you're building, or a house that you're designing, because you decided you didn't like the original plan." Needless to say, I had an inappropriate amount of fun grading that letter :)
and the number 1. most irritating thing one of my students did this past week....
My students are writing blogs, which for the most part is working out great. This past week, one of my students writes that he doesn't think that professors should share their political/religious/social/etc. opinions in class, because students deserve to get an unbiased education. This student isn't alone in thinking this. There was a movement at the university a few years ago where students didn't want professors talking politics in the classroom, because if the students didn't agree with the professor, they were worried it would affect their grades. What bullshit. First of all, it pisses me off that just because I'm the instructor, students think I'm not supposed to have opinions. Everyone has opinions. How can I lead a meaningful class discussion if I'm not allowed to use my thoughts and opinions on a subject as a basis for that discussion?
But even more problematic to me is the underlying assumption behind this sort of statement, the assumption that if a professor doesn't clearly express his/her opinions, that means that the material is being presented in an unbiased way. Honestly, I would rather have a professor who was completely opposite of me politically, but in an open way, so that it was easier to identify the bias. I think it's even more insidious of a professor to hide their political or religious bias and present materials as neutral, even when they're not.
And finally, this suggests a laziness on the part of students I'm teaching, an unwillingness or inability to think for themselves and examine issues critically. And to me, that's sort of scary. The sort of people who don't want their own views challenged are the people who are most defensive when it comes to those views, and most unwilling to think openly about other possibilities. The fact that this attitude toward professors expressing their own opinions seems to be becoming more and more common suggests that this closed-mindedness is spreading, which is something I see as detrimental to our society as a whole.
Anyways, hopefully tomorrow I'll be done with grading, and I can post about something more fun and exciting :)
3. A guy came to me at the beginning of class and said, "I have to leave for a meeting in 20 minutes. Is that ok?" Here's what I wanted to tell him: "Well, you can see the attendance policy. You get to miss 2 classes without consequences. After that, it starts to count against you. And why are you scheduling things during class and then telling me about it? Do you really want to make it clear to your instructor that you put her class at the bottom of your priority list? So, no. It's not ok that you leave, but if you want to, go for it. You're an adult, and you're in college. I certainly won't stop you."
2. On Thursday, a student handed in his most recent assignment, which was to write a letter to the editor of a publication of his choice. One of the assignment requirements is that he try to persuade his reader that his point of view was right. That's right. Being persuasive was a key part of the assignment. So, this student hands in his letter and says, "Just so you know, I wrote this letter to be more informational than persuasive." How am I supposed to respond to that? This guy tells me that he just ignored one of the assignment requirements, and I'm supposed to take his letter and say, "Oh, thank you! I'm so glad that you decided, on your own, that the assignment wasn't what you wanted to do. It's great to see that sort of initiative. This will serve you really well in the real world, when you decide to change the specifications on a bridge that you're building, or a house that you're designing, because you decided you didn't like the original plan." Needless to say, I had an inappropriate amount of fun grading that letter :)
and the number 1. most irritating thing one of my students did this past week....
My students are writing blogs, which for the most part is working out great. This past week, one of my students writes that he doesn't think that professors should share their political/religious/social/etc. opinions in class, because students deserve to get an unbiased education. This student isn't alone in thinking this. There was a movement at the university a few years ago where students didn't want professors talking politics in the classroom, because if the students didn't agree with the professor, they were worried it would affect their grades. What bullshit. First of all, it pisses me off that just because I'm the instructor, students think I'm not supposed to have opinions. Everyone has opinions. How can I lead a meaningful class discussion if I'm not allowed to use my thoughts and opinions on a subject as a basis for that discussion?
But even more problematic to me is the underlying assumption behind this sort of statement, the assumption that if a professor doesn't clearly express his/her opinions, that means that the material is being presented in an unbiased way. Honestly, I would rather have a professor who was completely opposite of me politically, but in an open way, so that it was easier to identify the bias. I think it's even more insidious of a professor to hide their political or religious bias and present materials as neutral, even when they're not.
And finally, this suggests a laziness on the part of students I'm teaching, an unwillingness or inability to think for themselves and examine issues critically. And to me, that's sort of scary. The sort of people who don't want their own views challenged are the people who are most defensive when it comes to those views, and most unwilling to think openly about other possibilities. The fact that this attitude toward professors expressing their own opinions seems to be becoming more and more common suggests that this closed-mindedness is spreading, which is something I see as detrimental to our society as a whole.
Anyways, hopefully tomorrow I'll be done with grading, and I can post about something more fun and exciting :)
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
Monday, October 1, 2007
Favre is the best!
Normally I don't take Terry Bradshaw all that seriously, but when he writes in this article that Brett Favre is the best quarterback the game has ever seen, I'm tempted to agree with him. Since I'm a die-hard Packer fan to begin with, perhaps my endorsement of Favre doesn't carry much weight, but I think that honestly, what he has accomplished should convince even the most skeptical.
Why?
Well, to begin with, look at his formal accomplishments. He's won the Super Bowl, he's been voted MVP 3 times--more than anyone else, he has the record for most consecutive regular season starts, and he has the record for most touchdown passes, now at 422. He's the complete package. He has great leadership skills, he's a standout athlete who motivates other (often mediocre) players to perform well, he's dedicated to the sport, and he excels at what he does. When you look at other quarterbacks the game has had, they don't have all of these traits. Sure, many of them were pretty fantastic, but they were working within a team of immense talent.
The thing that really impresses me about Favre, though, is that he loves the game, and lets it show. People who watch him know that he's having fun, that this is where he wants to be, and that for him, it's about winning as much as he can. He says that he's not staying in the game for the records, and while part of me is quite skeptical, when I watch him play, it's easy to see that he loves to play and that he loves to win.
Even more than that, he knows how to have fun out there. The other record he was close to breaking on Sunday was the record for most interceptions thrown by a quarterback--a record both he and the Vikings receivers were well aware of. There was one play where one of the Vikings nearly picked off a pass that Favre threw--the camera showed that player grinning at Favre, and Favre was grinning right back at him. Favre knew what that guy had wanted, and was able to laugh at both himself (for being close to the record) and the player (for not quite breaking it yet).
Here's hoping that Favre and the Pack continue to do well this season, and that Favre gets that one last Super Bowl ring he's been looking for (hey, I'm an optimist). Because honestly, when he leaves, it's going to be a long time until Green Bay, or anyone, for that matter, sees a quarterback of Favre's caliber.
Why?
Well, to begin with, look at his formal accomplishments. He's won the Super Bowl, he's been voted MVP 3 times--more than anyone else, he has the record for most consecutive regular season starts, and he has the record for most touchdown passes, now at 422. He's the complete package. He has great leadership skills, he's a standout athlete who motivates other (often mediocre) players to perform well, he's dedicated to the sport, and he excels at what he does. When you look at other quarterbacks the game has had, they don't have all of these traits. Sure, many of them were pretty fantastic, but they were working within a team of immense talent.
The thing that really impresses me about Favre, though, is that he loves the game, and lets it show. People who watch him know that he's having fun, that this is where he wants to be, and that for him, it's about winning as much as he can. He says that he's not staying in the game for the records, and while part of me is quite skeptical, when I watch him play, it's easy to see that he loves to play and that he loves to win.
Even more than that, he knows how to have fun out there. The other record he was close to breaking on Sunday was the record for most interceptions thrown by a quarterback--a record both he and the Vikings receivers were well aware of. There was one play where one of the Vikings nearly picked off a pass that Favre threw--the camera showed that player grinning at Favre, and Favre was grinning right back at him. Favre knew what that guy had wanted, and was able to laugh at both himself (for being close to the record) and the player (for not quite breaking it yet).
Here's hoping that Favre and the Pack continue to do well this season, and that Favre gets that one last Super Bowl ring he's been looking for (hey, I'm an optimist). Because honestly, when he leaves, it's going to be a long time until Green Bay, or anyone, for that matter, sees a quarterback of Favre's caliber.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
