All-American Boys: Abused, Medicated, Fat

It’s harder than ever to be an American boy these days.  (Yes, girls have it very hard too; future column.)

Two news stories - not related, or maybe so? - caught my eye this week; one about abuse of young male players in team sports, the other about the dramatic rise in the diagnosis of hyperactivity in boys.

In the midst of the final week of the college basketball national championships, yet another sports scandal; Rutgers University, the public state university of New Jersey, fired its basketball coach after a video went viral showing him over 2 years shoving and kicking his student players and aggressively hurling balls, verbal abuse, and homophobic slurs at the team. “You fucking fairies…you’re fucking faggots,” he yells during one session.

Readers shared their stories confirming this norm; one mother told of her 8 year old son’s soccer coach yelling at the boys after a losing game, “All right, girls.  Line up so we can take your dress sizes.”

US college sports, even high school sports are a huge business.  Coaches make larger salaries than principals or presidents. Half of all school aged boys take part in team sports, but the sports pages seem to be filled with stories not about great players but about abusive coaches, domineering parents, controlling alumni and corrupt school administrators, all desperate for a winning team.  What happens to the boys and young men in these settings?

Of course most coaches are good and caring teachers, not despots.  Taking part in sports is good for young people; it is associated with good grades, college attendance, adult income and job quality, says a 2009 University of Northern Iowa study.  But the same study found that “male high school athletes in particular report higher levels of alcohol consumption, drunk driving, sexist and homophobic social attitudes, gender related violent activity and same sex violence (fighting).” 

New York Times columnist Charles Blow cites this study, saying, “The Rutgers incident, in its own way, once again shines a light on the broader, poisonous culture in which masculinity is narrowly drawn, where physical violence is an acceptable outlet for male emotion, and poor performance is categorically associated with femininity.”

Blow reports on a new alternative program called “Coaching Boys into Men”.  Participants are “significantly more likely to report intervening to stop disrespectful or harmful behaviors among their peers, slightly more likely to recognize abusive behavior, and they report less violent and abusive behavior toward female partners.”

The other disturbing news about boys concerned Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorder,  ADHD.  The Federal Centers for Disease Prevention and Control reported last week that nearly one in five (19%) of US boys have been diagnosed with hyperactivity at some point in their lives. (In Southern states the rates are higher, as high as 23%.)  This figure represents a 17% rise since 2007 and a 41% rise in the last decade.  2/3 of these boys take daily prescription drugs like Ritalin or Adderall, which help with symptoms but can lead also to addiction, anxiety and in some cases psychosis. 

Why the huge rise, 41%? Some say doctors are just getting better at recognizing and diagnosing ADHD.  But others report more parents taking their boys to a doctor because they are concerned about troublesome behavior and poor school performance. (Girls’ rates of hyperactivity and prescriptions are about half of boys’.)

I have friends with kids with ADHD, and it’s no fun.  They are genuinely struggling and need constantly to be monitored, admonished and medicated.  But as with the culture of abuse in boy’s sports, one wonders about cause and effect.  Does an educational system that requires sitting still and toeing the line really work for boys?  Various experts have advocated single sex public schools and more active, less-controlled educational projects to channel that boy energy, rather than medicating it. 

The creative solution that captivated me is Richard Louv’s 2005 book, Last Child in the Woods: Saving Our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder.  Louv laments how our paranoid culture of hypervigilance and overscheduling of kids has virtually eliminated the chance for them to spend in nature doing free play, wandering, building tree houses, poking around.  He coined “nature-deficit disorder” not as a medical term, but as the current norm in childhood. But he then found studies, as in the journal Environment and Behavior that showed that kids with ADHD who play in outdoor green settings could concentrate and focus much better than those in indoor paved settings.  Outward Bound types of intense wilderness experiences were also therapeutic for boys and drug free.

So parents of boys; you have a choice.  Get your kids out and playing and walking, in what Rouv calls the restorative power of nature.  Or keep your kids indoors, over programmed and safe from bogeymen -  and medicated?

Oh, I forgot to bring up the boys’ plague of childhood obesity.  Boys don’t just risk  abuse by coaches and medication by parents; they’re also getting fatter and fatter.  From 7% in 1980, now 18% of US children 6-11 are obese, with similar figures for teens.  Over one third of children and adolescents are overweight or obese. Again, in southern states the figures are much higher; in Georgia it’s over 40% overweight or obese.

All you boys; turn off the TV, stop eating junk food, walk to school rather than take all those meds.  Think about going out for sports; good for your weight and future job prospects.  Just watch out for those coaches who call you fags and fairies.  You might grow up to be like them.

Copyright © 2013 Deborah Streeter

My Income Tax and Bob

(Here at The Back Road Café we wish we knew more about our readers out there in cyberland.  We know you are from 30 different countries, amazingly.  But we don’t know, for example, as I write this week’s column, how much to explain about US taxes. What’s the tax system in your country?  So I’m just going to write a bit about my own weird tax experiences.  But we’d love to know who you are and what you’re interested in!)

US citizens must file their income tax returns by April 15. Many people leave it to the last minute.  Post Offices stay open til midnight on the 15^th and long lines ensue.

The tax forms are dense and complicated (“add totals of lines 4, 7 and 9, subtract 3.5% of line 2, enter on line 21.”)

With my math anxiety, I’ve never tried filling out the daunting forms myself; I’ve always paid a tax professional to do it for me.  There’s a huge seasonal industry of individual tax preparers.  Modern hip people like my children do their taxes on line with Turbotax.  But I like dealing with a human being.

So for 30 years I’ve gone to Bob Beeson’s Minister’s Tax Service.  He learns all the changes in tax law every year and knows what deductions are allowed, if I qualify for the alternative minimum tax, what percentage of health care costs can be deducted, how many cents per mile for volunteers’ mileage, etc.  And his math is better than mine.

Bob was a Baptist minister for a while, but his accountant father made sure he had that skill as well, to support himself in dry times.  So he knows about rendering to Caesar what is Caesar’s.  But only as much as Caesar demands and not one penny more. That’s especially helpful when, as is often the case, Tax Day and all those Holy Week services come about the same time.

The US Tax Code is notoriously complicated: many exceptions, quirks, downright unfairness.  I’m not just talking about how the rich are able to avoid paying taxes.  We ministers get a nice deal too; we are allowed to deduct all our housing expenses from our taxable income.  No one else can deduct light bulbs and rent, road gravel and propane delivery (in my case) from their taxable income.  No one else, that is, except military officers.  This somewhat sleazy tax law (we, the great prophets of justice get special treatment?) derives from the fact that for some ministers their compensation includes housing, a parsonage, while others only receive a salary.  Our partners in privilege, military officers, also sometimes get paid in housing. And those officers employ a government lobbyist to makes sure Congress, which is always trying to reform the tax code, doesn’t take away our precious housing deduction. We pacifist ministers love our military allies when it’s tax time.

Going to Bob is sort of like going to the dentist; once or twice a year, you dread it, but it actually turns out most of the time better than you thought; a cheerful guy with specialized knowledge.  Or you could say it’s sort of like getting your hair cut; while he fiddles with obscure regulations and deductions on his computer screen, we casually catch up on our kids the way I do with the woman waving scissors around my head.  But mostly it’s like going to – yes – a minister, because I share with him intimate private stuff; how much I gave to charities last year, how much I spent for my new hip.  As with a minister I can ask him those tender questions, like, is therapy deductible? 

My system is pretty disorganized; I do nothing on the computer like Quickbooks.  It’s all paper.  And my filing system is not great.  So in February or March I start sorting piles – housing expenses, car, books, stock interest and dividend income, charitable gifts.  Going through the credit card bills and the checkbook tracker I am reminded of the previous year: vacations, parking tickets, vet bills, Christmas presents.  Some happy memories, some sad reminders. 

I compare our expenses and income from the previous year. Our health care costs have leaped up recently, more and more for insurance, and this past year more on co-pay and labs and stuff not covered by insurance for my $80,000 hip replacement and my husband’s expensive medications.  But Bob figured out this year that we paid so much we actually got a deduction for those high health care costs.  I left his office in March with a huge tax refund.

So many emotions about taxes.  Like anger or frustration, for what it goes to. So much waste, so much war, so much unfairness.  Basically I believe in the social contract, that we all need to do our share for the whole, roads and government and aid to families with dependent children.

But I’m busting my butt to support the social contract and Mitt Romney pays taxes at a lower rate than I do.  (He paid 15%, almost the lowest rate.  Folks over $400,000 are supposed to pay 39%, but they pay accountants even more skilled than Bob to avoid their fair share.)

I was a tax resister for a couple years in college; I paid my income tax, but not a special tax that was added to phone bills to help pay for the Vietnam War. I was never prosecuted; I think there were too many of us anti-war protesters.  Maybe there’s a file on me somewhere in DC.

One more story about Bob.  His father was an accountant. He was a minister for a while, now a very pastoral tax preparer.  One time in his office I noticed something new on the walls; looking more closely I saw they were Grammy Awards, golden vinyl records for musical excellence.   Bob, I asked, whose are these?  Oh, my son and his band won those last year in LA.  The band?  Jars of Clay, a Christian rock band. I’ve heard of it. He’s a musician, I asked?  No, like me and his grandfather, he takes care of the money, he’s their manager.  He’s pretty good with money.  But I still do his taxes.

Copyright © 2013 Deborah Streeter

Holy Week at the Supreme Court

U.S. Supreme CourtTune your ears in to Washington DC this week, Tuesday and Wednesday, as the US Supreme Court hears two landmark cases concerning marriage equality.

(US supporters of gays and lesbian marriage made a strategic decision some years ago to frame the issue in the language of equality rather than rights.  Marriage equality rather than the right to marry.   Smart move.)

Listen for some interesting and unusual sounds from the historic bench, on the steps outside the court, and on the newscasts.  (And of course, keep your ear tuned to what our friend Ed Kilgore writes daily in Political Animal, a smart, hip, DC-insider perspective.)

Some words I know we will hear; constitution, gay marriage vs civil unions, states’ rights, separate but equal, made in God’s image, male and female complementarity, burden of proof, let the voters decide, activist judges, public opinion, children……

Then there will be some less usual sounds.  Like singing and praying right outside the court.  Religious communities from all over and all persuasions are organizing to be in DC those days.  There will be an ecumenical sunrise worship “Service for Love and Justice” Tuesday morning.   That night, a seder, “Parting the Waters’ A Seder for Love, Liberation and Justice.”  We’ll hear singing and praying by religious folks opposed to gay marriage as well.  “Keep things the way they are, O Lord, unequal and unjust, don’t part the waters, don’t open the closet doors.”  Or as Westboro Baptist media hog Rev. Fred Phelps puts it at many such events, “God hates fags.”

All this noise because on Tuesday and Wednesday the high court will hear oral arguments about marriage equality in two different cases: Hollingsworth vs. Perry, a case about the constitutionality of California’s Proposition 8 which voters passed in 2008, ending a brief period of marriage equality in that state, and Windsor vs. United States, which challenges the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), because it precludes granting federal benefits, like married couple tax rates, pensions, and inheritance, to same-sex couples legally married in the nine states which now permit gay marriage.

As is customary in any Supreme Court case, the justices will hear oral arguments pro and con for only a couple hours on each case.  Then they will spend months reading many other documents, including amicus, friend of the court, briefs.  They will issue a ruling sometime this summer. 

There will be intense media coverage of these cases this week, especially lots of speculation about the future ruling, based on what questions and comments each justice makes (or doesn’t make, in the case of Justice Clarence Thomas, who never speaks at all.)  For only the second time ever (the first being the recent hearing on Obamacare, health care insurance reform), the court has agreed to release that same day an audio tape of the hearings, an indication of its awareness of the case’s importance in the public eye and ear.

Readers of this column know I call myself “Sarcastic and Hopeful”.  While I bemoan the Fox News fag-haters and the predominance of Evangelical white male Christian leaders as the only spokesmen (sic) for the “religious perspective” on Sunday Morning news shows, I am hopeful to see some small changes in the media coverage; public television, New York Times, for example, have featured diverse religious perspectives and debates recently. 

Perhaps this shift mirrors the shift in public opinion about marriage equality. 

15 years ago just 25% of Americans supported marriage equality.  Ten years ago, 37% .  By 2010 50%.  Today 58%.  Even more striking, 81% of Americans aged 18-29 support it.

Likewise the unified opposition by Republicans and Evangelical Christians is breaking down.  In recent weeks remarkable and surprising folks have spoken out in support of marriage equality: a group of prominent Republican elected officals (all now out of office), another group of very prominent business executives (who bemoan the confusing patchwork of different state laws and its effect on their staff and their bottom line), the current Republican senator from Ohio, Rob Portman, a rising star in his party (til now?) who credited the coming out of his gay son with his change of heart, several evangelical leaders with the same excuse/rationale (we only care about discrimination if it happens in our own family?), two courageous American football players who have braved the macho scorn of players and fans to support gay marriage, many children of such marriages, etc.

U.S. Supreme Court JusticesBut justices are supposed to make decisions based on law, not public opinion or surprising new allies.  Most attention is focused on “swing” justices Anthony Kennedy and John Roberts.  Kennedy, a conservative, often decides a 5-4 vote, and sometimes surprisingly; he cast the deciding vote and authored the opinion on two previous key rulings supporting gay rights.  Roberts was thought to be a safe conservative vote until his surprising ruling supporting Obamacare.  Others note that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a longtime feminist legal activist, is at the same time a proponent of moving slowly on controversial legal decisions.  While supporting abortion rights, she has stated publicly that Roe v. Wade was not based on strong legal opinion and that the acrimony around abortion might have been lessened with a more concerted effort to have Congress pass laws rather than relying so much on the courts.  This marriage issue is also so volatile in state and federal legislatures that the courts may be its only hope, but acrimony will persist.

Some folks speculate the court will “punt” their decision on the first case, Prop. 8, by ruling not on the constitutionality or content of the issue itself, but on the narrow issue of the legal standing of those who are arguing in favor of Prop. 8 (and hence opposing marriage equality – it’s confusing.)  In another indication of the changing tide, both the California Attorney General and Governor at the time of Prop 8’s passage not only opposed it, but refused to defend it legally, as was the usual duty of their office, when it was overturned by a higher court.  Yes, I’m talking about current governor Jerry Brown, former Jesuit seminarian, then Attorney General, and then Governor and Republican  Arnold Schwartzenegger; both Governor Macho and Attorney General Jesuit supported gay marriage.  So the original proponents of the anti-gay marriage proposition, a small Southern California group, well funded by Mormons, took over its court defense.  But the courts may rule that they do not have proper legal standing – it’s complicated, just trust me. Or they may rule in favor of gay marriage only in California, since they/we had the right for a brief while, and then it was taken away, but not rule for the same right in the rest of the states.  These would both be sleazy but safe postponements of the big issue.  By punting, and sending it back to the lower courts, California gays and lesbians could again marry, but the state/federal issue would not yet be settled.

Here’s an interesting chart of the many possible outcomes of different rulings by the court.

Stay tuned.  There will be intense debate on every justice’s comment, question, sigh, raised eyebrow.  There will be snide comments about whether Justice Thomas was even awake.  There will be as many betting pools as there were for the Pope. 

This sarcastic hope-ster remembers that all the pundits were sure after the oral arguments last spring that the justices would overturn Obamacare.  The robed men and women surprised us.

Remember, it’s Holy Week.  All kinds of surprises are in store.

Copyright © 2013 Deborah Streeter

Be True to Your School

My undergraduate university and my graduate school both hit me up for money this week.  Would I please donate, as I do most years, to their annual funds?

I thought twice about giving to both schools this year.  I’m feeling a little poor.  One of the schools, I’m not sure they really need the money.  And I have some concerns about what both schools are doing these days; by withholding my measly $100 might they sit up and take notice? And go back to being the kind of school I attended 30-40 years ago?

When I had that thought I realized I was coming close to being the old-fart kind of alum I’ve always mocked, the oldster who gripes about what the dear school used to be like, back in the day… 

No, I wrote the checks.  But it got me to thinking about American higher education.

We’ve always bragged in America about our great education system, universal free public school, quality state colleges and universities, leading research institutions, Jefferson’s ideal of the educated populace.  Until, that is, we could no longer deny our pathetic test schools compared to other countries, our increasingly wide gap between rich and entitled students and poor struggling ones, our unfairly low teacher salaries and our dwindling government support and investment in education. Republicans want to eliminate the federal Department of Education, to provide vouchers for religious schools, to let parents chose for their kids to learn voodoo subjects like creationism.

Stanford University At the same time, more and more Americans are going to college and graduate school.  The education industrial complex is booming, schools have fancier buildings and labs.  But are folks getting an education fit for this new century and this new global workforce and culture?  Are teachers being trained and supported and paid a living wage?  Tuition prices are outrageous and student debt is devastating.  It’s like health care; the costs keep going up and up, but the clients and service providers don’t seem to be benefiting any more than before. 

I was a New Jersey girl in 1969 when I came west to attend Stanford University in Palo Alto, California.  I stayed to complete two masters degrees at Pacific School of Religion in Berkeley. 

I got a good liberal arts education at both schools and supported myself as a minister for 30 years.  I appreciated the good faculty, the supportive communities and the progressive California approaches to education at both places.  But now my college is cutting back on its humanities programs in favor of its lucrative science, computer and business schools. My graduate religion school is struggling mightily to figure out who can best lead the rapidly changing church and how to equip them.  The students and curriculum are radically changed from my day.  I barely recognize the schools I attended.

A short history of these two interesting old (for California) schools: 

Both Stanford and PSR were founded by easterners, like me, who came west to seek fame and fortune.  Leland Stanford was Midwest businessman, who invested in railroads, made a fortune from the transcontinental railroad and went on to serve as California Governor and Senator. When his only son died at age 15 of typhoid fever, he and his wife Jane decided to honor him by establishing a university; “California’s children will be our children.”  Established in 1891 and scoffed by East Coast traditionalists, Stanford is now a powerhouse of research, computer tech, law, business and medicine.

Pacific School of ReligionPacific School of Religion (PSR) was founded 25 years earlier, in 1866, just 15 years after the Gold Rush brought tens of thousands of fortune seekers west.  In much the same way that the first New England settlers founded Harvard in 1636 as a seminary to train ministers for New World churches, so 1860’s new California businessmen and civic leaders wanted ministers who could speak to the forward thinking entrepreneurs and rough adventurers of the west.  First these men founded PSR as the first seminary west of the Mississippi, progressively admitting women and Japanese Americans in its first classes and then the same folks went on to found the University of California. 

In architecture, PSR looks like an east coast school, even pseudo Gothic.  Stanford’s campus is distinctly Californian, the mission style, with red tile terra cotta roofs and a Silicon Valley style sprawl. (Makes sense since Stanford grads Bill Hewlett and David Packard founded Silicon Valley.) 

Stanford has lots of money, thanks to alumni like Hewlett and Packard, income from faculty inventions like the transistor, and lots of government funded research.  Last year they were the first American university to raise a billion dollars in one year, and their endowment is $17 billion.  When my father came to visit me, he paused on the edge of campus, sniffed the air, and like the Wall Street executive that he was said, “I smell money.”  It’s only gotten much richer in the last 40 years.

Pacific School of Religion has never been rich, and church folks have never been accused of being great business people, especially nice mainline Protestants.  PSR has an endowment too, but has struggled with old buildings and the challenges especially today that face ministry and the church.  They’ve always taken seriously the gospel call for justice and inclusiveness but prophetic ministry doesn’t make a lot of money for grads to donate to their school.

So it sounds like PSR needs my money more than Stanford does.

Why give money to schools?  Or to any charities for that matter?   We give out of loyalty, appreciation, good memories.  People donated in the past so I could get a scholarship or make up the costs my tuition didn’t cover; I’ll pay it forward.  Maybe we give as an investment – will I get better football tickets if I give more? (In Stanford’s case, yes.  PSR doesn’t have a football team.)  Will it improve the odds my kid will be accepted?  They say no, but I am dubious.  We also give because we get a tax break in the US for charitable giving.  That’s another thing the Republicans want to eliminate – let market forces support such good work.  We give (please note, fundraisers) because we are asked.  Stanford is very good at asking.  I have a great conversation with an earnest young pre-med student who listened to my concerns about the humanities programs. 

But is higher education still viable and still necessary?  I wonder sometimes.

The increased cost of a college education (Stanford’s tuition this year is $41,000. I paid $2,850 in 1973) not only makes it impossible for many to go to college.  It also means most grads have incredible debt that takes a lifetime to pay off.  Barack and Michelle Obama only paid off their college loans 8 years ago.  Almost 20% of college grads have over $50,000 in debt. 

And there are more good jobs to be had without a college degree, especially in the computer and tech fields.  And without that debt. 

I usually designate my gifts to go to scholarships. Both of my schools offer lots of scholarships and work hard to admit folks from all classes and ethnic backgrounds, much more than when I was a student; I applaud that.

So I wrote my checks.  But it doesn’t stop me wondering if the kind of inexpensive liberal arts education I got will ever return.  What will be the schools of tomorrow?

Copyright © 2013 Deborah Streeter

Drones and Wacko-Birds

Only 12% of the public approves of the work of the US Congress, its lowest approval rating ever.  But last week this national show suddenly became as entertaining as reality TV.  They might even get a ratings bump. 

In a performance that was covered widely and praised and damned by both left and right, Kentucky Republican Senator and Tea Party leader Rand Paul held forth in an old fashioned filibuster.  Obstructing any other legislative business, he spoke from the floor for over 13 hours, occasionally spelled by fellow Tea Party colleagues, condemning the possible use of militarized drones to kill US citizens on US soil.

Americans in general are increasingly concerned about our military’s use of drones overseas, the secrecy of the decision making about it, the growing power of the Executive branch to wage war without authorization, and possible uses of drones in the US for surveillance and attack. 

Paul had asked US Attorney General Eric Holder for an official opinion on whether Obama could order drone strikes here, and Holder’s response was long and very hedging and bureaucratic, and said, well we wouldn’t do that, but we could if we wanted to, maybe. After 13 hours of TV coverage and widespread approval of Paul’s concerns, Holder released another letter saying, well, no, I guess we wouldn’t do that, as long as the citizen was a non-combatant.

An odd coalition applauded Paul for bringing attention to this issue and forcing a response from the administration, from fellow Tea Party members to ACLU members and the anti war group Code Pink.  Paul and his Tea party colleagues, as civil libertarians and strict constitutionalists, object to undeclared wars, invasion of privacy and what they see as excessive federal spending. Code Pink and many other liberal Democrats (even the San Francisco Chronicle and Jon Stewart chimed in in support) echoed Paul’s concern about the Obama administration’s vague definitions of terrorism, inconsistent attitudes toward civil liberties, and secrecy about the use of drones against US citizens abroad and at home.

But not everyone approved of Paul’s actions.  His fellow Republican Senator John McCain and other old time Republican leaders lashed out at Paul’s questioning of aggressive US action against terrorists.  “We’ve done a disservice to many Americans to make them think they are in danger from their government.  They’re not.  But we are in danger from a dedicated, longstanding, easily replaceable-leadership enemy that is hellbent on our destruction,” said McCain.

Or to put it another way; McCain told the Huffington Post that Paul is a “whacko-bird.” 

Lamenting the amount of press coverage Paul and other Tea Party leaders get, McCain said, “It’s always the wacko birds on the right and left that get the media megaphone.”

John McCainBut some then called out McCain for his own inconsistency, since he is a frequent guest on Sunday news programs.  Commentator Jed Lewison wrote on the Daily Kos, “There isn’t anyone in the US Senate who gets more media attention that John McCain…There is no one else in DC who has an easier time getting covered by the press.  Which I guess means John McCain thinks he’s a wacko bird too.  He just wants the other wacko birds to stop crapping on his damn lawn.”

Sorry, that was a cheap shot.  It’s so easy to find this kind of stuff out there in comment land on the web.  But it’s funny, and I do enjoy the schadenfreude of watching the Republicans crapping, uh, commenting on each other, as their precious united front against Obama falls apart on national TV.

But it is seriously sad to think that it took a Tea Party guy (who lead the stupid pledge never, never to raise taxes which now shackles any action by Congress, who thinks the civil right bills were unnecessary and should have been left up to the states, who opposes all abortion even in the case of rape, who thinks the government should have nothing to do with education), that it took a nut case like that, a bird of the wacko family, to focus the national eye on the shameful secrecy of the Obama administration about drone warfare.  And finally to exact from Attorney General Holder, after those 13 hours, the answer he sought, and to keep that national eye sharply focused.

Rand Paul is the son of Ron Paul, the Libertarian former congressman and Presidential candidate.  A medical doctor, like his father, he is a strong proponent of term limits, decrying career politicians.  So he might not be Senator for too long.  But he’s already being touted as the Republican nominee for President in 2016. 

We’ve not heard the last of his caws.

Copyright © 2013 Deborah Streeter