PeaceBang

15 Comments »

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

1. Thanks to you and to Rev Madge for this.

   I’ll confess that I stopped reading after the first few comments because of the level of hate.

   (Data point: I have a respectable income but am middle-class in an expensive coastal area. I do, however, know Actual Rich People, many of whom are active givers/volunteers.)

   Comment by Charlotte — June 11, 2008 #

2. I’m not sure how I warranted the discriptor “sadducee” for my opinion but I know that Jesus didn’t judge people based on externals. He got mad at what people did, he helped them to be better, but he didn’t one time that I know of in scripture write someone off based on the life circumstance they found themselves in. His ministry was supported by people who were relatively well off and you don’t hear him assaulting them for the lavishness of their hospitality toward him. Even the disciples were business owners and he manifested himself among them by advancing their business (big ole net o fish).

   People find themselves rich for a lot of reasons, just like they find themselves poor–sometimes they earn their way to their state, sometimes they were born into it, sometimes they had a streak of luck good or bad.

   If we can love the drug addict who neglects her children, can’t we love the dual income upwardly mobile who put their kids in daycare 40 hours a week so they can go the disney once a year? Neither would be my choice, but I make tons of other bad ones and I’m trying to be better and perhaps, so are they.

   I’m of a mind that money just is. It can be good, it can be bad. Not having enough money for health care or retirement can be just as soul killing as having “more money than sense” as my grandmother would say.

   Comment by madgebaby — June 11, 2008 #

3. Some random comments about my family’s financial situation as it bears on our participation in our UU church:

   1) We make much more money than we ever expected to, and I expect that’s true of many people who find themselves making a lot of money. One day, the fickle finger of fate decides that the particular widget you make or the particular skill you have is really valuable, and suddenly there you are making a lot of money. Clearly, we’re not going to boast about how entitled we are to this money — we work hard, but so do lots of people, and the difference is in large part luck. That said, I don’t appreciate it when it’s suggested that anyone who makes a lot of money is unusually graspy or must be committing some kind of crime against their fellow human beings, although we never respond to such comments — I suppose we’re closeted about our money.

   2) Luck runs both ways. We reasonably anticipate the day will come that we’re not making this much money, either because the fickle finger of fate will point elsewhere, or because we wear ourselves out with work and travel (work travel, not fun travel), or because of some other calamity we can’t foresee. As a result, we are probably excessively cautious about giving money away. We rationalize that we can always give it away later with interest.

   3) One constraint on giving money to our UU church is that there is a limit to how much one family can give before it distorts your relationship with the church community. About two-thirds of our charitable giving is directed elsewhere. We probably do less than others in terms of church fundraising activities (rummage sale, etc.) although we do participate from time to time. (I commented further about this issue last year, when the subject of tithing amoung UUs was being batted around the blogs.)

   4) I don’t know anyone who is sitting on a pile of money and doesn’t work, though I know such people exist. I can’t really disagree with anyone who has a problem with that level of wealth.

   Comment by An Anonymous RR — June 11, 2008 #

4. It’s very hard for me to imagine that prejudice or bigotry against the wealthy is a major issue. Certainly, I am against the mistreatment of the wealthy by others. I would be as appalled by a rich person being beaten half to death by a poor person as I would if the reverse happened, but I just don’t see pronounced cultural or institutionalized prejudice directed at the wealthy. Unless one believes that taxing the wealthy at higher rates than the poor is institutional prejudice (which some do, of course).

   So that leaves only personal prejudice, which is perhaps what you’re referring to, PB. Negative comments, sneering, an attitude of contempt - I think this is what you’re talking about? [Actually, I never indicated in any way that I thought there was prejudice against the rich in my original post. I noted two overtly hostile comments about “the rich” as a response to my “Sexism and the City” posting and was curious as to what that was about. So I asked. I asked if there was a lot more of this feeling out there, and if so, what is was about. Personally, I’d LOVE to see a public backlash of the obscenely wealthy!! My sister and I have joked for a long time about how much we’d like to put notes in the mailboxes of people with mega-mansions. The note would say, “We’re not impressed with your obscenely huge house and with your need to display your wealth in such a crass and environmentally degrading way. We think you have lousy taste and pathetic values.” We’ve never done it, of course. - PB]

   When I look around my church, I don’t see much representation of the lower classes. I see some folks making $10 an hour with degrees, and I see people with no degrees making $40 an hour, but not many who have neither degrees nor income. The single mom of two kids hustling to and fro on the bus because she can’t afford a car - I’ve seen that type come … and quickly go. We have one homeless guy who shows up to church often - but he also goes to a bunch of other non UU churches. And yet there are plenty of well off people at my church - so I’m assuming they feel comfortable there.

   I would never suggest that people with money don’t have spiritual problems or personal demons; or that they lack humanity.

   But it’s hard for me to drum up a lot of concern for personal acts of prejudice towards the rich and educated when I have a brother coming out of prison next month after six years of incarceration. Even though he is at least as smart as any of the people at my church, I’m not even going to waste his time by inviting him to my church. So I guess that tells you how I feel about classism (as opposed to “reverse classism”) in the UU church.

   Comment by h sofia — June 11, 2008 #

5. Who was it who said something like, “If the rich man were not so poor, he would never be so rich”?

   I personally pity the wealthy (and I might include more people in this class than many Americans do) most of whom do not even realize the affliction they are under, but I can understand how they are hated on so much. I grew up in third world level poverty, and find myself today in adulthood in a rather upper class wealthy household. It is something I struggle with, every day, how to live right in these confusing and disorienting blessings I have been given. I could live here in the US on less than 12k a year, comfortably, and I know it; instead there is more than 20 times that much, and how in the world to best handle all that is in between need and extra?

   I think most rich people, those who live their wealth in big houses attractively filled, travels, all the aesthetic surgeries and luxuries and shopping of the cult of the body, things like that, are not innocent of the contempt held against them by the people. These rich people themselves are living the message of their contempt for the rest of humanity by the fact of spending, having spent, their money in ways so worthless, when so many fellow humans are suffering.

   And it says little when they give away thousands of dollars each year or each month or each week, if their lifestyle and wealth they sit on is still so very far in excess of what any person should want. WANT. “If the rich man were not so poor, he would never be so rich.” The message to the world given by the rich, to all who suffer and struggle in ways which finances can alleviate, is one of contempt, when it is not apathy or ignorance.

   This is the damnation we put the rich under, and it is not always fair. But I think it is simply impossible to separate ourselves from the money and wealth we hold under our control. It is like another appendage, a tool given to us, and we are morally responsible for what is done with every cent of it. If this places a greater burden in some ways on the rich, so be it. We are responsible to love and do good in the world in proportion to what we have been given.

   And this is not going to look the same for every person, but I think it is the blatant moral failure of most rich people in this area which causes them to be viewed by so many with disappointment and dislike, regardless of how nice these richies may be or what personal struggles they too have endured. When wealth is sensed by many to be a moral issue, a moral failure, (not to earn the wealth but to accumulate it so far beyond necessity, when so many fellow humans lack even necessities) they care as little for the personhood of the rich as they do for that of puppy-kickers or kitten-drowners.

   Comment by em — June 11, 2008 #

6. It’s very hard for me to imagine that prejudice or bigotry against the wealthy is a major issue.

   Agreed. I think that the issue is more as PB framed it.

   On the one hand, we want to be open to dialogue about fairness in society, including the distribution of wealth and the moral obligations of those who have more than others, keeping in mind (among other things) teachings from the Christian tradition regarding wealth. Being open to that kind of dialogue means being open to making moral judgments about the wealthy.

   On the other hand, a dialogue in the form of “Hey, let’s all pick on the family in the third row who drove to church in the new Volvo” serves no good purpose.

   Comment by An Anonymous RR — June 11, 2008 #

7. I’m beginning to fear that Unitarians gave up on Jesus because they didn’t like his teaching about wealth. I’m surprised that ministers would respond to Tracie’s pain by dismissing her as hateful, but if you want a pleasant ministry with people who are content with the US’s social structure, I can see why her frustration would make you want to exclude her.

   Madgebaby, for Jesus on wealth and the rich, start with “Woe unto the rich!” That’s in Luke, and it’s about as harsh as you can get.

   His ministry was not supported by rich people. The possible exception to that is the fellow who provided a tomb. If I’m wrong about this, please provide the names of Jesus’s rich supporters.

   The notion that a first-century fisherman was the same as a merchant is embarrassingly ignorant in a minister. These things are not difficult to research if you’re willing to risk disturbing your notions about privilege.

   The sadduccees may also be outside your study. They were the priests who focused on serving the rich.

   PeaceBang, your habit of putting comments into people’s comments seems rather intrusive. The more common practice is for a blog owner to answer in an individual comment, just like anyone else.
   [Will, I do it this way because I don’t think everyone is interested in reading my comments to one particular person. I started the habit on my Beauty Tips for Ministers blog to answer specific questions and really prefer it to clogging up the comments with another PB box. I make my main points in the original post and if I feel like something really needs to be clarified, I do comment “like anyone else.” Otherwise I comment within the comment so that anyone who cares — especially the person I’m responding to — can immediately, reference what exactly I am responding to. I’m sorry if it seems intrusive but I prefer it to all the scrolling around. -PB]

   For one thing, that makes it easier to find the blogger’s response. I never
   would’ve thought to scroll back to find your comments if you hadn’t mentioned adding something to comment 61 at the early post.

   Comment by will shetterly — June 11, 2008 #

8. His ministry was not supported by rich people. The possible exception to that is the fellow who provided a tomb. If I’m wrong about this, please provide the names of Jesus’s rich supporters.

   St. Mary Magdalene, for one.

   Comment by fausto — June 11, 2008 #

9. Fausto, do you subscribe to the hairdresser or whore theory? Neither would be rich.

   Or do you think she was from a town called Migdala which, if I remember correctly, isn’t recorded in Josephus or any source of the time?

   Comment by will shetterly — June 11, 2008 #

10. Neither. It’s the Luke 8:2-3 theory. Additional names would be “Joanna the wife of Cuza, the manager of Herod’s household; Susanna; and many others. These women were helping to support them out of their own means.”

    Comment by fausto — June 11, 2008 #

11. When it comes to the humanity and suffering of the rich, and if or to what extent people might stint on compassion towards them, there are shades of gray. Is the suffering of the cancer afflicted who is also living out of a homeless shelter greater than that of one who sits in her house on a comfy bank account? Is the suffering of a child regularly beaten or raped and who also goes without shoes, regular meals, or protection from the elements greater than that of the abused child hidden behind pretty walls of a wealthy home?

    We aren’t supposed to make distinctions like this, but many of us really do. The privileged who have suffered or who are suffering get the short end of the stick when it comes to compassion, compared to all the people who had “that, AND” additional burdens of poverty or financial struggle. It’s not nice when this happens, and I think it’s just another burden wealth lays on people–along with things like not being able to keep up one’s own house or car, or too often lacking the mental/emotional toughness and practical creativity that the rest of the world uses just to rise up each morning for another day’s struggle to simply survive.

    A lot of jealousy I think gets mixed in when people talk about the rich. I feel many rich people are utterly contemptible in their thoughtless selfishness, waste and destruction–but how many regular and poor people would face the trial (of wealth) any better? I have seen many poor people (both by US and by global standards) become wealthy, and most are brought down by it to the same ugly offensiveness for which most rich people are criticized. It’s a heart issue, of love for our fellow humans and of community, and it is a moral issue.

    We fail as leaders when we do not challenge people of means to grow in love, to extend themselves ever and ever further in caring for their fellow citizens of this planet. When we allow to stand the lie that any of us has complete personal ownership over the money which circumstances/God have allowed to come to us. When we do not question the worthless consumption people use to fill their lives and soothe their wounds, to instead replace this with REAL actions and real sacrifices. The selfishness in which most people live, the normal everyday Western lifestyle, is NOT harmless; they hurt themselves in it, and other people are not being helped because of it.

    Almost everyone wants to do better than they are doing. Almost everyone is happy to sacrifice generously, if only they can be *inspired* to do so. That is our job, not so much chiefly for the sake of a roaring, society transforming gospel but for the sake of each individual soul to whom we minister, to assist THEM in fulfilling their missions. And so many human wounds are given perspective, and healed, through assisting others.

    The sin is not in working hard, earning money, doing well; it is in hoarding and accumulating while there is anyone who cries out to God how will they feed their children tomorrow, or how will they pay the rent when a job can’t be had, or even how long can they continue driving safely with these old glasses. This is the mission, love in practice, and we all share it.

    Comment by em — June 12, 2008 #

12. Lessee…

    I think “inherent worth and dignity of every person” needs context. “Inherent” is there, I am told, because our Universalist roots felt it important–a firm nod to universal salvation. Y’all are saved, it’s inherent.

    Got it. But that means it ought to be understood in a universalist kind of way; in the vein of Hosea Ballou’s “Brother, it would never occur to a Universalist to do so.” Inherent worth, sure. But an obligation and expectation that one lives up to that worth. There’s no dignity in being the torturer, and there’s no dignity in being the obscenely wealthy individual driving past and around poverty and suffering (and yes, I think that there’s an absolute connection–the world’s not a zero sum game, but nor is it the opposite; the vast wealth of the very wealthy is in some significant measure at the price of the misery and suffering of many (here and abroad). Before someone blows a gasket over that affliction of the excessively comfortable, I’ll remind them of Eisenhower:

    Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.

    If the wealth poured into weaponry represents a theft from those in hunger, naked and homeless, then how does the fifth home, eighth car, the pile of money and securities so vast as to keep people busy caring for it not?)

    I know people who’ve worked (busted their asses) in startups and made a small fortune when it made good–at least one in Google. But I also know people who’ve worked in several startups, one after the other, and never got the brass ring. How does the hard work of the one justify the wealth they now possess, but the hard work of the others provides no such right? Hard work makes a difference, but there’s still a damned big chunk of luck. That’s true outside of startups, too. I know someone who worked–damned hard–for Countrywide. He and his wife both worked, hard. They bought a house… and Countrywide’s corruption upstairs brought their world down on their heads; they’re going to lose the house if they can’t sell it (at a loss).

    I’m all for hard work; I’m just a couple generations away from tenement-dwelling immigrants who didn’t speak no English on the one side. But I know how much strokes of critically good fortune (some genetic, some circumstantial, some… god only knows) made a difference. Hard work’s a noble thing. But the country is full of hard working people, damned hard working people of every color and ethnicity and… who are scraping by and picking it with the crows, for one reason or another. Maybe they’re not as intelligent as others (that, in significant measure, is a rotten trick of the genetic dice, and much of the rest might be a crappy environment (prenatal, growing up… whatever).

    They don’t deserve a decent life, health care, security–just as much (just as much) as PB, or CC, or will, or fausto, or me? I think not. After all, there’s certainly something there of inherent worth and dignity.

    I’ve seen the very well off (rich, yes. How rich, unclear to me. Earned money, though) family that was made to feel uncomfortable–and left. Having said that, I will also say that she, at least, was terribly sensitive about the issue and “made to feel uncomfortable” was at a very low threshold. Very. We’re also in the situation now of being one of the more affluent families in the congregation–not rich, even by will’s standards, but we–particularly my wife–worked hard and also got lucky. We’ve made a point of getting our giving to the “modern tithe” level (and even beyond–our lifestyle hasn’t really changed, other than making it not painful to upgrade computers when it really became time, or to allow me to go to seminary when… that became necessary. Which is privilege, absolutely). But now we face a funny situation.

    We could give more to the fellowship. But if we do, it’s a small enough (small mid-sized) place that we’d be providing 10% of the pledge. And that presents a nasty conundrum. It’s dangerous to the congregation for any donor to be a really big piece of the financial picture. All of us, sooner or later, get hit by a bus or cancer or old age. In our case we know that it’s almost certain we’ll be moving in five years.

    We could give more, but because the society’s economic system puts so much (relatively) into our pockets, and not into others, our generosity could help create a house of cards effect.

    (No, we’re really not wealthy, the congregation is pretty seriously middle class.)

    If more people who could also afford it (I’m pretty certain they could; we can… and they have more expensive houses and newer, more expensive cars…) were as generous, we could be more generous. It’s an interesting trap. Personally, I’m ready to lay our cards on the table there; here’s what we make, here’s what we donate here, and here’s what we give elsewhere. What about the rest of you?

    Comment by ogre — June 12, 2008 #

13. Fausto, yes, women helped Jesus. Women were poor in that place and time. There’s a strong hint that Joanna left Cuza; otherwise, it would be written that Cuza supported him. It was a very sexist society, by most standards.

    “Magdalene” has three theories that I know of. The more popular one among Christians is that it was a town, but no town of that name was recorded in that time. The most likely is that it has something to do with being a hairdresser–that’s what the Aramaic suggests. Hairdressers were sometimes prostitutes, because this was not a rich profession, which is why some people think she was a whore.

    Em, I love your post, especially your concluding paragraph.

    Ogre, I hear you. My advice? Think about how much you love your church and how much good it does in the world. If you want to go ahead, talk with your minister or president or someone you trust to keep a secret. If together you think that money will help your church help the world, give and ask the people who know the source to respect your privacy. You might look for a front, maybe asking someone from another church to give and say it’s from a group that was created to help that church. You wouldn’t be lying. If the decision’s made by you, your wife, and one other, it’s from a group.

    But it is tricky. The hardest part of having money and wanting to help is deciding what’s most effective. We sold a script for $50,000 once, so we decided to give a tenth to Habitat for Humanity. Then we were broke again, and they kept sending us glossy color flyers that made me want to scream, “Stop wasting money on advertising! Or at least be smart enough to do it in black and white!”

    Ahem.

    I don’t really regret it, but I’m not sure that’s where extra money would go now. I’ve always admired the efficiency of the Salvation Army, but I hate a number of their practices. So all I can really do is wish you luck with your decision.

    Comment by will shetterly — June 12, 2008 #

14. I’m leaving the discussion on this post now, so if anyone has something they want me to read, click the email or visit my site.

    Comment by will shetterly — June 12, 2008 #

15. This is an excellent discussion, and I am glad to see it happening.

    PB WROTE (in the June 7th post’s comments):
    “At this very moment in my own church, a beloved lay leader who lives in absolute poverty is being cared for around the clock in the end stages of cancer by a team of church friends because her own family is not able to do so. More than that, we love her. She has been my right-hand woman in my parish for six years and I consider her a kinswoman. The care being extended to her by this team of church friends includes laundering shit-covered sheets, emptying her bed pan, washing fruit-fly-covered dishes and doing whatever else she needs because she has made it clear that she wants to die at home. Someone could have bought her an easier solution:a private room in a nursing home with hospice care. But that’s not what she wants, so we’re her primary caregivers in a house that could be condemned tomorrow by the Department of Health.”

    ME:
    With respect, I’d like to say the following: I think this sums up perfectly the thing I find so very sad and disturbing and confusing when it comes to wealth and poverty, because I just cannot understand why a human being who is well-integrated into a church congregation would be living in “absolute poverty”. The fact that she is a “beloved lay leader”, a “kinswoman” and “my right-hand woman” tells me that she and her circumstances were not at all unknown. I guess I lose hope when I see that even right in the very midst of those who seem to be the safest bet for caring, humans fail to share appropriately.

    While the medical caring is certainly a kindness, (though in my book, it should be the norm in a civilized society, not considered as some heroic act), why IS she living in a condemnable house? Why HAS she been living “in absolute poverty”? Never mind the nursing home bit, what about all the years she has been known? All the assets of the church members could not together come up with rent money for a decent apartment for her for those six years? Or help her through the maze of assistance programs? (I understood from your original post that this church is in a relatively well-off suburb.) How much did the congregation spend on coffee in those six years? How much money did the congregants spend on pet toys and pet food in six years? How much on hair cuts and permanents and hair coloring? On personal entertainment? On makeup? On alcohol? On new clothing? For a $600 a month apartment (almost non-existent where I live but I assume other areas are cheaper) and a 200-person congregation, that’d work out to a measly three dollars a month per person.

    PB SAID (in the original June 7 post): “If I won the lottery, I’d still live here to serve the church but buy two small apartments: one in Cambridge, Massachusetts and one in New York City. And if the lottery jackpot was big enough, a little flat in Paris or Barcelona. I would never want a big McMansion; I truly think that kind of size madness is evidence of a serious spiritual problem.”

    ME:
    Again, with respect, I think this is a sort of blindness that baffles me. Blindness when it comes to the wealth/poverty issue. As a minister even, (and yes, I hold a minister to a somewhat higher standard since s/he has voluntarily taken on a job of leadership), with a lottery win, and a very nice home provided to you, you would buy three, THREE apartments. Would you put the dying woman in one of them? Are there others in your congregation living in “absolute poverty”? And yet you say that you think owning something the size of a McMansion is “evidence of a serious spiritual problem”. How are your 3 apartments different? How many apartments would it take to equal a McMansion and thus the spiritual problem you mention?

    It is not just these sorts of bigger-scale examples that matter to me. My own selfishness baffles me. I have a serious illness and no health care. I work for incredibly wealthy people who tell me they don’t believe in raises, nor in paying a “living wage” (I should just get a second job), while they travel several times a year to the other side of the world for “enlightenment” events and spend more in a month on entertainment than I make in the same time frame. My income pays only my rent, my son makes up the rest. Yet I accept (uncomfortably, though that matters not at all) the high-speed internet access he provides for me, and a few other similar, small things that could, of course, be considered luxuries . I do without a great deal, but never food, never a clean, safe apartment to call home. So, while I took advantage of your own words, PB, to make my point, and while I am indeed rather shocked that these are a minister’s words, I also have to say that I’m no different. My own hypocrisies shame me. And I fail too often, despite much effort, to figure out how to not harm those in more dire straits.

    Inknote

    [From the outside looking in, I certainly agree that your points seem valid. However, you are not on the inside. Jackie was proud of living on such modest means. She would have told you in no uncertain terms where you could stick it (one of her colorful terms) for suggesting that the church should have offered her assistance as you suggest. SHE was there to help YOU, not the other way around, and God help you if you suggested otherwise. If you found her house less than liveable, you could get the hell off the property and stay there (her speaking, not me!). She loved that house. She was comfortable there. She didn’t see the need and the lack, she saw the flowers, she saw the kitchen floorboards that she sanded by hand and that finally got put down the week or so before she died. She saw the photos of family around, she managed to use the bathroom as it was and if it didn’t work so great at times, she had a chamber pot, thank you very much. It was only when she was dying, and knew that she was dying, that she graciously allowed us to step in as a community and help her “navigate the maze of assistance programs,” as you say. If you read the post, and you did, you should have realized that “abject poverty” was my assessment of her economic situation, not her own. I cannot emphasize enough how offended she would have been by the idea that someone in the church should come to her rescue or support her in any way. And excuse me, but don’t you think we tried? Why do you assume that she wasn’t offered help all the decades she lived in our community? Of course she was! There’s such a thing called personal dignity and pride, and it waves away the hand offered in help. She wanted to give and to contribute, not to receive. Her allowing us to care for her in all ways at the end of her life was her gift to us. She was a woman who spoke truth to power, and part of that was to constantly remind us, “Not everyone has money, folks!” If she read your comment about losing hope she would undoubtedly say something like, “If you’re losing hope, honey, roll up your sleeves and find something to do.” You know what I mean? This woman was an ORIGINAL. If she was dressed in tatters (as she was in her last months), those were tatters that she loved and had personal history with. Grandmother’s nightgown. Her late husband Joe’s soot-stained flannel shirt over that. Why soot stained and with burn marks on it? Because dammit, “I burned myself again on the wood stove.” She herself pitied the very wealthy; she felt they were very often totally dependent and without basic life skills.

    As far as a minister dreaming about what she would do if she won the lottery, try to keep that in perspective. If I thought it was a remote possibility — and it’s not since I don’t play the lottery! — I would share with you my more detailed “If I Was a Rich Man” fantasies. One of the reasons, for instance, that I would want a pied-a-terre in Cambridge is so that I could have Harvard Divinity School seminarians live there for free. That isn’t to say that I wouldn’t still live well and have nice clothes, a newer car, dye my hair and get my nails done, and buy season subscriptions to the theatre. I would. Like you, I live in the constant tension between what Jesus asked of us and (in my case), what my immigrant grandparents worked their fingers to the bone so that I could have. But if I ever hit it big… oh boy, would I be funding all kinds of programs. I’m not sure if it’s possible to have a super productive conversation about people’s personal ethics around money on a blog. There are too many unknowns, too much projection and too many assumptions. Your assumptions about our church and Jackie were wrong, and whether you meant them to or not, came across as accusations. - PB]

    Comment by Inknote — June 16, 2008 #

Leave a comment