Sunday, November 20, 2005

Jewish Leader Speaks Out Against the "Religious Right"

I'm not even going to comment on this one, but it needs to be on the record as part of our discussion here in Montgomery County. Here's the whole story, from the AP by way of Yahoo News:
HOUSTON - The leader of the largest branch of American Judaism blasted conservative religious activists in a speech Saturday, calling them "zealots" who claim a "monopoly on God" while promoting anti-gay policies akin to Adolf Hitler's.

Rabbi Eric Yoffie, president of the liberal Union for Reform Judaism, said "religious right" leaders believe "unless you attend my church, accept my God and study my sacred text you cannot be a moral person."

"What could be more bigoted than to claim that you have a monopoly on God?" he said during the movement's national assembly in Houston, which runs through Sunday.

The audience of 5,000 responded to the speech with enthusiastic applause.

Yoffie did not mention evangelical Christians directly, using the term "religious right" instead. In a separate interview, he said the phrase encompassed conservative activists of all faiths, including within the Jewish community.

He used particularly strong language to condemn conservative attitudes toward homosexuals. He said he understood that traditionalists have concluded gay marriage violates Scripture, but he said that did not justify denying legal protections to same-sex partners and their children.

"We cannot forget that when Hitler came to power in 1933, one of the first things that he did was ban gay organizations," Yoffie said. "Yes, we can disagree about gay marriage. But there is no excuse for hateful rhetoric that fuels the hellfires of anti-gay bigotry."

The Union for Reform Judaism represents about 900 synagogues in North America with an estimated membership of 1.5 million people. Of the three major streams of U.S. Judaism — Orthodox and Conservative are the others — it is the only one that sanctions gay ordination and supports civil marriage for same-gender couples.

Yoffie said liberals and conservatives share some concerns, such as the potential damage to children from violent or highly sexual TV shows and other popular media. But he said, overall, conservatives too narrowly define family values, making a "frozen embryo in a fertility clinic" more important than a child, and ignoring poverty and other social ills.

One attendee, Judy Weinman of Troy, N.Y., said she thought Yoffie was "right on target."

"He reminded us of where we have things in common and where we're different," she said.

Yoffie also urged lawmakers to model themselves on presidential candidate John F. Kennedy, who famously told a Houston clergy group in 1960 that a president should not make policy based on his religion.

On other topics, Yoffie asked Reform synagogues to do more to hold onto members, who often leave after their children go to college. He also said the Reform movement, which is among the most accepting of non-Jewish spouses, should make a greater effort to invite spouses to convert. Jewish Leader Blasts 'Religious Right'

23 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

...promoting anti-gay policies akin to Adolf Hitler's.

Just that comment alone shows how one can be intelligent, educated and still ignorant. What specific "anti-gay" policies was the Rabbi refering to? Could it have been the purely defensive posture of the "religious right" with regards to attempts to radically redefine what marriage means, and to accomplish this by judicial fiat?

"Akin to Adolf Hitler's"? Sorry, but having read one entire historical account of the Holocaust, I know that not to be the case.

And then I read this?
Yoffie also urged lawmakers to model themselves on presidential candidate John F. Kennedy, who famously told a Houston clergy group in 1960 that a president should not make policy based on his religion.

Goodness gracious, I hope not...JFK could say what he said because he really did not believe or practice his faith as a Catholic (well, Marilyn and the numerous other women in his "harem" knew that...).

Look, there are other branches of Judaism...Conservative and Orthodox, and I dare say that they better represent the thousands upon thousands of years jewish faith and practice than some "johnny come lately" Reform "Judaism".

Again, Teach the Facts shows its true colors as being those committed in as unbending a way as any radical right-winger.

Sincerely,

Orin Ryssman
Fort Collins, CO

oryssman@hotmail.com

November 21, 2005 1:21 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Don't know why Jim thinks this "needs to be part of the record". Just shows that liberal "Jews" are as narow-minded as liberal "Christians". Big revelation.

Other than that, it's the same malarkey you can read here any day of the week.

November 21, 2005 5:45 AM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

Orin,

To my mind the posting of this piece has little to do with its particular content, but with the fact that the statement, ANY statement, was made against Christian extremists. The rest of the nation is waking up, no longer cowed by the right. This is what is causing the Anons to lose sleep at night. The tide has turned.

As for there being other branches of Judaism, yes, there are. But 80% of American Jews fall outside the fundamentalist framework, and even among the orthodox only about half, at best, could be considered in the the same breath as Christian fundamentalists with respect to social attitudes, and most of those are actually still living in the 18th century. I know, having grown up amongst them.

But just as an example from the realm of human sexuality that we've been discussing, ALL major branches of Judaism -- orthodox, conservative, reform and reconstructionist -- recognize the reality of gender identity and accept transsexual men and women as who they are. They don't run around ranting about mutilation and mental illness as the CRC does.

Here's a review of recent articles from Salon.com:

Are conservatives evolving?

Is that noise we hear from Dover the sound of the Republican Party tearing itself to pieces? It's probably wishful thinking to imagine that some kind of tipping point was reached when voters in that Pennsylvania town booted eight fans of intelligent design off the local school board. But a look through the Op-Ed pages to see what conservatives are saying in the last couple of days about science and religion sure seems to suggest that trouble is brewing.

First up, George Will, who wrote in his column this week that "it is injurious, and unneighborly, when zealots try to compel public education to infuse theism into scientific education."

Not only that, but it could lead to a far, far worse sin: Republicans could lose power! "The conservative coalition, which is coming unglued for many reasons, will rapidly disintegrate if limited-government conservatives become convinced that social conservatives are unwilling to concentrate their character-building and soul-saving energies on the private institutions that mediate between individuals and government, and instead try to conscript government into sectarian crusades."

Next to the plate, Charles Krauthammer, who piously reminds us that both Einstein and Newton believed in God before he wrings his hands about "a fight over evolution that is so anachronistic and retrograde as to be a national embarrassment."

Heck, even a representative of the Vatican, which has been sending mixed signals about its position on creationism for years, felt a need to affirm the kookiness of intelligent design. "Intelligent design isn't science even though it pretends to be," the ANSA news agency quoted the Rev. George Coyne, the Jesuit director of the Vatican Observatory, as saying. "If you want to teach it in schools, intelligent design should be taught when religion or cultural history is taught, not science."

The pope is staying mum, though, so let's not get too excited about the Roman Catholic Church's coming to its senses. In the meantime, what's the real national embarrassment? The fact that Pat Robertson has threatened the citizens of Dover with divine retribution, or that so-called limited government conservatives got into bed with the religious right in the first place?

Funny thing about evolution. It has a way of weeding out the really stupid. Sooner or later.

-- Andrew Leonard

November 21, 2005 9:06 AM  
Blogger andrear said...

Gosh, thanks Orin, for determining that Reform Judaism doesn't represent Jews or Jewish thought. I often question whether a particular person is representing their own religion well- esp some of the comments I have read here -but I do not doubt that the religious movement itself is representing its members and its beliefs. Conservative and Orthodox Judaism are also evolving all the time. We don't sacrifice animals anymore- and while a very small group of Jews want to return to that- most of us don't. Women are now rabbis in the conservative and reform movement and participate fully in all parts of the service. Not yet allowed in Orthodox Judaism but where women used to be kept far from the Torah and the active part of the service- now some orthodox congregations allow women to touch the Torah and to sit as close as men(but not with them) during the service. I won't speak for Hasidic Jews but we are not a static religion- and Reform Judaism is a valid branch of our religion.

Why should any president impose his religious belief on the country? We see the danger of theocracy in other parts of the world. You may think it good because you like the current administration's positions- but in an another administration surely you would oppose it as I do.

November 21, 2005 10:41 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Did anyone answer Orin's question about "what anti-gay policies the rabbi was referring to?".

And let's not have another diversionary round of evolution promotion.

November 21, 2005 12:18 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

By the way, Dana, I think you can really make more out of the Dover vote than is there. The media made a big deal out of a one sentence statement that would be read before proceeding on multi-week lesson on evolution. The vote was among a very small constituency and hardly overwhelming anyway. Elsewhere, like Virginia, Democrats must feign agreement with moderate Republican policy points to be elected. No big turning of the tide has occurred.

November 21, 2005 12:23 PM  
Blogger Christine said...

Anon asked...

Did anyone answer Orin's question about "what anti-gay policies the rabbi was referring to?".


Only the Rabbi can answer that question.

For the sake of the discussion here, I suggest we assume he's referring to all anti-gay policies.

Christine

November 21, 2005 1:27 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

of the government? I don't think there are any. I don't think anyone is proposing any.

November 21, 2005 1:44 PM  
Blogger Christine said...

You don't know of any anti-gay policies by the US government or by any State governments, Anon?

Here's one. Florida bans adoption by gay and lesbian couples. There was a legal challenge to this law and the US Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal, allowing the Florida ban on these adoptions to stand.

Here's another. The President of the United States is on record wanting to amend the US Constitution to ensure that gay and lesbian couples will not be allowed to marry even if individual states decide to allow such marriages.

And here's one more. "Don't ask, don't tell" is the policy for gays and lesbians in the military.

Christine

November 21, 2005 2:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I see. You either affirm homosexuality or you're an anti-gay Nazi.

Homeless people generally can't adopt. Not because the government is anti-homeless but because the decision should be in the best interest of the child.

Brothers and sisters can't marry. Not because the government is anti-family. On the contrary.

Blind people can't serve in combat. Not because the government is anti-blind.

There are good reasons for these rules. Problem is, you don't want toleration, you want promotion.

November 21, 2005 2:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous said:There are good reasons for these rules. Problem is, you don't want toleration, you want promotion.

"********************
Don't ask don't tell" in military benfits whom and what does it promote?

"anon free"

November 21, 2005 2:28 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It allows camaraderie in the foxhole and barracks without the underlying complication of sexual attraction.

A guy in there having fantasies about his fellow soldiers is going to cause problems.

November 21, 2005 2:33 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
It allows camaraderie in the foxhole and barracks without the underlying complication of sexual attraction.

A guy in there having fantasies about his fellow soldiers is going to cause problems.

********************


Anonymous that is a pure assumption on your part. You think anyone that is homosexual cannot protect our country as anyone straight?

Next you will be saying something about women in military too.

Let's explore....
So soldiers can
have fantasies about them (women)or vice versa in
foxholes and barracks but just not
same sex as you assume would cause all kinds of problems.

Ignorance at best coming from you anonymous as usual.

November 21, 2005 3:38 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

naivete at its very best

brought to you from the Silly Mother Goose

November 21, 2005 3:44 PM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

OK. Let's see, where do we start.

I agree, I can't speak for the Rabbi. I haven't seen his speech, but the part that Jim posted simply said that Hitler banned gay organizations (He did much worse later, but nobody is accusing the Bush administration of genocide).

I imagine he's referring to the issues already discussed here. As for the military ban, there is no other western military that has a problem with openly gay soldiers -- why would ours? American male soldiers have this problem because people like you tell them they should have.

Gay adoptions -- there is zero evidence that children raised by gay individuals or couples turn out any differently than those raised by others. My children are no different either. That some of your colleagues would rather warehouse children than permit adoption just highlights their bigotry. And keep in mind that straight parents produce gay children.

Gay marriage -- amending the Constitution? Please. I personally do not consider a person who is against marriage equality to necessarily be a bigot, but I do believe that of those who oppose civil unions or medical decision-making privileges . . . You want people to act morally, but you throw up roadblocks to same-sex monogamy while decrying same-sex promiscuity.

As for gay organizations, I know Michelle particularly hates GLSEN, SMYAL, gay-straight alliances, etc. Obviously she doesn't have the power to ban them, but I have a feeling she would if she could.

As for Dover, well, yes, it's just a small hamlet in Pennsylvania, but it's where your side decided to take a stand. It's also been in the news thanks to your compadre Pat Robertson. I would just contrast it to Kansas.

As for the overall attitude in this country today, well, I will rest my case with what I've already posted. There's much more. As the Ralph Reeds and Grover Norquists inch closer to jail, bringing along the Santorums and Libbys and Cheney, there will be no fundamentalist Christian power base anymore. Oh, the people will still be there, but they will go about their lives as they have in the past, and will no longer be taken seriously by the majority of either party. Or, maybe, they'll start their own party. Here's a name for you: The Party of God. Oh, sorry, that's been copyrighted by Hezbollah.

To put your mind at ease about the "gay agenda," I suggest you read Andrew Sullivan's recent piece, "The End of Gay Culture." This will all become a non-issue sooner rather than later.

It looks like Mr. Fitzgerald is circling around your "first black woman president," Condi.

And I have a question for you. What do you think about Warren Throckmorton's having pulled the rug out from under Michelle and Company on Saturday? I don't know if you were there, but you've probably heard about it.

November 21, 2005 5:18 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I agree, I can't speak for the Rabbi. I haven't seen his speech, but the part that Jim posted simply said that Hitler banned gay organizations (He did much worse later, but nobody is accusing the Bush administration of genocide)."

Actually, comparing your opponents to Hitler is now the last refuge to which the scoundrel clings. Jim does it frequently.

"I imagine he's referring to the issues already discussed here. As for the military ban, there is no other western military that has a problem with openly gay soldiers -- why would ours? American male soldiers have this problem because people like you tell them they should have.

Gay adoptions -- there is zero evidence that children raised by gay individuals or couples turn out any differently than those raised by others. My children are no different either. That some of your colleagues would rather warehouse children than permit adoption just highlights their bigotry. And keep in mind that straight parents produce gay children.

Gay marriage -- amending the Constitution? Please. I personally do not consider a person who is against marriage equality to necessarily be a bigot, but I do believe that of those who oppose civil unions or medical decision-making privileges . . . You want people to act morally, but you throw up roadblocks to same-sex monogamy while decrying same-sex promiscuity."

Don't know the merits or dismerits of any of this but don't think any of it is akin to Adolf Hitler.

"As for gay organizations, I know Michelle particularly hates GLSEN, SMYAL, gay-straight alliances, etc. Obviously she doesn't have the power to ban them, but I have a feeling she would if she could."

I really don't know but you guys are really obsessed with this minor character. I, for one, object to these sex clubs called gay-straight alliance which are in so many high schools.

"As for Dover, well, yes, it's just a small hamlet in Pennsylvania, but it's where your side decided to take a stand. It's also been in the news thanks to your compadre Pat Robertson. I would just contrast it to Kansas."

Nobody decided "to take a stand" in Dover. The school board acted on its own conviction. As I think you know, the largest IT think tank in the country, Discovery Institute, sided with the parents. I think the school board policy was reasonable, but it wasn't part of some larger scheme.

I've never been that fond of Pat Robertson. I'm not a charismatic. Although if you attack for simply having a Christian views, I'll defend him.

"As for the overall attitude in this country today, well, I will rest my case with what I've already posted. There's much more. As the Ralph Reeds and Grover Norquists inch closer to jail, bringing along the Santorums and Libbys and Cheney, there will be no fundamentalist Christian power base anymore. Oh, the people will still be there, but they will go about their lives as they have in the past, and will no longer be taken seriously by the majority of either party. Or, maybe, they'll start their own party. Here's a name for you: The Party of God. Oh, sorry, that's been copyrighted by Hezbollah."

This pendulum has been swinging since the founding of the country. I'm not worried.

"To put your mind at ease about the "gay agenda," I suggest you read Andrew Sullivan's recent piece, "The End of Gay Culture." This will all become a non-issue sooner rather than later."

Is that in New Yorker? I've read some pretty interesting stuff by him before. He's admitted to addiction to pornography and engaging in anonymous sexual encounters.

"It looks like Mr. Fitzgerald is circling around your "first black woman president," Condi."

Haven't been keeping up. From what I've heard, everything he does is pretty scurrilous.

"And I have a question for you. What do you think about Warren Throckmorton's having pulled the rug out from under Michelle and Company on Saturday? I don't know if you were there, but you've probably heard about it."

Is this what Silly Goose was talking about today? Don't know enough to discuss but you can fill me in if you'd like.

November 21, 2005 11:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dana asked anonymous:

And I have a question for you. What do you think about Warren Throckmorton's having pulled the rug out from under Michelle and Company on Saturday? I don't know if you were there, but you've probably heard about it.

******************

Anonymous as usual has no
answer for the obvious. Wonder if Warren Throckmorton will be invited back since he jettisoned CRC promotions in their very own barely attended meeting.

"anon free"

November 22, 2005 4:30 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

anonymous said....


Is that in New Yorker? I've read some pretty interesting stuff by him before. He's admitted to addiction to pornography and engaging in anonymous sexual encounters.

****************

How about your idol Richard Cohen of PFOX?

ANTI-GAY P-FOX PRESIDENT RICHARD COHEN EXPELLED FOR LIFE FROM THE AMERICAN COUNSELING ASSOCIATION
and oh of course that "man hugging" therapy Cohen does as well.

"anon free"

November 22, 2005 5:02 PM  
Blogger andrear said...

Pat Robertson- see, this is what I mean about being surprised by some views people have about religion. So Pat Robertson says he is a Christian and touts himself as holier than others- and yet, he suggests killing Chavez, that God will forsake Dover, Pa for not teaching ID and Pat Robertson's "charity" operation for the poor was found to have turned over quite a bit of money to his broadcasting network. So Anon might want to attack me for saying Pat Robertson is wrong - because Pat Robertson likes to claim that he is a good Christian and what he does is in God's name. Pat Robertson - as far as I can see- is just another money making TV evangelist- raising money - a lot of the money- to promote himself. And I suspect now saying things to get himself more publicity- in the same sense as people he would condemm in Hollywood do unsavory things- because any publicity is good publicity- and can get you more money.

November 22, 2005 9:02 PM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

Anon,

"Actually, comparing your opponents to Hitler is now the last refuge to which the scoundrel clings. Jim does it frequently."

That's very cute and convenient. Personally, I never compare any person to Hitler, because I believe he's incomparable. That includes Stalin and Pol Pot as well, for example. However, the Republicans, scoundrels that they are, frequently make those comparisons, be it on the senate floor or identifying Saddam with Hitler.

What I will do, and will not be silenced from doing, is compare Bush policies to classic fascist policies. I studied early 20th century European history pretty closely, and just because you're uncomfortable with the comparisons, is no reason for me or anyone to stop. Just look up the definition of the word "fascist," and tell me that the corporatist, religion-imbued, loyalty-driven, unaccountable, secretive, militaristic, expansionistic, anti-science, radically conservative ideology of this adminsitration is not classically fascist. And that Karl Rove didn't learn from th master, Joseph Goebbels. I lost 75% of my family to those bastards, and I won't take being silenced on this issue.

But I agree with you -- America's political genius is in tamping down its extremes (eventually, though the cycles may seem to last a lifetime) and I do not fear this becoming a truly fascist state.

"Don't know the merits or dismerits of any of this but don't think any of it is akin to Adolf Hitler."

See above.

"I really don't know but you guys are really obsessed with this minor character [Michelle Turner]. I, for one, object to these sex clubs called gay-straight alliance which are in so many high schools.

Anon, we're a group of local parents in Montgomery County, and we're here spending our precious time because of this "minor character." Yes, she's pretty insignificant as a community leader, but she and her supporters demand a response by being so vocal and outrageous, so that's why we bother. And when she runs for school board next year we will be out there exposing her as the minor character that she is.

"Nobody decided "to take a stand" in Dover. The school board acted on its own conviction. As I think you know, the largest IT think tank in the country, Discovery Institute, sided with the parents. I think the school board policy was reasonable, but it wasn't part of some larger scheme."

Please. If your side had not wanted this issue to be engaged, they would have seen to it that it wasn't. Yes, the Discovery Institute was embarrassed by the publicity, because it was then exposed as a sham cover for creationism.But the true-blooded creationists wanted the battle, so it occurred.

"I've never been that fond of Pat Robertson. I'm not a charismatic. Although if you attack for simply having a Christian views, I'll defend him."

You tell me which of his views are Christian, and which are not. He is a well-respected leader in the Christian community, so by definition he speaks for Christians. If you don't like having him as a spokesman you should do something about that. But I, for one, will not equate you with him.

"This pendulum has been swinging since the founding of the country. I'm not worried."

It's swinging back rather strongly right now. I'm glad you're not worried.

"Is that in New Yorker? I've read some pretty interesting stuff by him before. He's admitted to addiction to pornography and engaging in anonymous sexual encounters."

Actually, it's The New Republic, where he's an editor. Of course, your language here betrays your close-mindedness. You say "I've read some pretty interesting stuff by him before. He's admitted to addiction to pornography and engaging in anonymous sexual encounters." That's what you've found interesting? Pornography and sexual encounters? Again, it simply betrays your movement's obsession with sex acts, as we are privileged to hear at the BoE meetinngs every two weeks. Try reading him with an open mind, and you might actually learn something. He's a conservativve in many ways, so it won't be too painful.

"Haven't been keeping up. From what I've heard, everything he [Fitzgerald] does is pretty scurrilous."

Typical Republican nonsense. The man is a Bush appointee, and probably the straightest-shooter we've seen in thsi country in a long time. But to you guys, being lied and manipulated into a war is nothing worse than "a third-rate burglary."

"Is this what Silly Goose was talking about today? Don't know enough to discuss but you can fill me in if you'd like."

I'm sure Jim will do so when the tapes get transcribed. There is, however, a pdf file which details some of what was discussed, in particular, the questionnaire. Here's the URL:
http://www.drthrockmorton.com/respectandthefacts/documents/sexualorientation.pdf

Apparently some of the attendees were not too pleased with the man.

November 25, 2005 11:00 AM  
Blogger JimK said...

Wow, I wasn't paying attention. I didn't notice what Anon said about me: Actually, comparing your opponents to Hitler is now the last refuge to which the scoundrel clings. Jim does it frequently.

In case somebody is reading this who has not followed the discussion, let me clarify. I have never compared anyone to Hitler.

I just did a search on our web site for occurrences of the word "Hitler." Got five hits:
1. A quote from the New York Times about a refugee from Hitler's Germany
2. A quote from the American Family Association's Agape Press comparing New Orleans' survivors of Katrina to Stalin, Hitler, and Jeffrey Dahmer
3. A comment by an Anonymous -- was it the same one? Can't tell
4. A comment by Dana that "Hitler was a conservative"
5. Another quote by Anonymous, claiming to be "ex-gay"

I know I said something once about fascism, so I looked for that, too. I found:
1. I noted that "The schools teach about communism and fascism, viruses and plagues..."
2. The same refugee story
3. I made a comment about schoolkids having to "memorize stuff about communism, socialism, fascism"

And there were two times I compared the CRC's March town hall meeting to a fascist rally. In this post, right after the meeting, I said I do not want to bring up this concept capriciously, but I think we can fairly say that the Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum yesterday put on a clinic on fascism. Self-righteous, we-wanna-take-over-the-world fascism.

Those were pretty strong words, and I was very careful not to throw them around carelessly. If you had seen that meeting, you would've thought the same thing. It was a shocking experience, and an eye-opener for all of us who attended, a true display of evil.

Then, when the President of the CRC quoted my statement in a school board meeting, I responded in this post: I will simply point out that nobody who attended the March 19th CRC town hall meeting disagreed with me at the time. One Jewish member of our group even stated that this must have been what it was like in Germany in the 1930s. I don't like to use words like "fascism," but that meeting fit very closely with my understanding of it.

That's it. A gay father who attended the same meeting, someone I don't know, was quoted in a national magazine saying, "It just felt like you were a Jew in Germany in the 1930s."

Anon: you are a liar.

JimK

November 25, 2005 2:10 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

By the way, as I think about it, I can remember two other times the word "Nazi" came up, but it doesn't show up in the search engine. One was in the discussion of the story about mooning the Klan -- I'm pretty sure I mentioned something in the comments about charter schools, and Klan and Nazi families sending their kids to their own kind of schools.

I also remember that there was a post not long ago about a lady in Montgomery County who is associated with the American Nazi Party. I was very uncomfortable when I uncovered that fact, but it needed to be reported.

Neither Google nor our local search engine found those two instances because I didn't look for the word "Nazi" specifically. Anyway, that is nothing like "frequently comparing my opponents to Hitler."

JimK

November 25, 2005 4:20 PM  
Blogger andrear said...

Of course, Anon lies-wasn't that a given?

November 28, 2005 9:11 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home