Browse: Home » Crosscut.com

Crosscut.com

The teen-bandit saga: It’s hard to turn away

originally published on Crosscut.com on July 12, 2010

The Colton Harris-Moore saga is flypaper. It insinuates itself, an umbrella-drink version of Bonnie and Clyde.

After his capture on Sunday in the Bahamas, the Camano Island fugitive foregrounded the news. Don’t turn away: The Northwest’s teen bandit will quickly muscle past bulletins on Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani, the Iranian woman sentenced to death by stoning.

At the same time that Harris-Moore was collared by police, the White House’s David Axelrod was on CNN backpedaling on the Obama Administration’s promise to close Guantanamo Bay by the end of 2010.

You won’t find news about Guantanamo Bay or Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani on Page One of this morning’s Seattle Times. Killjoy topics, we know, alienate readers.

Is Harris-Moore, like Lindsay Lohan, who headlined ABC’s once-venerable “Nightline” last Tuesday, emblematic of the decline of Western culture?

Well, maybe just a little bit.

Or it could just be a sign of Preston Sturges Syndrome. In Sturges’s 1941 film, “Sullivan’s Travels,” Joel McCrea plays John L. Sullivan, a movie producer who longs to create a socially relevant film that captures the Steinbeckian dignity of the struggling masses. What does McCrea learn after traveling in the shoes of the shekel-less? People seek comedy and spectacle in hard times, not droll morality tales.

Fluff stories cheapen the public sphere. All the while, we shouldn’t fret over escapist schmaltz. According to one scholar, in fact, culture is independent of the more serious, critical issue of human rights.

In June, Jack Donnelly, the Andrew Mellon Professor at the University of Denver, lectured at the University of Washington’s Tacoma and Seattle campuses (a visit sponsored in part by the UW’s Law, Societies, and Justice program and the new Center for Human Rights). Donnelly’s core message is that social structure, not culture, is decisive to the exercise of human rights. The link between human dignity and human rights, something Westerners take for granted, is a relatively recent phenomenon, he argues.

It’s an elegant thesis, catholic in scope, that rings true because there’s something to rattle everyone. The pre-modern West and the pre-modern East were both inegalitarian (oh no, the fallacy of moral equivalence)! The “Asian values” excuse for sidestepping human rights is invalid (oh no, cultural imperialism)!

Let’s hope that Donnelly is right: It means that at least for now we can have our “Barefoot Bandit” and human rights too.

July 12, 2010 phjackson Leave a response , ,

Marysville School Board member’s bias echoes state’s sad history

originally published on Crosscut.com

Michael Kundu, the Marysville School Board member who circulated an email earlier this month linking race and brain size to explain the achievement gap, may be a garden-variety bigot. The Everett Herald reports that in 2000 Kundu referred to the Makah Indian Tribe as a “cryptic and dying culture.” (He apologized when he ran for the board a few years later.) Nevertheless, Kundu’s use of Canadian writer J. Philippe Rushton’s bogus race science adds a narrative twist that aligns more with old-school eugenics.

It’s the flat-earth racialism of eugenics, a signal belief of American progressives a century ago, that’s so insidious. Ideas have consequences. Think war, immigration, and the forced sterilization of the mentally ill.

Continue reading →

June 21, 2010 phjackson Leave a response , ,

UW committee advises end to Nike relationship

originally published on Crosscut.com on June 11, 2010

In a move that reaffirms the University of Washington as a bellwether of workers’ rights and anti-sweatshop elbowing, the UW’s Advisory Committee on Trademarks and Licensing voted unanimously on June 8 to sandbag renewal of Nike’s lucrative university contract set to expire Dec. 31.

The committee’s recommendation, the administrative equivalent of a post-quarter exam, will test the mettle of the university’s NCAA-bound president, Mark Emmert, and his likely interim successor, Provost Phyllis Wise, who sits on Nike’s board.

Nationwide, colleges have led the way in needling Nike and other apparel companies to safeguard fair-labor standards. It’s a student- and faculty-driven trend that looks to be growing (Cornell, for example, is considering similar action).

Presupposing that President Emmert approves the committee’s decision (thus far Emmert has accepted all committee recommendations), the UW will become only the second university in the United States, after Wisconsin, to sever ties with the Oregon corporation based on human rights and transparency concerns.

Last December, members of the same UW committee voted to put Nike on notice for disregarding the university’s code of conduct. Charges included Nike’s multiple failures to abide by mandated disclosure standards as well as its refusal to pay severance to workers at two Honduran factories.

Dr. Margaret Levi, the committee’s chair and Emmert’s former professor, wrote in a June 8 email:In the absence of evidence that the workers of Vision Tex and Hugger: a) receive the terminal compensation owed them under Honduran law; or b) have, through recognized and legitimate representatives, reached a settlement agreement regarding terminal compensation, ACTL advises the University of Washington not to renew its collegiate licensing agreement with Nike when it comes up for renewal in December 2010.

The Committee feels strongly that it has done its due diligence re Nike’s actions and proposals. It also feels strongly that we have waited long enough for Nike to meet its responsibility re the workers in its supply chain. We urge you to accept our advice.

The crux of the matter for Emmert will be whether or not to embrace the committee’s recommendation and drop a collegiate-apparel colossus before heading to the NCAA. If Emmert gives the okay, it will stand as a gutsy coda to his nearly six-year tenure as UW president. If not, the decision will rest with his interim successor. However, if the conventional wisdom is correct and that successor is Provost Wise, the decision will need to be kicked down the ladder to sidestep any real or perceived conflict of interest.

It’s this Rube Goldberg shuffling to ensure a Nike firewall that has some professors huffing.

In a June 7 letter to the committee chair and co-chair, President Emmert wrote:As you know, Provost Wise has recused herself from all matters pertaining to the University’ꀙs relationship with Nike due to her service on Nike’ꀙs Board. Were the Regents to appoint her as interim president, we would need to re-position the Committee elsewhere within the administration. Obviously, this will need to wait until the Regents make their decision.

One UW observer responded in an email that if such an internal move occurred, “sweatshop issues will be effectively demoted and the person in charge of making the tough calls on such matters will report to a president on Nike’s board!”

Despite student and faculty backlash as well as pressure from the local chapter of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) to resign from Nike’s board, Wise has said that she will continue her service while giving voice to campus concerns and agitating for improved corporate behavior. It’s a “corporation whisperer” philosophy, not without merit, that Nike board membership by a university administrator enhances and informs corporate policy.

For UW pashas, the Nike saga is a catch-22 that brings into focus broader questions about the evolving mission of a public university.

On the one hand, the public and legislature don’t cotton to academics divorced from the real world. It was this perspective, in fact, that made President Emmert’s appointment so inspired. Here was a hometown boy from Fife who attended Green River Community College and as UW president served on the boards of both Expeditors International and Weyerhaeuser. It seemed that Emmert understood policy, how to speak in non-jargonese, and how to shake dinero from the dinero tree.

It was only as the state budget tanked and the UW got pegged for arrogant overreach with its stadium demands that the honeymoon ended. To compound matters, declining state support for the UW had become a multi-year pattern.

State lawmakers, facing another $3 billion budget gap on top of the $12 billion deficit of the past two years, aren’t amused. “The University of Washington is at a historic juncture as one of the premier institutions of higher education in the world, and we need all hands on deck to build a stronger coalition of students, parents, faculty, alumni and administrators going into next year’s budget season,” said state Rep. Reuven Carlyle of Seattle. “The provost’s lucrative position on Nike’s board just doesn’t seem in tune with the cold, hard reality facing our state during this great recession.”

At the same time, academy corporatization seems to aggravate the divide between UW higher-ups and professors and deans saddled with cut-to-the-marrow budgets. The resentment is palpable. Do we price out students with higher tuition or cut quality? Are the two mutually exclusive? Should corporate connections, and the attendant revenue generated from those connections, be a prerequisite to lead a large, public university like the UW or not?

If the corporatization model is in fact the new paradigm, then the UW may be ahead of the curve on that issue, as well as on workers’ rights. Neat trick.

June 11, 2010 phjackson Leave a response , , ,

McKenna is in the land of strange bedfellows

originally published on Crosscut.com on March 30, 2010

It’s the Great Schism, Northwest edition: State Attorney General Rob McKenna, emblematic of Washington’s Vital Center, gets excommunicated for joining a multi-state lawsuit challenging Obamacare (a kind of reverse version of David Frum’s explusion from the American Enterprise Institute).

Reasonable people will disagree about McKenna’s judgment. A Profile in Courage a la Nebraska’s George Norris, or an ill-considered suck-up to the ubiquitous Tea Baggers?

In the Seattle Times, Former U.S. Senator and state Attorney General Slade Gorton lays out a persuasive argument that McKenna acted within his authority as an independently elected official. The Attorney General should take comfort in Slade’s elder-statesman imprimatur. As for others trumpeting the lawsuit, well, let’s just say that it quickly slides into strange-bedfellows country.

Last Tuesday, for example, the Senate Republican Caucus issued a statement by state Senators Val Stevens of Arlington and Janea Holmquist of Moses Lake underlining their support for McKenna’s “leadership and courage in fighting this unconstitutional bill.” Stevens and Holmquist represent what journalist E.J. Dionne calls the “new nullifiers,” embracing a states’ rights agenda that would resonate with Southern voters circa 1832.

Stevens, in particular, has introduced an eclectic array of bills this session. Here’s a sampling, for entertainment purposes only:

S JM 8020, Requesting that Congress amend the Seventeenth amendment of the United States Constitution (Read: end the popular election of U.S. Senators. Seriously).

S B 6567, Collecting biological samples for DNA analysis from illegal aliens. (Let this be a warning to all of you job-stealing, undocumented Swedes mulling around Darrington: Senator Stevens demands a sample of your precious bodily fluids).

S B6475, Exempting firearms and ammunition from federal regulation under the commerce clause of the Constitution of the United States (I’m pretty sure that exemption from the U.S. Constitution is otherwise known as “secession” from the union).

S JM 8018, Claiming state sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment (Rolling back the principle of federalism. Think of it as the Lester Maddox/George Wallace Memorial).

S B 5187, Requires proof of U.S. citizenship on voter-registration applications. (Why would all those undocumented Swedes even bother voting after the 17th Amendment has been overturned)?

Yes, politics is a curious beast. Beware some of the new kids in class, Rob.

March 30, 2010 phjackson Leave a response , ,

Our man in Snowmaggedon

originally published on Crosscut.com on February 7, 2010

A Yard-Man Snow Blower looks like a lawn seeder. It has a swing handle that helps rooster tail the powder, and it sometimes tommy guns like an outboard. This I know because I’m shoveling (or, more accurately, snow blowing) for my supper.

I’m in DC for a conference and a board meeting and now I’m the Bartleby-like house guest who ain’t budging. “I’m overstaying my welcome,” I say. “No worries,” my hosts say. They pause and look at each other. “You can shovel for your supper.”

Thankfully, snow blowers aren’t carbon neutral, so I have the consummate Northwest excuse. (“Carbon footprint” sounds more meaningful than an ungrateful, “I prefer not to.”) It’s a get-out-of-work strategy not without risk. Let me put it this way: My hosts serve drinks in wine glasses that read, “George Bush President’s Dinner, June 13, 1991, United States Tobacco Company.”

“It’s an electric snow blower,” my hosts reply. I get handed an orange utility cord and the Yard-Man and off I go. Should I confess my fear of death by snow-blower shock? Not if I’m hungry.

The two feet of snow that dropped on Washington, quickly dubbed “Snowmageddon,” is something to behold. Stranger still is the quiet circulation in the city, the low-metabolic hum of snow plows, of delivered newspapers (at least The New York Times), and of a route-limited, closing-early Metro system that’s nevertheless moving people.

A massive snowball-fight meetup at Dupont Circle was scheduled on the Internet. The camaraderie, the volunteers with four-wheel drive shuttling patients to hospitals, the neighborly service ethic — all offer some evidence for Rebecca Solnit’s >thesis in A Paradise Built in Hell: The Extraordinary Communities that Arise in Disaster. Disaster and trauma stir the best in us, Solnit argues. Washington’s Snowmageddon isn’t utopia, but there’s something un-Hobbesian and communitarian and worthy about it. At least for now.

And so the dormer window flies open. My hosts’ 12-year old son shouts, “Shovel for your supper!” I can’t feel my skin. It’s very sweet. Sort of.

February 7, 2010 phjackson Leave a response , ,

Sen. Cantwell and Sen. Dorgan’s musical chairs

originally published on Crosscut.com on January 10, 2010

It took a reverent nanosecond after Byron Dorgan announced his retirement from the U.S. Senate last week for the political-corpse-is-cold-enough speculation to begin: How will the power and committee dominoes fall?

One likely outcome, as first reported by The Hill newspaper, has Washington’s junior Senator, Maria Cantwell, assume Dorgan’s chairmanship of the U.S. Senate Committee on Indian Affairs in 2011 (a prospect that assumes Democrats maintain their majority). Under this scenario, Cantwell leapfrogs more senior committee members Daniel Inouye, Kent Conrad, Daniel Akaka, and Tim Johnson because each currently chairs or is in line to chair other committees.

Cantwell’s 2011 assignment would be a fitting coda to her 2000 election squeaker when she unseated incumbent Slade Gorton (full disclosure: I worked as a Cantwell speechifier that year). Gorton was considered an Indian Country adversary in part because of his defense as state Attorney General in U.S. v. Washington, what subsequently became known as the Boldt decision.

Sensing Gorton’s vulnerability, Northwest tribes rallied around Cantwell, providing financial and organization support crucial to her tweezer-length 2,229 vote margin.

The U.S. Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, formerly under the rubric of the old Senate Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, was established as a select committee in 1977 and made permanent in 1984. Past chairs include Senators McCain, Inouye, and Ben Nighthorse Campbell.

“I personally believe Sen. Cantwell would be an excellent chair,” said state Rep. John McCoy, a member of the Tulalip Tribes and director of Quil Ceda Village. “Her home state has 29 federally recognized tribes, and she and her staff have listened to tribal members as well as all the citizens of Washington. The senator has worked in a consultative manner to help resolve issues in Indian Country.”

McCoy’s supportive but carefully parsed reaction might be a clue to the minefield Cantwell is stepping into. Committee issues, from trust responsibilities to land management, are often controversial and extremely complex.

An aide acknowledged that Cantwell does not have a record or signature policy focus beyond trying to listen and respond to tribal concerns. “That will change once she becomes chair,” the aide said, “She’ll quickly find her footing.”

January 10, 2010 phjackson Leave a response , ,

The Nike Industrial Complex

originally published on Crosscut.com on December 18, 2009

For decades the door-hinge give of a cedar bench at the Blue Moon Tavern (whence I scribble) was required drinking space for Northwest imbibers, just as Rainier Club membership was a sine qua non for Seattle’s business class.

The latest touchstone, at least for University of Washington honchos, is membership on the corporate board of Nike. For the second time in as many weeks, a UW higher-up, in this case a regent nominee, is tied to the Beaverton, Oregon corporation.

Before shuttling off to Copenhagen last Friday, Gov. Gregoire nominated Orin Smith, the venerable former Starbucks CEO, as a member of the university’s Board of Regents. Smith has served on the Nike board since 2004. UW Provost Phyllis Wise, the university’s chief academic officer, was appointed a Nike director on November 19 and will receive an annual compensation of between $132,000 and $217,000 (For a full list of future UW regents and administrators, please click here ).

As Nick Perry of the Seattle Times reported, Wise’s appointment has kindled blowback from faculty, students, and state legislators.

Phil Knight’s invisible hand made visible? The Trilateral Commission writ small?

Supporters of the provost, who is well regarded among Nike-appointment supporters and critics alike, seem flummoxed by the intensity of the backlash. After all, university administrators have accepted corporate directorships at least since the era of former UW President William Gerberding (Safeco). Current UW President Mark Emmert, for example, serves on the boards of both Weyerhaeuser and Expeditors International.

Much of the controversy, however, revolves around a very specific corporation at an especially sensitive time.

Critics note that Nike has a record of strong-arming universities that associate with the Workers Rights Consortium (WRC), most famously in 2000 when Phil Knight announced he would suspend all future giving to the University of Oregon, including a $30 million pledge to expand Autzen Stadium. Subsequently, the U of O (surprise)! dropped its WRC membership.

In addition, Huskies have been in the vanguard of anti-sweatshop activism for years. The university is only one of a handful of higher-ed institutions affiliated with both the WRC and the Fair Labor Association. (The latter was established during the Clinton Administration in response to the sweatshop controversy surrounding Kathie Lee Gifford’s Wal-Mart clothing line.)

Wise’s appointment comes just weeks before a budget-from-hell legislative session and at an awkward juncture for the UW: On December 3, members of the University of Washington’s Advisory Committee on Trademarks and Licensing voted to put Nike on notice for disregarding the university’s code of conduct. Charges include Nike’s multiple failures to abide by mandated disclosure standards as well as its refusal to pay severance to workers at two Honduran factories.

The university’s next steps, including remediation for the conduct violations and possible contract termination, are in the hands of President Emmert. (The Nike contract is valued at between $35-39 million over ten years.)

Smith’s appointment to the Board of Regents may neutralize the primary argument for Wise’s Nike directorship, namely that the Provost will give voice to campus concerns and agitate for improved corporate behavior.

No need now. We have Regent-designate Orin Smith for that.

December 18, 2009 phjackson Leave a response , , ,

Nike put on notice

originally published on Crosscut.com on December 8, 2009

William Gates Sr., the longtime University of Washington regent, said at a meeting of Crosscut writers Tuesday afternoon that he was not consulted about the recent appointment of UW Provost Phyllis Wise to Nike’s corporate board.

At the same time, Gates said that he saw a benefit to the provost’s appointment. “There’s value to Phyllis having a spot like that,” Gates said. It was a sentiment echoed by UW President Mark Emmert, who said in an interview with Seattle Weekly’s Nina Shapiro that he was “very supportive” of Wise’s directorship and that as a Nike board member Wise would be well positioned to advocate for “appropriate behavior.”

As first reported by the Seattle Times, Wise will be paid between $132,000 and $217,000 a year as a Nike director in addition to her annual university salary of $535,000.

In Victorian parlance, Wise’s appointment might be construed as “ill-timed.”

After deliberating for two hours last Thursday, members of the University of Washington’s Advisory Committee on Trademarks and Licensing voted to put Nike on notice for disregarding the University’s code of conduct. Specific charges include Nike’s multiple failures to abide by mandated disclosure standards as well as its refusal to pay severance to workers at two Honduran factories (a violation of Honduran law).

It was, by any measure, a watershed moment for labor-rights enforcement. As Matt Reed, a member of the UW’s Student Labor Action Project said Tuesday, “This refocuses the narrative, that we don’t do business with corporations that exploit labor.”

The committee’s decision comes on the heels of the UW’s recent action against Russell Athletic as well as student pressure to provide severance for the laid-off workers of the Estofel Apparel Factory in Guatemala City.

On his blog today, state Rep. Reuven Carlyle, a member of the House Higher Education Committee, wrote:

I do believe that Provost Wise, the university’ꀙs chief academic officer, must set a positive example by either rejecting the appearance of a conflict of interest (no matter how slight) or by donating at least 90 percent of her directorship fees to scholarships at the University of Washington. That would still leave her with earning an additional $20,000 a year &mdash 50 percent of the annual earning of a state legislator — for attending five meetings. There can be little question that she is earning these dollars because of her public position and her public role affiliated with the University of Washington. The public should receive compensation, too.

We are facing the most severe economic crisis in generations. Higher education is on the front line of those cuts, and the coming months of the legislative session will be brutally painful for those of us who have to make those decisions. This move by the provost, while made sincerely and with only the best of intentions, is not helpful in our larger efforts to convince our colleagues that our institutions of higher education need more support, and local control, not less. She is in the middle of perfect storm of perception. During normal times, perhaps this would not be an issue, but we don’ꀙt live in normal times. And the fact is the public simply cannot understand why a public servant should benefit so handsomely from an appointment to a private board.

Presupposing that Emmert accepts the advisory committee’s recommendations, the burden will be on Nike to come up with a timely and enforceable remediation plan. If not, Nike will (no pun intended) get the UW boot.

December 8, 2009 phjackson Leave a response , , ,

Gun crazy

originally published on Crosscut.com on November 30, 2009

Gun violence is a hallmark of the American West. It’s as if bloodletting by firearm is hard-wired, as natural as breathing.

Sunday’s execution-style murders of four Lakewood police officers at the Forza coffee shop in unincorporated Pierce County echoed the horror of the Oct. 31 slaying of Seattle police officer Timothy Brenton. How do we make sense of the senseless? As Elie Wiesel wrote years ago, “Words, they die on our lips.”

A tragedy this grave and unspeakable will spur recrimination. Should Washington state extend sentences for all violent offenders? The answer may be existential. Human nature is base and inscrutable. We’re as likely to mitigate violence as remedy the seven deadly sins.

For Western lawmakers, gun control is the third rail. Still. Even liberal icons such as Idaho’s late, great Frank Church knew better than to savage the National Rifle Association. A couple years ago, I referred to this as the Northwest thread in the political fabric — Big Government Libertarianism. West Coast politicians harmonize the value of New Deal-era government intervention with the Northwestern value of libertarian hands-off-ness.

These same lawmakers, however, would be horrified by the mad injustice that unfolded in a Lakewood coffee shop on Sunday.

The debate over gun violence brings out the worst in us. Years ago historian Richard Hofstadter referred to the “Paranoid Style in American Politics.” As Hofstadter understated in 1964, “American politics has often been an arena for angry minds.” (For years I presupposed the gun debate hinged on the West’s urban-rural divide. It doesn’t quite factor, however, in light of the scholarship of Stanford’s Richard White and others who’ve documented the West’s primarily urban character).

The latest nudge at gun control is Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels’s proposed gun ban in city parks and community centers. The mayor has a point. Could there be a compelling reason to pack heat at a neighborhood park? Roaming packs of berserking 5-year-olds? Revenge upon that Czech immigrant who tries to castle twice at chess?

The Nickels initiative triggered a response from Snohomish County Councilmember John Koster who will, according to the Everett Herald, propose an ordinance to lift the firearm ban in Shohomish County parks. “The code is in conflict with state law,” Koster is quoted as saying.

Nickels and Koster are principled public servants. They’re also strategic thinkers, and the current battle serves as a proxy war for gun rights.

Legally speaking, Councilman Koster is likely right and Mayor Nickels is likely wrong. A gun ban contravenes state law. An extended legal fight won’t benefit anyone except, perhaps, the attorneys involved.

All the while, both lawmakers owe the public a “yes, and” pledge: Yes, I’ll pursue this gun-control question AND I propose the following: For example, develop programs in restorative justice to help young offenders make personal amends; enhance neighborhood watch programs; increase access to crime data; no parole for violent convicts; hire more street cops; and invest in gang-crime prevention programs with proven outcomes. The list, of course, goes on.

The Northwest’s epidemic of gun violence demands more than grandstanding or symbolism. It can’t go unchallenged. What, then, will actually work and who, over the long term, will benefit?

November 30, 2009 phjackson Leave a response , , ,

A personal memory of Ted Kennedy

originally published on Crosscut.com on August 25, 2009

My father, like my father’s father and my father’s mother and all of my father’s Norse-American siblings (from the teenage Agnes, a victim of the 1918 Spanish Flu pandemic, to a redoubtable elementary school teacher, Gertrude) is buried on a shoulder of land overlooking Interstate 5.

I didn’t expect it, my father’s death. I was a teenager, petulant and awkward. You see, my Dad waited a long, long time to get hitched. And he waited until he was well into his fifties to have children. He was a good soul, his nuptial-commitment-aversion notwithstanding. So, his death felt abrupt and horrifying to me. To any kid, I assume.

I spoke at my father’s funeral and afterwards I stood in a receiving line for several excruciating hours. It was 1983, an early summer afternoon in Everett. Three people touched my shoulder and were comforting: Pete Wilson, then a Republican Senator from California, Admiral H.G. Rickover, the legendary father of the nuclear Navy, and U.S. Senator Edward M. Kennedy. From that time onward, I rarely made a joke at Ted Kennedy’s expense (and God forgive me those few times that I did make a joke). He was a stand-up fellow, I told friends. He eulogized my Dad at Everett’s First Presbyterian Church.

Here’s a brief excerpt of what Ted Kennedy said about my Dad:

On that day Jack died, he was a friend who comforted me. On more days than I can count, I felt his happy clasp on my shoulder; I saw his crinkled smile; I enjoyed his counsel and his company.

I won’t expound on Ted Kennedy’s personal and political legacy. Many folks, much smarter than I, can and should debate away. Therefore, I will keep it simple: When I was a teenager, my father died unexpectedly. Edward Kennedy was kind to me. I’m grateful to him.

August 25, 2009 phjackson Leave a response , , ,