- Dialogue - lists.wedgeblade.net

Re: [Dialogue] Tony Elizondo
by George Holcombe 23 Dec '12

23 Dec '12

Joann Williams called yesterday with the news that Tony is in the hospital near Houston. Perhaps Jon can get us up to date. George Holcombe 14900 Yellowleaf Tr. Austin, TX 78728 Mobile 512/252-2756 geowanda(a)earthlink.net Hope appeareth, but it is not your Hope—you do not have anything to do with it. It just appeareth. It comes as a stranger, as an alien—it just appeareth! You do not even know why you hope. How in the world could you hope when there is absolutely nothing to justify any hope? ~Joseph W. Mathews

1 0

12/20/12, Spong: On Speaking at the Athenaeum in Madrid and A Christmas Letter
by Ellie Stock 20 Dec '12

20 Dec '12

HOMEPAGE MY PROFILE ESSAY ARCHIVE MESSAGE BOARDS CALENDAR On Speaking at the Athenaeum in Madrid It was a uniquely Spanish event held in the beautifully ornate Athenaeum in downtown Madrid. It followed the format of a carefully orchestrated, intellectual and cultural pattern. The audience numbered over 300 participants. It began at 7:00 p.m. and lasted until 10:00 p.m. after which we went out to dinner. That was not late night dining in Madrid, where life goes on deep into the night. Restaurants do not open for dinner before 7:30 p.m. The siesta tradition of napping during the heat of the day is still in force. A Westerner thus has to slide the clock forward about two hours in order to adjust to the Spanish lifestyle. Westerners also have to slow both their clocks and the pace of life, for in Madrid nothing we attended in our four days there ever started at the scheduled time. Time does not drive life in Spain. This Athenaeum-hosted activity was well advertised. I had been invited to do a public lecture on the subject of homosexuality, as it expresses itself in the public, political and ecclesiastical life of the Western world.” This lecture had three sponsors: first was the Athenaeum itself and especially the philosophical wing of the Athenaeum; second, was the two-year old national lobbying and educational group known as the Federacion Espana por Lesbian, Gay, Transgender and Bi-Sexual people (FELGTB), and third was a national group organized around the work of a French Christian philosopher and mathematician named Marcel Legaut, who sought to do his work outside the structures of institutional Christianity. Prior speakers at events at the Athenaeum have included Madame Curie, Mother Teresa, Albert Einstein, Unamuno and Sarah Bernhardt among many others. The Athenaeum imposed its normal format on that evening. I was the person around which all the publicity was focused, but preliminary speakers, prior to my being introduced that evening, included Victoria Caro, the secretary of the philosophy section of the Athenaeum, Philosophy professor and head of the Philosophy division of the Athenaeum, Ilia Galan, a deputy from the National Assembly of the Spanish government and one who is a strong political activist for transgender people, Carla Antonelli; the nationally known attorney for homosexual causes, Manuel Rodenas, and finally Aurelio Lepe Gil, the coordinator of religious affairs for the FELGTB organization, who along with Domingo Malero, who heads up the Legaut group, were the principal architects of my visit. It was the longest preliminary build up and introduction to a lecture that I have ever experienced. The people in the audience, however, were clearly familiar with this format and seemed to be engaged in it. Finally, after about 45 minutes of preliminary speeches and activities, I was introduced and began my formal presentation. Since my Spanish is quite limited, my lecture was translated line by line by two people, one an atheist, Michael Thallium and the other a candidate for ordination in the Metropolitan Community Church, Brian Christinakis. The uniqueness of this moment lay in the fact that I was the first bishop from any religious tradition to speak publicly in all of Spain in favor of gay rights, full inclusion of gay and lesbian people and in support of same-sex marriage. Spain’s dominant religious institution is the Roman Catholic Church, but this Church is quite unpopular with the people. The reputation of the Catholic Church has been badly tarnished by two events in Spanish history. One was the Inquisition in the 14th century and the other was the far more recent memory of that Church’s support for General Franco in the Spanish Civil War. There is a bitter memory of that military dictatorship, which was viewed as repressive, inhumane and even destructive to the life of Spain. The negativity toward the Catholic Church is so deep that Spain can best be described as a secular nation, but carrying from its history a deeply Catholic footprint In any event, a bishop dressed in the purple vest of my profession, speaking publicly on behalf of gay rights was a unique and noteworthy event in the Spanish context. The press was particularly intrigued. I began the lecture by announcing that the battle for the full inclusion of gay and lesbian people in both church and society has been won and all that remains is for us to live into a new consciousness that this victory has been achieved. I repeated my firm conviction that the moment a society begins to debate one of its cultural prejudices that prejudice begins to die. The reason for this is that all prejudices are rooted in justifying cultural definitions. Once those definitions are successfully challenged by new knowledge, the prejudice is doomed. No reputable psychiatrist today, for example, would define homosexuality as the manifestation of a mental illness and no learned person, scientist or otherwise today still regards homosexuality as a choice that morally depraved people make. Yet those were the two most widely accepted “cultural definitions” of homosexuality until new knowledge demonstrated that neither of these definitions remained defensible and that both were quite simply wrong, embarrassingly wrong. When this new knowledge began to penetrate the previous debate then homophobia was on its way to the museums of antiquity, to take its place beside the witches of Salem, Massachusetts and the once widely assumed abnormality of left-handedness. I noted, sadly, that despite this new knowledge the major Western institution where resistance still remains to the new acceptance of homosexual persons as minority but not abnormal, is the Christian Church in both its Catholic and Protestant forms. The leadership of the Catholic Church, which continues to operate out of the completely discredited definition articulated by Pope Benedict XVI that homosexuality is “deviant,” has become almost hysterical in recent days in its negativity, even using the threat of excommunication to enforce its dying prejudice. Protestants, especially those in the evangelical, fundamentalist traditions, see the movement toward the acceptance of homosexual persons as a direct assault on the authority of the Bible, which they are quite certain condemns homosexuality as “sinful.” So in my address, I looked first at the large numbers of homosexual men who have served well in both the past and the present in the Catholic priesthood, about whom they have never been honest. Then I cited the historical record of that church, which has regularly been wrong on social issues, ranging from its condemnation of Galileo and Darwin to its attempt to change the left-handedness of children in parochial schools, and its refusal until recently to allow suicide victims to be buried from the church. In these examples new truth became self-evident long before the hierarchy of that church recognized that they were wrong and finally changed their attitude. I assured my audience that the same thing will ultimately occur in regard to the issue of homosexuality. Next I spoke to the Bible concerns of Protestantism, going one by one through the battles of history in which Christians quoted the Bible on the wrong side of great moral issues. The literal Bible was the Church’s ally in the battle against the Magna Carta and in favor of the divine right of kings. The Bible was quoted by the Christian Church to justify the institution of slavery and later to enable segregation and apartheid, slavery’s bastard step-children, to become established. The Bible was quoted by the male establishment in both church and state to oppress the legitimate claims of women and to keep them in positions of social, political and economic servility. So when the Literal-minded Christians quote the Bible today to condemn homosexual people, it has the quality of being the last gasp of a dying mentality. Such a use of the Bible also depends on biblical ignorance being rampant. To illustrate that I went through the nine specific biblical texts that are regularly used by Bible-quoting Christians to oppose homosexuality and to pronounce it to be condemned by God. Each one can be quickly and competently set aside in the light of contemporary biblical scholarship. Who among us, for example, is ready to use the story of Sodom and Gomorrah as a biblical text to condemn homosexual persons, when in that story the incest of Lot with his two daughters does not disturb his designation as a “righteous man?” Who among us will give credibility to Paul’s strange argument that homosexuality is God’s punishment inflicted on those human beings who do not worship God properly? To quote the literal words of the Bible, which was written between two and three thousands years ago to condemn homosexual people today, is hardly a rational procedure. I concluded this lecture by turning to the gospels, in which homosexuality is never once mentioned, to show that the portrait of Jesus drawn from gospel sources makes it clear that he was always on the side of the victims of prejudice and rejection. One has only to look at the way Jesus related to and treated such people as the lepers, the Samaritans, the Gentiles, the woman with the chronic menstrual flow and women in general, who were yearning for equality. The lecture was well, even enthusiastically, received and I spent the next sixty minutes responding to questions from the audience as people processed new thoughts. Accounts of my time in Madrid were widely reported the next day in the papers not just in Spain, but across Latin America. At an earlier press conference when the questions were concluded, I stepped down from the stage and, as I always do, I went over to my wife, Christine, and kissed her. For me there was nothing unusual about this, but it seems that the reporters found it noteworthy. In every account that I read they mentioned that the “bishop kissed his wife on the lips at the end of the press conference.” Perhaps if they knew more bishops who had wives that they love as much as I love Christine, this single act would not have received worldwide notice. Consciousness, however, is raised in all kinds of ways. As one of my Episcopal predecessors in the office of bishop noted, as he stood before a massive and beautiful Roman Catholic cathedral, “Well, they do have better quarters, but we have better halves.” To which I say “Viva!” ~John Shelby Spong Read the essay online here. A CHRISTMAS LETTER TO MY READERS: Dear Friends, The images of this past weekend collide in my brain this holiday season in a violent and cacophonous way. I have the mental picture of children, six and seven years of age, piled up in the corner of a school room riddled with bullets from a civilian version of the M-16 rifle used by our armed forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. No child in this mental picture received less than three bullets, some of them received as many as eleven. In the pile of carnage with them were their teachers. Down the hall were the bullet riddled bodies of their principal and their guidance counselor. Twenty children, twelve girls, eight boys, and six adults, all women, the youngest 27, the oldest 56, were dead. On Sunday I was in my parish church, St. Peter’s in Morristown, New Jersey for worship. It was pageant Sunday and the church was filled with children costumed as angels, shepherds, wise men and even as lambs, donkeys, cows and camels walking on four legs. King Herod, who was about seven with his crown in place, directed our attention to Bethlehem. Then we heard the familiar story of the presence of God being experienced in the life of a helpless baby, a dependent child. We listened to the narrative in which the “Holy” was found in the vulnerability of an infant, who was subjected to the dangers of human existence. Our gifted rector, Janet Broderick, spoke to the children about their fears, the pain that life inflicts. She did not hand out panaceas or cheap grace. She did not seek to dull the pain we were feeling with rosy pictures of heavenly bliss now being enjoyed by the victims, nor did she delude us with the idea that twenty-six new stars are now shining in the sky. Instead she let us feel the trauma of the Newtown shooting, the human situation where no one is ever completely safe and the fact that we must embrace and live with these exigencies of human existence. Her message was not “God will take care of you,” for clearly God did not take care of these Connecticut children, but rather that God is with you, God is in you, so have courage, live life fully each day, love wastefully, to all that each of us can be and make every moment count as if it is part of eternity. I looked at the faces of those children in my church last Sunday. They had embraced the horror of the Newtown shooting. Yet, they set it aside momentarily to bask in the glow of knowing that they were performing and were appreciated and loved by their audience. Every parent, however, held his or her child a bit more tightly, a little longer than usual, and much more poignantly. I looked around at the faces of those in that congregation that I know so well. I saw a number of people who had recently lost their spouses. They were both elderly and young. They were black and white. Their losses were six months ago, three months ago, three weeks ago. I looked at the faces of parents with whom I have walked when they lost their children to sickness, to accidents, or to the violence of the natural world. In that congregation on Sunday we prayed not for the security that life will never possess, but for an enlarged capacity to live, a greater ability to love. We prayed not for the absence of pain and hurt, but to be enabled to share in a peace that transcends pain and hurt, the peace that passes understanding. It is not peace “as the world gives.” I then went over in my mind the arguments heard so often in America’s political gun law debates. “To limit a citizen’s access to own legally any sort of weapon is an infringement on their freedom.” Twenty-six people in a single school in Connecticut have had their freedom dramatically ended by a legally owned weapon! “The constitution guarantees us the right to bear arms.” Does that constitutional guarantee allow anyone the right to bear assault weapons? “The reason guns need to have an expanded magazine for rapid firing is that in target practice it takes too long to reload after every shot.” Does that minor inconvenience override the worth of a single child whose life is snuffed out by a barrage of fire power designed to stop an advancing army? How long will we continue to allow the paranoia of a few to endanger the lives of the many? Can this nation, which was born in a new world with a frontier that had to be tamed, get over the gun obsession that we have incorporated into our national psyche and ever grow up to recognize that the frontier is not there any longer, but that we have become a large interdependent society of diverse people, where all of us must temper our individual desires for the sake of the well-being of the whole? We do that in thousands of ways already. We drive on the right side of the street, we stop on red and go on green, we have rules about who can drive and we take licenses away when the privilege of driving has been violated. Is it too much to think that we must ban once and for all the personal ownership and use of weapons designed for mass murder, prosecute those who sell or possess arms illegally and close the loopholes that now exist in background checks for all gun owners? When does a person’s right to carry fire arms conflict with another person’s right to live without fear of violence? As the Christmas season is celebrated, we see the smiles on our children’s faces, but we also remember those bullet-filled bodies in Connecticut. We hear the message of peace on earth, but we also remember to the shame in our unwillingness to act politically to make our children safe. It is not just our children, we need to recognize that we also did not make safe Representative Gabby Gifford of Arizona, nor did we make safe our own political leaders like John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Jr., Robert F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, George Wallace and Malcolm X. Do we want to be a society where children are at risk and where political debate is decided with the use of guns? Is that responsible citizenship? Is that a faithful way to be followers of the one we call the Prince of Peace? A blessed Christmas to you all. ~John Shelby Spong IN MEMORIAM Charlotte Brown, 6 Grace McDonnell, 7 Daniel Barden, 7 Ann Marie Murphy, 52 Rachel Davino, 29 Emilie Parker, 6 Olivia Engle, 6 Jack Pinto, 6 Josephine Gay, 7 Noah Pozner, 6 Ana Marques-Greene, 6 Caroline Previdi, 6 Dylan Hockley, 6 Jessica Rekos, 6 Dawn Hochsprung, 47 Avielle Richman, 6 Madeleine Hsu, 6 Lauren Rousseau, 30 Catherine Hubbard, 6 Mary Sherlach, 56 Chase Kowalski Victoria Soto, 27 Nancy Lanza, 52 Benjamin Wheeler, 6 Jesse Lewis, 6 Allison Wyatt, 6 James Mattioli, 6 Announcements Between now and December 31st, get a great deal on the perfect Christmas gift! Give someone you love a year-long subscription to Bishop Spong’s Weekly Newsletter, and you’ll be giving them the insight and thoughtful commentary you have come to appreciate from one of the leading voices for “believers in exile”. Plus, you’ll be giving them access to over eight years of weekly essays that Bishop Spong has written — all the way back to 2004! There are 2 simple ways you can do this: 1) Simply send in a check for $25 to: ProgressiveChristianity.org 3530 SE Hawthorne Blvd. Suite 1 Portland, OR 97214 ~Please clearly write the name and email address of the person you are giving to OR 2) Email us today at support(a)johnshelbyspong.com with: ~Your name and email address ~Your friend’s name and email address **Then we will send you a paypal invoice that you can pay directly using a credit card. Use one of these 2 simple steps and we will send your friend a Special Gift email notification - letting them know that about your gift. Then they will begin to receive Bishop Spong’s essay every Thursday for the whole rest of the year! Pass on all that you love about Bishop Spong — Give a gift Subscription today! Any questions or concerns, please contact us at support(a)johnshelbyspong.com or 503-236-3545. Copyright © 2012 ProgressiveChristianity.org, All rights reserved. You are receiving this email because you have a membership at our website. Our mailing address is: ProgressiveChristianity.org 3530 SE Hawthorne Blvd. Unit 1 Portland, OR 97214 Add us to your address book

1 0

Re: [Dialogue] [Oe List ...] more on guns
by David Walters 18 Dec '12

18 Dec '12

1 0

more on guns
by jlepps＠pc.jaring.my 18 Dec '12

18 Dec '12

Colleagues I'd like to add one more note to this lively dialogue (which I hope continues, and perhaps even begins to focus). It's obviously the case that a change of heart is required in this situation. The question becomes how to make that happen, and I'm reminded of Martin Luther Kings's response to us WASPS who were opposing desegregation because "we need to have hearts change to support integration." To paraphrase him, "Laws can't make you love me, but they may prevent you from killing me." Strict gun control may be that kind of law. And, IMHO, whatever will prevent this sort of mass murder is worth doing. Also I've noticed that hearts are remarkably adaptable to their external situation. In terms of luring the tiger, the question now that she's out of her lair (sorry Cynthia), what do we do: well perhaps something initial like forbidding the sale of assault weapons and mass magazines. That might be able to get some support from tigers. After all, we endure considerable inconvenience to insure safety on airplanes,, so perhaps the inconvenience of forbidding access to these instruments of mass destruction might be a possible first step. I don't believe we'll be able to change tigers into lambs, but maybe we can help de-fang them! John

6 6

Re: [Dialogue] [Oe List ...] more on guns
by jonzondo＠juno.com 18 Dec '12

18 Dec '12

Thank you, Gordon. I love the dimension of your share. There are so many conversations which are needed now... and an ongoing dialogue for many years is part of what is needed. In addition to talking about guns and gun culture we also need to talk about: *mental health care *schools as factories *how we as a country address fears *how we care for the totality of each other (mental care, physical care, emotional care, elder care, child care, etc) *the role of government *how can we re-create government, or differently put, how we re-claim government *how to better listen to anyone who is alienated or hurting *how to move from the paradigm of punishment to a more holistic paradigm of justice and growth for all involved. My list goes on and on. and from my fifth city days I know that we need to work with "all the issues, all the time". From my native teachers I know that "we are all in this together, and we have to work together to get the work done". Thanks to everyone for every step you are taking... no matter how small. Jon Mark Elizondo ____________________________________________________________ Woman is 53 But Looks 25 Mom reveals 1 simple wrinkle trick that has angered doctors... http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/50d0bb008e1093b002c27st02vuc Since I'm part of this problem and hopelessly complicit in sustaining it, I'll start with a little confession. Like many of us, I grew up in a gun culture, in my case as a Wisconsin farm boy. I loved the various rifles and handguns I accumulated over those early years, and I continued to sharpen my target shooting through college and graduate school and even as a young professor (never really had the heart for hunting). I was (full disclosure) a member of the NRA starting in high school, so that I could get my cases of 22 ammo for a pittance. (I dropped my membership while in college, when the organization started to morph into the right wing entity that we see today.) When our family joined the symbolic order and moved to the West Side, I got rid of everything except for a special treasure, my Ruger Single Six (replica Colt six-gun) with its beautiful rosewood grips and fancy Mexican fast draw holster. Lane Erskine and I used to enjoy sharing our fascination with our handguns' workmanship. Unlike Lane, who was given to packing heat as he moved about in 5th City, I kept mine unloaded and in a locked case in our room. After a few months, however, I became concerned that even with those safeguards, in our community, with the kids having easy access to everyone's rooms, it was too much of a risk. With great sadness, I took my beloved revolver and holster to a gun shop in Wisconsin and sold them, thus ending my gun ownership phase. When it came time, a few years later, to decide which of my siblings would inherit our father's firearms, I chose not to participate in the distribution. I start with this to make the point that what we're dealing with in this gun culture lies very deep in many of us. I've had--and still have--a love affair with the classic American Western film. This is a tradition that exalts the single shootist, who is able to do good and make things right for others precisely because he has at least one sidearm and when necessary uses it well. I see myself mirrored in the fascination of young people today for all the first person shooter games, battlefield adventures and standing one's ground against those hordes of attacking vampires. It's a manifestation of our special culture as Americans, with our frontier tradition and mythology. Which in turn is an aspect of what we sometimes refer to as the concept of American exceptionalism. To deal seriously with gun violence, it seems to me, is to take on the challenge of shifting these profoundly rooted national and personal images and stories of who we are. They are so much a part of us that we hardly ever feel the need to talk about them--they're simply assumed, taken for granted as part of the common ground we share as Americans. We all grieve when events like those of this past week occur, and we feel personal shock and pain when one of them hits close to home. At the same time, at some deep level we also find our way to accepting these occurrences as the tragic but necessary side effects of our special nature as a frontier people and the unique role of our nation in the world. It's like the collateral war damage to innocent people that we've accustomed ourselves to living with. We lament it, and we truly want to keep it to the bare minimum, but we also feel that our historical role requires our paying this cost (a bit of White Man's Burden, /redivivus/). Theologically, there's a strong connection here with the myth of redemptive violence, which provides a religious rationale for many among us to accept the way things are and for at least part of the deep resistance we encounter to changing the gun laws. I suspect that we will now begin to see some modest changes in access to semi-automatic weapons, some improvements in preventing, spotting and caring for mental illness, maybe even more support for our educational systems. I'm hoping it's also a point in time where we will see, in various formats and venues, the start of the conversation about our national identity and values that we very much need to have. What I find myself looking for are ways to engage our neighbors and ourselves in surfacing and exploring together these largely unquestioned images and stories that so powerfully shape our behavior. What is really special or exceptional about America--the good, the bad and the ugly--relative to what is special and exceptional about any other nation and people? How are we to understand that exceptionalism, and what do we do with it in today's world? Some of us might like to get rid of the whole idea of exceptionalism, but I think in this country, it's there, and we have to engage it. Doing so, it seems to me, is key to that long range and indirect strategy we've been talking about in this conversation. It's essential if we're to have a real shot at changing the images from which we continue to act and from which we and others continue to suffer. Engaging these conversations, I'm afraid, means welcoming and listening deeply to those with whom we strongly disagree--sharing and discussing together what we think the times call us to preserve in our heritage, what to leave behind and what to recreate. If it's to work, it will have to be uncomfortably inclusive, in a big tent, as the Occupy folk like to say. We could begin to start such conversations in our workplaces, our churches, our book groups, our community meetings, at the pub or coffee shop, over dinner with friends, on line, using all these wonderful social media tools. It's something each of us could tackle, if we chose to, without much of an organizational structure. Maybe down the road at some point, . . . . Is this a tactic--and a conversation--we want to be part of? Gordon On 12/17/2012 1:45 PM, jlepps(a)pc.jaring.my wrote: > Colleagues > > I'd like to add one more note to this lively dialogue (which I hope > continues, and perhaps even begins to focus). > > It's obviously the case that a change of heart is required in this > situation. The question becomes how to make that happen, and I'm > reminded of Martin Luther Kings's response to us WASPS who were > opposing desegregation because "we need to have hearts change to > support integration." To paraphrase him, "Laws can't make you love me, > but they may prevent you from killing me." Strict gun control may be > that kind of law. And, IMHO, whatever will prevent this sort of mass > murder is worth doing. Also I've noticed that hearts are remarkably > adaptable to their external situation. > > In terms of luring the tiger, the question now that she's out of her > lair (sorry Cynthia), what do we do: well perhaps something initial > like forbidding the sale of assault weapons and mass magazines. That > might be able to get some support from tigers. After all, we endure > considerable inconvenience to insure safety on airplanes,, so perhaps > the inconvenience of forbidding access to these instruments of mass > destruction might be a possible first step. > > I don't believe we'll be able to change tigers into lambs, but maybe > we can help de-fang them! > > John > > _______________________________________________ > OE mailing list > OE(a)lists.wedgeblade.net > http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/oe-wedgeblade.net >

1 0

(no subject)
by Carl Ennis 17 Dec '12

17 Dec '12

http://scottgoodacre.co.uk/wp-content/themes/choices/images/heybuddy.php

3 2

Sufficient unto the day is the contradiction there of
by Paula Philbrook 17 Dec '12

17 Dec '12

Sufficient unto the day is the contradiction there of. . . . I have carried this phrase in my head since Town Meeting days. What is the contradiction? In the Fifth City process we identified the VICTIM IMAGE as the underlying spirit problem or contraction, has that changed in our life times? Daughter, Rebekah, writes and is the content editor of Dictionary.com. They selected bluster as the word of the year for 2012. (follow this link if you want to read about it- http://hotword.dictionary.com/bluster/) In the article, she says you cannot solve a problem until you articulate it. Is that right? The culture of drugs, guns, domestic violence, excess consumption, and bullying, all point to a similar underlying contradiction-deep personal isolation coupled with a vacuum or absence of community has produced a mindset of "super" power individuals. *The individual is more important than the whole. * * * The victim image was from the Freedom section of RSI, I keep thinking this contradiction is related to the last section, the CHURCH. There is no WE. Paula *Gratitude unlocks the fullness of life. It turns what we have into enough, and more. It turns denial into acceptance, chaos to order, confusion to clarity. It can turn a meal into a feast, a house into a home, a stranger into a friend. Gratitude makes sense of our past, brings peace for today, and creates a vision for tomorrow*. *Melody* Beattie

4 3

Thinking the Unthinkable
by facilitationfla＠aol.com 17 Dec '12

17 Dec '12

An important article to read: re lack of health care for mentally ill -- in light of Sandy Hook http://anarchistsoccermom.blogspot.com/ I tried to send the article to Chris Hayes (Up with Chris) and asked him to have program on this subject. Her other article -- War on women (October?) was also very good Cynthia Vance

3 2

Re: [Dialogue] Guns
by David Walters 17 Dec '12

17 Dec '12

6 6

Re: [Dialogue] Guns
by David Walters 17 Dec '12

17 Dec '12

1 0