SubscribeIf you followed the internal politics of evangelical and fundamentalist leaders, you’d see this for what it is—not an elevation of Warren, but a slap in the face of the old guard leaders like Dobson and LaHaye. They’ve been fighting to see who gets to be the spokesman for the movement, and lately it’s been a tie. Obama just broke it.
And let’s be clear, there is a difference between those groups. Warren may not be progressive on gay rights, but he’s been out front on a number of issues of global justice—traveling from Davos to Damascus, and working hard to get rank-and-file evangelicals invested in "creation care" environmentalism and the fight against global HIV/AIDS.
If he were put in charge of HHS or listened to on gay policies, I’d be pissed. But what Obama is doing here isn’t that. It’s a move that marginalizes the worst on the religious right, elevates a guy who’s more progressive than most religious leaders on a number of issues, and earns him some moderate cred at the outset.
If Obama sells out on the progressive promise in actual policy, I’ll be in the streets protesting with everyone else. But if his "selling out" is having a fairly moderate, popular evangelical give the invocation at the inaugural—when large sections of this country still worry Obama’s a scary evil Mooooslim—then who gives a flying fuck?
During a gathering for Planned Parenthood, Obama declared that the first thing he would do as president would be to sign the Freedom of Choice Act, which would abolish all restrictions and limitations on women in the United States to have an abortion prior to fetal viability, whether at the state or federal level, or after the point of viability when the life of the mother is endangered.What's that, he's friends with someone who he totally disagrees with on some issues? We already knew that from the Rev. Wright "issue."
Obama has also been known for his opposition to the Supreme Court ruling to uphold the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act and his votes against legislative efforts in the Illinois Senate for three consecutive years (2001-2003) to give legal protections to a baby born alive during an attempted abortion procedure.
During Warren’s interview with Beliefnet, the megachurch pastor confessed that he and Obama “totally disagree” with one another on the issue of abortion.
One question Waldman asked Warren was why he talked to Obama about his abortion position but not President Bush about his position on torture, which Warren said he is “totally against.”So he's saying he "won't give advice on policy issues" even though he took Obama to task over abortion (which sure as hell sounds like a policy issue to me) while giving Bush a complete fucking pass on authorizing torture because, you know, he never got around to it. And this is the best thing about Rick Warren?
“Never got the chance. I just didn’t,” Warren responded.
He reverse tithes (giving 90% of his income back to the church)Which church — let me guess — pays for his housing, transportation, etc.? Nice tax dodge.
One question Waldman asked Warren was why he talked to Obama about his abortion position but not President Bush about his position on torture, which Warren said he is “totally against."So he's saying he 'won't give advice on policy issues' even though he took Obama to task over abortion (which sure as hell sounds like a policy issue to me) while giving Bush a complete fucking pass on authorizing torture because, you know, he never got around to it. And this is the best thing about Rick Warren?"
“Never got the chance. I just didn’t,” Warren responded.
If he were put in charge of HHS or listened to on gay policies, I’d be pissed. But what Obama is doing here isn’t that. It’s a move that marginalizes the worst on the religious right, elevates a guy who’s more progressive than most religious leaders on a number of issues, and earns him some moderate cred at the outset.
It's silly enough the amount of criticism Obama is getting before he even takes office, but really, how much does one guy need to accomplish before people stop second-guessing every decision he makes? It's like how that psychic chick on Mediumsolves like every single murder case to come her way, and yet any time she has some new dream or vision they treat her like she's an ultimate fuck-up.Actually, we should never stop second-guessing our government, as opposed to treating them as if they had magical prognostication powers.
And all the while they're alienating a newly energized and very vocal constituency while at the same time handing over a lot of political leverage to them.You may be right, or not. But it's important to remember that Obama has always believed it was possible to reach out to conservative evangelicals. He talked about it all the time, up until the election when they all decided to believe he was a secret Muslim.
This is a mess politically, and Team Obama does NOT do messy. Anyone who thinks that this is a smart maneuver to convert the moderate evangelicals are being too clever by half.
No book—indeed, no phenomenon—mirrors the Christianity of the middle Bush years better than "The Purpose-Driven Life" by Rick Warren, the pastor of California's Saddleback Church. Since 2002 it has sold more than 30 million copies worldwide, making it the bestselling nonfiction hardcover book in history. At first glance it looks like "What Color Is Your Parachute?" for the 21st century. It's constructed like a self-help book, too: each chapter is a "unit," with quotations to contemplate and questions to ask yourself as you're falling asleep. The writing is easy-breezy, filled with slogans and exclamation points. But the message is uniform and Christ-centered: if you give your life to God, God will show you the meaning of your life.
It's silly enough the amount of criticism Obama is getting before he even takes office, but really, how much does one guy need to accomplish before people stop second-guessing every decision he makes? It's like how that psychic chick on Medium solves like every single murder case to come her way, and yet any time she has some new dream or vision they treat her like she's an ultimate fuck-up.To which I responded:
Actually, we should never stop second-guessing our government, as opposed to treating them as if they had magical prognostication powers.
No one is saying you shouldn't question the government. I am saying you should pick your battles better, and understand what strategic reasons your president-elect might have for making a move that is, in fact, designed to benefit your progressive positions in the future.Obama has said again and again that he opposes same sex marriages, specifically because of his own religious convictions. Are we supposed to believe that he's somehow secretly for 'em? Seems bizarre.
It's a gesture. It's symbolic, not substantive. When the chips are down, there precisely won't be any teeth-kicking. This is how politics works.Yes, it's a gesture. It's a big fat middle finger to gay marriage advocates. Either symbolism is important, or it's not. If prop-8 had failed, it probably wouldn't be a big deal at all, but picking Warren just a few months after that election is pooring salt on people's wounds, in a totally unnecessary way.
But hey -- don't call him a homophobe: He even eats dinner with gays.Given how vocal he is about not being gay, I bet that's not all he does with gays.
Normally the people that say separate church from state are the ones that don't support church views.The phrase "wall of separation between church and state" was originally used by Thomas Jefferson, to (praisingly) describe the First Amendment.
The only people who should be able to say this are people that go to church.Who are you to say what I cannot say?
This will be the most open, accessible, and inclusive Inauguration in American history.
In keeping with the spirit of unity and common purpose this Inauguration will reflect, the President-elect and Vice President-elect have chosen some of the world's most gifted artists and people with broad appeal to participate in the inaugural ceremonies.
Pastor Rick Warren has a long history of activism on behalf of the disadvantaged and the downtrodden. He's devoted his life to performing good works for the poor and leads the evangelical movement in addressing the global HIV/AIDS crisis. In fact, the President-elect recently addressed Rick Warren's Saddleback Civil Forum on Global Health to salute Warren's leadership in the struggle against HIV/AIDS and pledge his support to the effort in the years ahead.
The President-elect disagrees with Pastor Warren on issues that affect the LGBT community. They disagree on other issues as well. But what's important is that they agree on many issues vital to the pursuit of social justice, including poverty relief and moving toward a sustainable planet; and they share a commitment to renewing America's promise by expanding opportunity at home and restoring our moral leadership abroad.
As he's said again and again, the President-elect is committed to bringing together all sides of the faith discussion in search of common ground. That's the only way we'll be able to unite this country with the resolve and common purpose necessary to solve the challenges we face.
The Inauguration will also involve Reverend Joseph Lowery, who will be delivering the official benediction at the Inauguration. Reverend Lowery is a giant of the civil rights movement who boasts a proudly progressive record on LGBT issues. He has been a leader in the struggle for civil rights for all Americans, gay or straight.
And for the very first time, there will be a group representing the interests of LGBT Americans participating in the Inaugural Parade.
“The furious reaction of partisans to Obama's selection of Rick Warren to give the inaugural invocation is instructive. The left's bone to pick is that by giving Warren such a prominent inaugural post, Obama is signalling that Warren's views are at least minimally acceptable and legitimately part of the discourse in Changed America. The right's bone to pick is the idea that a pro-life leader would bless the inauguration of man who supports abortion rights. (Interesting that pro-choicers have no objection, per se, and that anti-gay marriage types have no objection, per se.)
In his short political career, Obama has deftly manipulated political symbols to his advantage, but he's never been one to pay homage to one of the most sacred regulations of identity politics, which is that one must take care of one's own kind before turning outward. His mind operates differently. Obama does believe, as many of his supporters do, that there are uncrossable demarcation lines between the reasonable and the profane. But he doesn't believe that Warren, someone he admires for reaching outside his (Warren's) comfort zone on AIDS, is all that different from himself. Obama is simultaneously capable of admiring Warren while disdaining Warren's oogedy boogedy appraoch to gay relationships and his uninformed response to torture. Warren's views might be hurtful to gays; Obama does not think they are harmful.
That said, his team bungled this a bit. Reaching out to gay groups to give them a heads up might have softened the edge of their reaction and given them internal confidence that they were valued members of Obama's coalition. Dropping the list (like it's hot), without pre-notice, must have seemed like a sharp slap in the face. The LGBT community is still very raw about Proposition 8, and one would assume that at least someone in Obama's inner circle would be aware of this.
On the other hand, the coverage of gay community outrage accomplishes something tangible: isn't this the first time that Warren's been tagged as something other than a moderate, get-along cleric?”
“Shrewd politics, but if anyone is under any illusion that Obama is interested in advancing gay equality, they should probably sober up now. He won't be as bad as the Clintons (who, among leading Democrats, could?), but pandering to Christianists at his inauguration is a depressing omen. More evidence that a civil rights movement needs to realize that no politician can deliver for us what we have to deliver on our own.”
"[I]t’s important for America to come together, even though we may have disagreements on certain social issues. And I would note that a couple of years ago, I was invited to Rick Warren’s church to speak, despite his awareness that I held views that entirely contrary to his when it came to gay and lesbian rights, when it came to issues like abortion.Video.
...[W]hat we have to do is be able to create an atmosphere where we can disagree without being disagreeable and then focus on those things that we hold in common as Americans."
(now to hit the bee hive with a bat!) I can also say what I want!Unlike you, I never said that you couldn't.
Now there is a final reason I think that Jesus says, "Love your enemies." It is this: that love has within it a redemptive power. And there is a power there that eventually transforms individuals. That's why Jesus says, "Love your enemies." Because if you hate your enemies, you have no way to redeem and to transform your enemies. But if you love your enemies, you will discover that at the very root of love is the power of redemption. You just keep loving people and keep loving them, even though they're mistreating you. Here's the person who is a neighbor, and this person is doing something wrong to you and all of that. Just keep being friendly to that person. Keep loving them. Don't do anything to embarrass them. Just keep loving them, and they can't stand it too long. Oh, they react in many ways in the beginning. They react with bitterness because they're mad because you love them like that. They react with guilt feelings, and sometimes they'll hate you a little more at that transition period, but just keep loving them. And by the power of your love they will break down under the load. That's love, you see. It is redemptive, and this is why Jesus says love. There's something about love that builds up and is creative. There is something about hate that tears down and is destructive. So love your enemies.
I think of one of the best examples of this. We all remember the great president of this United States, Abraham Lincoln—these United States rather. You remember when Abraham Lincoln was running for president of the United States, there was a man who ran all around the country talking about Lincoln. He said a lot of bad things about Lincoln, a lot of unkind things. And sometimes he would get to the point that he would even talk about his looks, saying, "You don't want a tall, lanky, ignorant man like this as the president of the United States." He went on and on and on and went around with that type of attitude and wrote about it. Finally, one day Abraham Lincoln was elected president of the United States. And if you read the great biography of Lincoln, if you read the great works about him, you will discover that as every president comes to the point, he came to the point of having to choose a Cabinet. And then came the time for him to choose a Secretary of War. He looked across the nation, and decided to choose a man by the name of Mr. Stanton. And when Abraham Lincoln stood around his advisors and mentioned this fact, they said to him: "Mr. Lincoln, are you a fool? Do you know what Mr. Stanton has been saying about you? Do you know what he has done, tried to do to you? Do you know that he has tried to defeat you on every hand? Do you know that, Mr. Lincoln? Did you read all of those derogatory statements that he made about you?" Abraham Lincoln stood before the advisors around him and said: "Oh yes, I know about it; I read about it; I've heard him myself. But after looking over the country, I find that he is the best man for the job."
Mr. Stanton did become Secretary of War, and a few months later, Abraham Lincoln was assassinated. And if you go to Washington, you will discover that one of the greatest words or statements ever made by, about Abraham Lincoln was made about this man Stanton. And as Abraham Lincoln came to the end of his life, Stanton stood up and said: "Now he belongs to the ages." And he made a beautiful statement concerning the character and the stature of this man. If Abraham Lincoln had hated Stanton, if Abraham Lincoln had answered everything Stanton said, Abraham Lincoln would have not transformed and redeemed Stanton. Stanton would have gone to his grave hating Lincoln, and Lincoln would have gone to his grave hating Stanton. But through the power of love Abraham Lincoln was able to redeem Stanton.
Q: Good morning, sir. I have a question about Pastor Rick Warren. He holds a number of social views that are at odds with your own views and with those of some of your very strong supporters.Really this is the sort of thing which convinces me that while Obama has good intentions, he doesn't really get it in ways that prevent him from being the "fierce advocate for equality" that he claims to be. It's like insisting that we need to give equal time to the KKK or the Creativity movement in order to have a discussion about race.
Obama: Right.
Q: I'm wondering what went into your decision to choose him for this prominent role as you embark on your own presidency; at a time when you're dotting every "i" and crossing every "t," it does send some important signals.
Obama: Well, let me start by talking about my own views. I think that it is no secret that I am fierce advocate for equality for gay and lesbian Americans. It is something that I have been consistent on and something that I intend to continue to be consistent on during my presidency.
What I've also said is that it is important for America to come together even though we may have disagreements on certain social issues.
And I would note that a couple of years ago I was invited to Rick Warren's church to speak, despite his awareness that I held views that were entirely contrary to his when it came to gay and lesbian rights, when it came to issues like abortion.
Nevertheless, I had an opportunity to speak, and that dialogue, I think, is part of what my campaign's been all about, that we're not going to agree on every single issue. But what we have to do is to be able to create an atmosphere when we—where we can disagree without being disagreeable, and then focus on those things that we hold in common as Americans. So, Rick Warren has been invited to speak, Dr. Joseph Lowery, who has deeply contrasting views to Rick Warren about a whole host of issues, is also speaking.
During the course of the entire inaugural festivities, there are going to be a wide range of viewpoints that are presented. And that's how it should be, because that's what America's about—that's part of the magic of this country, is that we are diverse and noisy and opinionated and, so, you know, that's the spirit in which, you know, we have put together what I think we be a terrific inauguration, and that's hopefully going to be a spirit that carries over into my administration.
“On the surface, the decision does appear a cynical political ploy to win the loyalty of hotly contested evangelical Christian voters, while taking for granted (even smacking in the face) the progressive base that worked tirelessly to elect a President Obama.
…[Obama] draws on historic precedents for contemporary political wisdom. Famously, his selection of cabinet members from the left and right ends of the political spectrum hearkens back to Abraham Lincoln's ‘team of rivals.’ But there may be another precedent at work here - that of Nelson Mandela and the Springboks, South Africa's white supremacist rugby team. In his book, PLAYING THE ENEMY: Nelson Mandela and the Game that Made a Nation, John Carlin describes how Mandela sparked controversy by sporting the Springbok jersey, despite the all-white team's history of singing racist anthems at their games. Nelson Mandela's efforts integrated the team and its fan base, and helped unite the nation. In fact, in numerous arenas, Mandela embraced figures hateful to black South Africans, in order forge longer-term consensus.
Like South Africa's white elite, America's evangelical Christians are a minority, but a minority with disproportionate cultural and social sway.
…For the record, let me state unequivocally that I believe homophobia is an abomination. I believe heart and soul that the LGBT population deserve the right to marry - and deserve all requisite spousal benefits - just as black people and women deserved the right to vote before they won it. And indeed, Obama's choice to lead the taskforce for the Inaugural benediction, Rev. Joseph Lowery, a civil rights leader, agrees with me.
Pastor Rick Warren, however, emphatically does not. But he does agree with a majority of the American population. Barack Obama lies somewhere in the middle, supporting civil unions and spousal benefits, but not marriage, for the LGBT population. While I find Rick Warren's homophobia abhorrent and his creationism impossible, I recognize that he helped Obama double the number of evangelical voters in certain states from what Kerry garnered in 2004 - key states, such as Indiana, Florida and Colorado that helped Obama win the election. Barack Obama and I disagree fundamentally on certain issues, but what he achieves so spectacularly, beyond any American figure in my lifetime, is the ability to help us transcend our differences by appealing to our common values.
People will argue that they do not share any values with Pastor Rick Warren, who compares abortion to the Holocaust and calls for the assassination of Ahmadenijad. But if we can enfold his numerous followers into our political dialogue, let them get to know us of all stripes, perhaps we can begin to wear away some of the myths and misconceptions that disconnect us. If we continue to push away those who disagree with us, we will entrench ourselves deeper and deeper in the divisions that have gotten us nowhere. Obama's campaign proved that reaching out to those with whom we differ achieves the advancement of the progressive agenda - incrementally, rather than all in one fell swoop.
In his autobiography, LONG WALK TO FREEDOM, Nelson Mandela relates how he repeatedly experienced the wrath of his own supporters, during his nearly 30 years in prison, for extending olive branches to the Apartheid government. But only through the gesture of reaching out to the opposing force was he able to dismantle it. I hope that's what President-elect Obama has in mind.”
Hey gays, here’s your least favorite person in the world, Noobama, who had been introducing some new economic slobs at a presser until the Q&A, when everyone asks him why he picked Chunksy McLardtits to deliver the Christian speech at his inauguration. Obama responds, “UHHHHHHHHHHHHHH” and then offers a series of actual words that basically carry the same weight as “UHHHHHHHHHHHHHH.”Then Newell breaks it down. If that blog was a news channel, I would abandon The Daily Show.
“At the time, Obama said he was a Christian, that he has a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, that he reads the Bible regularly and prays constantly. He described his conversion experience in his mid-20s, how he walked the aisle at Trinity United Church of Christ one Sunday in a public affirmation of his private change of heart. But we didn't talk labels, I didn't ask him for one, and he didn't offer.
A few weeks ago, during a visit to the Chicago Sun-Times editorial board, I had a chance to ask Obama that lingering question: ‘Are you an evangelical?’
Surrounded by members of the editorial board, editors, our publisher, and a couple of his own aides, this was Obama's answer:
‘Gosh, I'm not sure if labels are helpful here because the definition of an evangelical is so loose and subject to so many different interpretations. I came to Christianity through the black church tradition where the line between evangelical and non-evangelical is completely blurred. Nobody knows exactly what it means.
‘Does it mean that you feel you've got a personal relationship with Christ the savior? Then that's directly part of the black church experience. Does it mean you're born-again in a classic sense, with all the accoutrements that go along with that, as it's understood by some other tradition? I'm not sure.’
He continued his answer: ‘My faith is complicated by the fact that I didn't grow up in a particular religious tradition. And so what that means is when you come at it as an adult, your brain mediates a lot, and you ask a lot of questions.
‘There are aspects of Christian tradition that I'm comfortable with and aspects that I'm not. There are passages of the Bible that make perfect sense to me and others that I go, 'Ya know, I'm not sure about that,'‘ he said, shrugging and stammering slightly.
It would have been easier for the senator-cum-president to answer, simply, ‘Yes,’ to the evangelical question.
But for Obama, as for many of us, faith is complicated, messy, a work in progress.
And, if we're honest about it, the standard labels just don't fit.”
Said Huckabee: "People who are homosexuals should have every right in terms of their civil rights, to be employed, to do anything they want. But that's not really the issue. I know you talked about it and I think you got into it a little bit early on. But when we're talking about a redefinition of an institution, that's different than individual civil rights. We're never going to convince each other...But here is the difference. Bull Connor was hosing people down in the streets of Alabama. John Lewis got his skull cracked on the Selma bridge."Video -- "Huckabee: Gay Rights Movement Hasn't Met Violence Threshold."
No doubt Harvey Milk, Matthew Shepard, Teish Cannon, and the thousands of other victims of anti-gay hate crimes would beg to differ, if they could. As Think Progress notes, "Huckabee's lame violence threshold is nothing more than a shoddy attempt to conceal his deep and fundamental homophobia."
“I think we are all entitled to ask and to keep asking every member of the Obama transition team until we receive a satisfactory answer, the following questions:
Will Warren be invited to the solemn ceremony of inauguration without being asked to repudiate what he has directly said to deny salvation to Jews?
Will he be giving a national invocation without disowning what his mentor said about civil rights and what his leading supporter says about Mormons?
Will the American people be prayed into the next administration, which will be confronted by a possible nuclear Iran and an already nuclear Pakistan, by a half-educated pulpit-pounder raised in the belief that the Armageddon solution is one to be anticipated with positive glee?
....As Barack Obama is gradually learning, his job is to be the president of all Americans at all times. If he likes, he can oppose the idea of marriage for Americans who are homosexual. That's a policy question on which people may and will disagree. However, the man he has chosen to deliver his inaugural invocation is a relentless clerical businessman who raises money on the proposition that certain Americans -- non-Christians, the wrong kind of Christians, homosexuals, nonbelievers -- are of less worth and littler virtue than his own lovely flock of redeemed and salvaged and paid-up donors.
This quite simply cannot stand. Is it possible that Obama did not know the ideological background of his latest pastor? The thought seems plausible when one recalls the way in which he tolerated the odious Jeremiah Wright. Or is it possible that he does know the background of racism and superstition and sectarianism but thinks (as with Wright) that it might be politically useful in attracting a certain constituency? Either of these choices is pretty awful to contemplate.
A president may by all means use his office to gain re-election, to shore up his existing base, or to attract a new one. But the day of his inauguration is not one of the days on which he should be doing that. It is an event that belongs principally to the voters and to their descendants, who are called to see that a long tradition of peaceful transition is cheerfully upheld, even in those years when the outcome is disputed. I would myself say that it doesn't need a clerical invocation at all, since, to borrow Lincoln's observation about Gettysburg, it has already been consecrated. But if we must have an officiating priest, let it be some dignified old hypocrite with no factional allegiance and not a tree-shaking huckster and publicity seeker who believes that millions of his fellow citizens are hellbound because they do not meet his own low and vulgar standards.”
“As we saw during primary season, our president-elect is not free of his own brand of hubris and arrogance, and sometimes it comes before a fall: ‘You’re likable enough, Hillary’ was the prelude to his defeat in New Hampshire. He has hit this same note again by assigning the invocation at his inauguration to the Rev. Rick Warren, the Orange County, Calif., megachurch preacher who has likened committed gay relationships to incest, polygamy and ‘an older guy marrying a child.’ Bestowing this honor on Warren was a conscious — and glib — decision by Obama to spend political capital. It was made with the certitude that a leader with a mandate can do no wrong....
There’s no reason why Obama shouldn’t return the favor by inviting him to Washington. But there’s a difference between including Warren among the cacophony of voices weighing in on policy and anointing him as the inaugural’s de facto pope. You can’t blame V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire, the first openly gay Episcopal bishop and an early Obama booster, for feeling as if he’d been slapped in the face. ‘I’m all for Rick Warren being at the table,’ he told The Times, but ‘we’re talking about putting someone up front and center at what will be the most-watched inauguration in history, and asking his blessing on the nation. And the God that he’s praying to is not the God that I know.’
....But we’re not there yet. Warren’s defamation of gay people illustrates why, as does our president-elect’s rationalization of it. When Obama defends Warren’s words by calling them an example of the ‘wide range of viewpoints’ in a ‘diverse and noisy and opinionated’ America, he is being too cute by half. He knows full well that a ‘viewpoint’ defaming any minority group by linking it to sexual crimes like pedophilia is unacceptable.
It is even more toxic in a year when that group has been marginalized and stripped of its rights by ballot initiatives fomenting precisely such fears. ‘You’ve got to give them hope’ was the refrain of the pioneering 1970s gay politician Harvey Milk, so stunningly brought back to life by Sean Penn on screen this winter. Milk reminds us that hope has to mean action, not just words.
....When Obama defends Warren’s words by calling them an example of the ‘wide range of viewpoints’ in a ‘diverse and noisy and opinionated’ America, he is being too cute by half. He knows full well that a ‘viewpoint’ defaming any minority group by linking it to sexual crimes like pedophilia is unacceptable.
....McCarthy added that it’s also time ‘for President-elect Obama to start acting on the promises he made to the LGBT community during his campaign so that he doesn’t go down in history as another Bill Clinton, a sweet-talking swindler who would throw us under the bus for the sake of political expediency.’”
Beyond 'spiritual poverty', egocentric leadership is the next most oppressive 'global giant', according to Rick Warren, and thus a higher priority than HIV/AIDS, poverty, and other material afflictions. "The world is full of little Saddams," he observed, "they're in every country, they're in every church, they're in every business, they're in every homeowner's association. They're everywhere. You give a guy a little power and it goes to his head."
« Older Sweden-born Yukimi Nagano has worked with Jos... | Meshes of the Afternoon, part ... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by peewinkle at 6:14 PM on December 17, 2008