Ad Hoc Review #2

In Review — By on April 16, 2008 at 2:06 am

guiness civility.jpg Os Guinness, The Case for Civility {Nonfiction} – In his latest book, Os Guinness offers a modest proposal for restoring civility in America as a way to foster civility around the world. For decades, the China-born British expatriate has been one of evangelicalism’s leading intellectuals in America. Yet as an outsider on the inside, Guinness is able to maintain a respectful appreciation for American ways and values while keeping the distance needed to criticize our excesses and prejudices.
When it comes to “church and state” Guinness believes in both “separatism” and “accommodationism.” He recommends we “Say no to a sacred public square”–a position he associates with the Religious Right–but also “Say no to a naked public square”–which he pins on the secular left. His alternative solution is to develop a “cosmopolitan and civil public square” where every faith tradition (and non-faith tradition) is equally free to enter and engage in public life.
Although this approach is both laudable and necessary, Guinness pushes the idea too far. Indeed, at times he seems have too much faith in the restorative power of civility, implying that the “culture war” would dissipate if only we were able to disagree in a more respectful manner. Throughout the book Guinness puts too much emphasis on method while glossing over our nation’s all-but-intractable problems, including the hostility to religion in public life. Toning down the rhetoric on both sides of these issues is warranted but civility alone will not lead to a cease-fire in the culture wars.
Still, Guinness’s wise counsel is always worth hearing. His solution may not be an ultimate answer but it is certainly a move in the right direction. We would all be better off if civil discourse became more civil. Rating: B+

°°°°°°

PlatinumXL_lt_sml.jpgGroom Mate Nose & Ear Hair Trimmer {Tools} — “An elegant work of craftsmanship” is not the sort of description you expect to hear about a nose hair trimmer. The Platinum XL Nose Hair Trimmer, however, is not an ordinary tool for taming facial hair. For such grooming tasks we men tend to prefer the loud and electrical over the quiet and hand-cranked. But after using the sleek, corrosion-proof stainless steel Platinum XL you’re likely to throw away the whirring battery-powered trimmers. Skeptics who might balk at paying $19.88 for such a utilitarian tool can take comfort in the “Unconditional Money-Back Guarantee” while those of us who are convinced will appreciate the product’s lifetime warranty. Rating: A
°°°°°°

Mark Millar’s Wanted {Graphic Novels} — Wanted provides a nihilistic twist on the old “hero’s journey” monomyth: an amoral loser discovers he’s the heir to a career as an villainous assassin in a world where such villains have secretly taken control of the planet. The only thing notable about the book is that it holds the distinction of being the single worst comic I’ve ever read. The disdain and contempt the author has for his audience is apparent throughout, though he makes sure it is made obvious in the last two pages of the work. I would say that Wanted is excremental but that would be unfair to excrement; dung is useful as fertilizer while Wanted has no redeeming value. [Note: A film loosely based on the comic starring Angelina Jolie and Morgan Freeman will be released later this year. Fortunately, the movie is reportedly nothing like the comic.] Rating: F-
°°°°°°

spamalot.jpg Spamalot {Theater} – The plot of this Tony-award winning production is based loosely on the film Monty Python and the Holy Grail (which was based even more loosely on the tale of King Arthur and the knights of the round table) and features “a bevy of beautiful show girls, not to mention cows, killer rabbits and french people (sic).” You don’t have to be a fan of Monty Python movies (or “french people”) to be charmed by the play’s unadulterated silliness. Even people who aren’t fans of musicals (people like me) and who don’t understand the appeal of Clay Aiken (also me) will be won over after hearing the former American Idol runner-up singing “You Won’t Succeed On Broadway (If You Don’t Have Any Jews)”. Now playing in New York, Las Vegas, London, and on U.S. tour. [Cautions: Bawdy humor and mild profanity] Rating: A-
°°°°°°

Josh Turner - EIF.jpgJosh Turner, Everything is Fine {Music} – Just as Randy Travis had done twenty years earlier, Josh Turner ushered in an era of neotraditionlism with his 2003 plantinum-selling debut album Long Black Train. Unfortunately, few other country artists followed his lead by abandoning the “Nashvegas” sound. The South Carolina native has had to shoulder the genre almost single-handily but with his third album Turner proves he’s up to the task.
While Turner’s deep rich bass is fine on the upbeat downhome tunes, the standout tracks are the two slow, wistful duets. On “Another Try” he’s joined by Trisha Yearwood, country music’s best backup vocalist, in lamenting lost opportunities for love. And on the best duet of the year, Turner harmonizes with blue-collar R&B crooner Anthony Hamilton on “Nowhere Fast.” Rating: B+



Tags: , , ,
  • http://www.4simpsons.wordpress.com Neil

    My wife and teenage daughters laughed even more at Spamalot than I did. And my 78 year old dad – a very mild-mannered Christian guy – thought it was fun as well.

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    Throughout the book Guinness puts too much emphasis on method while glossing over our nation’s all-but-intractable problems, including the hostility to religion in public life.
    Where’s that? The GOP elite began the nomination process with only slightly less debate about the theology of the candidates as the committee that selected the current Pope. The leading candidate on the Democratic side has made this conversion to Christianity (from lackadasical Christianity) a centerpiece of his biographical narrative. The second up is asserting that her Church going makes her more in touch with the common people than he is.

  • csheidler

    So Wanted is the worst comic you’ve ever read, eh?
    …that must mean you’re not following the Spider-Man “One More Day” storyline that I strongly suspect is the product of a horrible meth lab accident.
    Still, thanks for the warning. Millar’s done some good work (see Ultimate Fantastic Four)–let’s just hope he doesn’t begin participating in what I call the “Brian K. Vaughn”-ing of America.

  • ex-preacher

    I think the current “hostility to religion in public life” is exemplified by the current treatment of Pope Benedict by our president and the press. The way we have abused and/or ignore the Pope’s visit is truly shameful. Forget the fact that he is head of the world’s largest religion, he is a head of state and should at least receive the treatment we would give to a country the size of the Vatican.

  • http://evangelicalperspective.blogspot.com/ Collin Brendemuehl

    Joe,
    I find it odd that you gave the nose hair trimmer such a high score. ;-)
    XP,
    Forget his trans-national influence? That would certainly be disrespectful. All is not politics.
    CRB

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    Collin,
    That seems to be the problem. People like Joe are suffering from a cogitative disconnect. On the one hand they want religion to be part of the public square, on the other hand, though, they want religion to be protected from ‘abuse’.
    To me this seems to make some sense of the patently absurd victimization claims that many on the religious right are still fond of making. (Another candidate is that they feel entitled to ‘have their turn’ at the most idiotic victimization rhetoric of the left in the 70′s and 80′s).
    An analogy might be your co-workers 16 year old daughter. He may pay for a lavish coming out party in ‘the public square’ and to be polite you are expected to applaud, congratulate him on having a fine family. When you get home you’re free to grumble to your spouse that his daughter’s a slut whose only contribution to society is keeping the local pot dealer employed….of course to say that in public would be quite rude.
    If Joe would leave religion there then that’s all well and good. But Joe takes it more seriously and wants it to be a serious part of the public square. Not just a ceremonial nicety. That’s fine too but the price you pay for that is that it is as open to debate and attack as anything else.
    It would be like if your co-worker got his daughter to run for mayor or town council but whenever anyone points out her faults he demands that it would be height of impropriety to say anything that may “disrespect my beautiful daughter”.

  • http://evangelicalperspective.blogspot.com/ Collin Brendemuehl

    Boonton,
    What I’m finding (form history) is that modernity (and so much of liberalism) defines everything in terms of political realities. The Religious Right is working to operate within that framework just as is the Religious Left. That
    If we keep religion out of politics, that’s one thing. But, for the Christian, God transcends politics, and all else. That is one of the major paradigmatic successes of Roman Catholicism.
    There are those on the Left, because of their political persuasions, want religion subjec to government instead of completely free from it. That’s what you can see in Fred Clarkson’s site, esp. in his definition of what constitutes proper public religion. Against such is part of the rebellion of the Religious Right.
    If there is a shift in the RR, I hope that it is toward independence from government. The values will not change, despite the current postmodern conversations. What will change is the view, not of government, but of government involvement.
    Collin

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    Collin,
    Please be a bit more specific. How exactly would liberals subject religion to gov’t rather than have religion be free of gov’t (in contrast would you say the RR supports making gov’t subject to religion?). I’m not familiar with Fred Clarkson or his site, could you briefly update me on who he is and why he is important?
    If we keep religion out of politics, that’s one thing. But, for the Christian, God transcends politics, and all else. That is one of the major paradigmatic successes of Roman Catholicism.
    God transcends politics but it’s quite a leap, therefore, to say that your own political positions are therefore equal to God’s will and by implication you’re doing God’s will by opposing those with conflicting opinions.

  • http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com Joe Carter

    csheidler …that must mean you’re not following the Spider-Man “One More Day” storyline that I strongly suspect is the product of a horrible meth lab accident.
    Unless, Peter Parker becomes a child-rapist I don’t think it can out-stink Wanted. ; )
    Still, thanks for the warning. Millar’s done some good work (see Ultimate Fantastic Four)–let’s just hope he doesn’t begin participating in what I call the “Brian K. Vaughn”-ing of America.
    Yeah, I love the Ultimates. Those are some of my favorites, which is why I was shocked that Millar could write such drivel.

  • jd

    Boonton, just to get you on the record, your position is that there is no hostility to religion in public life?

  • http://evangelicalperspective.blogspot.com Collin Brendemuehl

    Boonton,
    The quasi-secularists over at TalkToAction promote a type of unitarianism as the only appropriate type of government-endorsable or even tolerable religion. It would be lengthy, but my blog has a good number of reactions to their drivel and falsehoods.
    http://evangelicalperspective.blogspot.com/search/label/TalkToAction
    http://www.talk2action.org/
    Oh, no, I wouldn’t think of suggesting that God’s politics and my politics are the same. I am to learn from Him. My goal is to live and think in line with Him and that’s all. I am obligated to follow revealed truth, and in an appropriate manner. That’s what a Christian conscience is all about.
    Collin

  • jd

    I had a feeling Boonton wouldn’t answer my question.
    How about this question, Boonton: Is it also true that you believe there is no liberal press bias?

  • phasespace

    Alright, JD, I’ll answer both your questions. There certainly is hostility to religion, but it’s not of the sort that it is appropriate to apply a martyr complex to.

    Christians are not generally discriminated against, they don’t lose their jobs or livelihood over their beliefs, nor have they been named as the most untrusted group in America. When people start saying that they won’t vote for a Christian candidate because they are Christian, then you can start playing that card. Until then, you have no argument. That is not to say that there are no exceptions to this, but they are most certainly few are far between. Muslims and Buddhists have a stronger claim to hostility than Christians do.

    As for press bias… come on. Are you really going to say that the press has not got more conservative over the last 10 years? There’s no doubt in my mind about it. But the problem isn’t liberal bias, or conservative bias, the problem is bias in general and that it is applied inappropriately more often than not. That’s right, I’m saying that bias is a good thing…sometimes.

    Just as an example: there’s a different kind of bias in the press that trumps both conservative and liberal bias, and that is sensationalism and controversy. If the press can turn a non-story into something controversial, they’ll do it heartbeat. This often means the press will present “two sides” of story to make the appearance of being balanced, when in fact, one side presented has absolutely no standing for comment what-so-ever. That kind of bias servers no other purpose but to misinform the viewer, and that’s far worse than any supposed “liberal” or “conservative” bias.

  • jd

    Phasespace:
    In spite of refuting points which I did not make, you actually did answer my questions and I’m glad to see that you at least agree there has been hostility to religion as well as liberal media bias. It’s a small admission, but I’ll take it.

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    jd
    Boonton, just to get you on the record, your position is that there is no hostility to religion in public life?
    No it is not my position. This is a country with over a quarter billion people. I don’t doubt for a moment you’ll find hostility to religion. You’ll also find hostility towards Starbucks drinkers, left handed people and people who think the last 3 Star Wars movies were better than the original 3.
    My position is that there is no exceptional hostility towards religion in public life in the US. Also the fact that many, like you, appear to simply hold that there is exceptional hostility as an assumption is a good reason to question the truth of such an unthinking assumption.
    I’m glad to see that you at least agree there has been hostility to religion as well as liberal media bias. It’s a small admission, but I’ll take it.
    A small admission from phase but does jd realize how small his point is? He sets the bar amazingly low for himself. As long as there’s any hostility he will claim victim status. And, of course, as long as Google keeps paying the electric bill for their server farms he will always be able to toss out a few ad hoc examples and pretend the plight of conservative Christians in the US is comparable to, say, followers of the Dali Lama under Chinese controlled Tibet.
    Collin,
    The quasi-secularists over at TalkToAction promote a type of unitarianism as the only appropriate type of government-endorsable or even tolerable religion. It would be lengthy, but my blog has a good number of reactions to their drivel and falsehoods.
    I’m sorry to keep pressing you but I really would like you to give me a specific summary of what you are talking about. What is this ‘unitarianism’ and why is it objectionable? Is TalkToAction really the public square or is it a somewhat obsure side street off the main drag?
    Oh, no, I wouldn’t think of suggesting that God’s politics and my politics are the same. I am to learn from Him. My goal is to live and think in line with Him and that’s all. I am obligated to follow revealed truth, and in an appropriate manner. That’s what a Christian conscience is all about.
    Indeed, I hate to bring up Andrew Sullivan here because Joe can’t seem to stand him but I find his thoughts on doubt based conservatisim very interesting. You’re essentially admitting that your ability to understand God is imperfect so your politics may be wrong (OK, it’s unlikely every one of your political positions is wrong but it is equallly unlikely that every position is correct). Hence you don’t write off political dissenters as enemies of God or enemies of you. While they may be wrong more often than you are you nonetheless leave open the possibility that on any particular issue you may in fact be wrong and will need your political enemies to make sure the right choice is made despite yourself. Fundamentalist certainity, though, does not lend itself so freely to this type of tolerance. If you honestly believe you’re perfectly in sync with God then there can be no comprimises with anyone who disagrees with you. Politics quickly descends into radicalism.
    More to the point; hostility is part of the public sqare. If you don’t want to get mud on your cloths then you should stay in the football stadium as a spectator. If you want to come down and play in the field then you should be free to do so. What is not fair, though, is to insist on playing in the field but at the same time demand everyone else treat you as a spectator.

  • phasespace

    jd,

    The problem is that conservatives have batted around these two talking points beyond any reasonable perspective, they are used more often to manufacture faux disagreements and controversy than to represent a respectable position. For all practical purposes notions of “liberal” bias have become canards. That’s why I find such notions to be mostly specious, and that’s why I pointed it out.

  • matthew from Alaska

    Thanks for the review of Os Guiness’ book. Sounds like a library check oout instead of a buy.
    I agree, with your assessment of Wanted. It started pretty strong, but got worse with each issue. Millar has done some good stuff (Ultimates, Authority, Superman:Red Son) But even in his stuff I liked he seems to have a disdain for the people who give him a living.

  • http://oldvirginiablog.blogspot.com/ Richard Williams

    Re: Josh Turner and neotraditionalism – if you like Josh, you’ll LOVE Alan Jackson’s latest CD, especially the instant classic, “Small Town Southern Man.”
    Consider:
    http://oldvirginiablog.blogspot.com/2008/02/small-town-southern-man.html

  • jd

    A small admission from phase but does jd realize how small his point is? He sets the bar amazingly low for himself.
    No, I set the bar low especially for you, Boonton. First, because you almost never take a clear stand on anything (aside from just being contrary), it’s good to get a little clarity from the millions of bytes you post here every day. Second, because the amazing thing is that I half expected you to trip over the bar and say that you thought there was no hostility to religion. In effect, of course, you have said that by explaining what you think. However, I was hoping that the fever swamp that is your brain and which caused you to utter the memorable lines, “Bill Clinton was too honest,” and “The US education system is excellent,” would also prompt you to say that there is no hostility to religion in America. As it is, your point (and Phase’s) that there are no Christians being “martyred” or persecuted like Tibetans is “small.” How discerning both of you are to notice that no Christians are being killed today.

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    Jd
    Second, because the amazing thing is that I half expected you to trip over the bar and say that you thought there was no hostility to religion. In effect, of course, you have said that by explaining what you think.
    Actually I saw the cheap rhetorical trap you set and avoided it. It’s a very old trick:
    “So you’re saying there’s no bias”
    “errr, ya”
    “well how about the Kalamazoo paper from Aug 15, 1996 that has an artical calling Christians wackos!!!!”
    The supply of such examples will always be endless and it is impossible to counter someone making such an attack on a tic for tat basis. That is unless I want to spend my time chasing down individual articles, newscasts and so on and committ myself to defending every written or spoken word in every mainstream and off mainstream newscast, newspaper, blog and so on.
    It’s a lot more efficient and makes for a more productive discussion to point out that you failed to support your assertion (that the public square is hostile to religion) and instead you attempt to distract (adding a new assertion about liberal media bias, a different charge) or set up a straw man (pretending that it was claimed that nowhere in US media will you find anything unfairly negative towards Christians).
    However, I was hoping that the fever swamp that is your brain and which caused you to utter the memorable lines, “Bill Clinton was too honest,” and “The US education system is excellent,” would also prompt you to say that there is no hostility to religion in America.
    Two other cases where you:
    1. Distort what I said.
    2. Bring up a very old discussion out of context. Very consistent with someone who is intellectually dishonest since your strategy counts on most of your audience not being aware of the details that you alude too.
    I would attempt to refute your main argument but the only honest attempt argument you seem to be trying to make is, “any assertion that is contrary to an oft repeated piece of conservative ‘common wisdom’ must be false”.

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    Since jd wants more positions from me, let me help him out. Bias is not objective but subjective. This does NOT mean one has to shrug and say it’s up to everyone to decide for themselves.
    First, bias is not objective because it cannot be objectively measured. A while ago there was a bit of a back and forth over the Washington Times versus the New York Times. It was pointed out, quite correctly, that the Wash. Times was a crap newspaper. A hysteric (I don’t remember if it was jd or not), came back by charging the NYT was equally as bad because of their story about McCain possibly having either an affair or at least a degree of closeness with a female lobbyist that some of his aides felt merited the adjective ‘extramarital’.
    You can charge that the article was run only because McCain is a Republican. It was the NYT, though, that broke the story about Democratic Gov. Spitzer spending thousands on escorts…and Spitzer was one Democrat who Republicans hated. Likewise, if you were a Huckabee supporter you might be tempted to charge the NYT was biased for McCain by holding the story until he safely had the nomination.
    Attempts to objectively measure bias usually turn into accounting contests where those doing the measuring either intentionally or unintentionally find exactly the results they are looking for by massaging the metrics they develop. Hence we get studies that try to define bias by counting how many time “conservative” is used as an adjective versus “liberal”. This, of course, assumes that at any given time there will be an equal number of conservative politicians as liberal doing newsworthy things. Another study that attempted to figure out first how many news worthy things were done in a particular week might find a breakout of 60-40 in favor of conservatives and therefore conclude a conservative bias if reporting broke 70-30. The same thing happens when you try to tally up ‘negative’ articles versus ‘positive’ ones. If Mr. Republican Congressman is found in a brothel on Wednesday must the unbiased newspaper find a Mr. Democrat doing the same thing before they report it?
    Many opinions are subjective but that doesn’t mean some opinions aren’t better than others. I’m not very impressed with an attempt to produce ‘unbiased’ movie reviews by metric (how many explosions plus 3 points for spaceships minus 2 points for each love interest times 2.05 for each actor who had an Academy Award nomination minus 45 points for any movie that is an extension of a SNL skit….). I’m also not impressed by movie reviews written by idiots but I am impressed by reviews written by intelligent people who watch a lot of movies and indicate they have given serious thought to what makes a movie good or bad.
    Likewise a person claiming to evaluate the “mainstream media” should be:
    1. Someone who at least appears to have watched or read a good amount of the media he is evaluating.
    2. Someone who at least appears to have given serious thought to what is good and bad in the media he is evaluating.
    3. Opinions based on naked self-interest or agendas should be valued very low. Also opinions based on cherry picked, isolated or obscure examples are starting out of the box with a skeptical eye.
    What I cannot, will not and should not give you is proof that any particular opinion is right. To use movies as an example, I can see how a good film critic might say The Godfather movies are overrated. I wouldn’t agree but a good critic could make such a case. A critic, though, who rated the movies bad because they lacked the action of, say, Starship Troopers is going to get dismissed by serious people as hopeless juvenile.

  • oclarki

    Two words that have never been seen next to one another in a comment by Boonton: “I believe”. Everyone else is confident in sticking up for what they believe except Boonton.

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    oclarki
    Two words that have never been seen next to one another in a comment by Boonton: “I believe”. Everyone else is confident in sticking up for what they believe except Boonton.
    It would seem no one wants to stick up for believing that religion seriously faces a hostile environment in the US. I’ve asked for specifics and what comes back is “ohhh you mean there’s not a single case of hostility in all of the US!!!!”. JD seems to know I’ve made arguments about the US education system and Bill Clinton’s honesty that run against the common claims, and I seem to have stuck up for them enough to annoy him even years later!

  • jd

    Boonton, do you have spell check?

  • jd

    JD seems to know I’ve made arguments about the US education system and Bill Clinton’s honesty that run against the common claims, and I seem to have stuck up for them enough to annoy him even years later!
    Now that’s funny. It’s not that you stuck up for them. It’s the fact that you said them at all that’s annoying. After all the studying of issues and all the writing and all the arguing back and forth about Clinton and US education and the millions of bytes you alone have put on Evangelical Outpost, your “research” tells you that Clinton was too honest and the US education system is excellent. You are either stupid or you are simply here to be contrary. Every time I start one of your posts I’m reminded, “Oh, yeah, this is the guy who said Clinton was too honest.” It kind of scrolls across the page of my mind whenever I read something of yours that sounds intelligent.

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    Will jd ever actually support any of his arguments or will it just be one assertion after another?
    your “research” tells you that Clinton was too honest and the US education system is excellent
    While we are on this “Clinton too honest” kick, I suggest you all try doing a Google search for that phrase on EO. You’ll find jd hammers this point every few months while constantly ignoring the context. This should have been put to rest over a year ago on http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/archives/003653.html post 72

    Actually Jd I spent three minutes to do your work for you. you’re probably thinking of post 76 on http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/archives/003247.html.

    What I wrote there was:

    No the idea was crazy and crazy sounding even if you were one who suffered from hyper-sensitivity to Bill’s slickness. (BTW, I buck the conventional wisdom regarding Clinton. I always thought his problem was that he was too honest. You could always tell when he was trying to lie or bend the truth. Someone like Bush, on the other hand, will lie so well that you’ll think he was telling the truth, too stupid to know the truth or anything other than purposefully telling you a lie. Here’s a hint, if everyone says you’re a good liar then you’re a very bad one.).

    You’ll note that I never said Clinton was ‘too honest’ in the sense that he told the truth enough. He was ‘too honest’ in the sense that he always showed his hand when he was bluffing (or lying to be more blunt about it). No one who actually read what I wrote would have honestly come away thinking I claimed Clinton told the truth too often.

    Unfortunately for us jd is not an honest fellow so we have to go through this ritual every 12-15 months or so.

  • jd

    Once again, Boonton, you simply prove what I’ve been saying about you for years–you can’t admit the obvious.

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    BTW, the link where the original phrase first happened is http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/archives/003247.html
    When I referenced it back in 2007 the period at the end of the sentence had been included in the link resulting in a server error when clicked. I had thought maybe Joe’s archives had gotten trashed but nope, still there.

  • http://www.dailyduck.blogspot.com Robert Duquette

    Hostility to religion in public life? Sure, but the question is too broad. Since most people in America are religious, most hostility to religion in public life comes from religious people. And it isn’t hostility to religion per se, but hostility to particular expressions of religion.
    Mike Huckabee’s pathetic campaign for the presidency, and his shameless attacks on Mitt Romney’s religion, is a perfect example of religion’s cannibalistic ways when it gets into the public square. People don’t want “Religion” in the public square, they wan’t their religion in the public square to the exclusion of others. The whole idea of separating church and state was necessitated by three centuries of Christianity cannibalizing itself in Europe.
    Put your faith into the public square if you must, but don’t expect other citizens to cherish it and look after it for you. If you regularly left your belongings in the town square, you wouldn’t expect passerbys to look after them and protect them as if they were their own, would you?

  • http://www.crystal-meth.info/ Natural meth cure

    Is crystal meth ruining your or the life of someone you love?

  • http://www.fkreth.wxkz.com alkgphbz bcvjwi

    pctsuvzky fhtalvqik rvujyeo rhnimt wsemhytk spntiao sgdxbk