Please Log in to Vote.
3 out of 3 members found this useful.
Obama '08 - Vote For Hope by MC Yogi (and Ursa Minor)
Thought i would share this video with y'all, featuring MC Yogi, and created by our friends at Ursa Minor (who built KenWilber.com). This video recently hit #1 on Digg, which is very cool.
Obama '08 - Vote For Hope from MC Yogi on Vimeo.
From the page:
With the 2008 presidential election, Americans face a pivotal choice between not just two candidates, but two paradigms. We need someone who understands the complexity of our time. Someone who believes in investing in renewable energy, in education, in women's rights, in civil rights, in healthcare for Americans. Someone who believes in dealing with global issues with diplomacy so we can restore our respect in the world. Barack Obama represents the change we need and can lead us into a brighter future.
“Vote For Hope” was written to encourage and inspire the hip hop generation—and everyone—to get involved, and contribute their time, energy, creativity, and other resources to be the change they want to see in the world. We have been inspired by the artistic and musical contributions that have been pouring out accross the nation in support of Barack Obama's campaign. Vote for Hope is our offering to this creative movement. It is our way of adding our small voice to the collective voice of millions of Americans calling for a change.
To see what we mean, check out this great speech from a worthy leader: youtube.com/watch?v=cM79CxHGhlY
Make sure to Vote on November 4th!
Here is where you can register: VoteforChange.com
MC Yogi has just released a new album, Elephant Power!
amazon.com/gp/product/B001CISIKI/
For other music by MC Yogi, check out mcyogi.com
"Vote for Hope" was written by M.C. Yogi and produced by Robin Livingston. The "Vote for Hope" video was created at Ursa Minor Arts and Media in San Rafael, CA with chief animator James Curtis, using designs and direction from M.C. Yogi. Video funded and supported by grassroots donations.
- Please Login to Add Comments
- show all sub-comments
- Report Abuse
Please Log in to Vote.
3 out of 3 members found this useful.
traditional values, traditional views
Posted October 20th, 2008 by Corey deVos in response to [Comment Deleted]Hey Shalk
First off, to be clear, my main impetus for posting this today is because the video was produced by my good friends over at Ursa Minor. They are part of the integral community, so i felt it would be appropriate to share their work.
Secondly, i would be posting more stuff like this in support of McCain, but i simply cannot find any. Believe it or not, John McCain just doesn't seem to inspire as many artists as Obama. In fact, it seems his campaign seems to have pissed off more musicians than it has inspired.
Thirdly, the biggest reason i post this sort of "one-sided green flatulence" to my blog is because i simply enjoy it. And that's what i do with my blog: post things that i enjoy. If that makes me an inequitable algae fart, so be it.
Now, i would love to get into some of the political perspectives that are conveyed in this piece. But unfortunately i do not have the time to get into this as deeply as i know you would like to take it (i have this week's audio and video content to prepare.)
But to quickly address your challenge, i believe that good old nationalism (with just a dash of xenophobia) were the relevent traditional values that gave W. his second term. We were a nation engaged in a war that, at the time, was falsely presented as a just reaction to the attacks of 9/11. I see nothing wrong with these sorts of values--in fact, in times of crisis, they can be the only things preventing a civilization from crumbling under the weight of so much collecive fear. I openly accept and embrace those values.
However, when it comes to decision making on a global level, i think it is absolutely crucial to include the traditional values and the traditional structure, but not without negating the traditional view of the world. A perfect example of the complexity of our times not being adequately met by our leadership. We can sit here and rationalize whether or not Iraq was better off under Saddam, but it does nothing to diminish the fact that we had no business invading a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, as a response to 9/11. It was an imperial move, plain and simple, intended to secure America's access to Middle East oil in the 21st century--intentions that are rightly subject to green's criticism.
Another example of not being able to meet the complexity of the times: complete economic deregulation. All emphasis placed upon the individual side of the axis, and none on the collective side. Long-time Republican values, recently adopted by Democrats during the Clinton years. Disastrous results.
As for #2, I honestly do not believe the modern republican party (let alone the traditional republican party) would be as inspired to initiate the "new Manhattan Project" that energy independence would require. They would most likely believe that the free market will come up with a solution sooner or later. Considering the current state of the economy, and the marketplace acting as a playground for the reptilian brain, i am not so hopeful.
#3 - education. I agree, this is a VASTLY complex issue, which i do not think either republican nor democratic parties have a grasp of. And while i agree that just dumping money into the system will not fix anything, it is obvious that the education system is indeed morbidly under-resourced, and there is little cultural or economic value placed upon cultivating future generations of teachers. And once classes become so over-crowded, with 50 students to a single teacher, it becomes even more hopeless. But it is clear--both internalist and externalist factors need to be accounted for if we ever hope to fix our broken future.
#4 - Women's rights. Come on, Shalk, this one should be easy. Have you heard all the talk these days about Roe vs. Wade? How McCain denies he would use a "litmus test" to approve Supreme Court justices, while at the same time saying that disagreeing with McCain about throwing out Roe vs. Wade would make a prospective justice unqualified for the position? Or how he was so dismissive about the "mother's health" when it comes to abortion issues? Make no mistake, Roe vs. Wade is directly under fire this election season, which makes a lot of women around this country very very concerned.
#5 - All i can say is that civil rights is SO NOT A NON-ISSUE. We do not live in the "post-racial" America many claim it to be. I think only a white American male could make that statement without a hint of irony. We've come far in the past 50 years, but the fight is far from over. As soon as you think we've won, we've lost.
#6 - Health Care. I am glad we both agree that this is one of the most important issues of our time. And, i believe, the Democratic party is the only one equipped to solve it, aside from coming up with more free market solutions that have failed in the past. But your points about MC Yogi's use of the word "American" are, in my opinion, just looking for something to disagree with. Not an invalid point, but not an entirely relevant criticism.
#7 - Diplomacy. Again, come on, Shalk! Bush has a massive record of supplanting diplomatic solutions with military and/or economic sanctions. I do not have the time to sift through the past decade for specific examples of times that would have been better served with negotiation, but Bush's aversion to diplomacy has been well documented on both sides of the partisan divide. The 21st century demands a different approach.
Include traditional values, negate traditional views. This, from my perspective, is the only way we can possibly move forward.
Obama passes, with extra points for style. Biden passes, to a somewhat lesser degree (not as inclusive.) And McCain passes, though unfortunately he is still anchored to the traditional views of his party.
Palin fails.
Please Log in to Vote.
1 out of 1 members found this useful.
PS: You've been Barackrolled.
Posted October 20th, 2008 by Corey deVos in response to traditional values, traditional viewsConsider this as punishment for your insolence, Shalk.
- Please Login to Add Comments
- Report Abuse
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
Iraq, UN, etc.
Posted October 20th, 2008 by David Marshall in response to traditional values, traditional viewsNice comments, Corey. I enjoy your writing. I particularly liked your intro to the third-way poltiics video, which, as I told you, I thought had been written by Ken! 
I agree with many of the things you said here, but I would like to comment on a couple of them.
We had no business invading a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, as a response to 9/11. It was an imperial move, plain and simple, intended to secure America's access to Middle East oil in the 21st century--intentions that are rightly subject to green's criticism.
Is securing a vital resource like oil necessarily an imperial move? Wouldn't a country be neglecting its own national interest if it allowed a vital resource to be taken by hostile forces? I'm not necessarily arguing that the Bush administration was right in the where, when's, and how's of the Iraq War; I'm just saying that there isn't necessarily anything wrong or imperialistic with securing a vital resource like oil. Oil is sometimes worth fighting for, though of course I agree we should move beyond our dependance on it. A lot of battles in WWII were about oil. The first gulf war (the justification of which I don't believe can be disputed) was also about oil. The Iraq War was a pretty complicated business, I think, not simply an imperialistic move on the part of the U.S. Most of the UN Security Council, for example, would have been only too happy to see the U.S. lose its oil supplies, and the Bush administration knew that. They did give the world community a chance to deal with Sadaam; the world community failed. The only way that situation could have been resolved peacefully while at the same time looking after the interests of the U.S. and its allies would have been if the world community together had decided to do something about it. But too much of the world saw itself in a zero-sum game (one party wins, the other loses) with the U.S. Many of them (Russia, China, France under Chirac, Germany under Schroeder) were simply leveraging for a shift in the balance of power in their favor.
Also, the argument for deposing Sadaam as a response to 9/11 was not totally invalid. All the intelligence agencies of the world, I have gathered, did believe that Sadaam had WMD. They were all surprised that he didn't. They couldn't prove it; that's why they made things up, but they, along with European intelligence agencies, did believe they were there from what I have read (sorry, I don't have time to cite that right now). It wasn't sub-rational to think that perhaps Al Queda and Sadaam could link up in the future. They did share a common goal.
Bush's aversion to diplomacy has been well documented on both sides of the partisan divide.
It was mostly during Bush's first term that they avoided diplomacy so much. There was a big turnaround in the second term. They actually did learn and change course.
Fareed Zakaria wrote a nice article about this called "What Bush Got Right."
Don't get me wrong; I'm not a fan of the Bush administration or a supporter of McCain/Palin--while I had real doubts that Obama was ready to be president (though I always thought he should be president someday, having voted for him in 2004 and following him since then) I think he has grown a lot as a candidate in the last couple of years and am an enthusiastic supporter of his now, though I do believe Schalk's concerns have validity and that some of them could turn out to be true.
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
Agreed!
Posted October 20th, 2008 by Corey deVos in response to Iraq, UN, etc.Hey David, thanks for adding your voice! And i totally agree that Shalk is raising some extremely important issues here, and i always appreciate how he represents the voice of amber in these discussions. An absolutely essential perspective, even if my thinking has really shifted gears from "transcend and include" to "negate and preserve" in regard to traditional values.
I will probably repeat this a thousand times before the election, because it has become my own political slogan of sorts: include the values, negate the view!
In regards to the question of whether or not America's invasion of Iraq was an imperial move--well, i think it is really hard to argue against that one. It has imperium written all over it. Perhaps the question should be: are all imperialistic actions necessarily a bad thing? Here we might find much more overlap in our thinking--America is most certainly an empire, hopefully more benevolent than not in the long run (all signs point to yes), and will behave in the world accordingly. But when our role as the world's "last best hope" is abused by an administration (as i believe it was by Bush/Cheney) we must hold our leaders accountable. And sadly, accountability is not the present administration's strongest suit.
In the end, the invasion of Iraq may have been inevitable. You are right, fossil fuels continue to be vitally important to the entire population of this world, and we cannot allow such a large source of oil to be controlled by a tyrant. And i really do wish that the United Nations/international community-at-large had enough testicular prowess to actually do something about it at the time, making our nearly unilateral involvement unnecessary. But they didn't, and Bush likely did what the administration felt had to be done in order to secure America's place in the coming decades.
But while we may have acted out of necessity, naivete remained our achilles heel. We invaded without much knowledge of Iraqi culture, of the Sunni-Shi'ite tensions that have existed for centuries, of the civil war that would erupt in the vacuum of Saddam's rule, and fully expecting them to "greet us as liberators." While Bush's intent may have been in some ways admirable (creating a linchpin of democracy in center of the middle east, which would invariably spread to the rest of the region--because, like, democracy kicks ass and everyone knows it), his execution was horrible.
But you know what? Who knows--maybe 30 or 40 years in the future, democracy in the Middle East will come to some sort of fruition, and Bush's legacy will be redeemed. This is entirely possible. But despite this, as an American citizen, i can't help but to feel short-changed by all this--duped and misled and taken advantage of--as we created an amorphous "War on Terror" (complete with two Patriot Acts, the "illegal" wiretapping of civilians, and a pre-emptive Bush Doctrine) that can potentially identify ANYONE as an enemy combatant. It's a slippery slope, coated in WD-40 and bacon grease, and i fear that we are beginning to lose our balance.
So, yeah. Amber values rock. But amber views tend to do some damage. While i am very keen to including amber values (as i sincerely believe Obama does, at least much more than most other Democrats) i think it is of vital importance that we allow the pendulum to swing in the other direction, so we can negate the amber views that have so heavily influenced America's decisions in the world. And here i look to people like Sarah Silverman, Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, Bill Maher, and even Keith "big-head" Olberman, all of whom understand that, in today's cultural climate, the best way to negate traditional views is with large doses of humor, mockery, and ridicule. They can be heavy-handed at times, to be sure, but all within the bounds of appropriate discourse, i think.
This is actually somewhat similar to how we dealt with racism in this country, incidentally--mainstream media did its best to make it EMBARRASING to cling to racist thinking by openly ridiculing it. This was much more easily done when we only had 13 TV channels to choose from, instead of the plurality of information we have today. Another example of how green pluralism can reinforce amber ethnocentricity--but that is for another discussion.
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
imperialism, racism, etc.
Posted October 20th, 2008 by David Marshall in response to Agreed!Corey, great points and very nicely said. I think you are so right when you talk about the Bush administration's naivete. It's amazing how they could have gone forward without studying Iraq more deeply, especially since that had been one of the big criticisms of American involvement in Vietnam. And the execution, too, was not very good, at times callous, and certainly not integral.
And yes it is possible that history will be kinder to George Bush than commentators are now, poor guy. I too feel a little duped, and also a little let down in some respects. On the other hand, a part of it may just have been that the Bush administration could not articulate their ideas and feelings very well. Tony Blair was making very eloquent integral-level arguments in the House of Commons debates; the Bush administration could not do the same, so they gave us images of mushroom clouds. If the president had been able to give arguments like Blair and a few others from his government, things might have been different in terms of domestic and international support.
I agree with Schalk about the terminology; in fact he took the words out of my mouth. The Spanish Empire conquered the native americans in Mexico, killed the men, raped the women, and taught the children Spanish. That's empiring. Imperial Japan conquered Korea and took their women to work the "comfort stations" for Japanese soldiers throughout the Pacific. That's imperialism. They were both trying to add territory and simply take resources, as China has in Tibet.
Maybe the U.S. was imperialistic when they took the land that the Spanish had taken from the indians (Texas, New Mexico, California). Maybe then they were building an empire (of course that's what pretty much everyone was doing at the time). But what the U.S. has done in Iraq, as well as most of the incidents people bring up when they talk about U.S. "imperialism," is very, very different than that. If we want to call the Iraq war imperialism or empiring, then we have to come up with different words for the Spanish Empire and Imperial Japan. But really we should just come up with new words because the behavior, motiviation, goals, etc. are very different.
Also, what's the alternative if the U.S. does not work hard to maintain its position? China and Russia and other true empires will fill the vacuum. It is not like Europe or other such countries are prepared to step in and take up the slack. In most of the cases people bring up, the U.S. has simply been fighting a regime that was hostile towards it or to its neighbors or too friendly towards the Soviets (as opposed to the Tibetans who weren't being hostile to China, or the native americans to Spain, Korea to Japan). Sadaam had invaded Kuwait, attacked Iran, tried to assisinate a U.S. president, threatened Israel, built all sorts of WMD in the past, some of which he had used, nearly had a nuclear bomb at one point, declared the U.S. his enemy . . . And the U.S. is spending a lot of time, money, and blood to set up an independant government in Iraq--asking only that it not be hostile, give the U.S. a fair chance at their oil, perhaps a little help in battling a hostile regime like Iran.
"This is actually somewhat similar to how we dealt with racism in this country, incidentally--mainstream media did its best to make it EMBARRASING to cling to racist thinking by openly ridiculing it."
Yes, I think that's an important point. They make racism culturally unacceptable. Of course they also make it difficult to talk about in an integral fashion. African Americans point out that they get picked up by police more or put in jail more than other races, and all the mainstream media can say is, "The law-enoforcement and justice systems must be racist." Heather McDonald has written at least a couple of articles for the interior-causation City Journal about this-- "Is the Criminal Justice System Racist?" and "Time for the Truth about Black Crime Rates." I am sure there is still racism here and there, but there is a good bit of truth to those articles, I believe. Denying those perspectives as the mainstream media does could even inhibit the cultural development that needs to take place.
In terms of science education, I wonder if a combination of Green and all the different entertainment options might have something to do with it. So many choices for kids today and in recent decades, and the parents let them run wild. Excessive materialism might also have something to do with it, as there is probably more money in other careers.
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
Two Presidents?
Posted October 20th, 2008 by Steve in response to imperialism, racism, etc.You know, I sometimes wish we had two presidents. One for Domestic policy(Obama) and one for Foreign policy(McCain).
The one reservation I have about Obama is- does he/can he understand the world in terms of power? (like other amber/orange countries do). It is one big power grab out there and whoever is dealing with foreign policy needs to undertand that. McCain does, I hope Obama(or a close adviser) does too.
In a green or second tier world, this is not an issue. But that day hasn't come yet.
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
power
Posted October 20th, 2008 by David Marshall in response to Two Presidents?I agree with you, Steve. That's just my concern with Obama as well, that he doesn't understand power politics. He is talking like he does now, because he has to for political reasons, but how deep it is running in him is hard to tell. He hasn't really spoken from the heart on that one as McCain has.
It's a power grab out there, exactly. Only Green, in the U.S., in Europe, etc. doesn't see it that way. For the UN to function well, member countries would have to look after the interests even of their rivals. We are a long way from that understanding.
Zbigniew Brzezisnki has been an Obama advisor at times. I think they put him in the shadows after he started hurting them with Jewish voters (he had been critical of Israel), but he strengthened Carter's positions vis a vis the Soviet Union. He might do the same for Obama.
Biden was against the first gulf war, which is a big mistake, but that was a pretty long time ago. He was for intervention in Kosovo, however.
- Please Login to Add Comments
- Report Abuse
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
[Comment Deleted]
Posted October 20th, 2008 by admin in response to imperialism, racism, etc.Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
creationism/scientism
Posted October 21st, 2008 by David Marshall in response to [Comment Deleted]Schalk, the creationism/scientism issue is an interesting point. The U.S. never fully won the Western Enlightenment. The battle rages on. It has been won in Europe; Amber religion has been put in an inferior role decisively. Here the battle between creationism and evolution rages on. Even one of our vice-presidential candidates has said that creationism should be taught alongside evolution in school, though she later took it back just a little and said discussion of creationism should be allowed in school if the kids wanted to.
Interesting point about justice. Between that and materialism (the money kind) there isn't much room for science.
As for China, it's interesting about their not having any conflict with science historically. Might that still emerge, though? Might some more Amber religion emerge for them? But they are pushing into Orange at the same time, so that must give a boost to science. It's also where so many jobs are for them, isn't it, technical jobs?
I don't think American kids are pushed like they used to be. Those Asian kids are really pushed by their parents, at least Asian Americans, as far as I've seen.
I think you're right that generally our culture doesn't value science. People don't talk about it. Science kids are labelled "geeks." That's a problem right there. Science isn't cool. That's as bad as black kids who read being accused of acting white. In movies and tv people who are good at science tend to be portrayed as socially foolish geeks. Business people are portrayed as heros, as are athletes and artists. Right?
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
[Comment Deleted]
Posted October 21st, 2008 by admin in response to creationism/scientism- Please Login to Add Comments
Please Log in to Vote.
1 out of 1 members found this useful.
[Comment Deleted]
Posted October 20th, 2008 by admin in response to traditional values, traditional viewsPlease Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
Word
Posted October 20th, 2008 by Corey deVos in response to [Comment Deleted]Good stuff my man. Thanks for putting so much thought into all this.
A few drive-bys:
Can't find anything that "flies the amber McCain flag" in the arts world? Well, it may be because ... many of the artists are now dead. You see amber truth has been around awhile. It is some really old shit!
Hahaha you have to understand this statement: "many of the artists are now dead" doesn't exactly make McCain sound any more appealing to a world that is searching for something new! ^_^
My bigger point was that, in today's culture, McCain doesn't seem to be resonating with the artists the same way Obama does. As an artist myself, i tend to use other artists as a sort of cultural barometer, in terms of relevance and significance. But this may be an unfair point altogether--i have never seen ANY politician (including all Kennedys combined) create as huge of an influence upon artists as Obama has.
I thought I heard McCain also mention that we need regulation in banking to control this sort of thing.
Yeah, he did say this. Unfortunately, it was on the heels of his initial reaction to the economic crisis, which was to say that what we actually needed was MORE deregulation--that is, the deregulation we had was not nearly deregulated enough. We can just look at McCain's record here, before he renamed himself "the Deregulator." Deregulation is the slogan of free market capitalism; free market capitalism is the philosophy of fiscal conservatives, and fiscal conservatism is the backbone of Republican economic policy.
[What will McCain do] to prevent private capitalists from building and selling electric cars
Well, probably nothing. He won't do anything to prevent electric cars, or solar technology, or wind farms, or any of that. But that's not the real question--the question is, what will he do to encourage it?
Until you can show me why that little fucker in Chongqing can do Calculus in a dirt floor schoolhouse, and my senior in high school can't balance his checkbook, I will not spend one more cent on schools. Tell me what is going on here.
Haha this one made me laugh. I am glad we agree--it's a complete disaster. And it is eating away at the American soul. I for one am praying that the technological singularity can extend my lifespan a few centuries or so, because i tremble at the thought of growing old and having to be supported by these younger generation. Kids today. Get the fuck off my lawn, you sonsofbitches.
That said, i do really like Obama's idea of making community college available to kids for free, in exchange for community service. It is a nice balance of internalist and externalist approaches, and presents a fairly novel solution. I also like how it would be somewhat of a self-selecting process--only people actually interested in getting an education will volunteer for community service, while just about anyone will be willing to accept a free handout from the government to pay for their education.
You got that in writing, bro! One lobster dinner with wine for Corey on the day Roe is overturned!
Again, i laughed out loud at this one. I don't eat lobster, or shrimp, or shellfish of anykind--filthy bottom-feeders. I wouldn't eat something that fed off my own doo doo its entire life, so i wouldn't eat any of those either.
I'm sure there's a political metaphor in there somewhere. Five clams to whoever finds it!
(And i am joking--i don't like these foods, this much is true, but not for these reasons. I am just an obnoxiously picky eater, as i have been my entire life. Life is hard when you don't even like cheese.)
I'm glad you are so confident on this issue Shalk--because there are many who aren't. Some believe that we are two Supreme Court justices away from repealing Roe, which they take to mean that we are two more Republican terms away. Even Colin Powell agrees that we have gone much to far to the Right in the past eight years, and adding two more conservative justices to the Supreme Court could be disastrous.
I'm going to hold off on the Civil Rights issue, because it is extremely sensitive, ultra-important, and i want to make sure i know exactly what i am talking about. But i will say this--from the perspective of most minorities in this country, our relationship with civil rights still has a far way to go. Black people continue to feel as though they are treated by police in ways that are completly different from the white experience. I know that you are focusing on the LR aspects of civil rights, and perhaps i am looking more toward the LL aspects, but since they are so intimitely woven together we cannot address one without paying attention to the other.
Health care and education are the number one and two disgraces of our country. Energy transition is the number one point of urgency for our world. The big 3. Right there.
I totally agree. In fact, i agree so much i went ahead and cloned myself, because my single corporeal body was not enough to contain the sheer magnitude of my luminous agreement. The nice thing is, now i have someone else to write my talk summaries and do the rest of my work while i talk to you guys all day.
It is downright embarrassing that our health care and our education are in as miserable a state as they currently are. A malignant mole marring the face of the American Dream. The energy crisis is to be expected--we are in transitional times, requiring a massive transition of energy and infrastructure, much like when the industrial age first arrived and all the rules of discourse had to be rewritten. It was inevitable that we would find ourselves where we are today, as it pertains to energy. But as for health and education, there is simply no excuse.
Of course, we were making enormous progress in getting Saddam to comply with the UN Resolutions.
Well, that was certainly a tough case wasn't it. On the one hand, Saddam didn't have anything to hide, at least in terms of WMD's and yellowcake plutonium--but he could not openly say so, or his regime could potentially lose its power. On the other, we had an effete United Nations who was unable to do anything substantial about it, one way or the other. I like to say that the current U.N. is sort of like the "Articles of Confederation" that preceded the U.S. Constitution, and will hopefully be supplanted with a much more sophisticated international institution that has both the power to actually do something about tyranny in places like Iraq (and Darfur, and Israel, and Palestine, and Georgia, and Tibet, etc....) as well as the wisdom to know how to wield this power. Right now, the U.N. is an anemic shadow of what it could have been--and who knows, perhaps Bush did enough damage to this international community that something bigger and better shall emerge in it's wake.
"Include the Values, Negate the View!"
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
[Comment Deleted]
Posted October 20th, 2008 by admin in response to Word- Please Login to Add Comments








.jpg)
Please Log in to Vote.
1 out of 2 members found this useful.
[Comment Deleted]
Posted October 20th, 2008 by admin