Do You Have Faith in Faith-Based Initiatives?

Evangelicals seem to be odd man out this political season. Their much-vaunted voting block isn't concrete-solid this time around. McCain courts them with little success, even after gratuitously changing his official religion from those darn liberal Episcopalians to the more palatable and conservative Baptists. Obama's working the liberal evangelicals with daily mentions of his faith and a new evangelical plank - faith-based initiatives.

La Bama isn't talking the moribund photo-op that God's Main ManTM kicked off to lefty howls and Congressional reticence. No, he'll give it a shiny new name - the Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships - and elevate it to the moral center of his administration. I'm not clear where the moral center of his administration is and whether jamming "neighborhood" into the title makes it taste any better to the opposition. We'll see.

It was lead balloon time when Obama raised the flag. The liberal rank and file did not salute. Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State summed it up, "I am disappointed that any presidential candidate would want to continue a failed policy of the Bush administration. It ought to be shut down, not continued."

He's right about Bush policies being daft and there are legitimate concerns about the integrity of the firewall between church and state. However, Obama argues there's a great humanitarian need out there and the nation needs all the help it can get to fill it.

The Great Genuflector
The Great Genuflector's program was clearly window-dressing. He debuted it as a diamond in the compassionate conservative rough and the fundamentalists lapped it up with the rest of his spoilt-milk policies. Once his throne was assured, he piddled with it until Congress told him to step off and his hand-picked minion quit with charges that the Emperor had no clothes - not even from the church thrift shop apparently. But George's usual ineptitude and the valid separation questions aside, it may be too early to toss this idea.

Government already partners with religious institutions in a host of ways. The Salvation Army and individual churches participate with government entities in times of disaster. Church-supported universities get research funds from taxpayers. And, churches often work closely with humanitarian State Dept. initiatives overseas. There are models for this sort of arrangement, but we have to follow the money.

Obama wants government money to go straight to helping people, no proselytizing, just hot soup for the homeless. He also wants to make sure jobs are open to anyone. Hiring people of Christ is OK, but if an atheist, Muslim, or drag queen can help, churches must welcome them into the program. These are sensible ideas that garner the help we need while ensuring the money isn't skimmed for religious enterprises or impartially parcelled out, leaving the sinners behind. But these are also the sticky parts.

God's Financial Records...WTF?
Clearly, accounting is required and some churches will gladly comply because they put their hearts before their politics. But, there are always the Kenneth Copelands of the world who say their financial records are, "God's, and you're not going to get (them)." I'd expect gays - especially those heathens wanting to marry - would find a cold shoulder at his church door. I'd also guess many churches would squeal because they didn't get their swipe at the bankroll because they were unwilling to bend.

At their core, we know faith-based initiatives are powerful because they already do much good. We know reasonable safeguards are available to keep the programs on the up and up. What we don't know is how much the safeguards will weaken during congressional compromises and how honest and impartial the churches will be in sticking with the program. As with many things in our deeply-divided country, the question is how much trust the two sides can scrape together.

I'm not sure of the answer, but I am willing to listen - even if I am an atheist.

Cross posted at The Omnipotent Poobah Speaks!



Display:


Re: Do You Have Faith in Faith-Based Initiatives? (none / 0)

I was skeptical at first blush.  Having thought about it, I can live with such a program with the assumption that it would little resemble the clusterfuck this Adminstration has foisted upon us.


by Reaper0Bot0 on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 08:13:48 PM EST

and (2.00 / 1)

as I have stated before. If Obama is able to make it PERFECT, what happens after he is gone and we possibly get another gdub?

A snarky but somewhat serious question is... how long will it be until the neo-consand DINOs of the future use all of the rips in our Constitution to superimpose a Cross on the flag of the USA?


Washington Woman
theocracywatch.org
EENR Blog
by kevin22262 on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 08:55:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Do You Have Faith in Faith-Based Initiatives? (2.00 / 2)

This is something I don't like and I'm not at all happy about it. However, this doesn't come close to making my list of the top ten most important issues this campaign.

In no particular order:
Iraq War
Civil Liberties (as in unconstitutional laws)
Health Care
Economy
Judicial Appointments
Foreign Affairs
Education
Job Training
Gitmo
Torture
Gay Rights
Environment
Cleaning up the Justice Dept.
Rescuing the EPA and other bureaucracies
Energy Policy
Terrorism

Anyone think Faith based initiative is more important than any of those?


"The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." Samuel Johnson
by MS01 Indie on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 08:26:28 PM EST

Re: Do You Have Faith in Faith-Based Initiatives? (2.00 / 2)

And even if there are people that are adamantly against faith based initiatives, our final two candidates are both proponents of the idea.

If people are sincere in their anger, fine, but there are plenty of people here who are crucifying Obama for this stance and FISA and then cheerleading for Clinton.  She's taken damn near identical stances on these positions, so in reality they would have had to swallow these pills regardless.

Genuine concern is fine, but this one-sided faux outrage expressed by people who never had any intention of giving Obama a fair shake is ridiculous.


And so, may evil beware and may good dress warmly and eat lots of fresh vegetables.
by thatpurplestuff on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 08:33:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Start mixing (2.00 / 1)

religion and politics worse then is done now and what do you think will happen with these issues?

Civil Liberties (as in unconstitutional laws)
Judicial Appointments
Foreign Affairs
Education
Gay Rights

Would any of these be affected?

I could probably just add all of the ones you listed and still be pretty much on the money.


Washington Woman
theocracywatch.org
EENR Blog
by kevin22262 on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 08:58:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Start mixing (none / 0)

I would agree whole-heartedly with your comments if this was a new initiative, however it is a slightly more palatable version of the one that is already in place. As such, it should be put on the list of things that need to be changed, but not something that gets listed in the top ten. The changes Obama is suggesting might just make this unconstitutional under the entanglement part of the lemon test. Probably not, though, since Obama knows a heck of a lot more about this kind of thing than I do. I imagine he's already considered and rejected that possibility.


"The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." Samuel Johnson
by MS01 Indie on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 09:05:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Does the fact that ... (2.00 / 1)

it is a 'slightly more palatable version' of a program now in place mean that we should accept a 'slightly more palatable version' of the unitary executive?  The invasion of Iraq?  Guantanamo?  Waterboarding?  FISA?  DADT?

I'll stop now, I know the answer, and I know you do as well.


Hell's bells, even the GOP didn't have to crucify Eisenhower's record in order to make Reagan their 'saint'. We can have two great ones, you know?
by emsprater on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 10:53:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Does the fact that ... (none / 0)

You are darn right you do. And, so do I. The FB issue is not close to being on a par with any of the other issues you mentioned.


"The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." Samuel Johnson
by MS01 Indie on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 10:59:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Does the fact that ... (none / 0)

Has Obama indicated that he would only be making minor changes in those other issues? Thought not. Unitary Executive - he's against it and has said so repeatedly. Invasion of Iraq - he was against it before it happened and hasn't changed his mind since. Guantanamo - he's said he would close it as soon as he takes office. Waterboarding - he's been an outspoken opponent of torture. FISA - we know the story on that one, it's been blogged to death already. DADT? - hell, that's a Clinton pollicy. Has Obama even spoken to that issue? I know he's come out against the gay marriage ban ballot initiative in CA.


"The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." Samuel Johnson
by MS01 Indie on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 11:02:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Does the fact that ... (none / 0)

You gave the excuse of 'a slightly more palatable version' of an existing program, and I gave examples where that would not be desirable.  Bad ideology and bad policy are still bad, no matter how 'bad' they really are, how 'well intentioned' they may be in the 'right' hands, or whether some are 'slightly more palatable'.

We know what Obama says he wants to do; we know some of it evolves over time, as with all politicians.

What we don't know is what the final outcome will be and whether it will indeed be 'slightly more palatable'.  It behoves us all to keep focus on the issues we think he falls short on, and work to help him improve his final product.

Folks are within their right to be very skeptical of this.


Hell's bells, even the GOP didn't have to crucify Eisenhower's record in order to make Reagan their 'saint'. We can have two great ones, you know?
by emsprater on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 11:45:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Does the fact that ... (none / 0)

I didn't say they didn't have a right to be upset over this. I'm upset about it myself. I was just pointing out that this isn't the most important issue to get upset over.

The examples you compared to this issue were far more important issues. That's sort of like comparing being a little sore with being a little pregnant.


"The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." Samuel Johnson
by MS01 Indie on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 12:01:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

If you're not upset yet .... (none / 0)

just imagine this scenario:

Obama's program goes into effect and suddenly we have a group that follows all the rules and regulations apply for funds to feed the homeless in Topeka, Kansas.  They know the law and the rules, so they follow them to the letter (because they always know just how far they can push the line).  However, we all know what they do with their normal operating fund: they protest military funerals and homosexuals funerals.

Make you feel good?


Hell's bells, even the GOP didn't have to crucify Eisenhower's record in order to make Reagan their 'saint'. We can have two great ones, you know?
by emsprater on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 10:39:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If you're not upset yet .... (none / 0)

And what's to prevent that from happening today under the current system?


"The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." Samuel Johnson
by MS01 Indie on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 11:07:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If you're not upset yet .... (none / 0)

Nothing.  Which is why some of us would like to see it decapitated, instead of seeing it adopted and made 'more palatable'.  The above scenario can never, ever be made 'more palatable'.  I seriously doubt there will be any type of provision that will preclude a "God hates fags" sign from being within view of the table.  And what will prevent those same folks from benefiting by feeding themselves along with the homeless, and pocketing their normal food expenses to make more signs?

Just as we are not going to be accepting of making the 'unitary executive' more palatable (yet, and I am not sure there won't be some sort of move to do so, every POTUS so far has kept power that his predecessor has snatched), we shouldn't accept this.  


Hell's bells, even the GOP didn't have to crucify Eisenhower's record in order to make Reagan their 'saint'. We can have two great ones, you know?
by emsprater on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 11:26:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If you're not upset yet .... (none / 0)

I actually agree with everything you say in this comment. I don't like this move. I have also said all along that the power grabs the Republicans have made over the last few years would come back to haunt them. They thought they would have a "permanent" majority. They finally started to see the writing on the wall, which is why I think they backed off on setting a precedent with the "nuclear option". It's a lot harder to take something away than it is to not give it to them in the first place.


"The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." Samuel Johnson
by MS01 Indie on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 11:56:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Do You Have Faith in Faith-Based Initiatives? (none / 0)

I really don't see the problem with inviting them to the table, the only problem is at bush's table, they seem to be leading the table. Every group should participate, as long as it is inclusive of all and just not a few. A lot of good was done by religious groups during Katrina because they were closer and more mobile. It's just a matter of not paying for government to preach, like shrub does.


by Dog Chains on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 08:34:09 PM EST

Yes they can do good (none / 0)

But the reason those groups stood out so much was because of the LACK of leadership and attention by bush and friends.


Washington Woman
theocracywatch.org
EENR Blog
by kevin22262 on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 08:59:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yes they can do good (none / 0)

Exactly, but it's kind of like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Just because the giant turd sandwich that currently occupies the Oval Office abused his power, we should make sure to cut off all of the things he allowed. I personally believe we should be better than that.


by Dog Chains on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 09:15:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

uuugh (2.00 / 2)

There are valid reasons the founding father saw the need for a clear divide between religion and government. I agree with them.

Just look around the world.


Washington Woman
theocracywatch.org
EENR Blog
by kevin22262 on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 09:22:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: uuugh (none / 0)

And in my opinion, there isn't something saying the government can't "contract" religious (equitably, of course) to do good deeds, only they can't sponsor or allow a specific religion for governmental purposes. I could be wrong, I admit I'm a finance guy, not a constitutional scholar.


by Dog Chains on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 09:25:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Once you (2.00 / 1)

start paying them money, you are supporting them.

If that church or group has $1000 to spend on preaching and helping and they choose to do that.. great.  
Now lets say we give them $250 to go towards "helping" others.
What stops them from using ALL of their "own money", the $1000, for preaching and faith and then only use the $250 WE gave them in tax money for helping?

By this happening, we (the tax payers and government) just supported them and helped them in their "religious" endeavors by allowing them to use ALL of their money for non-help purposes.


Washington Woman
theocracywatch.org
EENR Blog
by kevin22262 on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 09:46:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Once you (none / 0)

But why would you assume that from groups who already use their own money to help people? Sometimes the cynic cap is strangling.


by Dog Chains on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 09:57:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

ugh! (2.00 / 1)

"Those who would renegotiate the boundaries between church and state must therefore answer a difficult question: why would we trade a system that has served us so well for one that has served others so poorly?"

Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Conner on the Ten Commandments ruling, June 27, 2005
http://www.theocracywatch.org/separation _church_state2.htm


Washington Woman
theocracywatch.org
EENR Blog
by kevin22262 on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 10:00:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Why are you (none / 0)

so naive?


Washington Woman
theocracywatch.org
EENR Blog
by kevin22262 on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 10:02:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Once you (none / 0)

If that church or group has $1000 to spend on preaching and helping and they choose to do that.. great.  
Now lets say we give them $250 to go towards "helping" others.
What stops them from using ALL of their "own money", the $1000, for preaching and faith and then only use the $250 WE gave them in tax money for helping?

The same thing that prevented them before from using ALL of their own money for preaching and faith. Either:
a) Nothing at all.
b) Their consciences.
c) Fear of community backlash/donations drying up if they misuse/waste the donations.
d) All of the above.

Not sure why you feel you should have any say on how they use their own money, anymore than you have now. If private donors see their donations misused, they'll be free to stop donating: Same as happens now.


by Aris Katsaris2 on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 06:14:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Answer (none / 0)

to this:

"Not sure why you feel you should have any say on how they use their own money"

Is I don't. I don't want religion and government mixed. Give them money from the governemt and they are mixed.

It is really pretty simple.

Also... this is nonsense:

The same thing that prevented them before from using ALL of their own money for preaching and faith. Either:
a) Nothing at all.
b) Their consciences.
c) Fear of community backlash/donations drying up if they misuse/waste the donations.
d) All of the above.

I would say this miught be true for some, but not all.

What you are telling me is that I should just have "FAITH" that they would not do this.


Washington Woman
theocracywatch.org
EENR Blog
by kevin22262 on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 12:08:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Answer (none / 0)

Give them money from the government and they are mixed.

Yeah, but then again they use the roads the government made, and they live in cities protected by the police force funded by governmental money, so am not sure at which point giving them government funds becomes bad and wrong but providing them with other services (available to religious and non-religious alike) isn't.

What you are telling me is that I should just have "FAITH" that they would not do this.

Um, no. I thought I was telling you it was none of your business how they use their own money. I even was planning initially to write only option "a) Nothing at all would prevent them, same as before. Why should it?" but I thought that'd be a bit unfair.


by Aris Katsaris2 on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 07:30:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

also... (none / 0)

those groups that helped down there most likely have never gotten anything from gdubs fatih based BS. His money tends to go to his "christian friends".


Washington Woman
theocracywatch.org
EENR Blog
by kevin22262 on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 09:24:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: also... (none / 0)

because he is an immorral turd sandwich who isn't actually religious, the same way he isn't the Texan he claims to be. Doesn't mean revamping the system to be equitable and non denominational isn't a good idea.


by Dog Chains on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 09:27:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Who will (2.00 / 1)

keep it that way after Obama, IF Obama would be able to keep it "equitable and non denominational".

I would hate to see the headlines when the righties start digging and using the right wing media to show that Obama is supporting ISLAM and MUSLIMS!

Wouldn't that be peachy?


Washington Woman
theocracywatch.org
EENR Blog
by kevin22262 on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 09:48:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Do You Have Faith in BHO? (2.00 / 2)

BHO has always sounded too much like GWB:

uniter, not a divider; likeable and charismatic; kind of a thin resume;

and remember after he was first elected to the Senate, the new Senator said he was now pretty much on the same Iraq page as George Bush?

So I am not at all surprised BHO wants to promote GWB's faith-based initiatives.

Wouldn't you just love to have a beer with those guys?


by moevaughn on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 08:42:08 PM EST

Re: Do You Have Faith in BHO? (none / 0)

No, i would like to punch George Bush in the face, and I want to make Obama the president. i would troll rate you for your silly comaparison, but I won't because you obviously have mental problems comapring two people who have very little in common. Try No Quarter, it is run by Republicans who dislike Bush, just your kind.


by Dog Chains on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 09:18:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

mental problems? (2.00 / 1)

hm.


Washington Woman
theocracywatch.org
EENR Blog
by kevin22262 on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 09:49:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Do You Have Faith? (none / 0)

last I checked, this is still MyDD -- not MyBO


by moevaughn on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 09:50:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Simple answer (2.00 / 2)

NO!


Washington Woman
theocracywatch.org
EENR Blog
by kevin22262 on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 08:51:08 PM EST

No one is stopping religious organizations... (2.00 / 4)

...from helping people on their own tax deductable dime. I fail to see the value of having a religious organization in the mix. Let the aid go directly to people, or at least to non-profit secular community organizations. I don't know about you, but I can think of plenty of community organizations that are not affiliated with organized religions that would welcome federal funding.

having churches involved is like having private insurance companies in the middle of a universal health plan. They add no value and will serve their own agenda first.

If organized religions want to help they can pass the plate and pass up building vainglorious edifices.


Cindy is John McCain's Personal GI Bill
by demwords on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 09:25:15 PM EST

some info to mull over. (2.00 / 1)

Faith-Based Initiative

"We want to fund programs that save Americans
one soul at a time."

President George W. Bush, January, 2004, in a speech in New Orleans
http://www.theocracywatch.org/faith_base .htm

Executive Order: Responsibilities of the Department of Commerce and Veterans Affairs and the Small Business Administration with Respect to Faith-Based and Community Initiatives
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/ 2004/06/20040601-1.html


Washington Woman
theocracywatch.org
EENR Blog
by kevin22262 on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 09:32:34 PM EST

Re: some info to mull over. (none / 0)

"There is no contradiction between support for faith-based initiatives and upholding our constitutional principles," said Clinton, a New York Democrat who often is mentioned as a possible presidential candidate in 2008.

"The Clintons, on faith-based solutions, have always been way ahead of the curve," said Rivers, citing President Clinton's support of a 1996 law banning the federal government from discriminating against religious organizations seeking funding available to groups delivering social services.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massach usetts/articles/2005/01/20/sen_clinton_u rges_use_of_faith_based_initiatives/

I'm not citing this as a "they did it too!" argument, but rather point out that many Dem politicians don't think that this is a bad idea.  In terms of actually being able to serve communities, social organizations and yes, churches, are uniquely suited for the job.  If we can keep the dogma out, I think it's a great idea.


And so, may evil beware and may good dress warmly and eat lots of fresh vegetables.
by thatpurplestuff on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 09:47:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

This means nothing (2.00 / 1)

pandering is pandering and bad ideas are bad ideas.


Washington Woman
theocracywatch.org
EENR Blog
by kevin22262 on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 09:50:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This means nothing (none / 0)

Agree to disagree, I guess.


And so, may evil beware and may good dress warmly and eat lots of fresh vegetables.
by thatpurplestuff on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 10:05:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Sandra Day O'Conner (2.00 / 3)

"Those who would renegotiate the boundaries between church and state must therefore answer a difficult question: why would we trade a system that has served us so well for one that has served others so poorly?"

Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Conner on the Ten Commandments ruling, June 27, 2005
http://www.theocracywatch.org/separation _church_state2.htm


Washington Woman
theocracywatch.org
EENR Blog
by kevin22262 on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 09:35:34 PM EST

Are (2.00 / 2)

the Democrats next?

"This Republican Party of Lincoln has become a party of theocracy."

U.S. Representative Christopher Shays, R-CT, (New York Times 3/23/05)
http://www.theocracywatch.org/


Washington Woman
theocracywatch.org
EENR Blog
by kevin22262 on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 09:37:13 PM EST

Re: Do You Have Faith in Faith-Based Initiatives? (2.00 / 1)

I've made it clear that I don't like faith-based initiatives of any kind. I have also made it clear that I don't think this is an issue to get carried away about. I just think it's a matter of keeping things in perspective.

Number one: You will never find a politician who you can agree with on 100% of the issues.

Number two: There are far more important issues for most people.

Number three: Who do you think is more likely to appoint justices that will favor your position on this issue - McCain or Obama?

In the end, it comes down to the fact that McCain is wrong on almost every issue. Obama is wrong on some. It really is that simple.


"The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." Samuel Johnson
by MS01 Indie on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 12:06:30 AM EST

I've faith in God, but not his fan clubs (2.00 / 1)

I believe in faith based initiatives provided they are funded by their respective congregations -- if that's how they want to serve to fellow man.

Otherwise, if churches want tax money, then they should pay taxes.  

I believe we have real twisted ideas and priorities with reallocating our tax revenues.  


by dcrolg on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 09:03:22 AM EST

Re: Do You Have Faith in Faith-Based Initiatives? (none / 0)

My husband balked immediately at Barack's speech on this, but I think it's something he needs to do as a Christian.  My husband said, "Well, he's got to" (beginning to suggest that it's political), but I don't think it IS political with Barack.  He's Christian and, IMO, one of those Christians who walk the talk of Jesus.  Neither my husband nor I are Christian or anything else, but we buy stuff on sale using coupons and donate it all to a mission that helps people in our area.  There's no secular group in our area who set up homeless shelters or soup kitchens.  A Christian group did.  Same thing with Katrina aid.  Christian groups gathered donations of food, clothing, and I went with a Christian neighbor to volunteer to help sort/label, etc.  If he were to demonstrate the prejudices of some Christians, I'd be concerned, but so far he hasn't and he's pro-choice.  What's not to like?


by Anita on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 09:17:32 AM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.