Browsing the archives for the Jesus tag

REDISTRIBUTING THE REDISTRIBUTION (OF THE DISTRIBUTION) OF WEALTH . . . A BIBLICAL MANDATE

Jun 26, 2010
Howard
Uncategorized

It may have begin with Michele Obama’s comment about “cutting the pie more fairly.” It gained momentum with Barach Obama’s conversation with Joe the Plumber, about a more level playing field. “Now he wants to redistribute wealth!” Rush shouted. “See, we were right all along, he’s a Marxist,” blustered Sean Hannity. “Hear this, Mrs. Obama,” responded Glenn Beck, his eyes steeled, as he leaned toward the camera, “you keep your hands off my piece of the pie!” I, too, share a passionate concern about wealth redistribution – the one that occurred from the mid-70’s to the present! I want to “redistribute the re-distribution,” and I’ll look through a biblical lens.

From the end of WWII to the mid-70’s a “rising tide lifted all (well, almost all) boats” – robust macroeconomic trends realized at the micro-level.  At differing trajectories all segments of the U.S. economy, most households across the socioeconomic spectrum shared in expanding prosperity, experiencing financial gain.  The gap between rich and poor actually narrowed.  But from 1975 to the present that trend dramatically changed – a rapid and massive wealth re-distribution.

It is early to “numb out” in the face of statistics, forgetting that human faces peer from beneath the data.  The rich/poor divide has widened at a staggering rate, increasing threefold over the last thirty years.  Across that span annual income increased just 2% for 90% of us, while the top 1% increased 57%, with that top 1% now controlling wealth equal to the lower 80% combined.  One in six of our children are poor and 37 million of us live below the poverty line, while CEO-to-worker income ratio expanded from 43-1 in 1975 to 344-1 in 2008.  A chief executive, who once had to work ten days to match a worker’s annual income, can leave the office by mid-afternoon on any given day to match that worker’s yearly salary.

Speaking closer to home, perhaps uncomfortable so: if I have assets of $2,200 (my current checking account balance), I position in the global population’s top 50%; assets of $61,000 (the equity in my home) the top 10%.  I went to www.globalrichlist.com and punched in my annual income (pension, Social Security and investment income), a modest total compared to most people I know, to discover that I am in the .93 percentile globally and the top 1.7 percentile in the U.S.

The redistribution has already occurred!  

Beneath policies and strategies – “positions” be they ideological, political or economic, philosophical or theological – are basic values and principles, a prevailing ideal, a sense of what is right and just.  As a progressive Christian I look to the Bible for guidance.  I would suggest that a foundational, pervasive, definitional dynamic is (re)distribution of wealth (land, resources, nutrition and housing, education and health care).  This theme is central, dominant and at the core of the biblical vision of life on the planet.  Space here just to bullet a few:

  • The lengthy sojourn in the wilderness called the Exodus coaxed the Hebrews to abandon the economics of “too much” with an economics of “enough,” the provision of manna the daily lesson, and a plan for equitable distribution of the Promised Land by tribe and family, profiled in the Book of Numbers, a “distribution plan.”
  • As if God knew growing inequalities were inevitable across a generation or two, “redistribution strategies” are outlined in detail, every seventh year a Sabbath Year and every fiftieth a Jubilee Year, with sweeping instructions for re-distribution of wealth.
  • Scholars suggest that in Jesus inaugural sermon, declaring “the acceptable year of the Lord,” may well have been re-instating the lapsed Sabbath and Jubilee observances.
  • More recent study asserts that Jesus overturning of the money-changers tables was a symbolic “overturning” of the economic system that advantaged the already rich on the backs of the poor.
  • St. Paul’s most focused description of “charity” (2 Corinthians 8 & 9) might be better named a teaching about “justice,” generosity grounded in a theology of re-distribution.

How to craft and implement just and timely “redistribution plans” can be a matter for crisp and vigorous public debate, but whether to address this matter, from a biblical perspective, is not an option but a mandate.

No Comments
Tagged , , , ,

BP AND CORPORATE HOMICIDE . . . A BIBLICAL LENS FOR A CURRENT DEBATE

May 29, 2010
Howard
Uncategorized

I am not given to hyperbole.  I prefer understatement, subtlety, turning the rhetoric down.  But missing for me in the unfolding oil rig disaster in the Gulf is OUTRAGE.  This story feels all together too familiar – corporate arrogance and governmental ineptness, slogan-izing corporate CEO’s and posturing politicians.  If anything characterized the response of Jesus and the prophets to injustice it was OUTRAGE.  So . . . a little “reasoned outrage.”

In the highly controversial Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case the Supreme Court recently voted 5-4 to extend definition of the 14th Amendment granting corporations the rights of persons, freeing them to participate in election campaigning with the same rights and protections as individuals.  I was among those citizens who found themselves stunned and deeply disappointed, fearing that the unbridled resources of corporations poured into election campaigns would overwhelm the political leverage of average citizens, the genius of our electoral process.  It struck down a decade of legislation, foremost among them McCain-Feingold, that has banned “electioneering communication” by corporations, that had limited or barred corporate engagement in the election process.  More fully, more clearly, more decisively than ever before: corporations have personhood . . . and power.

Less known, with limited coverage in our press, on April 6, 2008 the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 came into effect in the United Kingdom.  Careful to provide “due process” and “proof beyond a reasonable doubt,” all corporations became liable to legal proceedings related to food production, transportation, workplace safety and the like. Companies and organizations can be found guilty of corporate manslaughter or murder as a result of serious management failures resulting in loss of life.  In accompanying guidelines to the law corporations are counseled to implement appropriate health and safety procedures, employee training, and periodic inspection and review.  With differing implications: corporations have personhood . . . and accountability.

For those of us who look to the bible as a resource, is there insight and guidance in scripture?  In bulleted form – inviting your further, more in-depth exploration – are three possibilities:

  • The prophets – Amos, Micah and Jeremiah come immediately to mind – held systems as well as individuals accountable, per chance from a prescient “corporations as persons” perspective.  Unjust judges and unjust judicial systems, dishonest businesspersons and unjust economic systems were equally confronted and held accountable by these prophets.

 

  • Jesus – who some would argue was silent on such issues – may in fact have made a clear, profound and resounding “statement” as he overturned the money changers tables, which an increasing number of biblical scholars interpret as a symbolic “overturning” of the political/economic  system.  Was the focus not on where the merchants had set up shop (traditional interpretation of this passage) but what kind of business they were doing?  The temple, more than a house of worship, was fundamentally an economic institution that dominated the city’s economic life.  According to historical records, these were more than a cluster of small, independent merchants, but part of a substantial, inter-connected mercantile establishment, big-business first-century style.  Those same records unmask a dominant economic monolith quietly linked political, economic and religious players, the money changers local vendors representing banking interests of substantial power – with  evidence of priestly collusion in a system profiting on the backs of the poor.

 

  • Paul – If we read Colossians 1.16-20 as Paul’s addendum to the creation story, as I do, “thrones, dominions, principalities and powers” as the structural, institutional, corporate dimension of the creation, then, as biblical scholar Walter Wink summarizes, like persons “the Powers are good, the Powers are fallen, and the Powers will be redeemed.”  Perhaps from a biblical perspective: corporations have personhood . . . good, sinfulness and a need for redemption.

 

If British Petroleum knew their “safety guarantees” were over-stated, that there were no adequate prevention strategies or available technology to respond to equipment failure; if voices of warning were silenced and cost-cutting/profit-enhancing decisions were made knowing that risk levels spiked as a result; if eleven lives were lost in an explosion and countless more lost as a result of this disaster (does “collateral damage” echo in your ears too?) – is there not premeditation and homicide?  If health-care providers have used deception and duplicity to refuse life-saving medical treatments, employed exclusions on technicalities of “pre-existing conditions” based on fabricated evidence with hundreds of deaths the outcome – is there not premeditation and homicide?  If Toyota knew the lethal potential in a faulty accelerator pedal, had statistical evidence of the extent of the risk to drivers in certain circumstances but withheld it – is there not premeditation and homicide?  Such charges have not been brought against a corporation since the Ford Motor Company Pinto gas tank case in 1980.  It is time for another?

Okay corporations . . . for the moment, I’ll agree . . . you have personhood . . . see you in court!

1 Comment
Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

JESUS’ “TRANS-PARTISAN STRATEGY” – Some Hints for Democrats and Republicans, Independents and Libertarians?

Oct 16, 2009
Howard
Uncategorized

“With a filibuster proof majority we (Democrats) ought to be able to get the health care reform we want” . . . “If we defeat this health care bill, we (Republicans) may be able to un-do this president.”  I am a diehard Democrat . . . or Republican, liberal . . . or conservative, independent . . . or libertarian.  Ideology.  Party line and party loyalty.  Clear, set and dug in.  Right versus wrong.  My way or the highway.  Pretense to philosophical purity.  I was never much for the WWJD approach – What Would Jesus Do – but I am about to make an exception.  Wait a minute, you argue – be you Christian or otherwise – Jesus didn’t encounter political parties . . . did he?  I would argue that he did!  If so, what approach did he take?  May I offer just enough detail to profile the political context in which Jesus worked, and, to glimpse his basic approach.

Israel was a captive nation during Jesus’ lifetime, under the dominating power and politics of a Roman occupation.  But Rome’s policy was to allow significant self-government in controlled territories.  Israel’s paradigm was theocratic – an integration of political and religious agendas, under governing mechanisms and public leadership that blended religious and political roles – differing from our own commitment to separation of church and state.  But I’d argue the following remains relevant.

This theocracy had manifested as four distinct “parties” as Jesus began his pubic ministry.  Each had evolved a worldview and ideology, a set of practices and a lifestyle, and each had formed expectations about the awaited messiah.  Each had crafted an integration of the political, economic, social and religious realms.  And each was certain they were right!  The Pharisee Party sought to live a diligently law-abiding life, resisting the lure of secularity, guided by tradition, rooted in founding principles.  The Sadducee Party integrated more fully with the culture, adapting and collaborating, their faithfulness more eclectic, more realistic they argued.  The Essene Party divorced itself from the culture which they viewed as corrupt and contaminating, living a rough and rustic separatist life.  Finally the Zealot Party was ideological home to revolutionaries, amassing caches of arms, awaiting a right moment for a military uprising. 

Jesus seemed Essene-like when we prayed alone or sought retreat with a handful of others, or Pharisee-like when he declared that the law must be uncompromised.  He seemed Zealot-like as he brandished a whip of cords and overturned the moneychanger’s tables, or Sadducee-like when he healed a Roman centurion’s son or healed the daughter of a foreign woman.  He said to each party, “You’re right . . . in part.” But he stated just as boldly that each party’s position and faith-practice, offered as absolute and superior, was relative and flawed.  “And you’re wrong . . . in part.”

Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives, independents and libertarians . . . you’re right . . . in part!  You have insights worthy of consideration, policies that make contribution, values and principles to honor and appreciate – each and all.  But your truth is incomplete.  And your arrogance, pretence to absolute rightness, exclusion of the viewpoints of others is destructive.  It is time for ideological both/and, collaborating not competing.  As Van Jones loves to put it, “It is time for velcro, for lego” for mixing and matching, for connecting and combining.

What did happen to civility, to bi-partisanship, to legislative collaboration?  “St. Anthony, St. Anthony, please come ‘round; something’s been lost that must be found!”

No Comments
Tagged , , , , , ,

N O N – V I O L E N C E W I N S ! ! ! REGIME-CHANGE SCORECARD FOR A CENTURY: NON-VIOLENCE 53 – VIOLENCE 26 (WITH IRAN AND BURMA IN MIND)

Oct 13, 2009
Howard
Uncategorized

“The journal International Security using a massive database analyzed 323 major insurrections in support of self-determination and democratic rule since 1900.  It found that violent resistance was successful only 26 percent of the time, whereas nonviolent campaigns had a 53 percent success rate.” (Weapons of Mass Democracy, Stephen Zunes, YES magazine, Fall 2009).  This article inspired and guided further research in preparing this posting.

The scene is poignant and quietly dramatic.  Jesus, mounted on a donkey, reaches the brow of the hill for a first glimpse of the massive walls of Jerusalem and the throngs leaping and shouting to greet him.  Surely a smile of delight will dance across his face.  But . . . he weeps!  What does he see that stirs grief and not celebration?  Briefly: festive as it seems, jubilant pilgrims wildly waving palms, it is their shout and its intonation, “Alleluia,” and their grip on the palms that give them away.  “Alleluia” is a cry akin to “Right on the Revolution,” a readiness to be called to arms, a longing for Jesus to brandish a sword and start the revolt.  He sits on a donkey, a symbol of peace, but they can only see a horse, one coming to conquer.  An unlikely convocation of biblical scholars and military strategists gathered a few years ago to ask a probing question: Did Jesus refuse the military option on strategic or principled grounds?  Did he reject an armed revolt because it could only fail?  Or, because it was morally wrong in the peaceable kingdom he announced?  The military strategists concluded that an armed insurrection – in a city crammed with pilgrims, caches of weapons at hand, Jews significantly outnumbering Roman troops – had high likelihood of success.  With the violence option promising, Jesus stood firmly on the principle of non-violence. 

Jesus – and this study of a century’s review of insurrections around the world – have clear resonance.  A passion for “regime change,” a longing for freedom from the bondage of an oppressive and usually military-backed government, an impulse to overthrow dictatorial power is as old as history itself.  Our country was birthed in the “blood of martyrs,” proof that a ragtag army can defeat a seasoned army, violent regime change.  But then consider the successful non-violent insurrections in the last half century in the Philippines and Serbia, Poland and Czechoslovakia, Georgia and Estonia, Romania and East Germany.  Delegations representing these countries are coming together to share the fruits of “strategic non-violence.”

The “success” of non-violent revolutions involves far more than simply “winning,” but appears to foster a blend of positive dynamics within a given country that make transition not only more peaceful but intrinsically participatory and democratic. 

 

  • Those of any age or gender can be involved in massive non-cooperation, demonstrations, strikes, non-payment of taxes. 
  • Non-violent resisters more quickly win over the military and police personnel dispatched to confront them.  While violence escalates, non-violence de-escalates the intensity of armed retaliation. 
  • “Successful” armed revolution may change the parties in power but may only perpetuate the repressive system.  The paradigm of governance and the politics of power do not shift.  
  • Successful non-violent revolutions seem more apt to birth new structures, alternative institutions, increased inclusivity and more broadly-based coalitions.

How fascinating to apply all this to what seems to be broadening non-violent revolutionary resistance in Iran and Burma.  And to place that alongside the violent regime changing strategies employed in Iraq and Afghanistan.   We want to encourage and support the Iranian and Burmese, their vision and hopes, and perhaps accelerate the momentum of their process.  But intervening, especially in ways that can fracture the fragile commitment to non-violence, and tilt them to the wrong side of that scorecard.

No Comments
Tagged , , , ,

FINDING UNITY WITHOUT AN ENEMY: A CHALLENGE TO WHICH WE MUST RISE

Oct 7, 2009
Howard
Uncategorized

Nothing brings disparate people together – galvanizes competing even colliding groups, even stark adversaries finding common cause – than a common enemy.

  • Family Systems Theory posits an unsettling proposition that a family’s “unity” may be created, however artificially, indeed tragically, by designating one among them a “black sheep,” the symptom-bearer for the pathologies of other members, the “black sheep” becoming the “identified patient” when family therapy is sought.  Unity seems to need an enemy.
  • Rene Girard, an admittedly complex and difficult-to-understand social critic argues that a society’s “unity” – its basic cohesion, its solidarity, and its apparent harmony hinges on that society’s ability to successfully identify a “scapegoat” – be it a common enemy beyond its borders, or, of someone from within the tribe.  Unity seems to need an enemy.
  • Howard Zinn (People’s History of the United States) – a “must read” on any syllabus I’d suggest – observes a pattern across U.S. history from its inception.  When social cohesion begins to loosen, the structures of unity groaning and cracking; when there is growing popular unrest and marginalized groups with a history of competition and conflict begin to unmask common grievances . . . a “convenient war” is declared.  Unity seems to need an enemy.

American history chronicles this phenomenon.  King George and Great Britain galvanized common cause among a dramatically diverse and different population spread across thirteen staunchly independent colonies, Britain available as a “unifying enemy” over nearly half a century.  Germany and the Axis nations provided a clear “unifying enemy” across nearly half of the past century, with a boost from Japan, that inspired a unity, cooperation and resolve unmatched before or since.  How ironic that Britain, Germany and Japan are now among our closest allies.

Russia and the Soviet Union took the “unifying enemy” baton as the Cold War era emerged.  (It’s not easy creating enemies.  Joseph Stalin graced the cover of LIFE magazine twice within six months in 1944.  The first as “Grampa Joe”with a smiling child nestled on his lap; the second “Joe the Genocidal Assassin,” in a fierce and dangerous pose.  Iron Curtain.  Red Menace.  (As a child we loved to “play war” – in earlier years staging relentless assaults on “Krauts and Japs” and then later “Gooks” and Commies.”  And we always had Indians to fall back on!)

The parade enlarges in recent years.  Manuel Noriega, our “stable friend” in Panama morphed into a drug-dealing menace.  Saddam Hussein, a staunch and reliable ally against Iran transfigured into the terrorist cause celeb.  Axis of Evil was catchy, but gained limited traction.  Momar Quadafi comes and goes.  Hugo Chavez has possibilities.  Fidel Castro is just too old.  Iran provided the Ayatollah and now Ahmadinejad with adequate “unifying enemy” bad guy credentials. 

But “making it stick” – this “enemy” labeling – is losing adhesion.  Per chance at our peril.  When we fail to produce a “unifying enemy” beyond our borders, we seem to turn the “enemy search” inward.  Submit yourself to an hour or two of talk radio or TV, left and right, and the “enemy quest” is voracious.  We are turning on one another.  The firing squad has formed a circle.  Nazi . . . radical communist . . . feminazi . . . environmental whacko . . . racist right . . . traitorous left . . . teaparty slimballs . . . America-hater . . . on and on and on (phrases drawn equally from commentators Right and Left.  We are striking lethal blows.  “We have found the enemy and it is us” (Pogo, I think).  Maybe Jesus was onto something, that we can only “enter the Kingdom hand in hand with our enemy.”

2 Comments
Tagged , , , ,

SOCIALIST? COMMUNIST? REVOLUTIONARY? Maybe me . . . Likely Jeremiah and Isaiah . . . Definitely Jesus!

Sep 30, 2009
Howard
Uncategorized

During the presidential campaign, I must confess, it caught me by surprise.  As an Obama victory seemed more and more likely, the Palin-bounce waning, the Straight Talk Express losing momentum, it seemed last ditch, rather desperate, a tactic that would itself quickly fade away.  I speak of the sudden and insistent naming of Obama as a socialist.  But, far from ebbing, this accusation has morphed into an even more dramatic, assaultive tactic. “He’s not a western European or Canadian socialist, not a Bernie Sanders socialist,” a talk show host explains.  “He’s a hard core communist, a radical communist, with a revolutionary agenda.”  Other talk show pundits add to the chorus, insisting Obama is premeditated and ready to be relentless in his obsession to annihilate capitalism, dismantle the free market, to nullify liberty, to destroy democracy and its ideals.  “Death panels” come to mind.  The administration’s lurking readiness, it is declared, to cut off health care for veterans, the mentally challenged, even children.  Obama, simply stated, is a demented and dangerous man.

As part of (what some view as self-flagellating and masochistic) daily practice I listen for an hour, if I can hold out, to right wing talk radio – Glen Beck, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly, for instance.  (I must hasten to acknowledge that my right-leaning friends would find it just as odious to listen to Keith Obermann, Rachel Maddow or Ed Schultz on MSNBC for more than a milli-second).  A week ago I was engaged in that day’s ritual, tuned to Glenn Beck.  He promised “audio clips” that could only be heard as shocking, and, that would prove undeniably his accusations about the “real” Obama agenda.  I expected a string of predictable, carefully cherry-picked sound bites that even I would find offensive.  I turned the volume up.  Glen was on a roll.  He played three of these “surely indicting bites” end to end.

I listened carefully, caught every word, and discovered, to my amazement, that I could have spoken, word for word, what each featured liberal, misguided, communist, and dangerous speaker said.  Am I one of them! 

As a progressive Christian, I look to the “message and movement of Jesus and the Prophets” as a primary source of clarifying my identity, my philosophy of life and my political/economic/social positions.  Pondering “finding myself” in Beck’s sound bites, and his just as biting ensuing commentary, I jotted down some central tenets of that clarity: (1) I view myself as a citizen of the Reign of God, the global community and then the United States in that order, (2) I seek to live by and advocate for the clear biblical principle of “redistribution of wealth” (a Glen Beck hot button!), (3) I support non-violence, dialogue even with our adversaries, and oppose the militarization of foreign policy, (4) I believe that education, health care, fair wage employment, adequate shelter and diet are a human right due all Americans (indeed the whole global family), (5) I affirm environmental sustainability (that we cannot extract from the earth faster than the planet’s rate of replenishment, nor produce waste faster than the earth’s capacity to absorb it) and equitable consumption of the earth’s resources, and (6) I believe in full participative democracy uncompromised by the leverage of wealth and corporate influence.  Just may qualify me for “liberal, misguided, communist and dangerous.”

Dare I suggest – it is, I recognize, a bit audacious – that Isaiah, Jeremiah and Jesus, might also be viewed, by criteria at play, as “liberal, misguided, communist and dangerous”?  Pretty good company to stand with!

2 Comments
Tagged , , , , , , ,

THE JESUS PHENOMONON: Unmasked by In-depth Investigative Reporting

Aug 28, 2009
Howard
Uncategorized

During a recent excavation in a Judean hillside outside of Jerusalem, a fragment of a first century daily paper was found in tact and readable. This article was restored in its entirety.

Known only as Jesus, this one-time carpenter from Nazareth has become an itinerant preacher with a steadily growing following. He has been spotted in villages and towns throughout the region, traveling with an eclectic band of apparently devoted companions, claimed by some to have healing powers, even a rather outlandish contention that he holds power over nature. A surely embellished report of a storm subsiding on the Sea of Galilee as he raised his hand from the stern of a boat, clearly visible from the shoreline, and another that several thousand people were fed by some magical multiplication of a youngster’s basketful of bread and dried fish, have caught the public imagination.

His thinly veiled challenge to authorities in both his own Jewish tradition as well as the Roman occupying force appears to have stirred near revolutionary fervor. Though reputed to have rabbinical training, he has held Pharisees up to public ridicule, flagrantly broken the laws of his tradition, even within synagogues. Religious and political authorities are rumored to be alarmed and poised to take action if necessary.

We recently dispatched a cadre of reporters to disappear into the crowds, observe his movements, take notes during his speeches, and monitor his every move. They followed up their observations with extensive investigative research. We discovered a disturbing incongruity between what he says and what he does. Those who might be swayed by his sweeping rhetoric may want to consider the following:

           • Though he speaks an unwavering message of peace and non-violence, we have discovered among his followers two, perhaps three men with prior membership in the Zealot Party that advocates violence and recruits followers to seek overthrow of the government. We wonder if this Jesus failed to vet his apparently highly intentional disciple selection process.
           • Though his message of non-violence is a clear challenge to the Roman occupation we have discovered that he has welcomed financial support from the wife of a Roman official, and, publically healed a Roman military officer’s servant.
           • Having identified the Sanhedrin, as well as Pharisees in general, as guilty of hypocrisy and misguided and misguiding leadership, he was spotted dining on the private terrace of one Simon the Pharisee, sharing a meal, an implicit statement of intimacy and, by implication endorsement, in the Jewish tradition. And, surely to his embarrassment, were it to become public knowledge, this secrecy was breeched by, of all things, a prostitute off the street, who he promptly allowed to wash his feet.
           • Our research uncovered a text of an early public speaking appearance where this Jesus, speaking in a synagogue no less, alluded to an Syrian general and a Lebanese woman, citizens of arch enemies of the Hebrews, as positive examples of his message.
           • A staunch advocate of personal morality and high ethical standards, it is reported that when a woman caught in adultery was dragged to him, simply seeking his rabbinical endorsement to execute her, he dispelled the crowd, spoke gentle words of forgiveness to the woman, and sent her on her way.

As the evidence mounts, this master of the spoken word is unmasked as a charlatan, little more than a deft manipulator, whose charm is sure to fade. However, those whose power is threatened seem prepared to act decisively, if necessary.

This posting has been inspired most recently by the “revelations” offered by Glenn Beck of Van Jones, advisor to the Obama administration, co-founder of Color of Change that has led a movement to boycott sponsors of Beck’s radio and television programs, and continuing focus on people like William Ayres and Jeremiah Wright, as if some “guilt by association” tars Obama or, for that matter, these people named.  And, more particularly, because Van Jones has been such a source of personal inspiration to me.

No Comments
Tagged ,