|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
|
The news that British doctors are calling for knife control, which I first learned about via Drudge on Friday, immediately put me in mind of the essays of Theodore Dalrymple, collected in Our Culture, What's Left of It.
Dalrymple's tales of life among the members of the knife-wielding British underclass -- which he's observed from the privileged position of psychiatrist to prisoners and other members of that class -- are chilling. But the conclusions he draws from his experience are diametrically opposed to the knife ban proposal.
Welfare, he argues, may be a necessary condition for the squalor, violence, and misery in which the underclass swim. But welfare isn't sufficient, in itself, to create human misery on this unprecedented scale.
The elites' war against personal responsibility was also a necessary element in the development of underclass life.
It's hard not to think that the proposed knife ban is just more of the same. Joycelyn Elders famously called for "safer guns" and "safer bullets." The emergency room surgeons writing for the British Medical Journal are, no joke, arguing for safer knives. They want the end of long, sharp knives to be made blunt, rather than pointed:
"The doctors argued that the use of dagger-type pointed knives rather than the blunt-tipped variety owed more to tradition than culinary necessity. Diners haven't used knife tips to spear their food since forks were introduced in the 18th century, they said.
"The authors said a survey of 10 chefs had confirmed their view.
"'Some commented that a point is useful in the fine preparation of some meat and vegetables, but that this could be done with a short pointed knife (less than five centimeters (two inches) in length),' they wrote.
"'None gave a reason why the long pointed knife was essential.'"
And then I suppose the British, who murder each other with knives because they can't get guns ("Knives are the most common murder weapon in Britain, where guns are difficult to obtain.") will switch to murdering each other with beer bottles -- until those, too, are modified for greater safety.
It would never do to admit that the "root cause" of the problem has anything to do with human beings' free will, and how they use it.
-- Elizabeth Kantor, Managing Editor
Link to this post
Submit comments here
Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich will be on C-SPAN's Close-Up tonight 7 P.M. Eastern Time to talk about his
Winning the Future.
And you can catch South Park Conservatives author Brian Anderson on C-Span 2's Book TV this Sunday afternoon, May 29, at 1:15 Eastern Time.
Link to this post
Submit comments here
Click here to read the transcript of yesterday's live online forum with Tom Woods, author of How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization, at the Washington Post.
Link to this post
Submit comments here
Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness reports in Human Events on the efforts of Congressmen Duncan Hunter and John McHugh to do something about about Women in Combat.
Link to this post
Submit comments here
On Wednesday, Amnesty International issued its 2005 human rights report and called the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay "the gulag of our time."
This morning it occurred to me to check that same 2005 report to see what Amnesty has to say about one nation that really does deserve comparison to Stalin's U.S.S.R.
This is how Amnesty International's report human rights in North Korea begins:
"The government continued to fail in its duty to uphold and protect the right to food, exacerbating the effects of the long-standing food crisis. Chronic malnutrition among children and urban populations, especially in the northern provinces, was widespread."
Yep, that's what's wrong with the North Korean government. They're "exacerbating the effects of the long-standing food crisis" by failing to live up to their responsibility to "protect the right to food."
What rot. The government of North Korea is starving the North Korean people, in typical Communist fashion. I don't know which would be more pathetic: if the people who write these reports for Amnesty are too cowardly to acknowledge that the "long-standing food crisis" in which North Koreans are starving to death is entirely the fault of their government, or if these human rights experts still haven't clued in to the fact that it's no coincidence that Communism and long-standing food crises seem to pop up in the same countries at the same times.
Or maybe they're not aware that North Korea has a Communist government? Here's how Amnesty begins the section of the report on "Freedom of Expression":
"Severe restrictions on freedom of expression and association persisted. The news media was controlled by a single political party, which journalists were coerced into joining."
Which political party would that be, I wonder?
You can read the whole report on Amnesty's website, here.
Or, for a less Orwellian treatment of the Orwellian situation in North Korea, check out one of our newest selections, Our Culture, What's Left of It. It's a collection of essays by Theodore Dalrymple, who writes about his experiences practicing medicine in Third World nations and among the British underclass.
He's visited North Korea, as well, and reports,
"It was almost as if the Communist regimes had taken 1984 as a blueprint rather than as a warning. How could one watch North Korea's 'Great Leader' Kim Il Sung enter a vast stadium in Pyongyang, as I did in 1989, without recalling the 'hymn to the wisdom and majesty of Big Brother' -- 'an act,' Orwell writes, 'of self-hypnosis, a deliberate drowning of consciousness by means of rhythmic noice,' during which, 'to dissemble your feelings, to control your face, to do what everyone else was doing, was an instinctive reaction': instinctive because self-preserving. The Great Leader stood there impassively for minutes on end as 150,000 people threw up their arms in organized spontaneity, worshipping him, exactly as Orwell described. It was forty years, more or less to the day, after the publication of 1984."
Also during his visit:
"I was in the enormous and almost deserted square in front of the Great People's Study House -- all open spaces in Pyongyang remain deserted unless filled with parades of thousands of human automata -- when a young Korean slid surreptitiously up to me and asked, 'Do you speak English?'
"An electric moment: for in North Korea, unsupervised contact between a Korean and a foreigner is utterly unthinkable, as unthinkable as shouting, 'Down with Big Brother!'
"'Yes,' I replied.
"'I am a student at the Foreign Languages Institute. Reading Dickens and Shakespeare is the greatest, the only pleasure of my life.'
"It was the most searing communication I have ever received in my life. We parted immediately afterward and of course will never meet again. For him, Dickens and Shakespeare (which the regime permitted him to read with quite other ends in view) guaranteed the possibility not just of freedom but of truly human life itself."
-- Elizabeth Kantor, Managing Editor
Link to this post
Submit comments here
A great quotation from Give Me a Break, which I happened to be reading around in last night:
"Every time the government tries to make life better for you, it uses force. It makes criminals out of people who are not criminals. Some poor mope who would like a large-size toilet in his house has to go out and smuggle one. The guy who smokes a cigarette down the hall from you at his desk alone in his office with the door closed is a criminal. Some mother who wants to talk to her 12-year-old in the front seat is a criminal also. All these people are criminals now. That's us. Why do they have the right to make all of us criminals because we smoke, or want to have our kids sit next to us in the car?" -- Michaell Kelly
Apart from being oppressive, it's curious: this liberal passion for outlawing things that people ought to be able to decide about for themselves -- accompanied, as it is, by an aversion to outlawing things that are simply wrong.
Air bags in cars have saved many lives, but they've also killed a couple of hundred people, as John Stossel points out. And, as he also explains, seat belts are better at keeping people safe in car crashes. Because the busybodies decided it was their business if we didn't wear our seatbelts, they require us to drive with airbags. But airbags kill children who sit in the front seat, so the Clinton administration tried to make driving with a child in the front seat a crime. A rational person could make a perfectly moral decision at odds with this scheme. It's a reasonable course of action to do without airbags, make sure the kids always wear their seatbelts, and let them sit up front, to allow for the kind of conversations in which some adult civilization may rub off on the young of the species. But the lefties don't trust us with those choices.
On the other hand, they want to protect from interference a lot of choices for which there's no really no excuse at all -- to engage in prostitution (today's Wall Street Journal -- their website here, but the story is subscribers-only -- reports on "a widening European drive to legalize prostitution"), to make pornographic movies, and to abort babies.
-- Elizabeth Kantor, Managing Editor
Link to this post
Submit comments here
In my wallet I used to carry a photo of an adorable little girl who had been conceived as a result of the incestuous rape of her mother by her father/grandfather. I can't remember where I found the picture -- in a Time or Newsweek story, I think, because it was a color photo printed on that thin, slick paper they use.
The point of carrying the photo was for show and tell on the occasions when people -- very often, my students -- argued that abortion ought to be allowed at least in cases of rape and incest.
The White House did something along the same lines yesterday, as Anne Morse reports on NRO today.
President Bush has promised to veto a bill, now passed by the House, that would use government money to turn "leftover" frozen embryos into stem cell lines for scientific research. To illustrate how very bad an idea this next slide down the slippery slope to a brave new world would be, he entertained 21 children who were formerly "spare embryos" from "fertility treatment," but who were implanted into adoptive mothers' wombs and allowed to grow, and be born. You can see a picture of President Bush holding one of these children (and read his speech) here.
In the President's words:
"The children here today remind us that there is no such thing as a spare embryo. Every embryo is unique and genetically complete, like every other human being. And each of us started out our life this way. These lives are not raw material to be exploited, but gifts. And I commend each of the families here today for accepting the gift of these children and offering them the gift of your love."
50 Republican congressmen (but, thank God, not a veto-proof majority) voted for this bill. Apparently it's almost sure to pass the Republican
Senate. President Bush's veto looks like the only thing that's standing between us and an America that much closer to Dr. Frankenstein's lab.
If you're not already an activist on this issue -- if the decades-long abortion battle has worn you out, or if you're actively for this legislation on grounds of compassion for the paralyzed, the sick, the old -- please look into Wesley Smith's Consumer's Guide to the Brave New World. And start following those increasingly horrific news stories: "The First Human Cloned Embryo," "Animal-Human Hybrids Spark Controversy," "Koreans Say They Cloned Embryos for Stem Cells."
Even abortion, as horrible as it is, has been going on since ancient times. Modern technology and modern misunderstanding of the human condition have only made it worse.
But this evil-scientists-sell-their-souls-to-the-Devil-to-unlock-the-secrets-of-creation-and-attain-unlimited-power scenario has been the stuff of legend until our own generation. It's been coming toward our hands for 400 years. And we've been warned: Doctor Faustus, Frankenstein, Brave New World. Now it's here.
-- Elizabeth Kantor, Managing Editor
Link to this post
Submit comments here
Read Men in Black author Mark Levin and other folks with valuable insights into the Republicans' collapse on federal judges on NRO's new judicial-issue blog, Bench Memos.
In Defense of Internment author Michelle Malkin has a roundup of conservative opinion (largely loud boos and hisses) on her blog.
Link to this post
Submit comments here
Black Rednecks author Thomas Sowell explains on on Town Hall "why prominent minority figures [such as Justice Janice Rogers Brown] who stray from the liberal plantation must be discredited, debased and, above all, kept from becoming federal judges."
Link to this post
Submit comments here
More on South Park Conservatives on the web:
A review in the California Patriot, a piece on Salon that you have to be pretty darn South Park to read without wincing, and this review on Town Hall:
"South Park Conservatives are definitely helping lead the revolt against the liberal media bias. And it is Anderson's final chapter where he shows that there is an up-and-coming generation of South Park Conservatives on the college campus. Its rejection of liberal elitism is 'a key reason the new conservative media does so well in attracting a younger demographic.' More importantly, notes Anderson, 'it's doubtful many young Fox or NRO enthusiasts are going to become left-liberals when they hit forty.' If his assessment is correct, the Left may be in dire straights in the years to come."
Link to this post
Submit comments here
In case you're you're under the illusion that pornography is a harmless vice, you may find the information collected at this website of interest. Just a couple of the findings collected there:
"Regular users of pornography are less likely to convict for rape, and less likely to give a harsh sentence to a rapist. . . ."
"While spending three evenings watching sexually violent movies, male viewers became progressively less bothered by the raping and slashing. Compared to others who were not exposed to the films, they also, three days later, expressed less sympathy for domestic violence victims and they related the victims' injuries as less severe."
"Sales of sexually explicit magazines (such as Hustler and Playboy) in the fifty states correlate with state rape rates. After controlling for other factors, such as the percentage of young males in each state, a positive relationship remained."
These are just some of the reasons why it matters that we are raising what Ben Shapiro, in our new new Main Selection, demonstrates is a "Porn Generation" of children pickled in pornographic advertising and entertainment.
-- E.K.
Link to this post
Submit comments here
Also in Human Events, Chris Field on PETA's lethal care for 10,000 pets.
Check out Animal Rights and Wrongs for a conservative take on our real obligations to animals.
Link to this post
Submit comments here
Speaking of interstate commerce, what do you suppose the Founders would have thought of Joe Procacci and the Florica Tomato Committee? As was widely reported in December of last year, the Florida Tomato Committee -- one of the government-supported cartels that have been authorized to restrict trade in agricultural commodities since FDR's New Deal -- has forbidden Procacci from selling his tomatoes out of Florida in the winter.
At one point, Procacci claims, more than $3 million of his tomatoes had to be destroyed rather than delivered to willing customers. The Committee claims it's defending the reputation of those beautifully round, smooth Florida winter tomatoes we all know from the grocery store. Procacci's tomatoes, as you can see in this picture, are certainly not perfectly round. On the other hand, everyone seems to agree that, unlike those winter tomatoes we're all used to from Florida, they actually taste like tomatoes. Seems pretty clear from the news stories that the Committee is more interested in protecting the market for tomatoes that don't taste like tomatoes -- the ones the other Florida growers sell -- than it is in protecting their reputation for at least looking great.
The patriotic history I was taught as a child impressed on me that the states had formed a "more perfect union" under the Constitution largely on account of problems with interstate commerce under the Articles of Confederation.
I've wondered since then whether the free trade aspect of the Union wasn't especially played up in my education in the South because of Southerners' traditional suspicion of the national government, on the one hand, and support for free trade, on the other.
But it has to be admitted that free trade among the states was one of the advantages that the Founders believed their more perfect union would accomplish. Federalist No. 7, for example, considers problems that would be occasioned by differences in trade policy between the states, in the absence of a larger union:
"The States less favorably circumstanced would be desirous of escaping from the disadvantages of local situation, and of sharing in the advantages of their more fortunate neighbors. Each State, or separate confederacy, would pursue a system of commercial policy peculiar to itself. This would occasion distinctions, preferences, and exclusions, which would beget discontent."
Imagine if they could have seen the restraints on trade that exist under the national government we've got now.
-- Elizabeth Kantor, Managing Editor
Link to this post
Submit comments here
How refreshing to be bored -- and confused -- by a Supreme Court opinion.
I just read through Granholm v. Heald, the most recently issued Supreme Court opinion, and couldn't make heads or tails of it.
The Court (Justice Scalia voting with the majority) ruled that Michigan and New York state laws against interstate sales of wine are unconstitutional. The decision relies on the Commerce Clause and the Twenty-first Amendment (which ended Prohibition, but returned to the states some power to regulate the sale of alcohol).
Justice Clarence Thomas dissented; his argument depends on the language of the Twenty-first Amendment and of the Webb-Kenyon Act (which he argues exempts state laws on interstate commerce in intoxicating beverages from the kind of constitutional review that laws on other commodities are subject to under the Commerce Clause).
As I was skimming through the decision and the dissent, it became clear to me that I might need some actual learning in the law in order to be able to form an intelligent opinion about who got it right. Justice Thomas tended to sound like he was making more sense -- but then he would, compared to Justice Kennedy. And even Justice Kennedy sounded like a lawyer pretty much throughout, not like the (very) amateur philosopher on display in, for example, Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
Things have come to a pretty pass, haven't they, when it's the exceptional news-making Supreme Court decision that any well-informed liberal arts major can't find the gaping logical holes in at the first reading?
-- Elizabeth Kantor, Managing Editor
Link to this post
Submit comments here
Listen to Dr. Laura Schlessinger's radio show this coming Monday, May 23, at 3 P.M. Eastern time to hear Dr. Laura's thoughts on Joel Turtel's Public Schools, Public Menace -- she'll be giving away some copies of the book on the air.
Link to this post
Submit comments here
Drudge, as it happens, links today to a New York Times story in which one of those Hollywood guys exhibits the New York Times/Hollywood kind of moral courage. Read here about how George Lucas is creating a little extra buzz for the final Star Wars movie.
For more profiles in this kind of courage, read Hollywood, Interrupted.
-- E.K.
Link to this post
Submit comments here
Pat Buchanan on WorldNetDaily, on a new Club selection, The Pius War:
"In a brilliant new anthology, The Pius War, every lie about the church and libel against Pius XII is addressed. Ronald J. Rychlak, Rabbi David Dallin and others scatter the jackal pack with the sword of truth."
Buchanan uses the facts The Pius War sets out to answer Arthur Hertzberg's charges in this New York Times article.
". . . in 1930's and 1940's Europe, the Roman Catholic Church was the only institution that possessed the moral stature and strength to denounce and forbid the murder of the Jews. It did not do so."
The fact is, it did. A selection from Buchanan's summary of the evidence:
"Of the 44 speeches Cardinal Pacelli, the future Pius XII, gave as papal nuncio in Germany from 1917 to 1929, 40 condemned some aspect of Nazi ideology.
"In March 1935, as Vatican secretary of state, Pacelli wrote an open letter to the bishop of Cologne calling the Nazis "false prophets with the pride of Lucifer."
"Though slandered as "Hitler's Pope" today, in the German press of the 1930s, Pacelli was called the "Jew-loving" cardinal because of 55 protests he sent to Germany as Vatican secretary of state.
"In 1939 and 1940, Pius XII acted as the secret intermediary between the German plotters against Hitler and the British.
"In 1940, the pope granted an audience to Joachim von Ribbentrop, who chastised him for siding with the Allies -- at which Pius XII began to read to Hitler's foreign minister a list of Nazi atrocities. Wrote a newspaper of record: "In the burning words he spoke to Herr Ribbentrop, (Pius) came to the defense of Jews in Germany and Poland." That newspaper was the New York Times."
Like the New York Times of that era, the Jewish leadership of those days saw Pius XII as a friend of the Jews:
"In 1943, Chaim Weizmann, later the first president of Israel, wrote, 'The Holy See is lending its powerful help wherever it can, to mitigate the fate of my persecuted co-religionists.'
In Israel, Chief Rabbi Esaac Herzog and Golda Meir also praised the pope.
Why do today's New York Times and today's Jewish leaders disagree?
Two reasons, I think. Both arise from their Left-ward leanings.
On the one hand, there's the new anti-Catholicism, which is exemplified by Hertzberg's insistence that the new pope, Benedict XVI, renounce the doctrine of papal infallibility. At this point in world history, the Catholic Church is the last and best defender of a lot of things -- the rights of the unborn, traditional roles for men and women, and so forth -- that modern liberals wish they could finally be done with. The moral authority of the Catholic Church is a roadblock they want out of their way.
But there's also this. Modern liberals have no idea what real moral courage looks like. Compare Pius XII during World War II -- or George W. Bush today, for that matter -- with Jane Fonda in Vietnam, or with whoever is the latest rock singer to insult the president from a concert stage, or with the latest actor to advertise his support for PETA.
Pius XII did protest Nazi atrocities; he helped save Jews. What he didn't do was save all the Jews, or even all the Jews he theoretically could have saved if he had acted with perfect wisdom.
But he had the authority to make the meaningful and effective protest that he did make -- so that the New York Times of his day called him "a lonely voice in the silence and darkness enveloping Europe this Christmas" (the Christmas of 1941, that is) -- only because of the real responsibility he had as pope. And that responsibility, like all responsibility, meant that he had to weigh the consequences of his actions -- something Jane Fonda and the Dixie Chicks don't have to bother with.
-- Elizabeth Kantor, Managing Editor
Link to this post
Submit comments here
Read Persecution author David Limbaugh on the smarmy tactics that the Democrats (led by the man that Thomas Sowell is calling "Dirty Harry Reid") have employed in their war against President Bush's judicial nominees.
The good news is, the Senate Republican leadership seems finally set to force a showdown with the Democrats, and they've picked the nomination of Priscilla Owen -- the Texas judge who's best known for a parental notification case dissent (arguing that the girl's parents should be notified before the abortion) -- as their test case.
Link to this post
Submit comments here
Pat Buchanan will be appear tonight on Hannity & Colmes, airing at 9 Eastern Time on FOX News, to talk about his newest book, Where the Right Went Wrong.
Link to this post
Submit comments here
Drudge is linking to this Washington Times article in which Where the Right Went Wrong author Pat Buchanan declares, "The conservative movement has passed into history."
Meanwhile Black Rednecks author Thomas Sowell weighs in on the ever-more-despicable tactics of the ever-more-desperate Left.
Link to this post
Submit comments here
The news about deadly rioting, newly declared jihad, and demands that we turn the (possibly non-existent) Koran-flushers over to Islamic justice, as reported on Jihad Watch, has reminded me of some flaws in an argument that I often hear from paleocons (and sympathize with, with the paleo side of me).
What's wrong with the war we're in now, according to these folks, is that it's not a Crusade. The paleofolks tend to argue that they'd be much happier if we were sending young Americans to the Middle East either just to punish the Islamists and get out, or frankly to conquer the place, pacify it, and set about spreading Christianity there.
Instead, they complain, we're spreading a "democracy" and "liberty" that will just turn out to mean either 1) the corruption of traditional cultures by the decadent libertinism that we all hate here -- abortion, pornography, Britney Spears, and all that, or else 2) the creation of strong Islamist democracies that will be able to prosecute jihad against the West even more effectively than the freelancing Osama bin Laden.
Now I'm a Christian; and I think the ultimate solution to the problem of the Middle East lies in Christianity. I think a Christian Middle East would be safer for America, not to mention better in every way for the inhabitants of the Middle East. Some other day I'll go on about how good Christianity would be for Muslims, and why I think Christians are too ready to despair of evangelizing them. If you're interested in this subject, check out
The Life and Religion of Mohammed, which was written by a Christian missionary to Muslims in India.
But can we get there from here, by fighting a Crusade?
Here are the problems. First of all, we ourselves are in no position to fight that kind of war. You know how Rumsfeld said you have to fight the war with the Army you have? Well, you have to fight it with the culture you have, too. And the culture we have at the moment is not going to support a Crusade.
But there's another reason. If this -- the riots, the new call for jihad, and so forth -- is the Muslim reaction to one (now retracted, sort of) story in Newsweek claiming that one of us desecrated a Koran, imagine how different (how much more costly and difficult in every way) a declared religious war would be from the already very difficult war we're now fighting. Islam, for so many folks, stands for everything they know about God -- His holiness and His mercy. They'd answer any direct attack on it with society-wide resistance unlike anything we've seen yet.
The Bush administration is careful to say we're not crusading. Onward Muslim Soldiers author Robert Spencer measures jihad against the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, rather than against an explicitly Christian standard. And I'm afraid -- despite my impatience with what can seem like half-measures to those of us with paleo-leanings -- that they're wise to play it that way.
-- Elizabeth Kantor, Managing Editor
Link to this post
Submit comments here
See this American Spectator article (which I found via Amy Wellborn) to learn the inside story of how Pope Benedict XVI came to write the Foreward to the Regnery edition of Romano Guardini's The Lord, which has been a popular selection in the Club since the new pope's election.
-- E.K.
Link to this post
Submit comments here
JAM's comment about this post below reminds me of the following passage, which I happened across this weekend when I looked again at Planned Parenthood v. Casey -- which may be the most wretched Supreme Court decision of all time (and there's plenty of competition).
Part of Justice Kennedy's reasoning relies on, in his own words, "the fact that, for two decades of economic
and social developments, people have organized intimate relationships and
made choices that define their views of themselves and their places in
society, in reliance on the availability of abortion in the event that
contraception should fail. The ability of women to participate equally in
the economic and social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their
ability to control their reproductive lives."
The long and short of it is, Justice Kennedy defends abortion as backup birth control, necessary because women need it to stay in the workforce on equal terms with men.
If a few million unborn children have to be killed to ensure that equality, it looks like a reasonable tradeoff to him, I guess.
Which is just one more reason that it would be nice if he and several other Supreme Court justices would wake up to the fact that it is the job of the people's elected representatives to weigh these tradeoffs, not of a handful of unelected Men in Black.
-- Elizabeth Kantor, Managing Editor
Link to this post
Submit comments here
Both a profile of Phillip Johnson, exploring his role in the Intelligent Design movement, and a comic strip on the same subject appeared in the Sunday Washington Post.
Oddly enough, both comic strip and interview raise the same challenge to Intelligent Design. It boils down to: Things in this world aren't perfect, so God (if there is a God, which we'd rather not believe) has some explaining to do. The profile quotes one of Johnson's critics:
"'A lot of the DNA in there is not needed -- it's junk,' says Phillip Kitcher, the Columbia University philosopher of science. 'If it's intelligently designed, then God needs to go back to school.'"
The Opus strip makes the same point more crudely, showing slatternly couch potato characters splayed on a sofa, watching TV amidst spilled food. One of two other characters, who have explained in earlier frames that only Intelligent Design can account for dandelions, hummingbirds, butterflies, and so forth, remarks of the scene, "SOMEBODY'S GOT SOME 'SPLAININ' TO DO."
You'll notice that this complaint about the imperfection of the universe is really a theological argument, rather than a scientific one.
For more on Intelligent Design, take a look at The Design Revolution.
-- Elizabeth Kantor, Managing Editor
Link to this post
Submit comments here
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
