Category Archives: May You Live In Interesting Times

Winning the War Is Only a Beginning

Today, we thrill at victories portrayed by movies like Dunkirk and Darkest Hour. We laud the victory of allies over axis powers in World War II, as we should.

But we have forgotten what came afterward, the quieter victory. We have forgotten the work that led to the triumph of democracy, lessons that we might use today in dealing with current crises.

In June, 1947, U.S. Secretary of State George C. Marshall outlined a plan to help a devastated Europe recover from the ruins of World War II. Called the European Recovery Plan, it was popularly known as the Marshall Plan.

The Marshall Plan was symbolic of the United States’ decision to choose a different path from the one the country took after World War I. After the first war, the U.S. retreated into isolation. After the second one, The U.S. chose a new path to avoid future “world” wars. From that standpoint, the Marshall Plan worked.

Democratic European and North American countries succeeded beyond anyone’s dreams. They became the promised land for victims of oppression, war, and poverty. Indeed their success has fostered the current gigantic waves of desperate people, straining the ability of democracies to take them in.

But reasons for the numbers go beyond the usual failure of some societies to care for their people—the ever present corrupt governments and regional conflicts.

Too often since the end of the Cold War, the United States has led coalitions against newer enemies and then quit.

The wars, in fact, in Iraq and in Afghanistan, have made the world less safe for democracy. They have contributed to much of the refugee flow.

Hal Brands, in a Bloomberg opinion piece, summarizes the Marshall Plan: “The U.S. would ultimately provide a major infusion of money, along with technical expertise, diplomatic support and other assistance, to make possible a collective recovery program.” (“The Marshall Plan Taught Lessons Trump Refuses to Learn, June 5, 2018)

In his article, Brand contrasts the outlook of those who carried out the Marshall Plan with that of our current government leaders: “There is little recognition by the president of what Marshall and his generation instinctively understood —that things can go south in a hurry if the U.S. does not use its power and creativity to foster a secure and prosperous world.”

Banana Republic Reckoning

The crisis on our southern border did not suddenly appear out of nowhere. The refugees result from a long history of corruption and mayhem in the Central American countries from which they are fleeing.

From at least since the 1800’s, the countries usually were governed by corrupt dictators, often military figures, content to take bribes and allow business interests to manage the countries as their fiefdoms. Laborers were nothing more than machines to harvest crops, including bananas, as cheaply as possible.

For generations, Central American countries were known for these “banana” governments, hence the term “banana republic.”

Unfortunately, the United States did little to push for changes. Too many American economic interests were tied to corporate profits from those countries.

Eventually, leaders arose who challenged the injustices. Some were religious leaders like the Roman Catholic archbishop, Oscar Romero, murdered for his actions on behalf of the poor. Others were political leftists.

We could have chosen to support meaningful change as championed by leaders such as Romero. Instead, we chose to fixate on a “communist” menace, choosing continued support for corrupt dictators, closing off opportunity for a better way.

Eventually rebellion set in, resulting in bloody civil wars. Masses of people suffered under the murder, torture, and crime that resulted. Some began fleeing, as many of us would flee in the same situation.

We still have choices. We can continue to see the flow from Central America only as the enemy, as a threat. Or we could understand their choices to flee as mirroring our own choices were we faced with rape and torture and little economic opportunity.

Former Vice President Joe Biden urges us to address “the root causes driving migration from this region” (“Commentary: Try diplomacy to aid migrants instead of detentions,” Chicago Tribune, June 27, 2018).

We could support safe places within those countries—houses, small communities, perhaps, offering safety for women and children, places where asylum seekers could apply without dangerous journeys north.

We could invest in job training centers, perhaps even drug treatment facilities

We might consider such investments as payment on a debt we owe to our past poor choices.

Workers of the World Unite? Beyond Karl Marx

Is globalism in retreat? Trump nixed the Pacific trade agreement. Britain voted to leave the European Union. The 2008 financial crisis cast doubt on traditional economic structures.

An article in the May/June 2018 issue of Foreign Affairs draws a different conclusion. Globalization, the article states, has “simply entered a different phase.” (Susan Lund and Laura Tyson, “Globalization Is Not in Retreat”)

The key is the digital economy. Buying and selling is done irrespective of physical boundaries. They continue to grow and overtake traditional forms of trading.

A changing work force also is part of this global economy. According to the article, “almost 250 million people live and work outside their country of birth. . . . 90 percent of them do so voluntarily to improve their economic prospects . . . ”

Further, “Economic migrants have become a major source of growth.” This growth is balanced against losses by some workers, as certain jobs have disappeared. Skills needed for other jobs have changed as well.

Interestingly enough, draconian measures to end migration on the southern border of the United States have created difficulties for some American businesses—agriculture and construction, for example.

Instead, we could understand migration as a healthy part of our global economy. Instead of attempts to stop it, we would do better to bring workers into the new economy. Steps in this direction would include better job training for American workers as well as a reasonable amount of immigration.

Lund and Tyson also suggest portable benefits and “ending the practice of tying health-care, retirement, and child-care benefits to a single employer.”

Much of the world has benefitted from increased global commerce, but unfortunately not all. Karl Marx may still return if fair treatment of workers is not a part of the global order.

Keep in Mind the Original Purpose of the Iranian Nuclear Deal

The agreement between Iran and various parties, including the United States, was an excruciatingly complex procedure. Nuclear experts and diplomats engaged for weeks.

Optimists hoped that the resulting deal would lead Iran toward more engagement with the rest of the world. Many ordinary Iranians celebrated when the final agreement was announced. They desire better economic opportunity and freedom from war, as do most of us. They saw the agreement as encouraging such benefits.

By and large, Iran has kept its end of the bargain. At the same time, Iran has continued to support groups engaged in fighting in Syria and in Yemen. However, the agreement’s purpose was not to solve these issues. It was meant to prevent nuclear weapons.

For those who wish to go beyond the tweet level, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace has posted a thoughtful analysis. Though written on May 1, just before the U.S. pulled out of the nuclear deal, the article provides insight.

Refugees on Our Own Doorstep

An estimated 65 million plus people are refugees today, according to United Nations figures. The numbers are the greatest since the aftermath of World War II.

The United States is impacted by refugees knocking against its own southern borders, fleeing violence in Mexico and Central America. We have a particular responsibility toward these refugees since our past support of brutal regimes in Central American countries contributed to the violence.

Some U.S. embassies in Central American countries attempt programs to help youth in their own nations, such as job training centers. However, considering our past actions in those countries, our efforts are not nearly enough. If we wish to prevent an overwhelming number of refugees from sometimes dangerous journeys north, we must do more to give them hope in their home countries.

Talk of solving our problems with “a wall” is a copout, a “fix” which ignores our responsibility for much of the exodus north.

Refugees: Deja Vu

Francine Klagsbrun’s book, Lioness; Golda Meir and the Nation of Israel, suggests an eerie similarity with current refugee crises. Today, the millions of people forced from their homes by war and famine mirror those of Golda Meir’s lifetime.

Before World II, as the Nazis began rounding up their Jewish populations, too few nations were willing to take in Jewish escapees from Nazism.

Today, many balk at accepting refugees from the horrors of wars in the Middle East. Some Americans resent, not only Middle Easterners, but refugees from their own hemisphere.

After World War II, refugees flooded Europe, becoming the DP’s, the displaced persons, a haunting reminder of today’s displaced men, women, and children.

Many Jewish survivors, their homelands ripped apart by the horrors of the Nazi Holocaust, moved to the Middle East and became part of the modern state of Israel.

A mass exodus is never orderly or pretty or completely containable. Understandably, existing cultures do not appreciate strange ideas and customs knocking at their gates in large numbers.

Arab culture in Palestine changed beyond recognition. Today, in some African nations, war and famine (the two often go together) have sent desperate people to overwhelm the local populations of small towns.

No one solution is going to solve migration problems. A manageable number of newcomers can contribute to the revitalization of an older nation. New, energized citizens provide energy and entrepreneurs for the society, benefitting it at least as much as the refugees are helped.

However, great numbers, as in Middle Eastern nations like Lebanon and Jordan and in several African countries like Chad and Uganda, have swamped the local populations.

We have not, so far, supported peacemaking as we have supported war. That choice is tragic. Peacemaking aims to keep populations safely in their own countries. If we do not channel more effort and resources into this ancient art, we will be overwhelmed by unstoppable calamities.

Land, Sea, Air, Space, and Now Cyber

In the American Revolution, George Washington and John Paul Jones fought on land and sea. In World War I, air became a new sphere of warfare. During the Cold War, space joined the others. Within the span of a U.S. election, cyber warfare has thrust itself into national consciousness.

Alarmed by Russian meddling in U.S. elections, Congress and the Justice Department have launched investigations. Recent indictments have been handed down against Russian citizens accused of using social media to foment dissension between Americans of different political beliefs.

Recently, evidence points to foreign attempts to spark controversy over gun rights immediately after the tragic school shootings in Parkland, Florida.

We have entered another theater of war. Playing requires intelligence resources, not big bombs and missiles. Other nations unable to match our military might have intelligence capabilities and a population of educated players.

Misinformation (including fake news), cyber leaks, and danger to utility and other systems are new theaters of war.

Compare the new methods to irregular warfare as practiced by Francis Marion, the “swamp fox,” during the American Revolution, or Che Grevera in Cuba, overcoming stronger conventional armies.

Our defense? A refusal to use social media as a source of news is a good start. Take advantage of the country’s well established newspapers from different shades of the political spectrum.

Whatever Happened to Puerto Rico?

We haven’t heard much lately about the hurricane damage in Puerto Rico. Maybe by the time Hurricane Maria devastated the island, we were bored with hurricane coverage.

After all, we had already followed Hurricane Harvey in Texas and Hurricane Irma in Florida. Time to switch to more cheerful stuff, perhaps the latest breakup of a celebrity couple or our Facebook accounts of what we ate for lunch.

Bill McKibben, writing in Sojourners (‘Earth’s New Vulnerabilities,” December, 2017), recounts some of the devastation in Puerto Rico we may not have noticed. “Gone were airports and roads. Eighty percent of the island’s crops were destroyed . . . Almost all the cell towers. . . . Electricity was suddenly a thing of the past . . . Modernity retreats.”

To be sure, the aftermath of all three major U.S. hurricanes, not to mention the wildfires in California, strain our resources.

McKibben draws a deeper lesson. “We’re starting to realize how unbuffered the whole planet is . . . everywhere new vulnerabilities emerge almost daily.”

He calls on us to “staunch the flow of carbon into the atmosphere. Maria is what happens with 1 degree Celsius of global warming. We’re currently on a path for an increase of 3 to 4 degrees Celsius. That would be enough to join the whole planet in a community of collapse.”

Anybody for bringing back those forbidden words “climate change”?

Needed: Another Miracle to Stave off a Nuclear Winter

If you look at photos of Daniel Ellsberg and the events surrounding the release of the Pentagon Papers in 1967, you first note the dated clothes and the men with longish hair and sideburns, but clean shaven faces.

The Pentagon Papers were the result of a top secret study of U.S. involvement in Vietnam. Before the war’s end, over 500,000 American troops would be sent to that South Asian nation. Ellsberg had worked on the study and came to believe his country had wrongly chosen military action. Not only that, he believed the government had withheld disturbing facts about our involvement, facts which would cause the public to push for withdrawal.

So he released the results to The New York Times, who began publishing them in a series of articles.

The Department of Justice issued a restraining order against further publication. The newspaper argued the case before the Supreme Court. The court ruled in favor of the Times. Release of the material was justified under the U.S. Constitutional amendment guaranteeing freedom of the press.

A new movie, The Post, recounts that episode.

Ellsberg today continues his tradition as gadfly. In a new book, The Doomsday Machine, Confessions of a Nuclear War Planner, Ellsberg reveals plans for nuclear war carried out under former President Dwight Eisenhower, now seeing new life under President Donald Trump.

In an article in Sojourners (“It’s a Miracle We’re Still Here,” January, 2018), Ellsberg is interviewed by James W. Douglass, a peace activist. Ellsberg talks of nuclear madness.

He says the activation of nuclear war today would cause near-extinction of life on earth. Regardless of the nuclear destruction, Ellsberg says, the resulting ash in the stratosphere would doom most, if not all, of earthly life.

Said Ellsberg: “It will be a miracle if we get through another 70 years without setting these weapons off again on humans . . .”

Alluding to the previous miracle that staved off nuclear war between the U.S. and the Soviet Union, Ellsberg continues, “It will take a miracle for the transformation in the world to take place for another 70 years. But fortunately miracles are possible . . . ”

Play Nice with Dictators

Prime Minister Viktor Orbán of Hungary has veered in the direction of dictators, including those in the former Soviet Union. Taking a page from their books, he has attempted to control Hungary’s independent news media.

When an official of the United States embassy in Hungary, David Kostelancik, criticized such actions, a former Florida congressman, Connie Mack IV, complained that Kostelancik was interfering in the affairs of a U.S. ally.

According to Thomas Melia, writing in The American Interest (“The Diplomat vs the Lobbyist,” November 23, 2017), Mack appears to be a lobbyist for the current government of Hungary. His attacks could be another example of attempted foreign influence on U.S. policies.

Two other congressional representatives, Andy Harris of Maryland and Dennis A. Ross of Florida, have begun a draft letter to Secretary of State Rex Tillerson with complaints similar to Mack’s about Kostelancik.

Writes Melia: “After most of a year during which the President has consistently denigrated the State Department, our diplomats and diplomacy itself (‘I’m the only one that matters,’ he told Laura Ingraham this month) . . . it is time to celebrate the patriotic Americans who are serving on the front lines abroad—people like Dave Kostelancik, who speak for our nation’s values and interests, not for dollars and cents.”

Getting Rid of the Editors

Most of us use at least one of them, even if we harbor uneasiness about their power. We log on to Google, Facebook, Twitter, and the other digital helpers. We connect with friends and families, carry out research, express our opinions, and follow the latest breaking news.

Thomas Friedman, columnist for The New York Times, acknowledged the good things digital media helps us accomplish. At the same time, he warns, it’s easier to abuse them because no one is judging their output for accuracy. (The Seattle Times, “Hold social media accountable,” October 12, 2017.)

The business model of the digital media, Friedman writes, aimed “to absorb all of the readers of the mainstream media newspapers and magazines and to absorb all their advertisers—but as few of their editors as possible.”

Some enjoy the freewheeling ride of social media. Some don’t like editors who tell them they can’t write certain things—demeaning those different from themselves or spreading false stories.

As Friedman reminds us, “An editor is a human being you have to pay to bring editorial judgement to content on your website, to make sure things are accurate and to correct them if they’re not. Social networks preferred to use algorithms instead, but these are easily gamed.”

Social media has connected us with different viewpoints and given us freedom to explore. They’ve also given us greater ability to spread untruths. Fake news was not invented in the digital era, but it spread its wings there.

To cope requires what is so often lacking in these times: self-discipline. Self-discipline curtails our temptation to treat news as entertainment, an attitude tailor-made for social media. Instead, if we are wise, we will exchange some of that time for reading hard news and analysis, gathered by journalists who are paid to investigate and kept to strict standards of what is true.

Today’s Glorious Autumn; Echos of Another Fragile Season

In western Washington State, we are enjoying one of the most beautiful autumns in several years. The maple tree across the street has retained that brilliant scarlet, known only in autumn, far longer than I thought possible.

I hold on to the beauty a bit tighter because of several novels I have read recently, set around the First World War. The years 2014 to 2018 mark one-hundred-year anniversaries of events in that war. Today’s authors have written a number of novels in that time frame.

A Fine Summer’s Day, by Charles Todd, is one of them, set mostly in the months just before the war began. The book sets the stage for the post-war Ian Rutledge detective novels about a shattered veteran returning to work for Scotland Yard after his traumatic service in that war.

Todd captures the bitter-sweetness of the spring and early summer of 1914, before the assassination of Franz Ferdinand, archduke of Austria-Hungary, began the blood-letting.

Young men and women fall in love and plan marriage. Fields are planted as they have been for millennia. Times seem as golden as the trees of this autumn.

Then the war came, a surprise to many Europeans, who thought the modern world had given up that sort of thing. Many of them were positive it would last no more than a few months. They believed their leaders were too wise to allow a prolonged conflict.

Unfortunately, a refusal to understand the limits of human wisdom and an inability to corral national pride contributed to an inhuman slaughter. It did not stop until an uneasy armistice came into effect over four years later.

I hope we do not take our blessings for granted. Humans still make foolish decisions.

From South Korea: “What Are the Churches in America Thinking?”

I don’t know how close North Korea is to actually sending a nuclear weapon to devastate some city on my own Pacific northwest coast.

I’m pretty certain, though, that North Korea could now, at this instant, use weapons, conventional or otherwise, to snuff out the lives of millions of South Koreans and perhaps Japanese as well.

While we deal with our own problems, serious as they are (shootings, hurricanes, wildfires), South Koreans wonder if their entire population will be obliterated in the next few seconds.

The conflict with North Korea is not a movie dramatization of the gunfight at the O.K. Corral. Leaders hurling street bully insults at each other are as helpful as gasoline on a California wildfire.

One visitor to South Korea, an American Christian leader, asked a Korean Christian what the churches in his country were thinking about the situation.

He responded: “We’re asking, ‘What are the churches in America thinking?’”

I Stand for the National Anthem, But I Respect Your Right Not to Stand

On Memorial Day, 1991, I stood with other Americans at the U.S. consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, and joined them in the pledge of allegiance to our flag, flying over our mission in a foreign country. It was a “lump in my throat” kind of moment.

We had just come through the now barely-remembered first Gulf war. An alliance, led by the United States, had driven out Saddam Hussein’s Iraqi forces from Kuwait. Watching from next door Saudi Arabia, we were proud of how our country had handled the crisis.

The pledge and the national anthem are useful for such moments of patriotic feeling. They should not, however, be a test of citizenship or of respect for our nation or our military. They are simply one expression, useful for some, less so for others.

Some American Christians believe attachment to such symbols borders on idolatry. They refuse to say the pledge out of concern for their primary allegiance to God.

I respect their belief. I also respect the beliefs of football players who kneel or sit during the national anthem. One player said his Christian conviction regarding justice compelled him to act as he did. It was a non-violent protest, the sort of act American soldiers have died to protect.

We do not live in a dictatorship where school children assemble each morning to pay lock step allegiance to a great dictator. Instead, non violent expressions of concern for certain practices of our country are a sign of healthy citizenship.

God knows we have a few other things to worry about: North Korea, a hurricane ravaged Puerto Rico, and an opioid epidemic, to name a few.

Death by Small Cuts

Apparently, United States military forces now are going to stay in Afghanistan until we win the war there.

When will we know that we have won it? Is it when the last terrorist is dead?

But what if our activities there increase the number of people who hate us and continue to feed terrorism networks? And what about the terrorists in Syria and Yemen and Somalia and a host of other nations? Are we going to fight wars there, too?

Two wars “against terrorism” have already ballooned our national budget beyond anything imaginable in previous eras. The costs of our wars are choking off investments even in those programs favored by both political parties, like infrastructure.

Perhaps this is exactly what our terrorist enemies have in mind. They will siphon off our national treasure by turning on many small spigots. They will tempt us to fight “wars against terrorism” in a dozen different countries.

They will not aim one single mortal blow. They will slash at us with many small cuts until our resources bleed away.

The attacks in New York, Washington, and the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania on September 11, 2001, did not cripple us or threaten our infrastructure or render us helpless.

It was a despicable act against innocent victims that called for a response but not for endless war.

During our past conflict with a much more formidable foe, the Soviet Union, in the Cold War, our biggest mistake was going to war in Vietnam. Better if we had concentrated more on what finally did win the Cold War for us, an economy that benefitted most Americans and the growing inclusion of all classes of citizens.

U.S. diplomat George Kennon, writing from Moscow in the early days of the Cold War, advised his country how to win that war:

“Much depends on health and vigor of our own society. . . Every courageous and incisive measure to solve internal problems of our own society, to improve self-confidence, discipline, morale and community spirit of our own people, is a diplomatic victory over Moscow . . . the greatest danger that can befall us in coping with this problem of Soviet communism, is that we shall allow ourselves to become like those with whom we are coping.”

Hurricanes and Earthquakes: What Do We Care About?

Our overly active hurricane season illustrates how unprepared most of us are for natural disasters.

In our seismically challenged Pacific Northwest, studies indicate insufficient preparation for a major earthquake.

An extensive drill found that the region would be unable to cope with the three million or so survivors who would need food, water, shelter, and medical aid ( The Seattle Times, October 23, 2016).

“Everything we depend on to live our 21st century lives is going to be significantly degraded or eradicated,” one official said. “The needs are going to be immediate, they are going to be urgent and they are going to be overwhelming.”

These warnings are similar to those sounded as major hurricanes approach.

Smartphones and Facebook helped rescuers find trapped families in Texas, but electrical power outages, lost computers, and damaged cellphones begin to limit digital use.

What do we depend on when these fail us?

We depend on basic networks so often neglected in our wired age. We depend on families, neighborhoods, and face to face friendships. And also on the kindness of strangers.

Battle of the Handshakes

In Western societies, the handshake became evidence of a binding contract to buy and sell. It could also signal a truce or peace agreement between warring parties. Informally, it was a way of welcoming a stranger.

Like many other practices, President Trump has upended this friendly gesture of respect. In shaking the hand of recently appointed Supreme Justice, Neil Gorsuch, Trump appeared to want to pull Gorsuch off his feet.

Handshakes between President Trump and the leaders of our allies have descended to wrestling grips. Some appear to cause actual physical pain to Trump’s handshake partner.

As leaders have wised up to Trump’s apparent understanding of handshakes as another form of warfare, they have developed strategies to deal with it.

French President Emmanuel Macron gripped Trump’s hand as hard as Trump gripped his. Trump appeared to slightly wince while Macron grinned. Macron later commented, “One must show that we won’t make little concessions, even symbolic ones.”

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, an amateur boxer, also came off well in the handshake match.

Since most leaders of our allies are younger than Trump, time would appear to be on their side.

What To Do When Neo-Nazis Come to Call

When far right protestors picked Charlottesville, Virginia, to hold a rally, Leah Wise, who lives there, wondered what her response would be. She finally chose to go to her church, St. Paul’s Memorial, the evening the rally took place. (“Dispatches from Charlottesville: What Happens When Neo-Nazis Are Outside Your Church Doors,” Christianity Today, September, 2017.)

That evening a standing room only crowd of all religions and colors came together. “We came because we were scared, or at least confused. We didn’t know where else to go. We came because we shared a call to social justice and we knew we needed each other,” Wise wrote.

While protestors gathered in the city, the church group sang “This Little Light of Mine,” clapping and stomping as though in some Appalachian revival service. Their reaction to the chaos outside their doors provided peaceful encouragement to those opposed to hatred and racism.

In other commentary, Danny Westneat (The Seattle Times, “Stop Feeding the Neo-Nazi Beast,” August 16, 2017), cautions against shouting matches with the protestors or attacking them.

New York Times columnist David Brooks wrote: “Fight fanaticism with fire? No, with modesty and moderation,” (as quoted in The Seattle Times, August 20, 2017).

“Progress is not made by crushing some swarm of malevolent foes; it’s made by finding balance between competing truths—between freedom and security, diversity and solidarity,” Brooks wrote.

When the times are out of joint, dysfunctional groups take advantage of fear and uncertainty. It’s doubtful these groups will go away any time soon.

Moving society in the opposite direction—step by step, election by election, good work by good work—requires long term commitment. The missionary preacher Paul summed up this kind of activity in his letter to the Ephesians: “Be angry, but do not sin . . . ”

Life after Hate

“Oh, honey, you’re so much better than that.”

Such was the comment of a restaurant waitress, an elderly African-American woman, to a young man after she saw the swastika tattooed on his hand. Her concern pricked his conscience. Eventually he changed the focus of his life from hate to helping others.

This story is mentioned in “Confessions of a Former White Supremacist” (Sojourners, August 2017) by Jason Byassee. The article chronicles the journey of the former white supremacist, Tony McAleer.

McAleer is co-founder of “Life After Hate,” a group working to free those bound by the hate of extremism.

McAleer’s life illustrates why some fall into the extremist trap. His father neglected his son physically and emotionally. Growing up, McAleer often was bullied. Joining a hate group was a way to cope. It provided him with the identity he lacked. His anger “rotted into neo-Nazism.”

Eventually finding himself the single father of two children, McAleer realized that he was responsible for lives other than his own and began a slow process, through counseling, toward improving his life.

His therapist was Jewish, a member of a group McAleer had been taught to hate. Yet, he helped McAleer to love himself.

Hating those who hate—despising them—only feeds their own self-hatred, to see themselves as unlovable. Instead, loving them and calling them to love themselves can be one step toward abolishing the hatred that claims the hater as its first victim.

Ann Gaylia O'Barr

Culture and World Events from a Christian Perspective