Kingdom of Priests

Kingdom of Priests


Sidney Zion’s Tefillin

posted by David Klinghoffer

221368671_d6b9464ef0.jpg

At Tablet, Victor Navasky has a warm recollection of rambunctious journalist Sidney Zion, about whom, in describing him, it would be a literary challenge not to use the word Runyonesque. At the end of the piece, Navasky notes that at Sid’s funeral, the rabbi pointed out that while not outwardly religious, Sid Zion put on tefillin (phylacteries) every morning. I thought that summed up a lot about this dear man and fiercely loyal Jew who died recently at age 75. Laying tefillin on head and arms signifies, at the simplest level, loyal dedication of your mind and might. (See Exodus 13:9, Deuteronomy 6:8 and 11:18.)
Why do I call him Sid? Normally, I don’t approve of referring to people by their first name if you don’t know them well. I met him just once, spent the day with him, and was enamored with him ever after. That was back in 1990 when John Podhoretz had just hired me as a feature reporter at the Washington Times. He sent me up to New York to profile Sid, who taught me one invaluable lesson. When we sat down for lunch at Gallagher’s Steak House, Sid gave a pained look to my little reporter’s tape recorder. “You should never use that thing,” he told me. “No one will loosen up and talk to you if you’ve got a tape recorder going.” Take notes on a notepad, if you must. I’ve followed that sage advice ever since.
I remember so clearly his talking to me in a certain distinctively Jewish fatherly way. In fact he was from the same New Jersey town as my dad, Passaic, born within a year of each other. “Oh the Klinghoffers, I know them,” he said. 
Actually, he seemed to know everybody, everywhere he went. We spent that July day going from one old fashioned watering hole to another — Gallahger’s, the Yale Club, the Players Club, with a stop at J. Press to see about a sport shirt in between. He seemed pretty loose to me at lunch but kept getting looser as, sequentially, Bombay Gibsons turned to Johnnie Walker Blacks. By the end of the day, at the historic Players Club on Gramercy Park, he was greeted by a crowd of inebriated Jewish men with cries of “Hi Sid! and “Hi Damon!” (as in Runyon).

He told me, “I just like to hang out a lot. That’s when I find out what people are thinking.”
Later, “All men are Jews. Sartre said that. All men are Jews. I don’t know about women. If they were, we could marry them.”
Regarding Heinrich Heine, someone said, “He was always a Jew!”
“So was Jesus!” somebody else echoed.
When talk turned to Nelson Mandela, who was visiting New York and being hailed as the most morally exceptional person ever, the crowd became uninhibited and intemperate in their derision, to the point where Sid Zion felt that even without a tape recorder, this was no good for a reporter to witness. “I don’t want you talking anymore to these drunken Jews,” he said as we wrapped up for the evening.


Advertisement
Comments read comments(17)
post a comment
Stuthehistoryguy

posted August 14, 2009 at 10:27 am


This is very touching, Reb David. The love of a mentor is one of the most precious relationships anyone will ever have. Thank you.



report abuse
 

Gabriel Hanna

posted August 14, 2009 at 11:21 am


From there, is it a step up or a step down to go to work for the Discovery Institute?
Whatever the Discovery Institute may be, no reasonable person could characterize it as anti-Semitic; so let’s not cast baseless assertions, mkay?
Leave the smearing to David.



report abuse
 

Gabriel Hanna

posted August 14, 2009 at 2:20 pm


bradley:Gabriel Hanna: correct me if I am wrong…
You are wrong. You are playing “six degrees” of anti-Semitism. I can connect YOU with it if that sort of reasoning is legal.
The Discovery Institute’s hobbyhorse is evolution. They don’t write books about how Jews killed Jesus.
David is not the only Jewish DI fellow either.
Please leave the smearing to David and the other DI fellows, and keep your own hands clean.



report abuse
 

Alex

posted August 14, 2009 at 2:34 pm


@Bradley: “correct me if I am wrong, but isn’t the lot over at the Discovery Institute a bunch of conservative Christians who interpret the Bible at face value (usually literally)?”
I know for a fact that many of the leaders (“the lot”) do NOT understand the verses from Genesis literally. Of course, you can check it out yourself. (I’m choosing not to address the deicide part.)



report abuse
 

Gabriel Hanna

posted August 14, 2009 at 11:51 pm


Bradley, Alex:
I have to second Alex here (though I may be disagreeing with him in another post). The DI fellows are not, by and large, Biblical literalists; though the majority of their support, financial and political, comes from people who are (which belies their vaunted concern for science, in my opinion).
As for the deicide question, the New Testament has not been interpreted as a license to kill Jews in a long time. American Christians are just going to be baffled by your telling them this; they are going to think you’re very confused.
The Gospels give differing accounts of the trial and death of Jesus, but it seems that the Sanhedrin, Herod, and Pontius Pilate all had a hand in it. According to the Gospels the Sanhedrin did not have the authority to execute Jesus and so Pontius Pilate did it, apparently for treason (claiming to be the King of the Jews), though at first he tried to dump the problem on Herod, who mocked Jesus and sent him back.
Of course if someone needs an excuse to hate Jews they can manufacture one from the Gospels, but since when do anti-Semites need an excuse? Anything you could gin up from a literal reading of the New Testament could be just as well directed against Romans. And in the early church it was; the Roman Empire was considered to be Babylon and the Emperor the anti-Christ.



report abuse
 

Gabriel Hanna

posted August 15, 2009 at 4:22 pm


To conflate one with the other is a mistake only someone unfamiliar with the historical facts could make.
I may well not be as well-informed as you about the history behind the Gospels–the Gospels of course are not history themselves and do not themselves reflect historical facts accurately. People who are reading the Gospels, on their own terms so to speak, are going to base their opinions on what is presented in the Gospels.
Let’s get back to the original topic-you’re playing six degrees of anti-Semitism. Are you willing to retract your charges that the Discovery Institute is promoting anti-Semitism?
It’s the fallacy of the undistributed middle, iterated. The Discovery Institute, collectively, doesn’t promote Biblical literalism, though no doubt most of its supporters do. Even if it did, not all Biblical literalists are anti-Semites.
All anti-Semites breathe oxygen, but oxygen-breathers can’t be characterized as anti-Semitic.
So I think you have a logical obligation to retract your anti-Semitism comment, as well as a moral obligation, and I think it would be really classy for you to explicitly retract it.



report abuse
 

Gabriel Hanna

posted August 15, 2009 at 7:23 pm


bradley, I would also note that if this
“but isn’t the lot over at the Discovery Institute a bunch of conservative Christians who interpret the Bible at face value (usually literally)? And doesn’t the New Testament make the case that Jews killed Jesus and are responsible for his death? Isn’t such an accusation of ‘deicide’ anti-Semitic? And, as such, furnished the basis for Christian mistreatment and persecution of the Jews down through the ages?”
were factually true, it would be the same argument that Discovery Institute uses against evolution–isn’t evolution the same things that eugenicists, Communists, and Nazis believed?
See also David’s post “Charles Manson-Evolutionist”.
DI’s “evolution makes you a Nazi” argument is predicated on distortions of evolutionary science and historical fact; yours is based on distortions of Christianity and stereotypes of Christians, but both are fallacious.
If you reject one, you are bound to reject the other.



report abuse
 

Turmarion

posted August 16, 2009 at 9:05 pm


bradley: The question boils down to this: Did the authors of the NT intend to promote anti-Semitism? I.e., is the NT intrinsically anti-Semitic? People with far more knowledge of the Bible than either of us (after all, there are other people who have gone to Harvard Divinity School!) disagree on this issue.
In any case, it is a logical fallacy to argue on the basis of what people do think it means or have thought it means. If everyone from the Apostolic Age to sixty years ago thought that anti-Semitism was implicit in the NT, that of itself doesn’t mean that the authors intended that. On the other hand, no amount of argument that the NT isn’t anti-Semitic would change what the original authors meant, either, if they were anti-Semites.
Of course, one could argue that anti-Semitism as we understand it is not the same thing as tensions between the Jewish and Gentile Christians of the Apostolic Age, so that things that seem to be anti-Jewish in the NT aren’t necessarily anti-Semitic in the sense in which we mean it.
In any case, short of the development of time travel and mind reading, we’ll never know what the authors of the NT intended. I don’t think the NT is intrinsically anti-Semitic, nor intended to be; you apparently disagree. We could each line up experts that agree with us, cite historical background, etc. and in the end it would be inconclusive and we’d not change our minds.
However, what does disturb me a bit is that you seem to be saying that Christianity is intrinsically anti-Semitic and that the only reason anti-Semitism isn’t more prevalent among American Christians is that they are ignorant of their own Bible and tradition. Is that really an argument you want to make? I mean first off, you’d have to give evidence that the more knowledgeable Christians are of the Bible, the more anti-Semitic they are (which I doubt!). Second, are you saying that Christians should understand their faith better and be honest about it by being anti-Semitic? Or what?
Of course, maybe you mean that if Christians were honest, they’d see that Christianity is intrinsically anti-Semitic, and that since people of goodwill understand how repugnant anti-Semitism is, then people of goodwill would leave Christianity behind. It’s your prerogative to look at it that way, but I doubt many Christians are going to buy that.



report abuse
 

Turmarion

posted August 17, 2009 at 10:43 am


Bradley: he “anti-Semitism” is expressed in the NT-based doctrine of supersessionism: i.e., that Christianity has wholly replaced Judaism, which, therefore, no longer has a reason to exist.
Actually, there are varying degrees of supercessionism, ranging from extreme versions which argue that the people whom we call “Jews” aren’t even the physiological, let alone spiritual, inheritors of ancient Israel, to the versions which state that Christianity marks a new phase in God’s relationship to the world, while not denying the validity of the Torah for the Jews themselves. I think it’s unfair to argue that Christianity in general thinks that Judaism “no longer has a reason to exist”.
Even regarding “conservative” Christianity, I think this is misleading. You define “conservative Christianity” as “hard-core adherence to tradition”, but that’s a bit unclear. Greek Orthodox, Catholics both Vatican II and schismatic Traditionalist, Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, Evangelicals, and Fundamentalists would all consider that they have “hard-core adherence to tradition” but would agree about little else. Not all of these churches, in fact, think that the Jews “have no reason to exist”, either. In any case, I’ve known some conservative Christians who had no problem at all with the Jewish people.
So, said many Church leaders, make life as miserable as possible for the Jews to get them to see the error of their ways. (emphasis added)
“Many”, not “all”, not even “most”. It is as unfair to imply that those who do “make life miserable for the Jews” are representative of all Christians, or of what Christianity should be, as it would to consider Neturei Karta as representative of Judaism.
So, if you’re saying that Christianity is intrinsically anti-Semitic, I’d have to disagree. If you’re saying that there are elements in Christianity that can be stirred up in some contexts to produce outbursts of anti-Semitic behavior, this is true. However, there are analogous elements in most religions–look at Baruch Goldstein, or radical Islamists.
In America, at least, it is no longer acceptable for non-fringe Christians to express anti-Semitism, and I think that the tendency has been toward acceptance of the Jewish people and away from the tendencies of the past. Is this a bad thing? Or do you think it’s all one big façade just waiting to burst open against the Jews? If you’re arguing that some strains of conservative Christianity are having a negative affect in our culture, or that they are using devious means to achieve more power, I’d agree, to a point; but that’s a very much different thing from slinging accustions of anti-Semitism about.
in the words of Stanleigh Cohen, “America can not claim to be a Christian nation…but, rather, is a country the majority of whose citizens are baptized individuals who are Mammon-worshipping shop-a-holics and Dow Jones Phariseesany faith. Anyway, if you’re going to use the hypocrisy or bad behavior of adherents of a religion to invalidate it, then there are probably no valid religions in existence.



report abuse
 

Gabriel Hanna

posted August 17, 2009 at 8:27 pm


bradley:HOWEVER, Logic’s relationship to real life is problematic, varying from case to case- a point which seems beyond your ken.
And you seem to think that stereotypes unsupported by evidence, coupled with conclusions that do not follow from their premises, form a legitimate argument.
I take it then that you are not retracting your smear. Fine.
Others will judge between you and me; seems you’d prefer to be David’s mirror image.



report abuse
 

Gabriel Hanna

posted August 18, 2009 at 6:37 pm


find out the names of David’s Christian associates at DI, find out which churches they belong to- and see what that church’s official position is regarding Jewish culpability for Jesus’ death.
So BEING a Christian makes you an anti-Semite; at least if your church has an “official” policy on who killed Jesus. Whatever, dude.
I would note that Catholicism does not now insist that Jews are culpable for killing Jesus and does not now believe in supersessionism and has taken the trouble to issue official retractions of these positions.



report abuse
 

Gabriel Hanna

posted August 19, 2009 at 1:54 pm


moshe:I find your casuistic attempt to absolve any and all Christians and Christian institutions of culpability in the Nazi endeavor to exterminate the Jews, to be disgusting, loathesome and repulsive.
Turmarion is not doing that. He is arguing that Christianity does not ENTAIL anti-semitism. So am I. There are anti-Semitic, philo-Semitic, and indifferent Christians, and no doubt all of them can point to incontrovertible evidence from the Bible for their incompatible positions.
You sure did a number on that straw man, though.
Apparently, then, hysterical claims to the contrary, the Holocaust
must be a delusional myth, a case of mass hysteria, right?

Not one person said this, or anything remotely close.
Institutionalized Church teachings – Catholic, Lutheran- plowed the field and sowed the seed; all the Nazis had to do was simply provide a few drops of water and then harvest.
Exactly what I’ve said myself; but these teachings no longer operate in mainstream Christian churches, not in America anyway.



report abuse
 

Turmarion

posted August 19, 2009 at 2:49 pm


Bradley: You can insist all you want that – “logically,” in terms of your understanding of what Christianity SHOULD be- Hitler was a bad Christian; but the fact of the matter is that he died a Catholic in good standing, and thus, Gen. Franco, while he was in power, sponsored a memorial mass every year in his memory. Life trumps logic.
So what are you saying, Bradley? That Christianity is anti-Semitic by its nature and Christians such as myself just don’t want to admit that? So if Christianity is anti-Semitic by nature, are you saying Christians should abandon their faith? Or that they should repudiate anti-Semitism?
If you are saying that Christians should repudiate their faith because of its anti-Semitism, then newsflash: Muslims should repudiate Islam because of its anti-Semitism and the concept of jihad; Jews should repudiate their faith because of the way God demands genocide again and again in the OT (remember, e.g., in 1 Samuel 15, the last straw for King Saul vis-à-vis God was that, though he slaughtered all humans in a city, he failed to kill all the animals, as well; can’t have pagan cows running around!) ; and so on.
If you are saying that Christians should repudiate anti-Semitism, then once more, newsflash—no mainstream Christian churches or leaders have failed to do so.
So what, exactly, do you want, bradley? I’ve asked you, and instead of answering, you just keep slinging indiscriminate accusations of anti-Semitism at Christians.
[F]ind out the names of David’s Christian associates at DI, find out which churches they belong to- and see what that church’s official position is regarding Jewish culpability for Jesus’ death.
BTW, I don’t know about other DI members, but Behe is Catholic, and if you look in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 597, says, with emphasis added:
“The historical complexity of Jesus’ trial is apparent in the Gospel accounts. The personal sin of the participants (Judas, the Sanhedrin, Pilate) is known to God alone. Hence we cannot lay responsibility for the trial on the Jews in Jerusalem as a whole, despite the outcry of a manipulated crowd and the global reproaches contained in the apostles’ calls to conversion after Pentecost. Jesus himself, in forgiving them on the cross, and Peter in following suit, both accept “the ignorance” of the Jews of Jerusalem and even of their leaders. Still less can we extend responsibility to other Jews of different times and places, based merely on the crowd’s cry: “His blood be on us and on our children!”, a formula for ratifying a judicial sentence. As the Church declared at the Second Vatican Council: . . . [N]either all Jews indiscriminately at that time, nor Jews today, can be charged with the crimes committed during his Passion. . . [T]he Jews should not be spoken of as rejected or accursed as if this followed from holy Scripture.”
Is that satisfactory? Or is it just Romish dissimulation?
Thomas: 1. Not all Christians are supersessionists.
2. Not all those who are interpret it to mean that, as you quote, “following the resurrection of Jesus Christ, Christians replaced Jews in God’s love and favor and in the divine plan of salvation,” or that “God repudiated the Jewish people for their rejection of Christ.” In the narrow sense that Christians believe that Christ, as God incarnate, ended the dispensation of the Law for non-Jews, at least, and inaugurated a new mode of interacting with the world, they could be said to be “supersessionist” (or as some scholars would put it, “soft supersessionists”), but this is not the “God rejected the Jews” type of supersessionism.
In this regard, see here, notably the quote from rabbi David Novak: The former [soft supersessionism] “does not assert that God terminated the covenant of Exodus-Sinai with the Jewish people. Rather, it asserts that Jesus came to fulfill the promise of the old covenant, first for those Jews already initiated into the covenant, who then accepted his messiahhood as that covenant’s fulfillment. And, it asserts that Jesus came to both initiate and fulfill the promise of the covenant for those Gentiles whose sole connection to the covenant is through him. Hence, in this kind of supersessionism, those Jews who do not accept Jesus’ messiahhood are still part of the covenant in the sense of ‘what God has put together let no man put asunder’ [emphasis original].”
Moshe: What Gabriel said. If you thought that I was in any way implying that Christians have not been responsible for horrendous deeds against the Jews, and that we should not indeed repent of this and repudiate anti-Semitism, then one of us doesn’t understand English properly. I ask you the same question I asked Bradley: Do you want Christians to repudiate their faith? Or is repudiating anti-Semitism enough? Or are all Christians forever to be automatically assumed to be, ipso facto, anti-Semites?



report abuse
 

Gabriel Hanna

posted August 19, 2009 at 5:01 pm


the Vatican II document should have singled out the Roman quisling Sadducees as the “Jews” involved with Jesus’ proceedings.
So are you saying the Vatican is still full of anti-Semites then? Are you saying that it’s all fake, and Catholics are being secretly instructed to hate Jews regardless of Vatican II?
Okay, then.



report abuse
 

Turmarion

posted August 19, 2009 at 9:38 pm


bradley, moshe, and your name: We could argue interpretations of individual verses till the cows come home to no avail. Let’s get really, really basic with this.
If you think that Christianity is an awful religion full of anti-Semites to which no decent person of any intelligence should belong, then say it openly. Won’t hurt my feelings. If you think that those who remain Christians and who argue that their faith is not anti-Semitic are fools, dunces, villains, or some combination of those, say that openly, too. Once again, no skin off my back.
If this is not what you believe, then please tell me what you expect of Christians. To leave their faith? Well, most are presumably there because they are committed to it, just as with members of any religion. Duh. You want them to apologize for the past and repudiate anti-Semitism in the present? Well, all but fringe groups of Christians have done so, repeatedly. Also duh. You want Christians to quit aggressive proselytism of Jews? Well, most non-Evangelicals don’t do this; and I’ll grant you that Evangelicals could improve on that, although they evangelize us Catholics (presumably non-Christians!), too, if it makes you feel better.
Maybe you want Christians to accept no converts from Judaism at all; but should Jews reciprocate by not accepting Christian converts? I think that as long as there’s no harassment, aggressive proselytism, or coercion, anyone should join any faith he likes, right?
Maybe you want Christians to jettison their belief that Jesus of Nazareth is the Son of God and God incarnate, the Second Person of the Trinity (which belief some think is the basis of anti-Semitism, for whatever reason)? But suppose someone said that he would believe that, contra evidence in the Old Testament, Jews are not in favor of genocide, only if they reject their belief that they are the chosen people? In other words, in effect to quit being Jews (as rejection of Christ’s divinity for a Christian would de facto entail ceasing being a Christian)?
If you will say what you really mean, then we can quit the useless going in circles that this thread has been doing. Better to be frank about it so we all know where we stand, right?



report abuse
 

Turmarion

posted August 21, 2009 at 7:25 pm


bradley: I think that people should be free to believe whatever they wish to, as long as they act ethically toward others.
Agreed completely.
Compare Christianity (“nulla salus extra ecclesiam) and Islam. Actually, as far as I am concerned, “universalism” is a code word for religious imperialism (but that is a subject for a separate blog entry).
Interesting sentence. You criticize the extra ecclesiam nulla salus doctrine which you (erroneously) attribute to “Christians” (no specification of “some”, “most”, etc.), and then turn right around and say that “‘universalism’ is a code word for religious imperialism”! Damned if we do, damned if we don’t huh? And by that definition, wouldn’t the Talmudic idea that “non-Jews can also find fulfillment (the Christian term is “salvation”) before God” be such an example of “imperialism”? BTW, most Catholics, anyway, don’t construe the extra ecclesiam doctrine to mean that only Christians are saved, but oops! There goes that imperialism again!
Anyway, in dwelling on the subject of NT anti-Semitism, my interest is in combating the sort of historical revisionism (see #3) that turns black into white and white into black.
I, for one, haven’t denied any of the Christian nastiness against Jews, and haven’t tried to historically revise anything. I don’t think that nastiness was intrinsic to Christianity, but you either disagree with me, or think it’s a spurious distinction. I don’t think genocide is intrinsic to Judaism, despite it being enjoined by God as portrayed in the Tanakh, either, and I assume you’d agree with me on that, right?
Or does it hold people accountable- and even prosecute, where necessary- so that the proper lessons from history are learned?
So, by way of analogy, what do you see holding Christianity accountable so that the proper lessons from history are learned to entail?
The issue of genocide (and Jews) comes from the Bible. As such, whatever is said about it applies to Christianity as well as Judaism, since the Tanakh/OT is part of the Christian canon.
I’m not quite sure what point you’re making here. God, as portrayed in the OT certainly doesn’t seem to have a problem with ordering genocide time and again. Had Jews held power as the Christians did for 2000 years, I’m not sanguine enough about human nature to think they, in light of their scriptures, would have done any better than Christians, Muslims, or anyone else. Even the supposedly “peaceful” Buddhists have blood on their hands (Japanese Zen teachers promoting WWII and the fighting in Sri Lanka now).
Anyway, I repeat–what exactly do you want Christians to do? You didn’t really answer any of the questions I raised in my last post.



report abuse
 

Turmarion

posted August 24, 2009 at 2:04 pm


David, what’s up? I obviously didn’t and don’t agree with bradley and moshe here, but why did you delete bradley’s posts while leaving mine up? Without his posts being up for context, mine (and several of Gabriel’s) aren’t going to make much sense; more importantly, the posts have been up for almost a week. If a post appeared which were for some reason offensive, one would imagine it would be removed then. If it’s left up for days, one would assume it’s OK.
Anyway, while I took strong issue with bradley, there was nothing in his post that was defamatory, obscene, or otherwise contrary to open and honest discussion and debate, which you keep telling us you want. Open and honest discussion means you stick up for the other guy’s right to have his say, even if you don’t like it or disagree with it. If you’re going to allow a thread to go like this for several days with many comments, and then without warning delete one whole set of comments, at least you owe us an explanation.



report abuse
 

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Previous Posts

Another Blog To Enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting Kingdom of Priests. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here is another blog you may also enjoy: Kabballah Counseling Happy Reading!

posted 11:24:22am Aug. 16, 2012 | read full post »

Animal Wisdom: The Voice of the Serpent
Our family watched Jaws together the other evening -- which, in case you're wondering, I regard as responsible parenting since our kids are basically too young to be genuinely scared by the film. The whole rest of the next day, two-year-old Saul was chattering about the "shark teeth." "Shark teeth g

posted 3:56:33pm Mar. 16, 2010 | read full post »

Reading Wesley Smith: Why the Darwin Debate Matters
If the intelligent-design side in the evolution debate doesn't receive the support you might expect from people who should be allies, that may be because they haven't grasped why the whole thing matters so urgently. I got an email recently from a journalist whom I'd queried on the subject. "All told

posted 5:07:12pm Mar. 15, 2010 | read full post »

The Mission of the Jews
Don't miss my essay over at First Things on the mission of the Jews to the world. This, I think, the key idea that the Jewish community needs to absorb at this very unusual cultural moment, for the time is so, so right. Non-Jews are waiting for us to fulfill the roll God gave us in the Torah. Please

posted 6:14:16pm Mar. 05, 2010 | read full post »

Darwin at the Mountains of Madness: Evolution & the Occult
Of all the regrettable cultural forces that Darwinism helped unleash, perhaps the most surprising and seemingly unlikely is its role in sparking the creation of modern occultism. Charles Darwin himself could not have been less interested in the topic. But no attempt to assess the scope of his legacy

posted 2:04:11pm Mar. 04, 2010 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.