One of Gavin Newsom's first acts as mayor of San Francisco, just 35 days into office, was to challenge California's marriage and family code limiting marriage to heterosexual couples by granting licenses to same-sex couples and marrying them in City Hall. Starting with Del Martin, 83, and Phyllis Lyon, 79, on February 12, 2004, at 11:06 a.m., the Newsom administration eventually married over 4000 gay and lesbian couples before they were forced to go back to withholding the right on March 11, 2004, at 2:33pm. (That’s what you can do with films like this – savor the details.) Newsom understood this was civil disobedience. He had his eyes on the long term.
Most gay people and local Bay Area residents know the rough outline. A few – not many – know the names of Dennis Herrera, the city attorney, and possibly even Mabel Tang, the city Assessor, who performed the first marriage. But almost nobody knows what they look like and how they felt about what they were doing.
Pursuit of Equality, a film documentary that came out in 2005 but apparently is only now building steam, shows what documentary filmmaking can do – it can put faces to names, reveal the spirit behind the law, and make the story about real people. The film is filled with rich detail – the Bible-waving folk who insist God’s law (their crystal clear understanding of it) should run the country, and not the California Constitution; the duel between those singing “I’ve decided to follow Jesus” and those singing The Star-Spangled Banner, 83-year-old Del and 79-year-old Phyllis being informed by the bureaucracy about family planning issues, tears running down the cheeks of a 24-year-old straight son whose mother and her partner are turned away on March 11, 2004 – and how he chose to look on the bright side and observe how the hardship brought his family closer together.
This event is a legend in the making. It begins with Nancy Pelosi sending Gavin Newsom a ticket to George W. Bush’s inauguration and Gavin’s reaction to Bush’s decision to politicize gay marriage. Newsom came home determined to fight it. The film has a marvelous shot of Teddy Kennedy, too, sitting in the joint session showing obvious disgust at Bush. Those who doubt Newsom’s personal investment in the decision need to see the film before drawing too many conclusions.
Once back from Washington, Newsom lost no time. His aids told him all he had to do was change “bride” and “groom” to “applicant 1” and “applicant 2” on the licences and he was off and running.
Besides putting a face on those involved, the film helps you keep track of the complicated twists and turns that month when it all began – the crowds overwhelming City Hall, the “cease and desist” order which was ignored, the Trial Court decision supporting Newsom and declaring the ban on marriage equality unconstitutional, the Appeals Court’s overturning of that decision and the voiding of the marriages, which is where the film ends. Not shown is what was to come when finally (OK, temporarily finally), on May 15, 2008, the Supreme Court determined the Trial Court decision should stand. The Supremes, as they are lovingly called in these parts, voided the Appeals Court’s decision, and the couples came back to do it all once more. That number has now reached 18,000, and this time, the marriages were not voided. I’m getting ahead of the story here, but just to bring things up to date, most people know what happened next. The State threw together a referendum known as Prop. 8 which passed by 52%, overturning the Supreme Court Decision.
This too turns out to be far from the end of the story, since the Supreme Court is meeting in just over a week on March 5 to decide whether the state had a right to amend the constitution to remove rights of its citizens to marry they themselves had declared a constitutional right. Are you running with me, Jesus?
Many will want to focus on the present and on the future. The 2005 documentary did not get much publicity – I only just discovered it a week ago. But it is a gem of a story of the inner workings of San Francisco City Hall at a momentous time for gays and lesbians.
Since the story is ongoing, and since the Oscar awards for Dustin Lance Black and Sean Penn for their work on Milk is now part of the fight to overturn Prop. 8, the context continues to shift.
But if you want to see the beginning, this is the place to find it.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Sunday, February 22, 2009
The Tragedy of Javier Gonzalez
I took issue with an article in the San Francisco Chronicle the other day because they told a story from one perspective and left out another. Not a serious complaint. Not yellow journalism. Not even badly slanted journalism. Just a reminder that there are often several ways to tell a story and that we no longer understand objectivity to be quite as simple as we once did.
The report celebrated a dramatic drop of 34% in homicides in San Francisco’s “troubled” zones of violence. Lost in the celebration was the fact that citywide the figure was down only 6%, and perhaps, if crime has spread outside of the “zones” to the city at large, there was not quite the cause for self-congratulation the article suggested. One might make the argument the journalist was not so much reporting the news as writing PR for the police department.
Then comes this news the other day of two deaths near San Francisco BART Stations. One in Daly City, where some kids apparently shot some other kids because they thought they were rival gang members. They were mistaken, and some innocent kid is dead – and that is not to say he would necessarily be less innocent if he were a member of a rival gang.
If you are not involved – and most middle class people of San Francisco and the world are not involved in this kind of thing – you register no more than a passing moment of sadness over the loss of young life and our inability to build better social structures. You sigh, and move on.
But this time there’s two in one night, and so you can’t turn away quite as readily. And it’s the other killing that is banging around inside my head. An even bigger illustration of how tragedy can be stupid, or at least right up there. And, like the story about the 34% drop in homicides in the Tenderloin and Western Addition neighborhoods of San Francisco, complicated by the possibility we may be looking at the event through a glass darkly.
As the story comes off the news services, it goes like this. Christopher Gonzalez, 18, and his friend Victor Veliz, also 18, decide to mug a third kid, a 23-year-old tourist visiting from the East Coast, who has just withdrawn some money from an ATM machine at the Fruitvale BART Station in Oakland. Gonzalez, the story goes, tells the kid he’s got a gun, and Veliz puts a knife to his throat. The kid panics and Gonzalez gets stabbed. Gonzalez lives nearby, so he runs home, and Veliz goes with him. The third kid goes out into the street, still holding the knife, hails the cops, gives them the knife and tells them the story. The police describe him as highly agitated, but they release him, suggesting his story rings true. The D.A.’s office decides to prosecute Veliz for both the robbery and the murder, but not "the tourist." That the robbery took place is not in question, since the police find a cell phone in Veliz’ possession when they find him at the Gonzalez home. The phone, it turns out, was on all the time, since the kid was talking to a friend before the robbery took place. Apparently the person on the other end of the phone heard the robbery victim, whose name has never been released, say he was being approached and something was not right.
When you put this all together, you will probably conclude this is a pretty much an open-and-shut case of a robbery-gone-wrong; some punk kid who threatened violence got that violence thrown back at him with deadly, but perhaps just, consequences.
But this is a new information age, an age where privacy has taken a back seat, and we are used to the poor slobs of the world washing their dirty linen with Judge Judy and other daytime television crap mongers. And most of us, whether we do it a lot or not, are conditioned to the great American sport of watching victims of circumstance, folly or a moment’s tragic inattention wail and cry, sometimes out of Schadenfreude, sometimes, I guess, out of love of circus in the great tradition of throwing Christians to the lions.
In following up this story, I hit upon a video clip of Javier Gonzalez being interviewed just after his son died, pretty much in his arms. The same sense of shame at watching someone’s nakedness of soul splayed for commercial gain on daytime TV also makes me want to click off and move on to almost any other activity. But the fact that Javier was telling the story from a different perspective kept me listening.
The clip, if you watch it, will make you sad. Here’s a father who has not only lost his teenage son, he has watched him bleed to death in his arms. Javier stumbles over facts, but you trust he is running on empty and needing to tell his story as a way of processing what just happened to him. You watch, and you wonder, are you the “bad parent” we hear so much about? The kind of parent that produces these kids we live in constant fear of, the ones who come up from East and West Oakland and mug us in the streets outside of our middle class homes in Berkeley? Are you the bad guy here? Why am I feeling so sad about your plight?
Could it be that what you are suggesting is true? That your son is an innocent victim? That it was Victor doing the mugging and Chris merely coming to his rescue when he saw he was in trouble? Not very likely. There is too much information to suggest this is grasping at straws to save yourself from having to recognize your “really great kid” is a mugger. One who threatens strangers with guns. But the little invisible fellow that sits on my shoulder and whispers in my left ear a reminder of how often the powerless fail to get their story heard, wants me at least to listen.
Javier is not a pretty sight. He lashes out at the BART police, an easy target these days since one of their number killed another kid on New Year’s Eve, causing major unrest in racially charged Oakland because the kid was black and the officer was white and the kid was shot in the back.
But I hear your pain, Javier. You're not that different from my other friends with 18-year-olds they can barely persuade, much less control. I know you never intended for your kid to rob strangers (if indeed your kid did). And I am reminded that I have just spent a couple years going to neighborhood meetings where we all yearned publicly for solutions to the problem of muggings, wishing somehow the police could magically solve the problem. Like folk searching for keys under the lamp where the light is better instead of where we dropped them, we focus on the police and their sometimes obvious shortcomings. Occasionally, though, we remind ourselves the problem is really lack of parental control and moral guidance somehow.
Should I have turned off this exploitation of Javier Gonzalez like I turn off Jerry Springer? Should I have allowed him to grieve privately instead of in front of news reporters conspicuously feeding him justifications for putting up with their questions?
Were things not a whole lot easier back in the days when we almost never got to hear the Javier Gonzalezes of the world tell their probably (but not certainly) erroneous side of the story?
The report celebrated a dramatic drop of 34% in homicides in San Francisco’s “troubled” zones of violence. Lost in the celebration was the fact that citywide the figure was down only 6%, and perhaps, if crime has spread outside of the “zones” to the city at large, there was not quite the cause for self-congratulation the article suggested. One might make the argument the journalist was not so much reporting the news as writing PR for the police department.
Then comes this news the other day of two deaths near San Francisco BART Stations. One in Daly City, where some kids apparently shot some other kids because they thought they were rival gang members. They were mistaken, and some innocent kid is dead – and that is not to say he would necessarily be less innocent if he were a member of a rival gang.
If you are not involved – and most middle class people of San Francisco and the world are not involved in this kind of thing – you register no more than a passing moment of sadness over the loss of young life and our inability to build better social structures. You sigh, and move on.
But this time there’s two in one night, and so you can’t turn away quite as readily. And it’s the other killing that is banging around inside my head. An even bigger illustration of how tragedy can be stupid, or at least right up there. And, like the story about the 34% drop in homicides in the Tenderloin and Western Addition neighborhoods of San Francisco, complicated by the possibility we may be looking at the event through a glass darkly.
As the story comes off the news services, it goes like this. Christopher Gonzalez, 18, and his friend Victor Veliz, also 18, decide to mug a third kid, a 23-year-old tourist visiting from the East Coast, who has just withdrawn some money from an ATM machine at the Fruitvale BART Station in Oakland. Gonzalez, the story goes, tells the kid he’s got a gun, and Veliz puts a knife to his throat. The kid panics and Gonzalez gets stabbed. Gonzalez lives nearby, so he runs home, and Veliz goes with him. The third kid goes out into the street, still holding the knife, hails the cops, gives them the knife and tells them the story. The police describe him as highly agitated, but they release him, suggesting his story rings true. The D.A.’s office decides to prosecute Veliz for both the robbery and the murder, but not "the tourist." That the robbery took place is not in question, since the police find a cell phone in Veliz’ possession when they find him at the Gonzalez home. The phone, it turns out, was on all the time, since the kid was talking to a friend before the robbery took place. Apparently the person on the other end of the phone heard the robbery victim, whose name has never been released, say he was being approached and something was not right.
When you put this all together, you will probably conclude this is a pretty much an open-and-shut case of a robbery-gone-wrong; some punk kid who threatened violence got that violence thrown back at him with deadly, but perhaps just, consequences.
But this is a new information age, an age where privacy has taken a back seat, and we are used to the poor slobs of the world washing their dirty linen with Judge Judy and other daytime television crap mongers. And most of us, whether we do it a lot or not, are conditioned to the great American sport of watching victims of circumstance, folly or a moment’s tragic inattention wail and cry, sometimes out of Schadenfreude, sometimes, I guess, out of love of circus in the great tradition of throwing Christians to the lions.
In following up this story, I hit upon a video clip of Javier Gonzalez being interviewed just after his son died, pretty much in his arms. The same sense of shame at watching someone’s nakedness of soul splayed for commercial gain on daytime TV also makes me want to click off and move on to almost any other activity. But the fact that Javier was telling the story from a different perspective kept me listening.
The clip, if you watch it, will make you sad. Here’s a father who has not only lost his teenage son, he has watched him bleed to death in his arms. Javier stumbles over facts, but you trust he is running on empty and needing to tell his story as a way of processing what just happened to him. You watch, and you wonder, are you the “bad parent” we hear so much about? The kind of parent that produces these kids we live in constant fear of, the ones who come up from East and West Oakland and mug us in the streets outside of our middle class homes in Berkeley? Are you the bad guy here? Why am I feeling so sad about your plight?
Could it be that what you are suggesting is true? That your son is an innocent victim? That it was Victor doing the mugging and Chris merely coming to his rescue when he saw he was in trouble? Not very likely. There is too much information to suggest this is grasping at straws to save yourself from having to recognize your “really great kid” is a mugger. One who threatens strangers with guns. But the little invisible fellow that sits on my shoulder and whispers in my left ear a reminder of how often the powerless fail to get their story heard, wants me at least to listen.
Javier is not a pretty sight. He lashes out at the BART police, an easy target these days since one of their number killed another kid on New Year’s Eve, causing major unrest in racially charged Oakland because the kid was black and the officer was white and the kid was shot in the back.
But I hear your pain, Javier. You're not that different from my other friends with 18-year-olds they can barely persuade, much less control. I know you never intended for your kid to rob strangers (if indeed your kid did). And I am reminded that I have just spent a couple years going to neighborhood meetings where we all yearned publicly for solutions to the problem of muggings, wishing somehow the police could magically solve the problem. Like folk searching for keys under the lamp where the light is better instead of where we dropped them, we focus on the police and their sometimes obvious shortcomings. Occasionally, though, we remind ourselves the problem is really lack of parental control and moral guidance somehow.
Should I have turned off this exploitation of Javier Gonzalez like I turn off Jerry Springer? Should I have allowed him to grieve privately instead of in front of news reporters conspicuously feeding him justifications for putting up with their questions?
Were things not a whole lot easier back in the days when we almost never got to hear the Javier Gonzalezes of the world tell their probably (but not certainly) erroneous side of the story?
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Obama’s Vietnam?
Don’t know if you happened to tune in to Charlie Rose last night. He had on Craig Mullaney, Dexter Filkins, Milt Bearden and ABC news correspondent Martha Raddatz talking about the war in Afghanistan.
As I watched I got this sense that I might be having my attention turned to the elephant in the room at long last. The news media at present are focused on Obama’s alleged mistakes, on the Republican insistence that we can and should still live and work the Republican way, and at the devastated economy and the possibility of a decade or more of depression years.
What worries me is that I doubt Obama can fix it. The more I watch the controversy over whether throwing good money after bad money is the solution to the mess the country is in, to use the oversimplified frame so many – and not just Republicans – want to use, the more I despair. The man seems so strong, so intelligent, so capable. The answer to prayers – never mind the powerful symbol he is of an America that apparently can right itself.
But California is about to come off the rails. We are going bankrupt. The State Legislature can’t raise taxes to pay the bills – the Republicans again – and that means we are likely to have to shut down government and works projects that will cost us millions more to start up again once we do get this show on the road. And as goes California in struggling with the economy, so goes the rest of the United States. The Republicans won’t, the Democrats can’t, and we are now beginning to listen to the philosophers who suggest the problem lies with the system. The only way to fix systemic problems with politics is for things to fail. No politician will buck the system to act in the national interest unless it does; essential to the way the system works is that it is based on self, not national, interest.
So the media’s focus on the economic disaster and our apparent inability to fix it is understandable. But in doing so, they may be missing an even larger problem, what some are now referring to as Obama’s Vietnam.
Here’s what I think I hear all or most of the experts agreeing on:
1) We are stymied by our inclination to see the world in terms of national boundaries. We see Afghanistan and Pakistan, but if we messed up in Iraq by not understanding Kurdistan as a nation, we are messing up tenfold in not seeing Pashtunistan as a nation. Not the kind of nation that will sit in the United Nations and act internationally, but the kind that makes a mockery of lines drawn by white-man's-burden-carrying Britain.
2) We keep thinking Pakistan can and should act to control Pashtuns, while Pakistan understands the border lines are a charade and they simply lack the power to act but can’t admit it internationally without losing face.
3) Afghanis and Pakistanis are at the mercy of the Taliban because there is no viable alternative, no traditional democratic habits to fall back on, no secular national identity strong enough to counter them.
4) Afghanistan is a wild mountainous region bigger by far than Iraq. In Iraq, insurgents are largely concentrated (and thus susceptible to bombing and containing). In Afghanistan they are scattered and impossible to manipulate militarily. Apparently the hearts and minds approach is equally elusive; the only effective way to get soldiers to line up on one side or the other seems to be to pay them. But the fact that there is no long-term vision any of them will work for means we can’t buy them; we can only rent them for a time, and once the money stops, so will the loyalty to any American purpose.
5) The British couldn’t have their way in Afghanistan, and neither could the Russians. America still thinks it can. But America has long suffered from a Superman complex. It led them into Vietnam, blind to the reality they were making the same mistake as the French. And into Iraq, blind to the reality the military solution which didn’t work in Vietnam was even less likely to work in Iraq. And now Afghanistan, even though we don’t have the money or the willingness to bleed anymore.
6) The Karzai government is an American illusion which stems from a belief that Afghanistan can be controlled by our puppet working from the capital of a nation state. Which it isn’t. Even if he were not totally useless and corrupt. Which he is.
I’m wondering if our biggest problem isn’t an imperialist belief that this is America’s problem because God gave us the testosterone to make it our problem.
Think how differently things would look if we could persuade the rest of the world that it was their problem, as well.
We have had a cold war with Iran for thirty years because we don't have the humility or wisdom to process the reason productively why they still seethe with resentment at us; Iran’s modern history begins with the fact that we overthrew their government in 1953 and imposed the dictator Shah. We can’t accept responsibility for the Islamic Revolution which followed and the way it (justifiably) terrifies the Israelis and helps to explain their hard line against the Palestinians. And appreciate what fools that makes us in making what should be a friend in the region an enemy. Iran’s interest in fighting the insurgents and the Taliban in Iraq, and in keeping peace in neighboring Kurdistan and Afghanistan, is possibly even stronger than the U.S. interest in those same goals, yet we have them working not with us but against us.
We can’t understand that insisting that Georgia and the Ukraine join the United Nations keeps the Russians enraged at our imperialist ambitions (in opposition to their colonial ambitions, of course), thereby keeping Russia our enemy. Same issue as with Iran. What nation has a stronger interest in keeping everybody calm so it can develop its own economy, so that nuclear weapons do not spread? Why are we working against them and not with them? Russia, some say, has the best intelligence service in the world, superior to ours. Why is it not working for us and not against us?
If there is a solution in Afghanistan, it surely ought to be obvious to us by now that we can’t find it on our own. Pakistan is dead in the water. Iran and Russia are treading water with zero confidence that Americans are people they can work with. Bush and his “bring it on” bravado made it worse, but it didn’t start with him. We simply do a lousy job at pretending we can run an Empire.
Big problem, say all the folks on Charlie Rose. No workable solution, imply all the folks on Charlie Rose.
OK, so the economy is a disaster and it’s touch and go at the moment whether we can fix it. But Obama hasn’t begun to face his real problem, much bigger than the failure of the U.S. economy, the bottomless pit that is Afghanistan. LBJ and his noble war on poverty, his astonishing civil rights successes – all that good stuff he did, and he had to fall on is sword over Vietnam. Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan… What will it take to change the system?
We didn’t learn from LBJ’s example. Will we learn from the failure and discrediting of the new Messiah, maybe?
Where will we go if we can’t figure this all out?
As I watched I got this sense that I might be having my attention turned to the elephant in the room at long last. The news media at present are focused on Obama’s alleged mistakes, on the Republican insistence that we can and should still live and work the Republican way, and at the devastated economy and the possibility of a decade or more of depression years.
What worries me is that I doubt Obama can fix it. The more I watch the controversy over whether throwing good money after bad money is the solution to the mess the country is in, to use the oversimplified frame so many – and not just Republicans – want to use, the more I despair. The man seems so strong, so intelligent, so capable. The answer to prayers – never mind the powerful symbol he is of an America that apparently can right itself.
But California is about to come off the rails. We are going bankrupt. The State Legislature can’t raise taxes to pay the bills – the Republicans again – and that means we are likely to have to shut down government and works projects that will cost us millions more to start up again once we do get this show on the road. And as goes California in struggling with the economy, so goes the rest of the United States. The Republicans won’t, the Democrats can’t, and we are now beginning to listen to the philosophers who suggest the problem lies with the system. The only way to fix systemic problems with politics is for things to fail. No politician will buck the system to act in the national interest unless it does; essential to the way the system works is that it is based on self, not national, interest.
So the media’s focus on the economic disaster and our apparent inability to fix it is understandable. But in doing so, they may be missing an even larger problem, what some are now referring to as Obama’s Vietnam.
Here’s what I think I hear all or most of the experts agreeing on:
1) We are stymied by our inclination to see the world in terms of national boundaries. We see Afghanistan and Pakistan, but if we messed up in Iraq by not understanding Kurdistan as a nation, we are messing up tenfold in not seeing Pashtunistan as a nation. Not the kind of nation that will sit in the United Nations and act internationally, but the kind that makes a mockery of lines drawn by white-man's-burden-carrying Britain.
2) We keep thinking Pakistan can and should act to control Pashtuns, while Pakistan understands the border lines are a charade and they simply lack the power to act but can’t admit it internationally without losing face.
3) Afghanis and Pakistanis are at the mercy of the Taliban because there is no viable alternative, no traditional democratic habits to fall back on, no secular national identity strong enough to counter them.
4) Afghanistan is a wild mountainous region bigger by far than Iraq. In Iraq, insurgents are largely concentrated (and thus susceptible to bombing and containing). In Afghanistan they are scattered and impossible to manipulate militarily. Apparently the hearts and minds approach is equally elusive; the only effective way to get soldiers to line up on one side or the other seems to be to pay them. But the fact that there is no long-term vision any of them will work for means we can’t buy them; we can only rent them for a time, and once the money stops, so will the loyalty to any American purpose.
5) The British couldn’t have their way in Afghanistan, and neither could the Russians. America still thinks it can. But America has long suffered from a Superman complex. It led them into Vietnam, blind to the reality they were making the same mistake as the French. And into Iraq, blind to the reality the military solution which didn’t work in Vietnam was even less likely to work in Iraq. And now Afghanistan, even though we don’t have the money or the willingness to bleed anymore.
6) The Karzai government is an American illusion which stems from a belief that Afghanistan can be controlled by our puppet working from the capital of a nation state. Which it isn’t. Even if he were not totally useless and corrupt. Which he is.
I’m wondering if our biggest problem isn’t an imperialist belief that this is America’s problem because God gave us the testosterone to make it our problem.
Think how differently things would look if we could persuade the rest of the world that it was their problem, as well.
We have had a cold war with Iran for thirty years because we don't have the humility or wisdom to process the reason productively why they still seethe with resentment at us; Iran’s modern history begins with the fact that we overthrew their government in 1953 and imposed the dictator Shah. We can’t accept responsibility for the Islamic Revolution which followed and the way it (justifiably) terrifies the Israelis and helps to explain their hard line against the Palestinians. And appreciate what fools that makes us in making what should be a friend in the region an enemy. Iran’s interest in fighting the insurgents and the Taliban in Iraq, and in keeping peace in neighboring Kurdistan and Afghanistan, is possibly even stronger than the U.S. interest in those same goals, yet we have them working not with us but against us.
We can’t understand that insisting that Georgia and the Ukraine join the United Nations keeps the Russians enraged at our imperialist ambitions (in opposition to their colonial ambitions, of course), thereby keeping Russia our enemy. Same issue as with Iran. What nation has a stronger interest in keeping everybody calm so it can develop its own economy, so that nuclear weapons do not spread? Why are we working against them and not with them? Russia, some say, has the best intelligence service in the world, superior to ours. Why is it not working for us and not against us?
If there is a solution in Afghanistan, it surely ought to be obvious to us by now that we can’t find it on our own. Pakistan is dead in the water. Iran and Russia are treading water with zero confidence that Americans are people they can work with. Bush and his “bring it on” bravado made it worse, but it didn’t start with him. We simply do a lousy job at pretending we can run an Empire.
Big problem, say all the folks on Charlie Rose. No workable solution, imply all the folks on Charlie Rose.
OK, so the economy is a disaster and it’s touch and go at the moment whether we can fix it. But Obama hasn’t begun to face his real problem, much bigger than the failure of the U.S. economy, the bottomless pit that is Afghanistan. LBJ and his noble war on poverty, his astonishing civil rights successes – all that good stuff he did, and he had to fall on is sword over Vietnam. Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan… What will it take to change the system?
We didn’t learn from LBJ’s example. Will we learn from the failure and discrediting of the new Messiah, maybe?
Where will we go if we can’t figure this all out?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)