Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts

Wednesday, December 24, 2008

The War on Christmas

Before we get started I would like to remind you of a few things. If you are commenting, please either leave a first name or an alias I can call you (one I know or one I don’t know). Every time you post, please use that same ID so that I can figure out how to address all of you. Also, please do not comment about this site (if it is directed for my response) on another site: commenting to me about the entry doesn’t help when it is on another blog or site (unless that comment is directed towards somebody else or in another discussion). Lastly, please tell your friends and family about this, or anybody you know who is interested in politics: I would like to expand my readership and this would be a helpful way. Thank You




Today's blog entry features the hotly debated (mainly just by far-right bloggers and Bill O’Riley ) “War on Christmas”. I have decided that prior to telling you what my feelings are about this blood-less combat; I will first fill you in on certain truths that are directly relevant to this issue. Here goes:

Let us start with the 1st Amendment to the United States Constitution (where all of this “controversy” stems from):

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

Now, after reading that nice long sentence, you are probably wondering what it means, or, you assume you know what it means because you read blogs, the paper, or listen to talk radio. Probability is that you actually do not know what that statement means.

There are really two different manners in which this statement can be taken: that of the government’s interaction and that of a private entity. Let us start with the Governments…

The way the Amendment is written is that the government shall neither help nor harm a religion. It makes no reference as to mentioning a religion or not, nor does it make any statement about what counts as a religion. That has always been left up to the courts. Now, according to the courts, the government has certain areas that are no-nos for religious interaction and others that are allowed. For example, while Bush has every right to wish us a “Merry Christmas”, he does not have the right to force us to celebrate Christmas. The court case Lemon v. Kurtzman created what is known as the “Lemon test” which tells us in what manner the government and religion can interact:

"1) The governments action must have a legitimate secular purpose;

2) The government’s action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion

3) The government’s action must not result in excessive entanglement with religion”

Using this test, we see that certain things like concerts (provided they have multi-religious songs), teaching about a religion, and certain things like that are not in violation of the establishment clause. We also see that using Christmas Trees to collect donations (such as scarves or money) is not a violation. However, we see that having religious monuments set up (of only one religion) does violate this test provided that monument is set up in a manner that is not really for history.

The Establishment clause says nothing about private companies or persons. If you wish to wish somebody a “Merry Christmas”, be they Christian, Wiccan, Jewish, Muslim, or even an Atheist, that is your right as an American. However, you should not be offended when I wish you a “Fantastic Festivus” back. Congress is the only thing banned from doing certain things with religion. Some stores do not wish people “Merry Christmas” and instead use the phrase “Happy Holidays”: This is the stores choice, and in no manner is the store forced to do this.


Currently, some far-right bloggers and several talk show hosts (Bill O’Riley being the most obvious) have decided that the ACLU and we secularists are really leading a war against Christmas. I can not really understand there arguments.


The idea that stores using this phrase is an attack on Christmas by secularists surprises me. We do not support government and religion; frankly, we don’t give a damn about what a private entity does with religion. Neither the ACLU, nor any secular group that I know of attempts to force any group or person or company to be non-religious: In fact, we encourage each and every person to express their religious beliefs to the fullest. The use of “Happy Holidays” by stores is their decision which they believe stems from PC. PC is not our problem, so please stop saying we caused it.


Schools banned from setting up religious memorials

I did not write the Constitution, nor did any person now alive. We do not defend what we believe is right; we merely touch and defend what is in the Constitution of These United States. According to the Courts, the Lemon test does not allow the religious memorial if it is dedicated solely to the religion. Now, if you were setting up something dedicated to our history as persons, and includes the Ten Commandments as a reference to the morality of law that is ok. However, if you just had the Ten Commandments, and nothing else, that is a violation of the establishment clause.

I have read many different takes on this “War” and I have basically seen that there is not one. We do not want to ban Christmas, in fact, we wish for it to be spread to all persons who want to celebrate it, and that its message be spread to all humans. We simply have the desire to uphold the Constitution and what it stipulates in the establishment clause. All in all, we really just want you to be who you are, and to keep the government from making you something else


My last message to you is

Have a Merry Christmas this year,

Be kind to your fellow humans
Call your family and friends, even if for a few moments
And help those less fortunate then yourself

Read more ...

Wednesday, August 20, 2008

Who Really Won Saddleback?

Post 45

So, I was sitting at my house reading the newspaper when an email popped up in my inbox from McCains staffers (I am signed up). It talked about the Straigh-Talk-Express, Obama’s stumbling, and how McCain won the Saddleback Forum. The e-mail then used this opening to ask me for money. Now, I thought about it for a second and decided that I was not going to take their word on it. Therefore, I took the transcript, went through it, and figured out who really won…

To start with, we know that Obama was the odd-man-out at this forum. The majority of questions, the interviewer, and the audience all were biased against Obama. He stumbled a bunch because he was caught of guard at most of the questions, not because he was thinking up a lie. Obama handled himself well for not knowing what was coming; the fact that McCain had answers right away make me think something fishy was going on…

This is my overall view of who won the Saddleback Forum. This is based on my belief structure and that of which I think most Americans have. Keep that in mind and use a grain of salt. The winner of each will be bolded (as are the points each score), in ties neither is bolded.

With all of the questions I am paraphrasing the question and response, please check the actual transcript to see what the real question and response were. Here is a link to the transcripts


TOTAL
McCain +1
Obama +7
WINNER
OBAMA




Three Wisest People:
Obama (0)
-Mentioned Michelle as being wise and one of his three; this is a mistake as most conservatives and moderates do not like her. This choice harms Obama (-1)
– Mentions Grandmother, the woman he threw under bus. Uses her to build up feminist credentials and hard working American values (+1)
– Uses this to name names and list some people he has support of, is quite nuetray (+0).
McCain(+2
- Talks about general David Patreas. This helps him with independents (who are shown to support staying in Iraq) and conservative, hurts him with liberals (+1)
- John Lews: who the hell is this guy? So, he sacrificed himself and then kept on sacrificing, this does nothing (+0)
- Similar to Obama’s Grandmother ratio: By mentioning Meg McCain pulls out the American Work ethic and feminist values (+1)

The Greatest Moral Failure in your life
Obama (+1)
-Very choppy response but he was thinking. This shows that he struggled with a large deal and was needing to articulate it. Admits to selfishness, lack of faith, and general humanity. (+1)
McCain (-1)
-His cheating on his wife, wow, does not admit to being troubled or anything else besides cheating. I find this to be far off of what he has said in the past and of being very political. (-1)

The Greatest Moral Failure of America
Obama (+1)
- Hits the minority shot. Good point as we are all the minority in certain circumstances. May harm him in the GE when people actually think of Race but he showed that all people are people (+1)
McCain (+1)
- McCain responds ties into my entry about how McCain is really making this a campaign about doing more for your country. He calls for volunteer work and helping each other. (+1)

Good of America over party and/or self
Obama (+0)
- Mentions his legislation with McCain. This is a good move as it shows he will work with both sides over huge objections from his party (+1)
-Mention Opposition to Iraq. This is a bad move as most Americans (who are independent) support Iraq. Furthermore, at that time Obama was pro-invasion (-1)
McCain (-1)
- I do not care what you were early on but what you have been recently.(+0)
-With torture you harmed our country by JOINING WITH YOUR PARTY. (-1)
- You have fought with your party on climate change for the better of the world (+1)
- With spending you have voted party line often enough (-1)

Flip Flopping over 10 Years
Obama (-1)
- Did not understand his response at all, sorry (-1)
McCain (-1)
- Offshore drilling is a good thing??? (-1)

Gut-wrenching Decision
Obama (-1)
- Again with Iraq, again with the unpopular position and the lie. (-1)
McCain (+1)
- His decision to stay in the Hanoi Hilton was brave and a great decision. (+1)

What does following Christ mean to you?

Obama (+0)
- Blah Blah Blah, Christ Rocks, we need to follow him (+0)
McCain (+0)
-Blah Blah Blah: STOP, STORY TIME… Christ Rocks, we need to follow him (+0)

At what point is a ‘baby’ given right
(BARGA NOTE – The use of baby here is misleading. I believe we should refer to it as Fetus)
Obama (+1)
- My Body My Choice, with limits at a certain point (+1)
McCain (-1)
-Pro-Life 100% (-1)

Marriage definition
Obama (-1)
- Throws gays under the bus but does not support an amendment (-1)
McCain (-1)
- Leaves gays where they were (under the bus already) and supports an amendment if the courts rule one way. Gets antsy about the Supreme Court (-1)

Stem Cell Research
Obama (+1)
-Used as long as they do not support Abortion and are going to be thrown out anyways. Believes that Adult Stem Cells can work well (+1)
McCain (+1)
- Supports research provided nothing else shows up (+1)

Evil exist, how should we handle it
Obama (+0)
- Blah Blah Blah, did not understand what he said (+0)
McCain (+0)
- Plans to follow Homer’s Odyssey to a tee, too bad that it is a fable (+0)

What Justice would have not nominated
Obama (+1)
- Thomas as he had no expierence and was far right (+1)
- Scalia as he is extremely intelligent but far right (+1)
-Roberts as he gave too much power to the executive branch (-1)
McCain (-4)
- Ginsburg as she legislates from the bench (-1)
- Stevens for the same reason (-1)
- Breyer for, well, the same thing again (-1)
- Souter, well, McCain should not have hit the left four of the court at all (-1)

Should Faith Based Groups get Government Cash
(BARGA NOTE: I find it interesting that the percentage was changed in each of these)
Obama (+1)
- There should be no penalty or help due to faith, only based on merits (+1)
McCain (+1)
- Same Basic Thing (+1)

Should Teachers get more pay?
McCain and Obama (+1 each)
- Yes (+1)

What is rich
Obama (+0)
- Anybody below 250,000 a year with a family (+0)
McCain (-1)
- 5,000,000????? Oh, and taxes suck (-1)

What is worth an American life?
Obama (-1)
- Go into war only when there is absolute evil and we are the only ones who can (-1)
McCain (+1)
- To protect our nation (Hey, I was in war) (+1)

Emergency Orphan Plan
Obama (+1)
-Need to work around the world, with out own local governmental and private organizations, and kick some orphan ass (+1)
McCain (+1)
- Make adoption easier, hey I adopted (+1)

What should we do to end religious prosecution
Obama (+1)
- Speak out, take a stand, use our power (+1)
McCain (+0)
- Bully the countries, imply that only Judeo-Christian matter (+0)

What do you plan to do about slavery
THIS WAS ONLY ASKED OF OBAMA, THEREFORE NO GRADE

Why do you want to be president
Obama (+1)
- To help those who can not help themselves (+1)
McCain (+1)
- To inspire service and a JFK attitude (+1)

We are in a church, some people don’t like that, what is your response
Obama and McCain (+1 each)
- We need to talk in all forums (+1)

What would you tell America if there would be no repercussions
ONLY ASKED TO OBAMA, THEREFORE NO GRADE

Right to privacy V. Security
ASKED ONLY TO MCCAIN, THEREFORE NO GRADE









As always, please leave any comments, no matter how large or how small about the contents of this blog post. Also, please leave any comments/suggestions about this site/post as a whole.
Feel free to e-mail me if you so wish too instead.
Thanks,
Robert M. Barga,
Editor of http://whalertly.blogspot.com/
barga.24@osu.edu


Digg my article
Stumble It! Read more ...

Wednesday, July 9, 2008

McCain, Part 2

Post 28:


*MAP UPDATE*
Due to not being here for an update in the map on Monday I will be posting it today.

As sad as this is, it appears as though there have been no changes in the map. Obama still has an easy win in November.
*END OF MAP UPDATE*



This is a continuation of my problems entries: Obama, Part 1,McCain, Part 1, and the newest entry, Obama, Part 2. This time I am going after some of McCains smaller issues that I take offense to. I think that McCain is dropping the ball in these three areas: The Gas Tax, Protecting Marriage, Lets Chat About Stem Cells. Mr. McCain, if you wish to keep my vote (and, being in Ohio, I am rather important) please take a better stand on these issues.

The Gas Tax:
A few months ago McCain joined Clinton in calling for a gas tax between Memorial Day and Labor Day (a bit late for this now). Obama, rightly, rejected the idea and called it stupid. While this is no longer important, this shows me how far McCain is willing to pander to get some votes. The gas tax would never have worked; it would have saved the average American roughly 75$ for the time it was extended. To me, that seems wasteful when it would push our federal government even further into debt. However, McCain was busy pandering to not-so-intelligent Americans who would fall for this sort of thing. Straight-Talk Express my ass.

Protecting Marriage:
Let me set one thing straight, I do not support marriage. I believe that marriage should be a contract between parties that consent, nothing more, nothing less. That said, because nobody is going to be getting rid of marriage anytime soon, I find it is most pertinent that we preserve this right for ALL Americans. Why should we only allow certain people to get married. Studies have shown time and time again that homosexual persons are born that way, not that it is a choice (though why anybody would chose to be hated by a large patch of humanity always gets lost on me). If your loved one was in the hospital, or died and wanted to leave you something, or even wanted you on their health care plan, your wishes are only granted if you happen to have the opposite genitalia. THAT IS BULLSHIT. All Americans should be viewed as equal in the eyes of the law (we are not all equal though) and thus all Americans should have the same basic rights.

Lets Chat About Stem Cells:
Stem cells are a major issue in American politics these days. While the source (abortion) of embryonic stem cells is an issue, most parties agree that Adult stem cells are okay. Well, adult stem cells are not as effective, and they do not do the needed things. I do not understand why people are against embryonic stem cells. If the fetus is going to be aborted, why not use it for a common good? If Nancy Regan comes out in support of these stem cells, then how can any self-respecting Republican not support their use?





As always, please leave any comments, no matter how large or how small about the contents of this blog post. Also, please leave any comments/suggestions about this site/post as a whole.
Feel free to e-mail me if you so wish too instead.
Thanks,
Robert M. Barga,
Editor of http://whalertly.blogspot.com/
barga.24@osu.edu


Digg my article
Stumble It! Read more ...

Monday, June 23, 2008

John Freshwater

Post 21:


*NOTE*
There will be some more changes going on around this site as I tweak more and more areas. Please feel free to comment specifically about those changes if you like/don't like them. Also, feel free to suggest other changes.

I will be updating this probably weekly (unless big news breaks). The current outlook for November shows Obama gaining ground in Ohio, New Hampshire, Virginia, and Nevada. Both Nevada and New Mexico are ties this week. For the record, I still do not see Obama getting Ohio.

*END OF NOTE*

Yes, I know, I am running behind on this story. The Dispatch came out with it on the 19th of June, Lisa at GCJ came out with it on the 20th and Rowsey came out with it on the 19th as well. Heck, The Dayton Daily News had it back in April. If you do not know what is going on or who John Freshwater is, and, for some reason, don't wish to read the links I just listed, here is a quick summery. Earlier this year, John refused to remove a bible from his desk. It was then discovered that he had burned crosses into his students arms and several other things were wrong with his teaching. Do remember, this man is a science teacher.

So, to catch up with the others on this story, one, which interests me because I am a strong supporter of the 1st Amendment and also as a scientist, I have decided to complain about Freshwater in my blog. This man is insane, and, of course, he has called on Coach Dave to help defend him. That alone shows how far this simple thing has gone. Really, I have four problems with this teach: He violated the 1st - Stop saying it is the bible that got you in trouble - He did not do his job - HE BURNED STUDENTS. Really, it is not just Freshwater but any educator who does not do there jobs that is the problem. John Freshwater: What Really Grinds my Gigantic Notched Wheels.

He Violated the 1st Amendment:
The Constitution is something that all Americans should hold near and dear to their hearts. It is how we have the freedoms that we are exceptionally proud of. Anytime that anybody violates part of the Constitution the American public should be up in arms, ready to fight. The problem is, we often support the violation of our own founding document. The 1st Amendment clearly says that Congress (via the 14th all levels of government) will not ban a religion or the practice thereof. By forcing your religion on kids (preaching about Christianity, Creationism, Burning the crosses, etc.) you are violating this amendment. It is high time that we show what happens when you violate an amendment, YOU SHOULD BE RUN OUT OF TOWN ON A RIAL.

Stop Saying it is the Bible that got you in Trouble:
I am sick of movies like Expelled going around saying that the Bible or the personal beliefs of the teachers got them in trouble. Fun fact: It is other things that they are/were doing. Here is the deal, you taught your kids Intelligent Design, Creationism, and that Evolution was wrong. You also attacked Gays and non-Christians. Then, you burned crosses (or Xs) into your students arms. But no, none of these got you fired, of course not; it was refusing to take the Bible off your desk that got you fired. This is one of the classic techniques used by people who violate the 1st, they claim that their rights were violated and that is all they focus on, hoping that you will too.

He did not do his job:
If I am ever hired as a science teacher on any level I have a specific job. I should teach to the curriculum, follow school rules, and teach the science that I am hired to teach. If I am hired to teach intelligent design Vs. Evolution then I can teach both; but, if I am simply hired to teach science as a basic subject I should only teach science. ID and Creationism are NOT SCIENCE. What is his job? TO TEACH SCIENCE. If your job is flipping burgers and you don't do it, they can fire you. Why is it an issue here then?

HE BURNED HIS STUDENTS:
Need I explain why this bugs me? Teachers have the duty to make sure that their students are not harmed in any way. When a teacher disciplines a student physically it is grounds for removal, and frankly, they should lose their certificate. Teachers should never lay a hand on their students. Furthermore, when you chose to use a scientific instrument for a purpose it was never intended - a purpose that is both painful, illegal, and religious - and use it that way you should be in trouble. How is there an argument that Freshwater should stay; after all, HE BURNED HIS STUDENTS.








As always, please leave any comments, no matter how large or how small about the contents of this blog post. Also, please leave any comments/suggestions about this site/post as a whole.
Thanks,
Barga,
Editor of http://whalertly.blogspot.com/
barga.24@osu.edu


Digg my article
Stumble It! Read more ...

Friday, May 23, 2008

Anonymous

Post 9

*NOTE*
I have now hit over 500 viewers, not 500 views, but 500 viewers! While that might not seem that important (only 30 or some were repeats, need to work on that), for a blog that has been around for only three weeks now that is a nice deal. I have also been read world wide, if you do not count Africa (hopefully soon) and Antarctica (come on McMurdo, read me).

As you may have noticed I have changed the layout. It is now three columned. If it is showing up incorrectly (it should be tan left, tan blog in the middle, green right) please let me know via e-mail. If you have any concerns or comments about the site, or ones you do not feel like sharing on this site, please e-mail me: barga.24@osu.edu

Also, I am attempting to find code that automatically emails you (provided you consent and give your email) when somebody responds to a post that you also responded to. Currently, it does that if you are a blogger user, but not otherwise. If anybody has this code, please let me know.
*End of Note*



People were recently protesting on a Saturday in downtown Columbus. Were they protesting Global Warming? Were they protesting about Mr. Dann? Were they protesting about religion needing to be in school? No, thy were circling a religious center because they thought that the religion was a cult (fyi, it is not a cult). What religion were they protesting? Scientology. What group is this? Anonymous.

Anonymous is a harassment front of people who do not like the religion of Scientology, and various other things. While I do not believe the Fox News report that they intended to bomb stadiums, post porn, or capture pedophiles; I do believe that they intend to disrupt a religion, harm people in epilepsy forums, and in general, act like middle schoolers. Really, I have three main problems with Anonymous ; They make claims which are illogical and/or do not have backing - They break the law - They take it to far and act like middle schoolers while doing it.


They Make Claims Which are Illogical and/or do not Have Backing -
Anonymous makes several claims which have no actual backing. Furthermore, the way that they make these arguments shows that they are very illogical. Anonymous believes that Scientology kills people (not backed), stalks people (that is backed), and is dangerous to themselves (not backed). Furthermore, the personal attacks they have on certain members, and what I would consider Slander on the organization of Scientology itself. All of these ad hoc attacks clearly have no backing, and, because of how they use them, shows that Anonymous is either intentionally illogical or just not intelligent (ergo thinking that they are logical claims). Anonymous believes that they are in danger from Scientology, without giving proof. Furthermore, they also claim that they have been stalked (which is proven) and their cars have been killed. This has several problems - if Scientology actually did this (which would be illogical as it would harm their reputation) then they would be arrested. Furthermore, they claim to be in danger but still do this, and then join on line groups with their real names (like the ones on Facebook). Clearly Anonymous has some logical failures.

They Break the Law -
Harassment, Slander, Libel - all are illegally, but they are not what I am talking about here. Hacking, last-day attacks, and server based attacks are. Anonymous specializes in breaking the law (along with their /b/ brethren). They hack computers, steal files, violate copyright laws, and the like - all in an attempt to prove that Scientologists are bad. You get the irony, right? Anonymous stalks members of Scientology with an attempt to get their data, to harass their church-members, and to, well, basically, raise Hell. Frankly, it seems as though anonymous is not above breaking the law to show that others break the law, hmmmm.

They take it too far and act like middle schoolers while doing it -
Breaking the law is far enough, but anonymous seems to think that they should also be annoying little middles schoolers as well. The way that they act (attack from behind and unknown) they show that they are very immature (which is sad, as most are adults). Furthermore, their spamming of forums with porn (much like 4Chan (there will be a post on them later)), use of lies and mistruths, and attacks on those unfortunate show this. When they spammed an epilepsy forum with flashing javascript they showed that they are really not worthy of an credence. In the end, it seems as though Anonymous is full of young adults who really have too little to do in their life.


As always, please leave any comments, no matter how large or how small about the contents of this blog post. Also, please leave any comments/suggestions about this site/post as a whole.
Thanks,
Barga


Digg my article Read more ...

Wednesday, May 21, 2008

fad religions

Post 8

'Scientology, Xenos, Kabbalah, New-Age and other 'fad religions''

*NOTE*
There will be a follow of this posted on Friday, dealing with the groups that go after these religions. I am in no way attempting to take a view on the religion itself, only on the method that it uses and what it says to do (outside of it's actual preachings). Furthermore, in the future, I will also be posting entries on the specific religions that I have listed here. Before you accuse me of bias, please make sure to read Fridays posting.
Also, On Monday I will have the circle topic posted, please check back then as well.
Thanks,
Barga
*End of Note*

Before I start this entry I need to say that this post in no way is meant to imply that all believers in these religions, or any other religion that falls under my definition of 'fad religion', do not truly believe in their respective religion. In this post I am merely talking about persons who change their religion, don't know much about their religion, and/or jump week by week (not literally) to a new, usually popular, religion. Good, that taken care of (along with the waiver in the note), I shall continue on to the actual post.

Tom Cruse jumps on a couch! Madonna has special diet needs and drinks special water! News headlines scream the latest news of our beloved celebrities, often including mentions of their religion (or, in both of the above cases, mentioning effects/duties of their religion). These reports and stories increase the perception of these religions. Ranging from Scientology (for the record, I do recommend Hubbard's sci-fi, he was a good author) to Xenos to Kabbalah to born-again to all sorts of new-age religions (http://www.religioustolerance.org/newage.htm) religions are having celebrities flock to them in mass, and in public. Religion, at least those of celebrities, seems to have become common knowledge, a well talked about thing.

Along with the herds of celebrities the masses have been playing the lemming. A cultural leap towards these newly-popular religions seems to be appearing. That is, the religious movements in this country seem extremely fad based, and seem to alter often. Now, some of the people jumping ships might actually find their true religion, might actually find peace, and might actually be happy. However, it seems, more and more often that the lemming effect is in play. Really, this does bother me, as it means that people are not properly thinking. If it is something as important as your religion I think that you should be thinking fully about the choices you are making.

One of the biggest issues that I have with these groups are the fact that they seem cult-like almost. No, I am not calling them a cult (though I reserve the right to do so in a future), just that they, in many aspects, look/feel like a cult. The way that people join these groups (do to a charismatic person), the way that these groups hold people in, and the way that they treat those outside of themselves clearly shows this. However, I do not blame the groups for these people joining. In fact, I blame the celebrities. When you are in the public eye you clearly have a duty to make sure that you do not mislead or harm the public. The celebrities need to fully educate themselves about what they are getting into (AND what the public gets into in the same group (some groups (Scientology) have different rules for Celebrities and the masses)). In the end I think that people need to put down their drinks and think before jumping ship. Find a religion you can join, relate to, and believe in. Then stay there. Celebrities, do the same, and don't make your religion such a big deal.

I bet you thought this was going to be an attack on religion. Let this be a lesson, leave your assumptions at the door (the attack on certain religious groups will come much later).



As always, please leave any comments, no matter how large or how small about the contents of this blog post. Also, please leave any comments/suggestions about this site/post as a whole.
Thanks,
Barga


Digg my article Read more ...

Redirect

You will be redirected shortly to our new website. If you are not redirected within 5 seconds please CLICK HERE!

Copyright Notice

(C) All articles, postings, images, etc. on this site are protected by relevant copyright law, unless otherwise specified. To use any original material in totality please ask for author permission.

(C) 2009, all rights reserved by whalertly.blogspot.com, Robert M. Barga, and all contributing authors.