Too Many Innocents Abroad?
A few weeks ago, the following article "Too Many Innocents Abroad" appeared in the NY Times, offering a rather harsh critique of the Peace Corps by a former Volunteer and Country Director, Robert L. Strauss.
Read it yourself, first, if you haven't. (Maybe you have already, I know I am a little delayed with this posting -- old news to you is sometimes new news to me in Moldova)
In the article, Mr. Strauss praises the efforts of Peace Corps as an organization to attract volunteers over the age of 50, because these volunteers come to the PC already having "extensive professional and life experience." In doing this, however, he succeeds in devaluing the work the base of volunteers -- young people recently graduated from College -- a group which I am clearly a part of, does by saying we are "lacking the maturity and professional experience to be effective development workers in the 21st century."
Thanks for your support, I'm glad to hear I'm unqualified to do the job I'm currently doing. (End of frustration/sarcasm, start of rational thought process.)
I admit, I have my share of criticisms of Peace Corps as an organization, and opinions about how it needs change and improve as the world changes and becomes more interconnected. Perhaps the institution itself is too wrapped up in the 60's mythology to be self critical enough to bring about change? I can't say. I, for example, agree that increasing the amount of Peace Corps volunteers currently serving (as President G.W. Bush suggested, Senator Dodd from Connecticut suggested, and recently Barak Obama suggested) is in and of itself a meaningless goal.
I understand that an American abroad in the Peace Corps is helpful to America -- an unarmed, hopefully peaceful, speaks-the-local-language American is a great way to combat America's image problem. A problem, that I have discovered, is not all America's fault. While aggressive military actions take away from America's good name, so do Brittney, the Big Mac and Hollywood, but in a different way. People in Moldova, at least in my town, know about America -- from TV. And while they may know George W. Bush, McDonalds and the Hummer, they do not know me (or you), or how wonderful a well stocked, free public library can be.
When people find out I am an American, from a small town, that wears jewelry made out of string and not gold, and that doesn't watch MTV -- they act shocked. Citizens of the world, apparently, know as little about Americans as a people as we know about them as a people. We are all students of a media (and commercial/advertisment) driven education. I can see how, in this respect, having more Peace Corps volunteers, in general, can help deal with this issue -- since I have been here I have cleared up quite a few things such as the proximity average Americans live to stars, the existence of poverty in America, and why we think sandwiches are so great. (When I think of how misinformed people are of "America," the media hog, it makes me wonder how misinformed we are about other cultures who aren't always on tv -- more or less?)
Cross cultural interaction and dialog is clearly the road to greater understanding, and eventually, hopefully, peace.
But is this the only goal of Peace Corps? It is two of three. (One goal is about development help, the other two involve increasing understanding on the part of Americans of other cultures, and on the part of other cultures on Americans). Which is why I disagree with simply increasing the amount of volunteers serving in the Peace Corps, unless it involves increasing the quality of their service by doing a better job matching volunteers and organizations, and increasing the amount support each volunteer has at his or her site. Quantity isn't everything. Putting more volunteers in the field simply to have more volunteers in the field could possibly lead to not-well-integrated volunteers, frustrated volunteers because of lack of support, angry volunteers who don't see their "purpose" at their site except to "represent America" and volunteers who thus quit and return to American before their service is up-- creating a negative image for Peace Corps and America in their foreign country, and creating a negative image of Peace Corps at home. When volunteers return because they "had nothing to do" in the Peace Corps-- that doesn't help anyone.
While I agree that the focus of Peace Corps changes should be focused on the quality of service not the quantity of volunteers, I, however, disagree with the theme of the article -- that there are "too many innocents abroad." First of all, there aren't too many of us. I don't know how many current volunteers there are, but I can assure you it is a SMALL FRACTION of the amount of Americans abroad in the military. If we are fighting an image battle, it's an uphill one. (I would not be opposed to increasing the size of the Peace Corps -- as long as they first analyzed the quality of the volunteer experience and work, bigger can mean better too, as long as the proper preparations are made.)
We, also, are not too innocent. According to Strauss, "The Peace Corps has long shipped out well-meaning young people possessing little more than good intentions and a college diploma."
I left America with both of those things, good intentions and a college diploma. But I left with more than that. I left with a distinctly American spirit of civic engagement that led me to put aside my own life for two years, and volunteer. Two years is a lot of time!!!! Those of you who have been reading my blog know about my work here in Moldova with youth -- trying to encourage them to volunteer, and through volunteering be active and find their voice in their local community. These are both foreign concepts -- there is no word for "volunteering" in Romanian, nor do youth have an older generation from which to model their behavior as "active citizens," - this generation in high school right now is the first to grow up in Moldova as a democracy.
I, on the other hand, have had the pleasure to experience a distinctly American education and up-bringing. While charity, as they say, does start at home, and I have my wonderful parents to thank for raising us to believe it that it is our responsibility and privilege to help others (all of my brothers are likewise involved in service in one way or another), concepts such as service-learning, leadership and group work were all reinforced at every level of my education.
Volunteering was something you did. (When I tell people here that I "HAD TO" complete X amount of service hours to graduate high school, they are shocked. "No one would do that here," they respond, "it just wouldn't work.") While Holy Angels did require us to do a certain amount of volunteer hours per semester, most students completed more. Service learning was a part of our lessons - tying larger world issues to problems in our own community we could help with, the school itself was actively involved in the community sponsoring outreach events, and encouraged also, us to volunteer on our own -- both means to both help others, and to develop skills and experience that would help us later in life.
During college, Hamilton had it's own share of ways to encourage personal responsibility to the world around us. HAVOC, our student led volunteer program there, supervised 30 some odd individual outreach projects. If you had an idea, a community service project, or something you wanted to "try", you could find support for it through the staff or through HAVOC. Hell, we organized trips every spring for students to drive across country and do service in other communities -- and we were supported by both the teachers and administration of the college. While I was there, and so caught up in doing more and doing it better with HAVOC, I guess I didn't realize how amazing HAVOC is; HAVOC specifically but also the atmosphere that supports and encourages volunteering. Looking back on it, the scale of cooperation and effort volunteers exerted there is almost unbelievable, especially in comparison.
So yes, I came to Moldova with a college degree and good intentions, but also with much volunteer experience, a spirit of civic engagement ingrained in me through education and an open mind. While the last three might be intangibles, we cannot forget to factor them into the equation.
My most meaningful work here, working with youth to set up a community wide volunteer program and youth leadership program, is a direct extension of my American upbringing and involvement in volunteer activities in college (I can't speak for sure or not, but I also would guess that the interactivity and activeness in terms of volunteer service on college campuses has increased in the past 50 years, making today's college graduates more in touch with community activism than those who graduated 20 - 30 years ago). My experience there, in college and in high school, not from any business or job, has made me specifically qualified for the work I am doing now. Even more so, my youth helps me be an effective volunteer.
The high schoolers I work with tend to think, "I am young, what can I do." I am young and "doing something," maybe not in Mr. Strauss' opinion, but in their opinion, I am. I am volunteering. Yes, I am too young to be the head of most corporations, or to find myself in a place of political power -- but that doesn't mean I can't do anything. I do what I can, and see myself as a catalyst for these youth. While I don't always have great advice, by just being here, I think I am showing them another option -- one that they hadn't considered until we met.
Also, I feel that I can better relate with these youth, 4-5 years younger than me, than someone older. I remember high school, it was rough. I remember not being listened to, it was annoying. The youth also feel comfortable coming to me with ideas, becuase I am open, good at listening, and will not shut them down.
Maybe I am not working towards development in the strictly hardcore sense of the word. But what does every developing country NEED for success down the road? The active participation of its youth. I really think I am starting to make a change here -- not a noticeable change, a material change or a political change -- but a change in the thought process of the youth that I interact with. They are more active, more ambitious, more engaged, and have started to develop avenues to express themselves and become involved in their community. No, I am not doing this for them. They are doing it themselves, which is the best part.
Yes, Peace Corps is about relationships, and yes, we tend to measure our results in personal anecdotes, but aren't those anecdotes worth something? In my opinion, this cultural exchange revolving around the concept of volunteering is worth a lot. Maybe only 2 or 3 youth will take on volunteering as part of their life for the long term. I may be overly idealistic, but think how many people they can affect... Peace Corps' bottom-up attempt at development might not be so bad afterall...
Yes, I had some selfish reasons for joining the Peace Corps. Personally, I wanted to learn more about myself in a new environment -- living on your own after college is a challenge, but doing it somewhere else is a bigger challenge, an adventure even for who knows where this will lead me -- I have my whole life ahead, and I wasn't sure what career path I wanted to go down. Peace Corps may have bought me some time to think, but it definitely gave me a unique experience and prospective that I will take with me and incorporate in whatever career path I end up taking (still not sure).
Yes, older volunteers come to the Peace Corps with their careers and experience and learning behind them; but isn't there value in Peace Corps Volunteers returning to America with whole their careers ahead of them?
I think so. As much as we want to improve the world's knowledge of Americans, we need to improve Americans' knowledge of the world. America is much less isolated than it has been in the past. A cultural aware, globally thinking, citizen of the world would be a great value to any company and any country. Especially if that person applies what they learned in the Peace Corps to their further career.
There is room for everyone in the Peace Corps. Older, younger, more experienced, less experienced -- an open mind and flexibility are all that is required. I think it is irresponsible of Mr. Strauss in his article to criticize Peace Corps for using "anecdotes" to measure its success, while he himself uses anecdotes to prove his point of mis-matched volunteers (re: organization and skills). Yes, a girl who had farming experience in her grandma's backyard isn't qualified to instruct or help someone more experienced. But what IS she qualified to do? That decision lies on the hands of the Peace Corps Staff and the volunteer itself. Maybe a handful of volunteers are mismatched every year -- who is to blame? The majority, I would like to believe, end up in positions where their skills can be utilized, thanks in part, to cooperation in finding placement between the volunteer and the washington dc staff (and the recruiters). Maybe Peace Corps needs to change as the needs of the country and the talents of the volunteers are changing -- it already has many service areas, but I am sure many needs are going unlooked. Perhaps by surveying their applicants and seeing what talents they have to offer that are being underutilized by the Peace Corps, Peace Corps could start another unique program. And then, leave the farm advice to those who really know it... Peace Corps shouldn't feel pressured to put people in programs that they aren't a fit for. Period.
Thus, in conclusion, (wow, this got longer than I thought it would be - sorry!), I think young people can be (and are) effective Peace Corps Volunteers. It is ridiculous to claim that they are not, as a group, a force for positive change in the world. Peace Corps the organization will clearly be going through some changes in the next decade or so. While I would support the recruitment and fielding of a larger number of volunteers, I think that progress needs to be made to ensure that these volunteers serve effectively. Instead of looking at other countries as "customers" of Peace Corps, as Strauss puts it, and how people commonly see them -- maybe it would be better to think of them, the countries in which Peace Corps Volunteers serve, as partners.
Volunteers are sent to communities and are teamed up with a host country national who lives there, whether it is the mayor, a teacher or someone who works at an NGO. Peace Corps acknowledges that volunteers, alone, cannot make a difference. Why not take this understanding up the organizational framework? This change, would need to be made not in Washington DC, but in the individual countries Peace Corps works in. Involve the countries more in the process of training volunteers, placing volunteers and supporting volunteers. The Peace Corps is an American organization with an international aim that is hard to pull off alone. Why not increase the collaboration at an organizational level. We already have support staff, program mangers, and language teachers who are Moldovan working at Peace Corps in Moldova. Why not extend this support further? Hire more host country nationals, network with more national NGOs, spend more time dealing with the country specifics. In my opinion, it would be money well spent -- towards the eventual goal of all Peace Corps projects, our magic keyword-- sustainability.
To round out this blabbering, I will leave you, in true Peace Corps style with an anecdote. Whenever I explain to people what I am doing here -- volunteering as part of an American governmental organization, there are usually more questions, even more follow up questions, and many raised eyebrows. The Peace Corps, in Moldova, is not very well known. When I explain that my government is sending me here to work, learn, and live for 2 years -- 2 years!!! -- and that not only did I choose to be here, but there are over x amount of volunteers in 70 or so countries in the world, choosing to be, live and work where they are, the first reaction I get is shock. The second, which I usually laughed off, is some variant of the following "Can I go to America with the Peace Corps?" or "How can I volunteer in America?"
I explain to them that their government would have to sponsor such a program, as ours does with the Peace Corps, and that usually leads into a discussion about what Moldova (Or a Moldovan) could even offer America, and how the relationship can't really be reversed (Moldova needs your help, they say, it's better in America). While materially that may be so, I wonder how America might benefit from having more foreigners, with open minds and a spirit of activeness, on its soil. It couldn't hurt, right?
Read it yourself, first, if you haven't. (Maybe you have already, I know I am a little delayed with this posting -- old news to you is sometimes new news to me in Moldova)
In the article, Mr. Strauss praises the efforts of Peace Corps as an organization to attract volunteers over the age of 50, because these volunteers come to the PC already having "extensive professional and life experience." In doing this, however, he succeeds in devaluing the work the base of volunteers -- young people recently graduated from College -- a group which I am clearly a part of, does by saying we are "lacking the maturity and professional experience to be effective development workers in the 21st century."
Thanks for your support, I'm glad to hear I'm unqualified to do the job I'm currently doing. (End of frustration/sarcasm, start of rational thought process.)
I admit, I have my share of criticisms of Peace Corps as an organization, and opinions about how it needs change and improve as the world changes and becomes more interconnected. Perhaps the institution itself is too wrapped up in the 60's mythology to be self critical enough to bring about change? I can't say. I, for example, agree that increasing the amount of Peace Corps volunteers currently serving (as President G.W. Bush suggested, Senator Dodd from Connecticut suggested, and recently Barak Obama suggested) is in and of itself a meaningless goal.
I understand that an American abroad in the Peace Corps is helpful to America -- an unarmed, hopefully peaceful, speaks-the-local-language American is a great way to combat America's image problem. A problem, that I have discovered, is not all America's fault. While aggressive military actions take away from America's good name, so do Brittney, the Big Mac and Hollywood, but in a different way. People in Moldova, at least in my town, know about America -- from TV. And while they may know George W. Bush, McDonalds and the Hummer, they do not know me (or you), or how wonderful a well stocked, free public library can be.
When people find out I am an American, from a small town, that wears jewelry made out of string and not gold, and that doesn't watch MTV -- they act shocked. Citizens of the world, apparently, know as little about Americans as a people as we know about them as a people. We are all students of a media (and commercial/advertisment) driven education. I can see how, in this respect, having more Peace Corps volunteers, in general, can help deal with this issue -- since I have been here I have cleared up quite a few things such as the proximity average Americans live to stars, the existence of poverty in America, and why we think sandwiches are so great. (When I think of how misinformed people are of "America," the media hog, it makes me wonder how misinformed we are about other cultures who aren't always on tv -- more or less?)
Cross cultural interaction and dialog is clearly the road to greater understanding, and eventually, hopefully, peace.
But is this the only goal of Peace Corps? It is two of three. (One goal is about development help, the other two involve increasing understanding on the part of Americans of other cultures, and on the part of other cultures on Americans). Which is why I disagree with simply increasing the amount of volunteers serving in the Peace Corps, unless it involves increasing the quality of their service by doing a better job matching volunteers and organizations, and increasing the amount support each volunteer has at his or her site. Quantity isn't everything. Putting more volunteers in the field simply to have more volunteers in the field could possibly lead to not-well-integrated volunteers, frustrated volunteers because of lack of support, angry volunteers who don't see their "purpose" at their site except to "represent America" and volunteers who thus quit and return to American before their service is up-- creating a negative image for Peace Corps and America in their foreign country, and creating a negative image of Peace Corps at home. When volunteers return because they "had nothing to do" in the Peace Corps-- that doesn't help anyone.
While I agree that the focus of Peace Corps changes should be focused on the quality of service not the quantity of volunteers, I, however, disagree with the theme of the article -- that there are "too many innocents abroad." First of all, there aren't too many of us. I don't know how many current volunteers there are, but I can assure you it is a SMALL FRACTION of the amount of Americans abroad in the military. If we are fighting an image battle, it's an uphill one. (I would not be opposed to increasing the size of the Peace Corps -- as long as they first analyzed the quality of the volunteer experience and work, bigger can mean better too, as long as the proper preparations are made.)
We, also, are not too innocent. According to Strauss, "The Peace Corps has long shipped out well-meaning young people possessing little more than good intentions and a college diploma."
I left America with both of those things, good intentions and a college diploma. But I left with more than that. I left with a distinctly American spirit of civic engagement that led me to put aside my own life for two years, and volunteer. Two years is a lot of time!!!! Those of you who have been reading my blog know about my work here in Moldova with youth -- trying to encourage them to volunteer, and through volunteering be active and find their voice in their local community. These are both foreign concepts -- there is no word for "volunteering" in Romanian, nor do youth have an older generation from which to model their behavior as "active citizens," - this generation in high school right now is the first to grow up in Moldova as a democracy.
I, on the other hand, have had the pleasure to experience a distinctly American education and up-bringing. While charity, as they say, does start at home, and I have my wonderful parents to thank for raising us to believe it that it is our responsibility and privilege to help others (all of my brothers are likewise involved in service in one way or another), concepts such as service-learning, leadership and group work were all reinforced at every level of my education.
Volunteering was something you did. (When I tell people here that I "HAD TO" complete X amount of service hours to graduate high school, they are shocked. "No one would do that here," they respond, "it just wouldn't work.") While Holy Angels did require us to do a certain amount of volunteer hours per semester, most students completed more. Service learning was a part of our lessons - tying larger world issues to problems in our own community we could help with, the school itself was actively involved in the community sponsoring outreach events, and encouraged also, us to volunteer on our own -- both means to both help others, and to develop skills and experience that would help us later in life.
During college, Hamilton had it's own share of ways to encourage personal responsibility to the world around us. HAVOC, our student led volunteer program there, supervised 30 some odd individual outreach projects. If you had an idea, a community service project, or something you wanted to "try", you could find support for it through the staff or through HAVOC. Hell, we organized trips every spring for students to drive across country and do service in other communities -- and we were supported by both the teachers and administration of the college. While I was there, and so caught up in doing more and doing it better with HAVOC, I guess I didn't realize how amazing HAVOC is; HAVOC specifically but also the atmosphere that supports and encourages volunteering. Looking back on it, the scale of cooperation and effort volunteers exerted there is almost unbelievable, especially in comparison.
So yes, I came to Moldova with a college degree and good intentions, but also with much volunteer experience, a spirit of civic engagement ingrained in me through education and an open mind. While the last three might be intangibles, we cannot forget to factor them into the equation.
My most meaningful work here, working with youth to set up a community wide volunteer program and youth leadership program, is a direct extension of my American upbringing and involvement in volunteer activities in college (I can't speak for sure or not, but I also would guess that the interactivity and activeness in terms of volunteer service on college campuses has increased in the past 50 years, making today's college graduates more in touch with community activism than those who graduated 20 - 30 years ago). My experience there, in college and in high school, not from any business or job, has made me specifically qualified for the work I am doing now. Even more so, my youth helps me be an effective volunteer.
The high schoolers I work with tend to think, "I am young, what can I do." I am young and "doing something," maybe not in Mr. Strauss' opinion, but in their opinion, I am. I am volunteering. Yes, I am too young to be the head of most corporations, or to find myself in a place of political power -- but that doesn't mean I can't do anything. I do what I can, and see myself as a catalyst for these youth. While I don't always have great advice, by just being here, I think I am showing them another option -- one that they hadn't considered until we met.
Also, I feel that I can better relate with these youth, 4-5 years younger than me, than someone older. I remember high school, it was rough. I remember not being listened to, it was annoying. The youth also feel comfortable coming to me with ideas, becuase I am open, good at listening, and will not shut them down.
Maybe I am not working towards development in the strictly hardcore sense of the word. But what does every developing country NEED for success down the road? The active participation of its youth. I really think I am starting to make a change here -- not a noticeable change, a material change or a political change -- but a change in the thought process of the youth that I interact with. They are more active, more ambitious, more engaged, and have started to develop avenues to express themselves and become involved in their community. No, I am not doing this for them. They are doing it themselves, which is the best part.
Yes, Peace Corps is about relationships, and yes, we tend to measure our results in personal anecdotes, but aren't those anecdotes worth something? In my opinion, this cultural exchange revolving around the concept of volunteering is worth a lot. Maybe only 2 or 3 youth will take on volunteering as part of their life for the long term. I may be overly idealistic, but think how many people they can affect... Peace Corps' bottom-up attempt at development might not be so bad afterall...
Yes, I had some selfish reasons for joining the Peace Corps. Personally, I wanted to learn more about myself in a new environment -- living on your own after college is a challenge, but doing it somewhere else is a bigger challenge, an adventure even for who knows where this will lead me -- I have my whole life ahead, and I wasn't sure what career path I wanted to go down. Peace Corps may have bought me some time to think, but it definitely gave me a unique experience and prospective that I will take with me and incorporate in whatever career path I end up taking (still not sure).
Yes, older volunteers come to the Peace Corps with their careers and experience and learning behind them; but isn't there value in Peace Corps Volunteers returning to America with whole their careers ahead of them?
I think so. As much as we want to improve the world's knowledge of Americans, we need to improve Americans' knowledge of the world. America is much less isolated than it has been in the past. A cultural aware, globally thinking, citizen of the world would be a great value to any company and any country. Especially if that person applies what they learned in the Peace Corps to their further career.
There is room for everyone in the Peace Corps. Older, younger, more experienced, less experienced -- an open mind and flexibility are all that is required. I think it is irresponsible of Mr. Strauss in his article to criticize Peace Corps for using "anecdotes" to measure its success, while he himself uses anecdotes to prove his point of mis-matched volunteers (re: organization and skills). Yes, a girl who had farming experience in her grandma's backyard isn't qualified to instruct or help someone more experienced. But what IS she qualified to do? That decision lies on the hands of the Peace Corps Staff and the volunteer itself. Maybe a handful of volunteers are mismatched every year -- who is to blame? The majority, I would like to believe, end up in positions where their skills can be utilized, thanks in part, to cooperation in finding placement between the volunteer and the washington dc staff (and the recruiters). Maybe Peace Corps needs to change as the needs of the country and the talents of the volunteers are changing -- it already has many service areas, but I am sure many needs are going unlooked. Perhaps by surveying their applicants and seeing what talents they have to offer that are being underutilized by the Peace Corps, Peace Corps could start another unique program. And then, leave the farm advice to those who really know it... Peace Corps shouldn't feel pressured to put people in programs that they aren't a fit for. Period.
Thus, in conclusion, (wow, this got longer than I thought it would be - sorry!), I think young people can be (and are) effective Peace Corps Volunteers. It is ridiculous to claim that they are not, as a group, a force for positive change in the world. Peace Corps the organization will clearly be going through some changes in the next decade or so. While I would support the recruitment and fielding of a larger number of volunteers, I think that progress needs to be made to ensure that these volunteers serve effectively. Instead of looking at other countries as "customers" of Peace Corps, as Strauss puts it, and how people commonly see them -- maybe it would be better to think of them, the countries in which Peace Corps Volunteers serve, as partners.
Volunteers are sent to communities and are teamed up with a host country national who lives there, whether it is the mayor, a teacher or someone who works at an NGO. Peace Corps acknowledges that volunteers, alone, cannot make a difference. Why not take this understanding up the organizational framework? This change, would need to be made not in Washington DC, but in the individual countries Peace Corps works in. Involve the countries more in the process of training volunteers, placing volunteers and supporting volunteers. The Peace Corps is an American organization with an international aim that is hard to pull off alone. Why not increase the collaboration at an organizational level. We already have support staff, program mangers, and language teachers who are Moldovan working at Peace Corps in Moldova. Why not extend this support further? Hire more host country nationals, network with more national NGOs, spend more time dealing with the country specifics. In my opinion, it would be money well spent -- towards the eventual goal of all Peace Corps projects, our magic keyword-- sustainability.
To round out this blabbering, I will leave you, in true Peace Corps style with an anecdote. Whenever I explain to people what I am doing here -- volunteering as part of an American governmental organization, there are usually more questions, even more follow up questions, and many raised eyebrows. The Peace Corps, in Moldova, is not very well known. When I explain that my government is sending me here to work, learn, and live for 2 years -- 2 years!!! -- and that not only did I choose to be here, but there are over x amount of volunteers in 70 or so countries in the world, choosing to be, live and work where they are, the first reaction I get is shock. The second, which I usually laughed off, is some variant of the following "Can I go to America with the Peace Corps?" or "How can I volunteer in America?"
I explain to them that their government would have to sponsor such a program, as ours does with the Peace Corps, and that usually leads into a discussion about what Moldova (Or a Moldovan) could even offer America, and how the relationship can't really be reversed (Moldova needs your help, they say, it's better in America). While materially that may be so, I wonder how America might benefit from having more foreigners, with open minds and a spirit of activeness, on its soil. It couldn't hurt, right?
This entry was posted
on Tuesday, January 22, 2008 at 8:45 AM.
