Julie Clawson

onehandclapping

Menu
  • Home
  • About Julie
  • About onehandclapping
  • Writings
  • Contact
Menu

Category: Social Justice

Blog Action Day – The Environment

Posted on October 15, 2007July 9, 2025

Today is Blog Action Day for the environment. The idea is to get bloggers all blogging about a single topic (this year the environment) to help raise awareness and funds for that issue. Part of it is to donate the proceeds from your blog that day to the cause, but I guess that would assume you get proceeds from your blog to begin with. Nevertheless, I decided to add my voice and join in.

In some ways I really don’t get why we still need to raise awareness for environmental issues. It just seems like a no-brainer – do what we can to take care of the planet. Al Gore just won the freaking Noble Peace Prize for crying out loud. But then I step back into reality. Even beyond those who think global warming is a hoax (and they are out there, in droves) and those who think it is our God-given right to destroy the environment (shockingly too many of those out there too), the bigger problem comes from those who just don’t care enough to do crap. Sure they don’t want the world destroyed, they like the idea of swimming in the ocean, and they aren’t too eager to get cancer – but none of that is motivation enough for them to change the way they live. Convenience, cheapness, and sheer laziness win out over conviction any day.

Which is why I really appreciated the call in the Emerging Church to live holistically and put our beliefs into action. Makeesha just posted a reaction to the recent Emergent Gathering in which she debunked and affirmed popular stereotypes of the emerging church. One stereotype she affirmed is the “hippie” vibe one finds at such gatherings. She writes, “all you had to do was step into the room with the food and notice the almond butter, gluten free granola, sprouted bagels, quinoa salad and organic fruit.” Our food was healthy and organic. Sure that gets us labeled “hippie” but I see in that a true commitment to the values of the Kingdom.

For many of us in the emerging church, our faith isn’t just a set of beliefs we affirm by talking endlessly about how blessed we are to have them and by singing songs about why they make us so happy. It is instead a commitment of our whole life to living in the way of Christ. And that includes the areas of how we eat, shop, and treat the environment. If we care for the poor and the oppressed we are not going to buy food from systems that keep them in poverty or that expose them to unhealthy working conditions. If we care for God’s creation we are not going to buy food that dumps poisons into the environment or is unsustainably grown. If we care for our bodies (as temples of the Holy Spirit) we aren’t going to fill them with chemicals and high fructose corn syrup. Living holistically as followers of Christ changes that.

So call me a hippie. Call me a freak. Call me emergent. I am just trying to follow Christ.

And yes that means I care about the environment.

Read more

Green Halloween

Posted on October 11, 2007July 9, 2025

So I find myself wondering what to do about Halloween this year. No, not the typical Christian “should I celebrate it or not?” dilemma (more on this on a couple of weeks), but more of a quandary as to what sort of candy to hand out. Unless you are an evil grinch (or a fundamentalist Christian) you give out candy at Halloween. It’s the one night of the year when you are guaranteed to actually meet your neighbors as people get pulled out of the safety of their suburban fortresses by the munchkins dressed as pirates, superheros, and the cast of High School Musical. So I can’t not give out candy.

But I’m facing an ethical dilemma. What do I give? I refuse to support human trafficking and child slavery by buying chocolate from one of the big name distributors. And as the buzz around the new documentary The Price of Sugar raises awareness of slave conditions inflicted on Haitians in the production of our sugar, I don’t want to just go with pure sugar stuff either (and of course trying to avoid high fructose corn syrup as well). I mean, just a few days before Halloween I will be attending a fundraising banquet for relief work in Haiti, how can I then turn around and support systems that cause poverty and oppression in Haiti? It would be easier to be a hypocrite, but that’s not sitting well with me. So that means I need to find fairly traded organic Halloween candy to give out this year.

So once again I set out on a quest to discover if I can engage ethically in my consumption. I go to Trader Joe’s, Whole Foods, Fruitful Yield. I even look at my local grocery story that just recently made a big deal about the new half aisle of organic stuff they put in. Nothing. Nada. Zip. Oh, Whole Foods had nice autumn boxes of 6 truffles for $7 and Trader Joe’s carries the new chocolate larabar for $1.50 each (super yummy btw), but no bags of individually wrapped easily distributable Halloween candy. I had a bit better luck at Fruitful Yield, they at least carried candy, but not in bulk. I would have to buy each piece individually (at their insane mark-up) if I wanted candy from them. Sorry, but the budget can’t handle that.

Halloween is a $2 Billion dollar a year industry for candy and the average household spends around $17 each year on the candy supply to give out. To break it down – each piece of mini brand name candy costs you between 8-13 cents and the “fun size” pieces are between 20-30 cents each. Depending on the size of your neighborhood, that adds up. Given that the cheapest stuff I found in my search was $.50, I realized that attempting to have an ethical and green Halloween could really cost me. So having no luck visiting actual stores (although on an unrelated note I discovered that Whole Foods carries Shiner beer, in Illinois – much happiness there) I turned to the ever faithful internet.

Thanks to the groundwork done by the wonderful Candy Blog and green LA girl I found what I was looking for. While there doesn’t appear to be loads of options out there, there are some pretty good choices available. Apparently Global Exchange carries an entire Fair Trade Halloween Kit full of candy, decor, and info postcards. Pretty spiffy. I’m also a fan of their fair trade gold coins which will go well with the pirate theme Emma is insisting upon this year. Also available are Endangered Species Bug Bites. These mini-chocolate bars come in milk and dark chocolate varieties and are high on the yummy scale. I let Emma try one and asked if if she thought other kids would like them. She said, “no, just Emma, I eat them all.” We’re working on the sharing thing. Plus each piece comes with a bug trading card which I think are rather fun. If you are looking to avoid chocolate altogether, Yummy Earth carries organic lollipops and hard candy in a variety of interesting flavors (watermelon, pomegranate…). But you have to get orders in now to guarantee delivery by Halloween.

So all of this stuff sounds good to me and are things I can buy without feeling like a hypocrite. I guess the real test will be if the kids like them. But then again, if they don’t, I’ll at least be contributing to the ever necessary “parent’s stash.” So here’s to a green (and ethical) Halloween. Now we shall just see how my attempts to create organic whole wheat pumpkin muffins go over…

Read more

The Kingdom vs. Utopia

Posted on September 30, 2007July 9, 2025

Does believing in the mission that Christ gave us imply that one has liberal Utopian leanings or progressive delusions of grandeur? It’s a question that I seem to encounter quite often these days. Generally the argument proceeds something like – all you emergent types are too tied to progressive liberal politics so therefore you think the government will save you and usher us into a perfect Utopian future (which is really a modern conception of progress anyway…). Or something similar along those lines. This is generally followed by some sermon on how we as Christians a should not corrupt ourselves (or the gospel) by getting involved in politics. Or at least about how we should only focus on trying to help those we have a personal relationship with – in our local community.

Don’t get me wrong – I don’t think the government can save us or bring about a perfect world. No one political party has all the answers or will automatically make this world a better place. But I don’t think that is reason to just abandon politics or give up altogether. And (as I’ve mentioned before) I don’t think working to bring God’s Kingdom “on earth as it is in heaven” can just be written off as the modern myth of progress either.

To take to heart Jesus’ command to “go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you” – would imply that one actually believes that it can be done. If we are following in the way of Christ, living out the Kingdom values, and teaching others about the things Jesus taught then part of the idea is that we are attempting to make this world a better place. If we follow in Jesus’ footsteps to “preach good news to the poor, to proclaim freedom for the prisoners, and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor” then we should be actively working for those things believing that God has the power to make them happen. So in seeking to feed the hungry, to heal those with AIDS, to stop sexual exploitation of children, and to end slave like conditions in the factories we are not just buying into liberal ideas of progress through science, we are following Christ’s commands.

But apparently to think that any of that will actually work is wishful Utopian thinking. And to think that the government or technology might assist in bringing those things about is to place our faith for salvation in such organizations. At least, so I have heard. But I’m not buying it.

The world is broken – God’s kingdom is not on earth as it is in heaven. And often it has been the very people who claim to follow Christ that have caused the brokenness. If there is something that can be done to bring healing and reconciliation to the World, is it not a good thing to do it? And if a big organization or a government (many of whom caused the problems to begin with) are in a position to help heal the ills of the world, why the hell would I not support that? Even Jesus when the disciples reported that they had seen a man driving out demons in his name said, “Do not stop him, for whoever is not against you is for you.”

I don’t think the government will save us or that they have all the answers. I don’t think that the world will just get better and better because of the wonders of technology. I am not deluded into thinking that Utopia will just appear if enough people vote a certain way and start recycling. But I do believe in Jesus and the mission he has called us to. I do believe that as Christians we are expected to care for others and to stop the injustices in this world. And I have no problem using the government or technology to help make that happen if that is what it takes. The mission is bigger than the fear of being consumed by an secular agenda of progress. And if working to make Kingdom values a reality gets dismissed as an Utopian delusion, I really don’t care. I’ll just keep on following Jesus.

Read more

Children and Health Care

Posted on September 26, 2007July 9, 2025

I’ve posted on the amazing photography of Chris Jordan before. Now he has a challenging piece up called “Building Blocks” which depicts nine million wooden ABC blocks, equal to the number of American children with no health insurance coverage in 2007. (HT – Justice and Compassion). It is a sobering thought and as always his visual representation drives home the enormity of the problem. As our President threatens to veto the bipartisan bill the House passed yesterday which would expand health care insurance for children, this number is even more frightening. As Bush said in a press conference recently, he believes that healthcare decisions are best made between a patient and their doctor, without government interference. As Jon Stewart so aptly pointed out on The Daily Show – these kids don’t have doctors because they don’t have health insurance. So Mr. President we await your giving the children of America the finger and pray you develop some semblance of a conscience instead.

Read more

World Carfree Day

Posted on September 20, 2007July 9, 2025

Every September 22, people across the globe get together to swear off their cars, if only for one day, in a collective reminder that we don’t have to accept car-dominated societies, cities, or personal lives. Since its earliest incarnations in the 1970s and ’80s, WORLD CARFREE DAY has grown into a massive global celebration of human-centric communities and people-powered transportation.

Carfree Day 2007 could turn out to be the biggest yet. For the first time, China’s government is hopping on board, with official events talking place in more than 100 cities, including Beijing and Shanghai. (Officials will reportedly be trading in their famed black sedans for public transportation.)

As the world tunes in to the fact that the climate is heating up, this is the perfect opportunity to take the heat off the planet, and put it on city planners and politicians to give priority to cycling, walking and public transport, instead of oil-hungry automobiles.

Check out the links below for global resources on going car-free, first on September 22, and then in your everyday life. Let World Carfree Day be a showcase for just how our cities might look, feel, and sound without cars – 365 days a year.

Nice idea. Now I’m fine with walking to basic places that day, but I know my town is like most of the USA and has zero public transportation. That is the most basic thing that needs to change before we get to the point when people can cut back (or stop) using cars.

Read more

Shopping at IKEA

Posted on September 18, 2007July 9, 2025

So I really like shopping at IKEA. If you visit my house that fact would be obvious since almost all my furniture, curtains, and decor come from IKEA. It’s not that I just really love assembling my own furniture or furnishing an entire room for the cost of just one item anywhere else, it’s the way the company respects its customers, its workers, and the environment.

I know that IKEA is a business and they do business very well. But while most businesses are cutting whatever corners they can to increase their profits, IKEA seems to go out of its way to provide amenities for its customers. Free childcare while you shop, nursing rooms, diaper dispensers in the bathrooms, bottle warmers, babyfood for sale, and free milk and cookies for kids in the afternoons (not to mention a fantastic cafeteria) – can you tell I’m a mom?. Sure they are all gimmicks, but it makes being there a pleasant experience.

But beyond that, IKEA has committed to being socially and environmentally responsible. As Emma and I ate lunch there today (she calls it the “meatball store”), I noticed that all of their trash cans (as opposed to recycle cans) were labeled “Landfill Waste.” I like that. Where else will you be reminded of the end result of what you are throwing away? But they also are committed to creating furniture from sustainable sources and not using unfair labor practices. You can read their environmental reports on their websites. I’m sure that they aren’t perfect, but its nice to see a company that cares about these things. A company that (as they put it) is committed to “low price but not at any price.” They say –

For more than 60 years IKEA has been working on ways of creating low prices – purchasing as inexpensively as possible, building our own stores, flat-packing furniture for customers to put together themselves.

But our ambition doesn´t stop there. We also want the products we sell to be free from hazardous substances. And we don´t want the wood in bookcases, tables or other products in the store to come from areas where forests are being devastated.

All IKEA suppliers must follow certain fundamental rules. Working conditions must be acceptable, child labor is not tolerated and suppliers must adopt a responsible attitude to the environment.

I am the first to admit that their furniture isn’t the nicest out there and easily shows wear and tear. It won’t last generations to be passed down as heirloom furniture. I hear a lot about buying stuff that will last or getting good used stuff. I see the logic there, but comparatively the ethical choice isn’t always so clear. So I buy cheap furniture at IKEA that was made in a socially and environmentally responsible way, but it won’t last forever. I could have bought really expensive hardwood antique furniture that was made from US companies barging into countries like Haiti and clearcutting their hardwood forests. Haiti still hasn’t recovered economically or environmentally from the US sanctioned rape of their land and resources. Give the bigger picture, which is the more ethical choice?

And so I shop at IKEA. I like supporting business practices I agree with. And where else can you get meatballs and gravalox for lunch?

Read more

Buy Bananas, Aid Terrorists

Posted on September 17, 2007July 9, 2025
From BBC news –

US banana firm must pay $25m fine
United Self Defence Forces of Colombia (AUC) – file picture
Chiquita said it made “protection” payments after threats to staff
A US judge has confirmed a $25m (£12.5m) fine on banana company Chiquita for having given protection money to Colombian paramilitary groups.

In March, Chiquita pleaded guilty to paying $1.7m (£850,000) to the United Self Defence Forces of Colombia (AUC).

The firm said its only motive was the safety of its Colombian workers.

It agreed to pay the $25m to resolve an inquiry by the US justice department, a settlement that Judge Royce Lamberth has now authorised.

Prosecutors had said Chiquita Brands International paid the money between 1997 and 2004 to the AUC in return for “protection”.

The AUC, which is listed by the US and EU as a terrorist organisation, has carried out massacres and assassinations, although it is now engaged in a peace process in Colombia

Prosecutors said Chiquita also made payments to Colombia’s main left-wing rebel group, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (Farc).

The company’s former Colombian subsidiary operated in areas where there was a strong presence of both armed groups.

Chiquita, which has its headquarters in Cincinnati, Ohio, said in March that it would pay the $25m fine as part of a settlement with the department of justice.

A three-year inquiry by US investigators began after Chiquita approached the department in 2003 to say its branch in Colombia had been making the payments after workers were threatened.

Chiquita has since sold the Colombian arm of its business.

Thousands of Colombians have died in four decades of conflict involving the Farc, the AUC and other armed groups.

Read more

Organic Farming Delivers

Posted on September 10, 2007July 9, 2025

As summer winds down and I am harvesting insane amounts of organic heirloom tomatoes from my garden (and have the fruit flies in my home to prove it!), I came across this fascinating article. One of the most common objections to organic farming is that if everyone switched to organic farming then there would not be enough food in the world for everyone. The logic goes that it takes intensive farming using fertilizers and pesticides to produce enough food for people to eat. But a new study coming out of the University of Michigan proves that excuse wrong. The study shows that “organic farming can yield up to three times as much food on individual farms in developing countries, as low-intensive methods on the same land—according to new findings which refute the long-standing claim that organic farming methods cannot produce enough food to feed the global population.” Nice.

So why is this a good thing? As the article points out, “organic farming is important because conventional agriculture—which involves high-yielding plants, mechanized tillage, synthetic fertilizers and biocides—is so detrimental to the environment…For instance, fertilizer runoff from conventional agriculture is the chief culprit in creating dead zones—low oxygen areas where marine life cannot survive. Proponents of organic farming argue that conventional farming also causes soil erosion, greenhouse gas emission, increased pest resistance and loss of biodiversity.” Basically we are screwing over the world and our health with what have become common farming practices. Organic farming seeks sustainable and healthy methods of providing food. It cares for the environment, the consumers’ health, and the health and well-being of the farmer. (and yes, the health issues of the migrant farmer who makes $7000 a year with no health insurance who has to breath pesticides and fertilizers in mass quantities are a serious issue if you even remotely think life is precious and sacred).

So what’s the catch? Why aren’t people jumping on the organic bandwagon? I’m sure they don’t say – “because we enjoy destroying the environment, getting cancer, and killing migrant farmers” (at least I hope they don’t). No those issues are usually ignored in favor of – “because organic is inconvenient and expensive.” And boy does that reveal what our values really are.

Read more

The Gospel and Wheaton College

Posted on August 31, 2007July 9, 2025

I received my Wheaton Alumni magazine in the mail the other day. Usually I just flip through it and skip to the gossip pages in the back – who got married, who had a baby, who wrote what book, the fun stuff. This issue though intrigued me. It sought to examine why student activism is on the rise.

When I was at Wheaton in the nineties, I knew nothing about social justice. Oh there were a few activist groups on campus that would do things like picket abortion clinics, but the concept of helping the oppressed really wasn’t on my radar. I had friends who would go off about public health issues or American injustices in Latin America, but they were on the fringe. It took my own post-college personal study to realize that caring for the needs of others is a Biblical value.

So, to have student activism highlighted in the Wheaton magazine surprised me. Then I actually read the article. While it does applaud the students for their idealism, it takes a rather apologetic tone in doing so. The section on students for peace devotes a good portion of the space to how those students learned to understand the convictions of those in the army after a panel discussion on campus. The activism article was followed not so subtly by an article about Wheaton alumni serving as Chaplains in the military. Apparently the college wants to make sure that rich alumni don’t get the impression that the school officially supports these rogue activist students. (and before you tell me I’m too cynical, I worked for the Wheaton Advancement department for a few years and know the posture one must assume when wealthy alumni are involved.) But the equivocating and the apologies were nothing compared to college President Duane Litfin’s back page editorial.

Litfin addresses the rise of student activism by asserting that “we must never allow our activism to eclipse our verbal witness… the temptation to reduce the contribution of the church to the so-called ‘social gospel’ is always before us.” Apparently we are tempted to help others so that we can hear the applause and respect of the world, but they should be hating us because of Jesus. Litfin writes, “feed the poor, heal the sick, stand up for the oppressed and the world will often approve. But name the unique name of Jesus and it will often not be applause you hear.” Does he really think that students are following the command of Jesus so that they can be approved by the world? Apparently to Litfin, those commands of Jesus are insignificant parts of scripture that obedience to does nothing to proclaim Christ.

The editorial then goes on to quote and reject the famous saying of St. Francis, “Preach the Gospel at all times. Use words if necessary.” Litfin claims that this saying is false, “the gospel cannot be “preached” nonverbally. The gospel is inherently a verbal thing. It requires verbal expression. Social activism can never take its place.” No wonder I never heard about social justice at Wheaton. All that is deemed acceptable there is the truncated gospel of Christ’s economic exchange. What matters is verbally confessing Christ so that we get into heaven when we die and not following the way in which Christ taught us to live. If Christ was sent to preach the gospel of the kingdom of God and all we focus on is his death on the cross (and condemn his actual message) there are some serious issues going on here. I am reminded of this quote I came across in a Christianity Today interview with Ruth Padilla DeBorst.

When Christianity came into Latin America, many of the indigenous groups simply changed the names of their gods: They gave them Christian saints’ names. But they really continued worshiping their original gods. Churches were built on top of temples. Seventy-five years ago, John Mackay wrote a wonderful book, The Other Spanish Christ, which asks whether Latin America could discover the Christ who was incarnate, who walked the streets and died and rose from the dead and is powerful today. This Christ was not widely portrayed in the first evangelization of Latin America. Christ was either a helpless baby, toward whom we feel affection and compassion, or a corpse, a dead body with no power or ethical demands. This is what happens when religion is too closely linked with power: The problem is not just that religion underwrites oppression, but that the gospel itself is lost. If Christ is just a baby or a dead body, I can keep on living and not allow Christ’s lordship to shed light on all dimensions of my life.”

So can the evangelical church and places like Wheaton College accept not just the Christ who dies, but the living Christ who makes ethical demands? Will the full Christ be allowed to be known within those institutions or will a hollow Christ used merely as God’s sacrificial pawn be all that is allowed to be taught? I know I’ve traveled a long way since my time at Wheaton, but I also know (as this article attests) that there are students at Wheaton now who are embracing the full gospel no matter what protestations the administration makes to the contrary.

Read more

Eating Ethically

Posted on August 16, 2007July 9, 2025

I just finished reading The Ethics of What We Eat by Peter Singer and Jim Mason. Even though the book deals with issues that I already cared and knew something about, I was still overwhelmed and greatly challenged by what they wrote. I’m still processing most of it and examining my philosophy of ethics in response to the really hard questions they ask in the the book. This is a disturbing and necessary book. If we are to be truly ethical people, our ethics must apply to how and what we eat. I think this book should be required reading for anyone who, well, eats food.

To comment on one small aspect of the book – the general complaint that to eat ethically (or healthy for that matter) is just too expensive. The average person can’t afford to be ethical excuse. Here are a few quotes from the book that put that into perspective –

“The cult of low prices has become so ingrained in the consumer culture that the deep discounts are no longer novelties. They are entitlements. Bargain-seeking seems to be such a basic aspect of human nature that to question it can appear quixotic. But… the bargains hide costs to taxpayers, the community, the animals, and the environment.”

“Organic food costs more partly because … intensive industrial agriculture leaves others to pay the hidden costs of cheap production – the neighbors who can no longer enjoy being outside in their yard; the children who cannot safely swim in the local streams; the farm workers who get ill from the pesticides they apply; the confined animals denied all semblance of a life that is normal and suitable for their species; the fish who die in the polluted streams and coastal waters (and the people who previously caught and ate those fish); and the unknown numbers of low-lying lands in Bangladesh or Egypt who will be made homeless by rising sea levels caused by global warming. It is understandable that people on low incomes should seek to stretch their dollars by buying the lowest-priced food, but when we look at the larger picture, the food produced by factory farming is not really cheap at all.”

“Americans spend far less of their income on food than people in other countries … we spend a smaller proportion of our income on food now than we used to – on average, only 6 percent of our total income goes toward buying groceries, down from 17 percent fifty years ago. In fact, we probably work for fewer hours to feed ourselves than people have anywhere, in all the millennia of human existence… if Americans want to eat better quality food, most of them have the means to pay for it.”

“The price of food should reflect the full cost of its production. Then consumers can choose whether they want to pay that price. If no one does, the market will ensure that the item ceases to be produced. Meanwhile, if the method of producing food imposes significant costs on others without their consent – for example, by emitting odors that make it impossible for neighbors to enjoy living in their homes – then the market has not been operating efficiently and the outcome is unfair to those who are disadvantaged. The food will only be cheap because others are paying part of the costs – unwillingly. Any form of food production that is not environmentally sustainable will be unfair in this respect, since it will make future generations worse off.”

Someone somewhere is paying the cost for low price. If we care about being ethical (instead of just saying screw you), we have to be willing to pay a fair price for our food. That may mean getting over our sense of entitlement to a certain lifestyle (meat at every meal, or even everyday) in order to afford better food. And it isn’t just about passing the costs on to others, they do eventually catch up to people. Tax dollars that go to cleaning rivers, insurance costs that rise as more people get sick from the toxins used to produce our food. For example, I personally have spent thousands of dollars this past year (above insurance) to figure out what is making me ill (I have had a constant swollen throat for 7+ months). Having gone through the “it might be cancer” or it “might be this” tests, the thought is that since moving to a rural area, I have developed chronic allergies to the massive amounts of pesticides and fertilizers I am surrounded with. I am constantly sick so that cheap corn can be grown so Americans can eat more crap full of high fructose corn syrup. And I am just one small example of the collateral damage of cheap food where the full cost isn’t assumed by the producer or the consumer but is passed on to others. Can we really be ethical and continue to do that?

Read more
  • Previous
  • 1
  • …
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • …
  • 14
  • Next
Julie Clawson

Julie Clawson
[email protected]
Writer, mother, dreamer, storyteller...

Search

Archives

Categories

"Everything in life is writable about if you have the outgoing guts to do it, and the imagination to improvise." - Sylvia Plath

All Are Welcome Here

Meta

  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.org
RSS
Follow by Email
Facebook
Facebook
fb-share-icon
Instagram
Buy me a coffee QR code
Buy Me a Coffee
©2026 Julie Clawson | Theme by SuperbThemes