Top of the News

Chosen and ranked by Crosscut editors. Click date for previous days.

Mouse over headline for description.

more top of the news

Advertisement

Advertisement

Mossback »

Jan 12, 2008 12:00 AM | last updated Jan 11, 2008 4:50 PM
Lopez Island church.

A rare Northwest church, this one on Lopez Island, Wash. (Chuck Taylor)

Weekend Essay.
Advertisement
Advertisement

Just say 'none'

Looking for values among America's least-churched — the people of the Northwest.

By Knute Berger

What is the None Zone? It's a term coined by religious researchers who reported in 2004 that the Pacific Northwest — Washington, Oregon and Alaska — is the only part of the U.S. where a majority of people (more than 60 percent) check "none of the above" when asked their religious affiliation. That compares with 40 percent nationally. And nearly one-third say they are purely secular "humanists" or have no religion at all. That compares with 19 percent nationally and a mere 11 percent in the South.

In short, the None Zone is the opposite of the Bible Belt.

Seattle has gained a reputation as a particularly godless corner of the None Zone. For a time last summer, the most-watched video on the Seattle Channel Web site was a Town Hall lecture by Christopher Hitchens about his provocatively titled book God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything.

During the City Council races last fall, candidate Tim Burgess was put on the defensive for being a Christian "values" voter. In Seattle, that made him suspect despite his liberal, green, and pro-gay politics. And in November, Seattle Post-Intelligencer columnist D. Parvaz was excoriated by right-wing Web sites and the Fox TV crowd for seeming to condone "church burning" in a piece about a self-proclaimed performance artist who was alleged to have contemplated torching a church for the sake of "art." One Northwest Republican blogger concluded that Parvaz "obviously hates Christians." Though a complete misreading of what Parvaz said, it fit the image that liberal Seattle's idea of religious tolerance is to tolerate people who would burn churches.

Seattle and the Northwest are not completely irreligious. There are plenty of Catholics and Protestants, and there's a yeasty fermentation in the number of evangelical entrepreneurs, New Age groups, neo-pagans, and other nonmainstream religious groups that call the area home. The West has always been ripe for religious and utopian experiments. And many Nones still profess a belief in God. They may not sit in a pew on Sunday, but most aren't atheists. They may simply be skeptics of organized religion.

Perhaps the largest contingent of Nones are nature worshippers. In an article on specific Northwest religious trends, called "Secular But Spiritual," Mark Shibley of Southern Oregon University wrote that "nothing is more central to Northwest nature religion than the idea of wilderness." Preserving wilderness, therefore, is a sacred act. As a result, he says, "Much contemporary environmentalism in the Northwest is a religious system." You get a sense of that zeal in the growing movement led by Al Gore, Greg Nickels, and others to save the world from the apocalypse of global warming.

The source of Seattle values would be a private matter if it wasn't for the city's widespread cultural and technological influence; it matters to people everywhere if Microsoft supports gay rights or whether Starbucks shows a mermaid's bare breasts on its logo (it once did, but no longer).

Few expect perfect moral behavior from corporate players — heaven help you if you raised your child to be like Boeing, a company that has a history of bullying and cheating to get what it wants. But knowing the source of a company's values can offer insights into its behavior. Newspaper and magazine columnist (and founder of Microsoft's Slate magazine) Michael Kinsley says that Ayn Rand is popular at Microsoft. She was an atheist who originated the philosophy of Objectivism and touted the virtues of selfishness and dog-eat-dog competition. No wonder she's the darling of Redmond's chosen.

Another reason values matter: Seattle is a biotech research center, and we stand at the threshold of fundamentally changing the world with cloning, gene manipulation, nanotechnology, the wiring of human brains, the impact of new drugs, and genetic treatments. We also are home to global organizations that will spread these techniques and technologies to the world. What do these people who carry our future in their hands ask themselves when they go into work each day? "What would Jesus do?" "What would the Dalai Lama do?" "What would Ayn Rand do?" "What would Gaia do?" "What would Darwin do?"

Here in the None Zone, there is no single answer, but the answers are still important.

  • Knute Berger is Mossback, Crosscut's chief Northwest native. He also writes the monthly Gray Matters column for Seattle magazine and is a weekly Friday guest on Weekday on KUOW-FM (94.9). You can e-mail him at mossback@crosscut.com.
Comments
Dogs do not eat dogs!
Report a violationPosted by: hendricks on Jan 12, 2008 7:22 AM
Free market men do not compete by eating each other. Competition is the inescapable fact of reality when two or more enterprises are engaged in producing very similar products or services in a free market. The actions of free individuals selecting the producer of his choice create the conditions of relative success and profit of the individual enterprise called competition. The best producers rise to the top. The consequence is beneficial for all, high quality at an affordable price. See Ayn Rand's actual remarks on this subject!
RE: Dogs do not eat dogs!
Report a violationPosted by: ryanhealy on Jan 12, 2008 10:38 AM
See Ayn Rand's actual remarks on this subject!

Been there, done that, got the t-shirt. All I learned was that Ayn Rand was whacked. Her utter lack of humanity was borderline pyschopathic in nature. It's no surprise that she's popular at Microsoft. After all, MSFT's products aren't just inferior but are also inelegant and crude. Apple, on the other hand, has succeeded in part by linking humanity and technology in elegant ways.

Ayn Rand's ideas were hamfisted attempts to rationalize greed and selfishness. In a way, she and L. Ron Hubbard have more in common than any of us do with either of them. Both succeeded in creating legions of devoted followers who seem to be only partly human.
RE: Dogs do not eat dogs!
Report a violationPosted by: dbreneman on Jan 14, 2008 9:35 AM
"It's no surprise that she's popular at Microsoft. After all, MSFT's products aren't just inferior but are also inelegant and crude."

A more interesting question than whether Rand is popular at Microsoft would be whether Microsoft would be popular with Rand. Microsoft is not an innovator - it buys or co-opts technology from others and markets it in a manner that totally disregards the interests of its customers. I'd suggest that Rand would find Microsoft typical of the "second-handers" in business she so deplored - the Style Guys who create nothing but perks for themselves.

"Ayn Rand's ideas were hamfisted attempts to rationalize greed and selfishness."

There's a big difference between greed, which is a sociopathic fixation with acquiring material wealth at any (non-monetary) cost; and selfishness, which is the desire to "look out for number one". If you can't understand that, it's obvious why you have a dilettante's typically cartoonish view of Rand's philosophy.
Values?
Report a violationPosted by: DMorrill on Jan 12, 2008 10:33 AM
If you're implying that the unchurched have lesser "values" (whatever that means) than the churched, you should not have wasted this space. I'll take the values of Oregon and Washington, as expressed by legislation and behvior, over those manifest in most of the country.
PS The idea is almost as ridiculous as is tarring Microsoft with the Ayn Rand brush.
PPS Shibley is equally wrong to claim that environmentalism is a religious system.
RE: Values?
Report a violationPosted by: knute.berger@crosscut.com on Jan 12, 2008 4:31 PM
Crosscut WriterI don't mean to imply any such thing, and I say that as an unchurched heathen "None." I am saying that values do matter and so does the source. Being in the "None" zone doesn't mean we don't have values and I think it's important to talk about them, whatever god, tree, author or hairy thunderer one worships.
?
Report a violationPosted by: mhays on Jan 12, 2008 1:12 PM
I'd trust the morality of someone who's good because of personal ethics far more than I'd trust the morality of someone who's does right because they're afraid of god's punishment. The second is little different than the average third grader afraid of teacher.
RE: ?
Report a violationPosted by: tvjames on Jan 12, 2008 3:48 PM
Editor's Pick I do believe there is a heaven and a hell and my acceptance of this sacrifice is what saves me from hell, that God himself redeemed me by offering the choice to accept Him. And as a result, my faith produces an outpouring of good works as well as a desire to live in ways that are congruous with my choice to follow Him.

For me, my morality and the resulting actions are not a result not of a fear of God's punishment, but as a result of my gratitude for the salvation given me by God through the sacrifice of his son Jesus. To be sure, I am a sinner (as we all are), but I alone cannot work/pay/earn my salvation.

Fear of punishment should never be the incentive for any adult to choose to do or not do something. Religions that preach that are no better than crazy people who stand on street corners condemning you to damnation just for being within earshot.
RE: ?
Report a violationPosted by: tvjames on Jan 12, 2008 3:51 PM
Derrrrr... I reordered the paragraphs and lost some of sense. Sorry.
RE: ?
Report a violationPosted by: mhays on Jan 13, 2008 12:03 AM
So god wants adoration or he'll punish you. Sounds like your god needs some self-confidence, and needs to grow up.
NW Family Values
Report a violationPosted by: JamesD on Jan 12, 2008 3:34 PM
So when do we get to tear down the Discovery Institute and replace it with a sculpture garden?
organized religion is an oxymoron
Report a violationPosted by: spock on Jan 12, 2008 4:52 PM
The less "organized religion" there is, the more space for religion.

Organized religion is just another consumer service. Instead of giving money to the poor, people give it to organized religion which spends the lion's share in its own interest.
RE: organized religion is an oxymoron
Report a violationPosted by: Piper Scott on Jan 12, 2008 8:15 PM
Crosscut WriterPlease provide data in support of your allegation. If you accuse, it's only far that you prove.

The Piper
RE: organized religion is an oxymoron
Report a violationPosted by: ratcityreprobate on Jan 13, 2008 11:49 AM
H. L. Mencken said it best, "Church is a place in which gentlemen who have never been to heaven brag about it to persons who will never get there."
RE: organized religion is an oxymoron
Report a violationPosted by: Piper Scott on Jan 13, 2008 11:36 PM
Crosscut WriterWhile Mencken had a sharp wit, I doubt whether it's of much use to him today. I wouldn't want to trade eternal places with him for all the tea in China.

The Piper
Setting the record straight on Burgess
Report a violationPosted by: Sean on Jan 13, 2008 2:24 PM
During the City Council races last fall, candidate Tim Burgess was put on the defensive for being a Christian "values" voter. In Seattle, that made him suspect despite his liberal, green, and pro-gay politics.

Knute, I don't understand why you, Brewster, and Joel Connely continue to this day to dismiss the concerns that were raised about Burgess as mere anti-Christian bias. If he's your good buddy, wonderful, but don't throw your journalistic integrity out the door on his behalf.

As you well know (but have strangely neglected to mention in your articles), Burgess's ad agency did millions of dollars of business printing hate literature for "Concerned Women for America", a right-wing group that views homosexuality as a disease and seeks to ban birth control and abortion. Perhaps these issues are trivial to you guys, but for many people in Seattle, especially those who's relationships and families are under constant right wing attack, they are quite important and relevant to any political election.

The Stranger broke the story, and astonishingly, none of the local media (including Crosscut) thought it worthy to even mention Burgess's association with a well known hate group to their readers. Apparently, the Stranger is the only local paper I can rely on to print news of interest to the socially liberal reader. Say what you want about them, but they still have the biggest pair in town.

The Stranger was also the only paper to print Burgess' explanation, and ironically, they ended up giving him their endorsement. So much liberal bias against Christians. Where were you guys during all this anyway? Why so afraid to commit an act of journalism?
Not a religion, but a relationship…
Report a violationPosted by: Piper Scott on Jan 13, 2008 11:32 PM
Crosscut WriterWhat makes right right and wrong wrong? Where do values of good and evil come from? For most, even those who deny it, they come from God.

Believer or non-believer, “values” have spiritual roots, in the United States mostly Judeo-Christian ones. You got yours from someone who got hers from someone else. Go back far enough, and you’ll find a Bible.

Mine are found there in the Christian perspective. When I say this in some quarters hereabout, it’s as if I’ve confessed to mass murder. So much for tolerance in the None Zone.

This thread is replete with examples: Raze the Discovery Institute, slam “organized religion,” a tired old H.L. Mencken saw, and a nasty bit of in-the-name-of-tolerance intolerance toward a so-called “hate group” and a candidate for political office who had the temerity to help them express Constitutionally protected views in a Constitutionally protected manner.

Dorothy Parvaz’s “on the one hand, but on the other” moral equivalency near-justification of a so-called "artist's" attempted torching of a San Francisco church falls into this category. Had it been a forest, an art gallery, or, heaven forbid, an abortion clinic, the outrage would have been palpable, even toward her artistically correct solution of burning a picture of the subject rather than the subject itself. Since the church is “an oppressive institution” she can “understand” someone wanting to artistically torch one. Cocktail party analysis that could easily have been lifted from a Tom Wolfe novel.

All miss the point: it’s not a religion, it’s a relationship.

To a Christian, values aren’t a list of “Thou shalt not’s,” but a response born of thanksgiving and overwhelming love for the God whose sacrifice redeems us from our own failings. Poster TVJames nails it saying, “For me, my morality and the resulting actions are not a result not of a fear of God's punishment, but as a result of my gratitude for the salvation given me by God through the sacrifice of his son Jesus.” All the people said, “Amen!”

I do quibble with his calling himself a sinner; joint heirs fall short, but in the Lamb’s Book of Life, no record of earthly sin is kept, ergo no sinner is he.

Many in the None Zone worship the creation, not the creator. Vapor trails in a spiritual cloud chamber capture and awe the mind that then ignores the infinitely more powerful unseen force that created them. Nothing new since worship of the natural world is as old as the hills that are worshipped.

A Christian’s values can be summed up in this Luke 10:25-28 exchange between Christ and a learned man:

25 On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. "Teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?"
26 "What is written in the Law?" he replied. "How do you read it?"
27 He answered: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'"
28"You have answered correctly," Jesus replied. "Do this and you will live."

Then there’s the old children’s hymn, “Jesus loves me this I know for the Bible tells me so.”

God’s grace, His unmerited favor, empowers us to forgive others as He has forgiven us; blessed are the peacemakers. Would that all had such values.

Living isn’t without challenge. The Apostle Paul suffered from a debilitating affliction – no one knows what – and he prayed three-times for relief, to no avail. God told Paul that His grace would have to be sufficient; it’s all right to ask, but His purposes transcend ours in ways beyond our ken.

We cast our cares on Him, not for what we get out of it but because He cares for us.

The Piper
God, protect me from your followers!
Report a violationPosted by: MaryW on Jan 14, 2008 10:14 AM
If I professed not only a belief, but knowledge of a big purple man who was invisible, yet everywhere, who could punish or reward me and who could always see everything, I would be locked in a loony bin. People of the dark ages believed many things, and it never ceases to astound me that here in the 21st century, there are still (still!) angry masses who profess that their fairy tale is, well--god's truth.

As Tom Robbins said, "Religion is not only the opium of the masses--it is the cyanide."
RE: God, protect me from your followers!
Report a violationPosted by: Piper Scott on Jan 14, 2008 11:04 AM
Crosscut WriterThank you for providing an additional example of in-the-name-of-tolerance intolerance. While you have an absolute right to your opinion, I submit that yours is the dark ages-like angry tone.

Tom Robbins may be able to string sentences together such that he can make a living at it, but that doesn't make him a theologin or ethicist. Given a choice between Tom Robbins and Thomas the Disciple who, upon seeing the resurrected Christ replete with wounds in his hands and feet exclaimed, "My Lord and my God!" (John 20:28), I'll stick with the latter. If nothing else, his testimony has withstood over 2,000-years of scrutiny, while Tom Robbins' is but another unproven mantra of which there have been hundreds of thousands over the centuries.

"What has been will be again,
what has been done will be done again;
there is nothing new under the sun." Ecclesiastes 1:9

Doubt and question if you wish, but accord those who do not a modicum of courtesy and respect. Remember, we're all eternally responsible for the consequences of our decisions, and while you have dismissed God, he hasn't dismissed you, purple comments notwithstanding.

That would be the tolerant thing to do.

The Piper
Uh...courtesy? Respect? Tolerance?
Report a violationPosted by: MaryW on Jan 14, 2008 11:23 AM
Yikes.

Please. Believe in anything you want to--the big blueberry muffin in the sky, if that's what gives you comfort. But when your beliefs cross into laws, wars and judgments that affect all beings on the planet...well, yes, I do have a problem with that.
RE: Uh...courtesy? Respect? Tolerance?
Report a violationPosted by: Piper Scott on Jan 14, 2008 2:56 PM
Crosscut WriterWhen some religious beliefs crossed into law the result was The Civil Rights Act of 1964. Care to repeal it?

The Piper
Render unto Caesar...
Report a violationPosted by: paddystclair on Jan 14, 2008 11:53 AM
The need for the separation of church and state that the Framers intended in the Constitution is very well illustrated in this thread. Because beliefs are involved, beliefs that ultimately can only be logically proven to a point where faith must bridge the gap between reason and god (or on the other side, a complete dependence on reason, and therefore empirically, no god) we should understand the limited role that these kinds of beliefs can play in a free political system.

Politics is the art or pursuit of the possible (Marx, Adam Smith or Rand notwithstanding.). Theology is the construction of proof of the absolute. These are two very different activities, each with very different quantitative measures of success. Both can be pursued by reasonable people. Both are valid expressions of human curiosity and energy. Both have yeilded some of mans’ greatest accomplishments. Both have rendered unfathomable pain on countless millions.

As a secular humanist trained by Jesuits I have a passing knowledge of the Bible, although no scholar. I do however find wisdom in much of what I glean to be Jesus’ message. And one of the most cogent, simple advises he gives is when asked whether to pay Imperial taxes and his response is to “Render unto Caesar….” Even Jesus saw the need for separation of church and state. His refusal to enter the political realm may have contributed to his sentence of execution.

In the last 25 years the barrier between the church and state has been steadfastly eroded. Now a major Republican candidate can state without irony that while there is no qualifying religious test for a specific religion, religiosity is a requirement of a candidates validity. I am therefore disqualified for elective office. Another Republican candidate claims that most of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were Christian ministers. One was. More and more you hear the claim that the Constitution is a “divinely inspired” document. And so this political masterpiece of the possible becomes a religious relic, unassailable, un amendable, to be approached with reverence, not reason.

Anytime the source of law is construed to be “divine”, freedom dies.
RE: ender unto Caesar...
Report a violationPosted by: Piper Scott on Jan 14, 2008 2:50 PM
Crosscut Writer"Anytime the source of law is construed to be 'divine', freedom dies." Completely untrue. Even Jefferson acknowledged that, "All men...are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

No where in the Constitution is the term "separation of church and state" employed. The intent of the First Amendment Establishment Clause wasn't to build a wall between the two, but to preclude the Federal Government and ONLY the Federal Government from favoring one faith over another.

At the time of the ratification of the Constitution and until almost the mid-19th-Century, many states had church attendance laws, supported churchs with taxes, and the Bible was taught in state-supported schools of the day. The Establishment Clause wasn't applied to them until well after the Civil War and through the 14th Amendment.

People of faith are among the most zealous defenders of both their own First Amendment Free Exercise and Establishment Clause rights (as they're understood today) and yours. I can't demand liberty of conscience for myself unless I'm willing to demand it for you too.

The Abolitionist and Civil Rights movements were born in church, and people of faith have been at the forefront of every moral crusade in this nation since its founding. From the First Great Awakening of the early 18th-Century to the Pro-Life movement of today, they led the way while secular types drug their feet.

The political "art of the possible" resulted in the Missouri Compromise, then the Kansas-Nebraska Act, then...Bleeding Kansas. It's one thing to negotiate, compromise, and reason for the benefit of what Mossback calls the Commonweal, but its altogether different to bargain away right in return for which you get wrong.

Article VI of the Constitution precludes a religious test for political office: "...no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." I have no problem with this; we elect presidents, not popes. Yet the character of a candidate matters, and it's valid to inquire of as to the source of a moral compass, if any. After all, if you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything.

That you hold no religious belief doesn't disqualify you from holding office, it just means I wouldn't vote for you, that's all.

The "render unto Ceasar" passage from Matthew 22 isn't a definitive statement of Christ that there should be a separation of anything from anything. Remember, he spoke those words in response to a rhetorical trap laid for him by Pharisees who sought to get him to either break ancient Jewish or Roman law. Since Christ lives well above our petty political squabbles - and they are mostly petty - he finessed the question by turning it back onto them His instruction to "render" leaves it up to each individual to determine what is Ceasar's and what is God's.

It's a mistake to think of Christ in modern day terms as if he's a glorified contributor to Salon.com or NRO.

Christ's "execution" was foreordained from before the beginning of time (cf, Isaiah 53), so a "refusal to enter the poliitcal realm" was irrelevent. Sinless, he voluntarily went to the cross to atone for the sins of others. After reminding Pilate that, "My Kingdom is not of this world..." (John 18:36), he sacrificed himself, a fate he knew was his long before it happened (John 12: 20-36).

Yet, it's not his death that makes him unique; men die and that's not news. What offers the world hope is his resurrection, his victory over death, his eternal ilfe, a gift he offers to us. Luke 24:36-49.

Assumptions, inaccurate renditions of history or the Bible, and personal opinion that's neither reverent or reasonable is as dangerous as excessive religious zealotry.

The Piper
Glad to know what Jefferson thought----
Report a violationPosted by: paddystclair on Jan 14, 2008 7:02 PM
Its hard to discern exactly what Jefferson had in mind as a "creator". The 18th century Deists with whom he identified in the '70's and 80's generally held the "Creator" to be more of a passive principle, a detached force that started it all off and then receded into the universal background. In the Age of Enlightenment, rich young landed Americans, like Jefferson, were much more attracted to many of the exciting ideas brewing in France, than to American Fundamentalist dogma developed in the 1830's and 1840's. Indeed the Anglican Church in which Jefferson was no doubt raised was also the training ground for many of the 18th century free thinkers in England and Scotland.

Those that argue that the Framers of the Constitution were “Christians” and therefore like modern fundamentalist in thought ignore the observable historical fact that the idea of God, the nature of God as perceived by man, has changed down through time. In the third century people were burned over the nature of the Trinity. Not a hot theological topic in 21st century American Christianity. The Orthodox and Catholic churches split over very slight theological difference—slight to us now, but not to them. Throughout the 14th and 15th century little uprisings were repeatedly crushed. Martin Luther’s God was different than Calvin’s, which is different from Liberation Theology—the list goes on. While God may, or may not, be immutable, our perception of him certainly is fluid.

And this is where the dialogue seems to break down—when you KNOW ABSOILUTLY that you are right what argument can I give, what persuasion is possible, in order for you understand or even consider my position? While I point out possible reasons, different interpretations, shades of gray as it were, you can always rely on the absolute knowledge that you claim to have in order to end the dialogue. You (not the personal “you” but the general one.) then offer that absolute to me as the only form of salvation; I can only accept or refuse.

Yes very religious men have played important roles in American history, and have furthered the march of freedom. But they have all had a civil secular law which they have tried to inject with moral and ethical standards. The law is a human institution. Whenever we start to accept the law as a divine institution, those often needed injections of morals and ethic will no longer be made. Citing the Constitution as an act or god, or that gods divinity in anyway shapes the Constitution, and suddenly we have an inflexible document unable to redress what ever ills the future may bring. Locked in dogma, the Constitution can only protect tyranny.
Reverent.
Report a violationPosted by: paddystclair on Jan 14, 2008 7:16 PM
The Piper--

Reverent to what? I can respect your religion, so long as it doesnt conflict with my Constitutional rights--- but do I have to revere it to stay in the dialouge of the mainstream?

I think not.

I hope not.
Great Article!!
Report a violationPosted by: peg~leg on Jan 14, 2008 8:00 PM
Love this article and the thoughtful comments! Thank You.
Offensive characterizations
Report a violationPosted by: debbalee on Jan 15, 2008 12:45 PM
I don't particularly appreciate some of the wording in either the headline or content of this column. "Godless" because I don't have a religious affiliation? Lacking in "values" because I don't choose to attend church? Clearly this discussion calls for a more open mind. People can have values, morals, scruples, a sense of spirituality, and be overall fine human beings without showing up to sing hymns with others once a week. Plus, need I point out the sensational headlines that have appeared time and again after far more "churchy" people do something way off the moral compass? Think twice about making such implications and indictments.
Advertisement
Advertisement

Sign up for Crosscut's free weekday newsletter e-mail.
About Crosscut
Advertising Info
Crosscut's list of RSS feeds.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement


About Crosscut »
Crosscut Seattle is an online newspaper for the Pacific Northwest, including Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and British Columbia. It's a guide to local and regional news, a place to report and discuss news, and a platform for new tools to convey news.

• More about Crosscut

Contact Crosscut

Tools

Sign up for Crosscut's daily newsletter
About Crosscut
Advertising Info
Crosscut's list of RSS feeds.
Advertisement