[acb-hsp] Why Corporations Are Psychotic By David Niose
Claude Everett
ceverett at dslextreme.com
Mon Sep 3 15:17:01 EDT 2012
Then there ought to be a law against such hypocrisy. That is why all real
true Americans should let their elected officials in Washington, know that
there needs to be a constitutional amendment that prohibits Corporations
from being acknowledged as real persons.
Regards,
Claude Everett
"I am opposing a social order in which it is possible for one man who does
absolutely nothing that is useful to amass a fortune of hundreds of millions
of dollars, while millions of men and women who work all the days of their
lives secure barely enough for a wretched existence."
Eugene Victor Debs
-----Original Message-----
From: acb-hsp-bounces at acb.org [mailto:acb-hsp-bounces at acb.org] On Behalf Of
Peter Altschul
Sent: Monday, September 03, 2012 12:06 PM
To: 'Discussion list for ACB human service professionals'
Subject: Re: [acb-hsp] Why Corporations Are Psychotic By David Niose
Yes, but
Most of us think those legal decisions are foolish.
Pete
-----Original Message-----
From: acb-hsp-bounces at acb.org [mailto:acb-hsp-bounces at acb.org] On Behalf Of
Claude Everett
Sent: Monday, September 03, 2012 2:00 PM
To: 'Discussion list for ACB human service professionals'
Subject: Re: [acb-hsp] Why Corporations Are Psychotic By David Niose
Peter, legally they are real persons.
Regards,
Claude Everett
"I am opposing a social order in which it is possible for one man who does
absolutely nothing that is useful to amass a fortune of hundreds of millions
of dollars, while millions of men and women who work all the days of their
lives secure barely enough for a wretched existence."
Eugene Victor Debs
-----Original Message-----
From: acb-hsp-bounces at acb.org [mailto:acb-hsp-bounces at acb.org] On Behalf Of
peter altschul
Sent: Monday, September 03, 2012 11:58 AM
To: Discussion list for ACB human service professionals
Subject: Re: [acb-hsp] Why Corporations Are Psychotic By David Niose
Hi:
I have seen articles like this in my work in the organization development
field. While I freely admit to feeling vindictive pleasure when some
corporations are labeled as "psychotic,"
"bipolar," or whatever, I have a problem when such labels are thrown around;
for one thing, corporations are not people.
Best, Peter
> ----- Original Message -----
>From: "Claude Everett" <ceverett at dslextreme.com
>To: "'Blind Democracy Discussion List'"
<blind-democracy at octothorp.org>,"'General discussion list for ACB members
and friends where a widerangeof topics from blindness to politics,issues of
the day or whatever comes to mind are welcome.
This is afreeform discussion list.'" <acb-chat at acb.org
>Date sent: Mon, 3 Sep 2012 11:11:03 -0700
>Subject: [acb-hsp] Why Corporations Are Psychotic By David Niose
>I don't know how or why I missed this insightful article over a
year ago.
> are corporations Psychotic? should they be "people"?
>http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/our-humanity-naturally/201...
79
>comments share login
>Why Corporations Are Psychotic
>Created Mar 16 2011 - 6:38am
>Senator Bernie Sanders echoed the sentiments of many last week
when he
>called for a constitutional amendment to repeal the notion of
corporate
>personhood. This issue jumped into public consciousness last
year after the
>Supreme Court, in its Citizens United decision, effectively
allowed
>unrestrained corporate influence in American politics, based
partially on
>the idea that corporations are legally "persons" with
constitutional rights.
>Sanders, in calling for the constitutional amendment, declared:
"This is an
>enormously important issue, and how it is resolved will
determine, to a
>significant degree, the future of American democracy."
>What is it about corporate personhood that so concerns Sanders
and many
>others? That question could be answered many ways, but perhaps
this is most
>concise: Corporations are psychotic.
>If corporations are indeed "persons," their mental condition can
accurately
>be described as pathological. Corporations have no innate moral
impulses,
>and in fact they exist solely for the purpose of making money.
As such,
>these "persons" are systemically driven to do whatever is
necessary to
>increase revenues and profits, with no regard for ethical issues
that might
>nag real people.
>But, you say, corporations are owned and managed by real people,
so surely
>immoral corporate actions might be inhibited by them? Well, not
really.
>First of all, the officers and directors who run corporations are
actually
>duty-bound to act in the corporation's best financial interest,
and that
>means they are obliged to do whatever they can within the law to
make money.
>Thus, this fiduciary duty requires corporate management to set
aside ethical
>niceties when they get in the way of corporate profits. This is
why tobacco
>companies market their products to kids when they can - only laws
>prohibiting such conduct will keep them from doing so.
>This is especially true when we are dealing with large, publicly
traded
>corporations. Whereas a small corporation could have local
ownership,
>management, and community roots that might resist the drive for
profit in
>certain situations, publicly traded corporations almost always
answer to
>institutional investors and have tremendous pressure to produce
short-term
>profits. The management chain in a publicly traded corporation
is
>necessarily geared for profit, not ethics.
>Thus, the entity is a "person" with a totally self-absorbed
psyche, a
>narcissistic "person" that has enormous resources to advertise
and market
>itself to the public, to hire professionals of all types to
influence public
>opinion, to litigate and lobby as needed, to ruthlessly pursue
its goal of
>revenue and profit, and to join other corporations and industry
associations
>in crushing any opposition posed by mere individuals or public
interest
>groups.
>But hasn't it always been this way? Isn't that what capitalism is
all about
>- corporate interests driving the economy?
>Actually, no. Corporate libertarians would have you believe that
somehow
>corporate dominance is entirely consistent with the values and
vision of the
>Founding Fathers, but this is pure myth. The framers believed in
limited
>government and free markets, but corporations were almost
non-existent in
>the early days of the Republic. Unlike today, one could not form
a
>corporation simply by filing a few papers with a government
office; instead,
>permission from the government was needed (usually via an act of
the
>Legislature) and was granted only upon a showing that the
proposed
>corporation would be in the public interest. When corporate
formation was
>allowed, strict terms and limitations were demanded.
>Corporate formation was viewed skeptically in those days because
>corporations were correctly recognized as dangerous. Unlike sole
>proprietorships or partnerships, corporations allow investors to
pool huge
>sums of capital and pursue profits while remaining immune from
personal
>liability. Thus, if I own shares of XYZ Corporation and the
company breaches
>a $10 million contract obligation, there is no chance that I will
be
>personally liable on the contract. If I own a sole
proprietorship or
>partnership that breaches such a contract, my personal assets are
at risk.
>This immunity makes the corporate structure extremely attractive
to
>investors, even absentee investors, which means publicly traded
corporations
>can attract enormous amounts of capital, which in turn results in
their
>wielding great economic power. In modern society where
corporations are
>widespread and commonplace, this economic power enables them to
have great
>social and cultural influence, defining to a large degree how we
live our
>lives and even the values we hold as a society. And of course
economic power
>easily translates to political power as well.
>It wasn't until the latter half of the Nineteenth Century, long
after the
>framers were dead, that corporate interests began to reshape the
social,
>legal, and political environment so that their interests became
paramount,
>far more important to politicians than the interests of ordinary
citizens.
>Corporate personhood was a key part of this scheme.
>Thus, while corporate libertarians are quick to point out that
the framers
>and other intellectuals of the founding era were wary of
excessive
>governmental power, they conveniently neglect to mention that
concentrated
>corporate power was also viewed skeptically. In fact, Adam
Smith, whose
>"Wealth of Nations" is often cited by corporate apologists as
validating
>"free markets," warned against unrestrained, concentrated
corporate power
>and instead encouraged small-scale, local economic activity.
Published in
>1776, "Wealth of Nations" predates the rise of corporate power,
and
>suggestions by corporate libertarians that the book somehow
supports the
>notion of corporate dominance are either mistaken or outright
dishonest.
>It's worth noting that libertarians have no right to claim that a
>laissez-faire environment would allow unregulated corporate
power. Since
>corporations themselves are a fictitious creation of government,
a true
>libertarian environment (with minimal government) would find them
>unnecessary and somewhat repugnant. Thus, ironically, at their
essence
>corporations are a creation of government meddling.
>The pathological and narcissistic nature of corporate "persons"
is reason
>enough to deny them fundamental constitutional rights that should
be
>reserved for flesh-and-bone persons, but the fact that they also
wield
>economic resources far in excess of those available to real
persons
>magnifies the need to restrain them. Author David C. Korten
calls the claim
>by corporations for constitutional rights equal to those of
humans a "legal
>perversion," saying that "corporations should obey the laws
decided by the
>citizenry, not write those laws."
>Korten's statement alludes to why this issue is so critical to
effective
>democracy. Because corporate interests have immense resources
that enable
>them to participate in lobbying and litigation, they effectively
control the
>governmental machine. If individual citizens today feel
powerless and
>cynical about politics and government, who can blame them?
Participatory
>democracy is not alive and well in America, because pathological
corporate
>interests have complete control of the system. This is why
Sanders's
>declaration, that the future of American democracy may rely on
the outcome
>of this issue, is not an overstatement. What kind of "persons"
will control
>democracy - corporate or human?
>The Tea Party and Corporate Power
>The call by Sanders for a constitutional amendment cries out for
popular
>support, and any mention of populism nowadays calls to mind the
Tea Party.
>Progressives tend to dismiss Tea Party activists as ignorant
and/or deluded,
>but we should realize that the Tea Party has a few (very few)
valid points.
>At a minimum, the Tea Party is correct in saying that American
democracy
>today would be unrecognizable to the framers.
>In their speculation of what the framers would think about
today's America,
>however, Tea Party activists make the mistake of not considering
the
>question fully. They focus almost exclusively on the singular
issue of
>downsizing government, completely ignoring other aspects of
modern America
>that would grab the framers' attention. Surely, if Adams,
Jefferson and
>Madison could be magically transplanted to modern America, their
actual
>assessment of society would be much more comprehensive than
critiquing the
>tax system and size of government.
>For example, surely the aspect of modern society that would first
preoccupy
>the framers would be our advanced technology, not our
governmental
>structure. Only after marveling for days or weeks about modern
technology,
>from flying in airplanes to sending emails, would the framers'
attention
>eventually turn to government. Then, of course, in analyzing
government,
>they would certainly assess its expanded role in the proper
context, in
>light of today's much more complex technological, economic, and
social
>realities.
>Would they feel that government has gotten too big? Perhaps -
especially the
>military. But it's just as likely that they would conclude that
much
>government expansion - the FDA, the FCC, the FAA, the EPA, Social
Security,
>etc. - are logical results of technological and social
development. Of
>course, all we can do is speculate.
>But what the Tea Party ignores is that the framers would surely
be aghast at
>the enormous power that Americans have ceded to private corporate
>institutions. The time-traveling framers would most likely
assess American
>democracy as being ineffective and Americans themselves as being
largely
>uninformed, passive, distracted by petty consumption, and
incapable of
>critical thinking. They would see American politics and society
as overtaken
>by corporate interests that dictate public and social policy to
the private
>citizenry.
>If only the Tea Party could see beyond its simple "limited
government"
>mantra to consider such matters, its populist energy and
enthusiasm might be
>put to good use in challenging the corporate "persons" who own
and control
>American democracy and society. By fully considering their own
hypothetical,
>Tea Party activists would find a new outlet for their angst.
>You can bet Sanders will be met with much opposition in his call
for a
>constitutional amendment. Much of that opposition will have
roots, overtly
>or covertly, in the corporate establishment that he seeks to
tame. Time will
>tell which type of "persons" - human or corporate - win this
struggle.
>Text copyright 2011 Dave Niose
>FURTHER READING ON CORPORATE PERSONHOOD:
>Joel Bakan: The Corporation - The Pathological Pursuit of Profit
and Power
>David C. Korten: When Corporations Rule the World
>-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------
>----
>Source URL: http://www.psychologytoday.com/node/57022
>Links:
>[1] http://www.psychologytoday.com/experts/david-niose
>[2] http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/our-humanity-naturally
>[3]
http://www.psychologytoday.com/experts/scott-barry-kaufman-phd
>[4]
>http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/beautiful-minds/201103/psycho
tic-is-not-
>the-same-psychopathic
>[5] http://www.psychologytoday.com/taxonomy/term/99084
>[6] http://www.psychologytoday.com/taxonomy/term/1062
>[7] http://www.psychologytoday.com/taxonomy/term/1063
>[8] http://www.psychologytoday.com/tags/adam-smith
>[9] http://www.psychologytoday.com/tags/american-democracy
>[10] http://www.psychologytoday.com/tags/american-politics
>[11] http://www.psychologytoday.com/tags/bernie-sanders
>[12] http://www.psychologytoday.com/tags/capitalism
>[13] http://www.psychologytoday.com/tags/citizens-united
>[14] http://www.psychologytoday.com/tags/constitution
>[15] http://www.psychologytoday.com/tags/constitutional-amendment
>[16] http://www.psychologytoday.com/tags/constitutional-rights
>[17] http://www.psychologytoday.com/tags/constitutonal-amendments
>[18] http://www.psychologytoday.com/tags/corporate-actions
>[19] http://www.psychologytoday.com/tags/corporate-influence
>[20] http://www.psychologytoday.com/tags/corporate-management-0
>[21] http://www.psychologytoday.com/tags/corporate-personhood
>[22] http://www.psychologytoday.com/tags/corporate-profits
>[23] http://www.psychologytoday.com/tags/corporations
>[24] http://www.psychologytoday.com/tags/culture
>[25] http://www.psychologytoday.com/tags/david-korten
>[26] http://www.psychologytoday.com/tags/democracy
>[27] http://www.psychologytoday.com/tags/ethical-issues
>[28] http://www.psychologytoday.com/tags/ethics
>[29] http://www.psychologytoday.com/tags/fiduciary-duty
>[30] http://www.psychologytoday.com/tags/financial-interest
>[31] http://www.psychologytoday.com/tags/impulses
>[32] http://www.psychologytoday.com/tags/influence
>[33] http://www.psychologytoday.com/tags/libertarianism
>[34] http://www.psychologytoday.com/tags/libertarians
>[35] http://www.psychologytoday.com/tags/media
>[36] http://www.psychologytoday.com/tags/morality
>[37] http://www.psychologytoday.com/tags/narcissists
>[38] http://www.psychologytoday.com/tags/narcissm
>[39] http://www.psychologytoday.com/tags/niceties
>[40] http://www.psychologytoday.com/tags/organizations
>[41] http://www.psychologytoday.com/tags/ownership-management
>[42]
http://www.psychologytoday.com/tags/participatory-democracy-0
>[43] http://www.psychologytoday.com/tags/power
>[44] http://www.psychologytoday.com/tags/psychosis
>[45] http://www.psychologytoday.com/tags/public-consciousness
>[46]
http://www.psychologytoday.com/tags/publicly-traded-corporations
>[47] http://www.psychologytoday.com/tags/real-people
>[48] http://www.psychologytoday.com/tags/senator-bernie-sanders
>[49] http://www.psychologytoday.com/tags/social-dysfunction-0
>[50] http://www.psychologytoday.com/tags/socialism
>[51] http://www.psychologytoday.com/tags/society
>[52] http://www.psychologytoday.com/tags/tea-party
>[53] http://www.psychologytoday.com/tags/tobacco-companies
>[54] http://www.psychologytoday.com/tags/wealth-nations
> are corporations Psychotic? should they be "people"?
>http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/our-humanity-naturally/201...
79
>comments share login
>Regards,
>Why Corporations Are Psychotic
>By David Niose
>Created Mar 16 2011 - 6:38am
>Senator Bernie Sanders echoed the sentiments of many last week
when he
>called for a constitutional amendment to repeal the notion of
corporate
>personhood. This issue jumped into public consciousness last
year after the
>Supreme Court, in its Citizens United decision, effectively
allowed
>unrestrained corporate influence in American politics, based
partially on
>the idea that corporations are legally "persons" with
constitutional rights.
>Sanders, in calling for the constitutional amendment, declared:
"This is an
>enormously important issue, and how it is resolved will
determine, to a
>significant degree, the future of American democracy."
>What is it about corporate personhood that so concerns Sanders
and many
>others? That question could be answered many ways, but perhaps
this is most
>concise: Corporations are psychotic.
>If corporations are indeed "persons," their mental condition can
accurately
>be described as pathological. Corporations have no innate moral
impulses,
>and in fact they exist solely for the purpose of making money.
As such,
>these "persons" are systemically driven to do whatever is
necessary to
>increase revenues and profits, with no regard for ethical issues
that might
>nag real people.
>But, you say, corporations are owned and managed by real people,
so surely
>immoral corporate actions might be inhibited by them? Well, not
really.
>First of all, the officers and directors who run corporations are
actually
>duty-bound to act in the corporation's best financial interest,
and that
>means they are obliged to do whatever they can within the law to
make money.
>Thus, this fiduciary duty requires corporate management to set
aside ethical
>niceties when they get in the way of corporate profits. This is
why tobacco
>companies market their products to kids when they can - only laws
>prohibiting such conduct will keep them from doing so.
>This is especially true when we are dealing with large, publicly
traded
>corporations. Whereas a small corporation could have local
ownership,
>management, and community roots that might resist the drive for
profit in
>certain situations, publicly traded corporations almost always
answer to
>institutional investors and have tremendous pressure to produce
short-term
>profits. The management chain in a publicly traded corporation
is
>necessarily geared for profit, not ethics.
>Thus, the entity is a "person" with a totally self-absorbed
psyche, a
>narcissistic "person" that has enormous resources to advertise
and market
>itself to the public, to hire professionals of all types to
influence public
>opinion, to litigate and lobby as needed, to ruthlessly pursue
its goal of
>revenue and profit, and to join other corporations and industry
associations
>in crushing any opposition posed by mere individuals or public
interest
>groups.
>But hasn't it always been this way? Isn't that what capitalism is
all about
>- corporate interests driving the economy?
>Actually, no. Corporate libertarians would have you believe that
somehow
>corporate dominance is entirely consistent with the values and
vision of the
>Founding Fathers, but this is pure myth. The framers believed in
limited
>government and free markets, but corporations were almost
non-existent in
>the early days of the Republic. Unlike today, one could not form
a
>corporation simply by filing a few papers with a government
office; instead,
>permission from the government was needed (usually via an act of
the
>Legislature) and was granted only upon a showing that the
proposed
>corporation would be in the public interest. When corporate
formation was
>allowed, strict terms and limitations were demanded.
>Corporate formation was viewed skeptically in those days because
>corporations were correctly recognized as dangerous. Unlike sole
>proprietorships or partnerships, corporations allow investors to
pool huge
>sums of capital and pursue profits while remaining immune from
personal
>liability. Thus, if I own shares of XYZ Corporation and the
company breaches
>a $10 million contract obligation, there is no chance that I will
be
>personally liable on the contract. If I own a sole
proprietorship or
>partnership that breaches such a contract, my personal assets are
at risk.
>This immunity makes the corporate structure extremely attractive
to
>investors, even absentee investors, which means publicly traded
corporations
>can attract enormous amounts of capital, which in turn results in
their
>wielding great economic power. In modern society where
corporations are
>widespread and commonplace, this economic power enables them to
have great
>social and cultural influence, defining to a large degree how we
live our
>lives and even the values we hold as a society. And of course
economic power
>easily translates to political power as well.
>It wasn't until the latter half of the Nineteenth Century, long
after the
>framers were dead, that corporate interests began to reshape the
social,
>legal, and political environment so that their interests became
paramount,
>far more important to politicians than the interests of ordinary
citizens.
>Corporate personhood was a key part of this scheme.
>Thus, while corporate libertarians are quick to point out that
the framers
>and other intellectuals of the founding era were wary of
excessive
>governmental power, they conveniently neglect to mention that
concentrated
>corporate power was also viewed skeptically. In fact, Adam
Smith, whose
>"Wealth of Nations" is often cited by corporate apologists as
validating
>"free markets," warned against unrestrained, concentrated
corporate power
>and instead encouraged small-scale, local economic activity.
Published in
>1776, "Wealth of Nations" predates the rise of corporate power,
and
>suggestions by corporate libertarians that the book somehow
supports the
>notion of corporate dominance are either mistaken or outright
dishonest.
>It's worth noting that libertarians have no right to claim that a
>laissez-faire environment would allow unregulated corporate
power. Since
>corporations themselves are a fictitious creation of government,
a true
>libertarian environment (with minimal government) would find them
>unnecessary and somewhat repugnant. Thus, ironically, at their
essence
>corporations are a creation of government meddling.
>The pathological and narcissistic nature of corporate "persons"
is reason
>enough to deny them fundamental constitutional rights that should
be
>reserved for flesh-and-bone persons, but the fact that they also
wield
>economic resources far in excess of those available to real
persons
>magnifies the need to restrain them. Author David C. Korten
calls the claim
>by corporations for constitutional rights equal to those of
humans a "legal
>perversion," saying that "corporations should obey the laws
decided by the
>citizenry, not write those laws."
>Korten's statement alludes to why this issue is so critical to
effective
>democracy. Because corporate interests have immense resources
that enable
>them to participate in lobbying and litigation, they effectively
control the
>governmental machine. If individual citizens today feel
powerless and
>cynical about politics and government, who can blame them?
Participatory
>democracy is not alive and well in America, because pathological
corporate
>interests have complete control of the system. This is why
Sanders's
>declaration, that the future of American democracy may rely on
the outcome
>of this issue, is not an overstatement. What kind of "persons"
will control
>democracy - corporate or human?
>The Tea Party and Corporate Power
>The call by Sanders for a constitutional amendment cries out for
popular
>support, and any mention of populism nowadays calls to mind the
Tea Party.
>Progressives tend to dismiss Tea Party activists as ignorant
and/or deluded,
>but we should realize that the Tea Party has a few (very few)
valid points.
>At a minimum, the Tea Party is correct in saying that American
democracy
>today would be unrecognizable to the framers.
>In their speculation of what the framers would think about
today's America,
>however, Tea Party activists make the mistake of not considering
the
>question fully. They focus almost exclusively on the singular
issue of
>downsizing government, completely ignoring other aspects of
modern America
>that would grab the framers' attention. Surely, if Adams,
Jefferson and
>Madison could be magically transplanted to modern America, their
actual
>assessment of society would be much more comprehensive than
critiquing the
>tax system and size of government.
>For example, surely the aspect of modern society that would first
preoccupy
>the framers would be our advanced technology, not our
governmental
>structure. Only after marveling for days or weeks about modern
technology,
>from flying in airplanes to sending emails, would the framers'
attention
>eventually turn to government. Then, of course, in analyzing
government,
>they would certainly assess its expanded role in the proper
context, in
>light of today's much more complex technological, economic, and
social
>realities.
>Would they feel that government has gotten too big? Perhaps -
especially the
>military. But it's just as likely that they would conclude that
much
>government expansion - the FDA, the FCC, the FAA, the EPA, Social
Security,
>etc. - are logical results of technological and social
development. Of
>course, all we can do is speculate.
>But what the Tea Party ignores is that the framers would surely
be aghast at
>the enormous power that Americans have ceded to private corporate
>institutions. The time-traveling framers would most likely
assess American
>democracy as being ineffective and Americans themselves as being
largely
>uninformed, passive, distracted by petty consumption, and
incapable of
>critical thinking. They would see American politics and society
as overtaken
>by corporate interests that dictate public and social policy to
the private
>citizenry.
>If only the Tea Party could see beyond its simple "limited
government"
>mantra to consider such matters, its populist energy and
enthusiasm might be
>put to good use in challenging the corporate "persons" who own
and control
>American democracy and society. By fully considering their own
hypothetical,
>Tea Party activists would find a new outlet for their angst.
>You can bet Sanders will be met with much opposition in his call
for a
>constitutional amendment. Much of that opposition will have
roots, overtly
>or covertly, in the corporate establishment that he seeks to
tame. Time will
>tell which type of "persons" - human or corporate - win this
struggle.
>Text copyright 2011 Dave Niose
>FURTHER READING ON CORPORATE PERSONHOOD:
>Joel Bakan: The Corporation - The Pathological Pursuit of Profit
and Power
>David C. Korten: When Corporations Rule the World
>Claude Everett
>"The American fascist would prefer not to use violence. His
method is to
>poison the channels of public information. With a fascist the
problem is
>never how best to present the truth to the public but how best to
use the
>news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group
more money
>or more power."
> Henry Wallace
>U. S. Vice President, 1888 - 1965
>_______________________________________________
>acb-hsp mailing list
>acb-hsp at acb.org
>http://www.acb.org/mailman/listinfo/acb-hsp
_______________________________________________
acb-hsp mailing list
acb-hsp at acb.org
http://www.acb.org/mailman/listinfo/acb-hsp
_______________________________________________
acb-hsp mailing list
acb-hsp at acb.org
http://www.acb.org/mailman/listinfo/acb-hsp
_______________________________________________
acb-hsp mailing list
acb-hsp at acb.org
http://www.acb.org/mailman/listinfo/acb-hsp
More information about the acb-hsp
mailing list