Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
He's Huge in Antarctica
The latest ho-hum debate swirling about the blogosphere comes via Dennis Prager's ridiculous column in which he soils himself over the possibility that newly elected Muslim Rep. Keith Ellison might -- horrors! -- swear his oath on a Koran instead of a Bible. A few observations:
1) Obligatory irony citing: Prager's disregard for the Constitution's prohibition on religious tests for public office looms rather large, given that his complaint centers around the oath members of Congress take to uphold and defend the Constitution.
2) The oath Prager's all worked up about is pretty meaningless to begin with. Every member of Congress takes this oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. They then immediately begin passing bills that not only aren't authorized by the Constitution, but don't even go to the trouble of citing what part of the Constitution they've butchered to give themselves authority to pass the bill. So most of them break the oath within days of taking office. You'd think Prager would be more upset about, for example, President Bush swearing on a Bible to protect the Constitution, then months later signing a law he conceded he thought was unconstitutional.
3) That said, if you're going to have an elected official swear on a religious text as part of the oath, wouldn't you rather it be a religious text the official actually believes? I mean, I could take an oath by swearing on a stack of Dennis Prager columns. But I wouldn't feel particularly obligated to keep it.
4) Seems to me that if you think one Muslim congressman taking a meaningless oath by swearing on a Bible "undermines American civilization" (as Prager wrote in his column), you have a pretty low opinion of American civilization (insert "Why does Dennis Prager hate America?" line, here).
Eugene Volkokh slaps Prager around here.
Title comes from Prager's bizarre boast of having "lectured on all 7 continents."
|12.1.06 @ 11:40AM|#
The best part of this whole ordeal is that you don't get sworn in to the House with any kind of sacred book....you merely raise your right hand and swear to defend the Constitution.
|12.1.06 @ 11:45AM|#
Volkokh, as usual, gets the best of the argument. The Constitution is very clear; there cannot be a religous test for public office. Requiring the guy to swear on the Bible is a religous test, there is no way around it. To say otherwise is just rediculous.
|12.1.06 @ 11:50AM|#
"ho-hum debate" is right. Here is a better debate, is Prager an idiotic ass, or an assinine idiot?
|12.1.06 @ 11:54AM|#
Bingo, Tom, the whole pathetic episode is a figment of Prager's retarded imagination.
|12.1.06 @ 11:55AM|#
yeah, I spelled it wrong. Whats it to ya?
Actually, ASSinine is probably a superior spelling than the
accepted standard.
|12.1.06 @ 11:55AM|#
We do need a spellchecker function, which is not uncommon for various online forums. How about it, Reasonmeisters?
thoreau|12.1.06 @ 11:55AM|#
I mean, I could take an oath by swearing on a stack of
Dennis Prager columns. But I wouldn't feel particularly obligated
to keep it.
Wit like this is why Radley is already one of my favorite
Reason staff writers only a month into his tenure. (No
offense to the other writers.)
|12.1.06 @ 11:56AM|#
So what texts, if any, did our two new Buddhist congressfolk swear on? Did Hank Johnson use the Lotus Sutra? Gosh, I wonder why Prager isn't up in arms about that.
ed|12.1.06 @ 11:59AM|#
The latest ho-hum debate
I've never heard of Dennis Prager and I don't care what he
thinks.
/Debate
|12.1.06 @ 12:00PM|#
We do need a spellchecker function, which is not uncommon
for various online forums. How about it, Reasonmeisters?
Try using the newest Firefox. It automatically spell checks forms,
emails, message thread posts, etc.
|12.1.06 @ 12:01PM|#
"centers around"
On can center on something, or revolve around something; one cannot
center around something. The center is center.
|12.1.06 @ 12:03PM|#
So this "commentator" (note I didn't write moron, coprolite, or whale sperm) has lectured in Antarctica. Won't somebody think about the penguins?!
Brian|12.1.06 @ 12:06PM|#
Anyone catch the little bit about how the Constitution derives its legitmacy from the Bible. The hell?
Duckman|12.1.06 @ 12:10PM|#
The worst is I think Hannity gave this nut airtime last night on
H&C, not that I regularly watch that, but I do like to watch
religion-oriented controversies...
Hannity actually said that if you allow someone to swear an oath on
a Koran, you will have to let them swear an oath on Mein
Kampf.
This shows his (and Prager's) true opinion: freedom of religion
should only apply to Christianity.
It's sad to see how un-enlightened people are today. A constitution
like the type which this country was founded upon likely could not
be created today in this sort of atmosphere.
|12.1.06 @ 12:16PM|#
I worship Reason Magazine, so can I swear my oath over the Ovas
For Sale cover?
No, because once we allow that, it's pretty much man-on-dog from
there on out.
|12.1.06 @ 12:19PM|#
I think you can boast about getting laid on all seven continents. Especially man-on-dog style.
|12.1.06 @ 12:27PM|#
This shows his (and Prager's) true opinion: freedom of
religion should only apply to Christianity.
Which is kind of interesting since I thought Prager was
Jewish.
I'm curious, is it actually OK for a Jew to swear on a Christian
Bible? How do Jews even feel about swearing oaths* generally?
*Quaker tradition (my only religious experience) opposes swearing
oaths but I don't know what other sects beileve on this line.
Steve Verdon|12.1.06 @ 12:29PM|#
CayugaCthuga,
Well given your nick, I'd assume you'd want to use the De
Vermis Mysteriis.
|12.1.06 @ 12:35PM|#
As someone who's lived in L.A. for years, I can tell you by experience, any controversy instigated by the name "Dennis Prager" will involve teeth grinding angst over how unbelievably stupid a man can truly be, and still manage to get on the radio and write columns. The peers on his radio station airwaves such as Hugh Hewitt, Michael Medved, and Laura Ingram look like intellectual giants in comparison.
|12.1.06 @ 12:40PM|#
Isaac Bartram:
yes, Prager is (was?) Jewish. Remarkably, that has never stopped
him from being the preachiest Christianist whacko on Los Angeles
radio.
And yes, he was allowed to blurb on at least one episode of
Bullshit! Which was an immediate clue that the boys were involved
in some mind fuck of a bullshit experiment themselves, or had a
serious research for their show. It would be kinda like Reason
quoting Fred Phelps because he feels taxes should be cut, too.
|12.1.06 @ 12:43PM|#
Well, in the Old Testament, numerous oaths were sworn by placing
one's hand on someone else's balls - although most versions of the
Bible euphemize it as "under the thigh". But somehow I doubt this
practice is carried on today.
Come to think of it, it would be funny to force that sort of vow on
Congressmen. Just a little pre-emptive revenge for the damage
they'll surely do later.
Brian|12.1.06 @ 12:44PM|#
Something I keep wondering about. There seems to be an endless
supply of these B and C and D Team rightwing gasbags. Not talking
about the A-listers like Hannity. It's all the other guys like
Prager, Medved, Hewitt, etc. Presumably in a market economy there
must be some demand for this particular product but at some point
the market gets saturated right? Why are there so many of these
guys and why are they everywhere and getting so much airtime?
Or it could be wingnut welfare. These guys are all money losers but
are kept around with modest subsidies from the
Scaife/Regnery/Murdoch/etc complex.
|12.1.06 @ 12:48PM|#
*Quaker tradition (my only religious
experience)...
Badly worded there. Would be better rendered as:
"*Quaker tradition (my only experience with religion)..."
I can't actually recall ever having a "religious experience".
:)
|12.1.06 @ 12:51PM|#
"Well, in the Old Testament, numerous oaths were sworn by
placing one's hand on someone else's balls - although most versions
of the Bible euphemize it as "under the thigh".
I've read that that's actually where the words "Testament" and
"Testify" are derived from: "Testes." Which may also explain why
there will never be a third Testament to the bible.
Anyway, Prager is only slightly less full of shit than Hugh
Hewitt.
|12.1.06 @ 12:53PM|#
From the Sermon on the Mount:
"Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, "You shall
not swear falsely, but shall perform your oaths to the Lord.' But I
say to you, do not swear at all: neither by heaven, for it is God's
throne; 35nor by the earth, for it is His footstool; nor by
Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. Nor shall you
swear by your head, because you cannot make one hair white or
black. But let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No.' For
whatever is more than these is from the evil one. (Matthew
5:33-37)
All together now, in Adam Sandler's "Water Boy" voice:
"YOU the devil, Dennis!"
|12.1.06 @ 12:55PM|#
Well, in the Old Testament, numerous oaths were sworn by
placing one's hand on someone else's balls - although most versions
of the Bible euphemize it as "under the thigh". But somehow I doubt
this practice is carried on today.
Come to think of it, it would be funny to force that sort of vow on
Congressmen. Just a little pre-emptive revenge for the damage
they'll surely do later.
But not Mark Foley.
Duckman|12.1.06 @ 12:59PM|#
The old testament of the Bible is basically a repackaging of the
Jewish Torah, so it might be more palatable for a Jew to swear an
oath on a Bible than for a Muslim to do so.
Notice that many conservatives use the term "Judeo-Christian
values," implying that they view both Christianity and Judiasm to
be acceptable. They are closely related, in that Christianity can
be viewed as a form of Judiasm in which the Jewish messiah is
believed to have already come (Jesus), whereas Jews believe the
messiah has not come yet.
But if you start to include other religions, you get to a point
where they seem as ludicrous as Mein Kampf from their values
standpoint.
|12.1.06 @ 12:59PM|#
Yes, Prager is Jewish. And a postmonkey.
And I was forced to read books by him on two separate occasions in
college ("Why the Jews?" in Jewish Religion and "Happiness is a
Serious Problem" in an intro philosophy class)... neither of which
were particularly bad (or good), and both of which were assigned by
profs who were known Democrats. Why they liked Prager so much was
beyond me.
|12.1.06 @ 1:01PM|#
Dennis Prager was on an episode of Bullshit! about PETA. Animal rights people are so far gone that they make Prager look reasonable by comparison.
Franklin Harris|12.1.06 @ 1:05PM|#
I'm an atheist. Could I just swear my oaths on a copy of
Anarchy, State & Utopia?
Oh, I'm sure that would get Prager's panties in wad. Especially
after atheist agitator Sam Harris slapped him around:
http://www.jewcy.com/dialogue/monday_why_are_atheists_so_angry_sam_harris
|12.1.06 @ 1:06PM|#
Animal rights people are so far gone that they make Prager
look reasonable by comparison.
And they aren't doing anything about the penguins being lectured by
Dennis Prager!
|12.1.06 @ 1:06PM|#
"Something I keep wondering about. There seems to be an endless
supply of these B and C and D Team rightwing gasbags. Not talking
about the A-listers like Hannity. It's all the other guys like
Prager, Medved, Hewitt, etc. Presumably in a market economy there
must be some demand for this particular product but at some point
the market gets saturated right? Why are there so many of these
guys and why are they everywhere and getting so much
airtime?"
The thing about liberal pundits is that most of them are, in the
scheme of things, so innocuous that they get little attention and
seldom say anything so blatantly idiotic that they generate these
kind of controversies. Oh, sure, you have leftist dipweasels like
Michael Moore and Maureen Dowd who shove their boots in their
mouths from time to time, or liberals with jackass personalities
that manage to get some attention (James Carville, I mean you!),
but E.J. Dionne, Tom Friedman, Anna Quindlen, and their like seldom
do anything stupid or asinine enough to get attention. (Not to say
liberal pundits aren't stupid or asenine, just not sufficiently
enough to get attention) Thus they sort of blend into the woodwork,
though they're as common as their counterparts on the right, I'd
wager.
|12.1.06 @ 1:09PM|#
The truly hilarious thing about his article? The intelliTXT
hyperlink for "civilization". Its first hit is an ad for the
computer game Age of Empires.
Logically, therefore, swearing on the Koran will destroy Age of
Empires as we know it.
|12.1.06 @ 1:15PM|#
Franklin Harris, Sam Harris, myself, all damned fundamentalist
athiests!
BTW, Franklin, loved your link.
|12.1.06 @ 1:16PM|#
...there will never be a third Testament to the bible.
The old testament of the Bible is basically a repackaging of the
Jewish Torah, so it might be more palatable for a Jew to swear an
oath on a Bible than for a Muslim to do so.
The Qur'an could be seen as a third testament since Islam is also
an Abrahamic religion.
|12.1.06 @ 1:21PM|#
...there will never be a third Testament to the
bible...
...
The Qur'an could be seen as a third testament since Islam is also
an Abrahamic religion.
I was actually referring more to the root word of "Testes" and the
fact that those usually come(!) in pairs, but I take your
point.
|12.1.06 @ 1:25PM|#
I got it. I was referring more to the question of whether swearing on a bible was more palatable to a Jew or a Muslim. The "third testament" angle just helped tie it together.
|12.1.06 @ 1:26PM|#
As in the old joke whenever a thirteen-year-old boy gets his
hands on a microphone...
"Testes. Testes. One. Two. Three?!?"
|12.1.06 @ 1:34PM|#
...any controversy instigated by the name "Dennis Prager"
will involve teeth grinding angst over how unbelievably stupid a
man can truly be, and still manage to get on the radio and write
columns...
Just further evidence of how hopelessly screwed up the broadcast
industry continues to be. As a former DJ/talk host, I know
literally dozens of genuinely talented people who can't even get
arrested in the secondary markets, while idiots like Prager,
Ingraham, etc. get the royal treatment nationwide. This isn't about
politics: it's about the ability to entertain (or the lack
thereof). Not that I'm (ahem) bitter or anything...
|12.1.06 @ 1:35PM|#
I'm an atheist. Could I just swear my oaths on a copy of
Anarchy, State & Utopia?
Actually as a child I was instructed that if ever called upon to
give testimony I should ask to affirm rather than swear. By that
time courts made allowances for religious crackpots. In earlier
times Quakers had gotten into trouble over this, even to the extent
of being jailed for contempt.
Nowadays everyone is off the hook since all oaths now begin, "Do
you swear or affirm...", bibles are no longer
present and "so help you God" has been dropped from the end.
In cases like the oath of office the oath-taker can have it
customised to his preferences. Hence when Bush was sworn in "or
affirm" was absent, he had his hand on a Bible and the oath ended
"so help me God"*. Presumably a Quaker or an atheist could make a
pure affirmation without any religious trappings**.
*I suspect that I believe that this was because he thinks these
things play well on television, though, not because he has any
sincere religious convictions.
**I'm sure that it is unlikely that we will ever be able to test
this. And Herbert Hoover and Richard Nixon don't count; they
weren't real Quakers.
|12.1.06 @ 1:37PM|#
"You'd think Prager would be more upset about, for example,
President Bush swearing on a Bible to protect the Constitution,
then months later signing a law he conceded he thought was
unconstitutional."
Not just Prager, but the entire citizenry. In my view, this is
grounds for impeachment as surely as (and more relevantly than)
lying under oath about sex. I certainly thought it would be grounds
to toss the current Oval occupant out onto the street in 2004. How
much did the GOP have to pay the Demos to get them to run a
candidate that was even more repulsive than the incumbent?
What has bothered me about recent Presidents, culminating in GW
Bush, is that they not only do things that damage the constitution,
but they often make no attempt at all to hide or explain their
transgressions -- they even draw attention to them, as if daring us
to do something about it.
And we do nothing, not even when it is easy and safe, and elegant:
from the privacy of a voting booth. Instead, we come along a couple
of years later and install a few new "watchers" in Congress, who
then start ginning up talk of a impeachment, which will be
horrendously wasteful and damaging, in the unlikely event that it
ever does happen.
|12.1.06 @ 2:01PM|#
Truly Curious, I was honestly just repeating something I'd heard and thought to be somewhat-common knowledge. But there's some corroboration of it here, which refers to "the circumcised membrum of the Patriarch".
|12.1.06 @ 2:17PM|#
A J sub D Hypothesis - The more one researches a religion correlates directly with the one's disrespect of the same.
|12.1.06 @ 2:51PM|#
Amen. If a sister in atheism may say so.
My understanding is "Amen" is just saying "the end", so yeah, you
can say that.
|12.1.06 @ 2:54PM|#
Watched an intersting History channel bit on "Banned Books of the Bible" the other night. Very interesting to see how the 4th c. church leaders picked which books to put in the "Official" bible and which ones were left out. Even more interesting to me was how many of the books that were left out of the "official" bible made thier way into the Koran.
|12.1.06 @ 3:03PM|#
Amen = "So be it, truly".
BTW, your axiomatic conclusion may come as a bit of a surprise to
Christian biblical scholars. I would bet one's disrespect for a
religion correlates more strongly with a lessened desire to
research it. Which is why almost everything I know about
Christianity, I learned back when I was a Christian.
|12.1.06 @ 3:06PM|#
Watched an intersting History channel bit on "Banned Books
of the Bible..."
That's the problem with H&R posters. Too much history channel
and not enough Desperate Housewives and Survivor viewing.
|12.1.06 @ 3:10PM|#
BTW, your axiomatic conclusion may come as a bit of a
surprise to Christian biblical scholars. I would bet one's
disrespect for a religion correlates more strongly with a lessened
desire to research it. Which is why almost everything I know about
Christianity, I learned back when I was a Christian.
You're probably right. That's why I called it a hypothesis rather
than a theory.
|12.1.06 @ 3:14PM|#
"Muslim Rep. Keith Ellison"
as someone living in Ellison's district, I find it disheartening to
learn he only represents Muslims...
|12.1.06 @ 3:19PM|#
"I've read that that's actually where the words "Testament" and
"Testify" are derived from: "Testes." Which may also explain why
there will never be a third Testament to the bible."
And therefore, Islam is a lie.
|12.1.06 @ 3:22PM|#
Notice that many conservatives use the term "Judeo-Christian
values," implying that they view both Christianity and Judiasm to
be acceptable.
No, because Jews are still hellbound. It's just an attempt to
defuse criticisms that they're against the seperation of Church and
State. Then when people accuse them of it, they can say "Nu-uh,
Jews are OK too!"
|12.1.06 @ 3:43PM|#
Well, I think by "Judeo-Christian" they really just mean the
10 commandments.
Jesus threw the Old Testament out the window, didn't he?
|12.1.06 @ 3:52PM|#
Depends who you ask.
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets;
I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." - Matthew
5:17 (NIV)
Or practically speaking, in terms of modern Christianity, "[Insert
desired philosophy here]" - Matthew 5:17.
|12.1.06 @ 3:57PM|#
I can see why Christians would refer to "Judeo-Christian" values, but why would Jews do it?
|12.1.06 @ 4:34PM|#
"I can see why Christians would refer to "Judeo-Christian"
values, but why would Jews do it?"
Because they are are evil and cunning.
|12.1.06 @ 4:55PM|#
Prager gives fundamentalists like me a bad name. In fact, Prager
is talking like a liberal.
It's *liberals* who want to ignore the actual text of the
constitution in favor of an "evolving" interpretation based on
unwritten principles pulled out of the interpreter's butt. That's
what Praeger is doing with Article VI of the Constitution, which
says that "[t]he Senators and Representatives . . . shall be bound
by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no
religioius Test shall ever be required as a qualfication to any
Office or public trust under the United States."
Interpreting this to mean "Congressmen must swear on the Bible" is
not an interpretation, it's a constitutional amendment under the
guise of interpretation. Prager should leave that sort of thing to
the liberals; they're the experts.
|12.1.06 @ 5:04PM|#
I think I see what you're getting at, MM.
The Constitution = That holy Christian document which MM agrees
with entirely.
Interpretations of the Constitution = Satan's lies as spoken from
the lips of his servants, the liberals.
|12.1.06 @ 5:53PM|#
What happened to Praeger?
When I lived in Los Angeles, about five years ago now, I listened
to his show a couple of times, and I was even on it once. (Or maybe
I was on the show a couple of times and listened to it once.)
Anyway, he seemed fairly sane, innocuous, and, to be blunt, boring.
Did I just misjudge the man, based on limited exposure? Or did he,
like some other relatively sane conservatives, see that the real
money was in going apeshit over nothing and move in that
direction?
|12.1.06 @ 6:00PM|#
zach,
"I think I see what you're getting at, MM.
"The Constitution = That holy Christian document which MM agrees
with entirely.
"Interpretations of the Constitution = Satan's lies as spoken from
the lips of his servants, the liberals."
I was defending a secular, religiously-neutral interpretation of
the Constitution, and *disagreeing* with Prager's wrongheaded,
theocratic interpretation . . .
but other than that, yes, you have paraphrased me accurately.
|12.1.06 @ 6:27PM|#
Charles Oliver
I seem to recall seeing an attack on the WOD by Prager a couple of
years ago. It was something of his from a couple of years
before.
It was connected to something he had just writen about the
suffering of the Israelis and how we had to nuke the Palestinians
or something or other to end it. (Sorry for the hyperbole, the
guyjust brings it out in me.)
I remember thinking at the time, "What the hell happened to this
guy?"
|12.2.06 @ 12:19AM|#
That HotAir/CNN clip loads unbearably slowly on my dial-up
connection. What's the netiquette about letting folks know what
bandwidth is required by a video link? Some blog posts send you to
objects other than ordinary html text-and-graphics pages without
even bothering to tell you that the link is to Flash, pdf, etc. I
suppose I could check properties before I hit every link, but life
is easier if you tell a person. At least YouTube has the "play it
again" option.
I clicked through the commentary and found Volokh's argument
spelled out in a
National Review column. He does make Prager look silly.
If I ever get sworn in to office, I'll have a small volume
containing the Declaration of Independence, the
Articles of Confederation, the Constitution, the
Virginia Declaration of Rights, and some other Great
American Documents printed up. I'll make sure there's some Tom
Paine and anti-Federalist writing in there, too. I'll hold onto
that while affirming.
Pleae, my fellow Libertarians, if you are ever trusted with office
by the voters, don't attest to your honesty while holding onto a
signed copy of Atlas Shrugged, The Red Book of
Westmarch, or The Rules of Acquisition. The swearing
in is an act of political theatre, even of secular liturgy. The
idea is to persuade, not alienate, the constituency.
Prager was never a lockstep lefty, but he really bonded with the
cultural cons after 9/11.
Kevin
|12.2.06 @ 2:32AM|#
I'm genuinely curious: Has anyone endorsed Prager's absurd theory of Congressmen having to swear on the Bible (rather than having this one option among many)? Pat Robertson? Jerry Falwell?
|12.2.06 @ 6:34AM|#
I don't understand the reason for a swearing in ceremony.
Congressmen are elected. They put their name in, we picked
them.
They should meet up with the HR guys, sign their tax paperwork,
pick a health plan, get assigned an office, and clock in.
Would that be so fucking hard?
Tom|12.2.06 @ 8:27AM|#
People like Prager and Hannity are part of the reason I proudly no longer consider myself a Republican. Their Christian right wing agenda gets in the way of what the forefathers intended for this country. That is a country of moral people, who respect religion and agree that there is a place for it in daily life, but believe it has no place dictating laws of the land.
|12.2.06 @ 12:28PM|#
Okay, I guess SOMEONE should defend Dennis Prager here.
I've listened to Prager off and on since the late Eighties and find
much of what he says to be well-reasoned, well-considered and
interesting. His insights on Judaism and the subject of happiness
are paricularly solid and worthwhile. And he's very good at drawing
the connection between leftist thought and the totalitarian
impulse.
Having written that, he does occasionally spin in some
spectacularly silly ways and then defends his position in a
particularly testy and nasty way. This inane dust-up over what book
Keith Ellison is going to take the ceremonial -- and only
ceremonial -- office is just the latest. A few years ago he
actually had Uri Geller on his show and was impressed by the
"psychic" charlatan. Then spent the next day's show railing at all
the people who e-mailed him about how James Randi had proven
Geller's fraudulence. In short, Prager is not a man who takes
criticism well or lightly. And he'll defend the indefensible
too.
Still, he's not the knee jerk, right wing, fundamentaist tool he's
been portrayed by many posters here.
So there.
|12.2.06 @ 4:54PM|#
I've listened to Prager off and on since the late Eighties
and find much of what he says to be well-reasoned, well-considered
and interesting.
True enough - which makes it all the more baffling why he feels the
need to delve into the kind of looney-tune populism we're talking
about here.
Now to be fair about it, I know what a bear it can be to come up
with something fresh everyday behind the mike and God knows I've
made some bad calls in my career as a talk jock...
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245