Tuesday, August 14, 2012

Is Fizziks In Denial? (Updated)

Mike L.

What are we to make of people who refuse to acknowledge that 2 plus 2 equals 4?

I guess I shouldn't be terribly surprised. Any Jew who blames other Jews for our own persecution cannot be counted on to acknowledge the obvious. And that's the problem, really. Progressive-left Jews, like Fizziks, think that the conflict is because some Jews choose to live in Judea and that if only we could ethnically-cleanse those Jews from Jewish land then there will be peace.

Is that a mischaracterization?

I do not think so. These Obamabot Slaves honestly believe that the real problem is with Jews who live where Barack Obama does not want them to live. By laying the blame for the conflict at the feet of their fellow Jews they ignore 14 hundred years of Jewish persecution under the boot of Muslim imperialism and supremacy in the Middle East... and they do so in the service of a political movement, the progressive-left, that has made a home of itself for anti-Semitic anti-Zionists.

This would be something akin to black people refusing to acknowledge the history of slavery in the United States because they do not wish to offend white people in today's Republican party.

They have, thus, all the integrity of a hot pastrami sandwich.


School was kind enough to drop in and give us this quick bit of reality:

August 14, 2012 11:36 AM

BDS was born at the 2001 NGO World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, in Durban.

That was NOT a conglomeration of Rightists, but those from the opposite pole.

It is beyond obvious that BDS, and anti-Semitic anti-Zionism, is a sub-movement on the political left. Does anyone in reality doubt this? Do they think that Alice Walker goes bowling with Daniel Pipes?

Or that Helen Thomas plays pinochle with Glenn Beck?

I do not think so.

And while it is obviously true that anti-Zionism is also found on the right, this does not change the fact that as an organized movement of, at least, some significance it comes primarily out of the left.

To deny this, because it is politically inconvenient, is to deny the obvious and to simply make oneself look foolish.


  1. Fizziks responds thus:

    But Mikey, what I just don't understand is why to you every time anti-Israelism rears its head among the left it is incontrovertible proof that it is of the left, but when it rears its head among the right - such as with this Herskovitz guy being a Republican, or Ron Paul's 40% in Virginia, etc - it just doesn't matter. Can you explain this inconsistency to me?

    Also, you have again demonstrated that you don't understand what liberalism is. It is not a standard or mode of behavior. It is simply not, Mikey. That is some nonsense that you blindly parroted from oldschool. It was incorrect nonsense then and it is incorrect nonsense now. You can't try to ponitificate on these matters if you fundamentally don't understand them.

    Can I explain the apparent inconsistency? Of course.

    It is for two reasons. The first reason is that I come out of the political left and therefore feel a greater responsibility for toxins that come out of that movement.

    The second reason is that obvious one that it is the progressive-left, not the political right, that serves as the primary base of anti-Semitic anti-Zionism in the west today.

    As for this other stuff, I never claimed that liberalism is strictly a mode of behavior. It is, as you say, a political ideology that derives from the Enlightenment centered on the freedom and rights of the individual.

    But the only question that I am concerned with here is whether or not the progressive-left, as a movement, is the home of contemporary western anti-Semitic anti-Zionism.

    That you refuse to acknowledge the obvious on this question, plus your need to use "Mikey" in a demeaning fashion, shows me that you do not really care about the truth.

    The truth is that your political movement, the progressive-left, is the source of anti-Semitic anti-Zionism and you just cannot bring yourself to face it.

    1. Hold on here a moment.

      You said:

      "It is not for you to tell me where my political inclinations lie or who I am.

      In fact, it is entirely illiberal to tell other people what their identity is."

      Followed shortly by:

      "The truth is that your political movement, the progressive-left, is the source of anti-Semtimic anti-Zionism...."

      Didn't you just tell him not to do what you just did?

    2. It's actually an interesting question.

      Is defining someone else's identity against their will illiberal?

      If so this would mean that claiming that a racist is a racist is illiberal.

      In the example that you've given, however, I do not define anyone's political identity for them against their will.

      Furthermore, Stuart, it is clearly the case that anti-Semitic anti-Zionists today operate out of the progressive-left. You know it as well as I.

      All I want is some acknowledgment of the fact and find it fairly remarkable that the very people who, for example, cannot bring themselves to really discuss "Pallywood" or, say, the centuries of Jewish dhimmitude under the boot of Islamic imperialism, also cannot bring themselves to acknowledge that which is right in front of their noses.

      It's deeply dishonest and unethical, actually.

      We see it on a daily basis coming from progressive-left venues, yet these guys are not only in denial, but they demean anyone who points out the truth on this matter.

      The thing is, tho, everyone knows that the home of BDS is the progressive-left.

  2. BDS was born at the 2001 NGO World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, in Durban.

    That was NOT a conglomeration of Rightists, but those from the opposite pole.

    1. What explains the willful denial of the obvious?

      In any case, thank you, School, for that quick bit of necessary reality.

    2. Because there is truth to what each side says, and neither side is very good at moderation, but quite good in black and white. The whole problem with these debates is that, for arguments' sake, it is incumbent to take things out of context and personalize differences.

  3. Also, with respect to liberalism, it seems that some who believe it is ONLY a philosophy have an elementary understanding.

    Liberalism is both theory and reality.

    One can believe in the theory, but if one behaves illiberally in reality, is that person liberal?

    How many people, acting in the name of lofty principles, violate the lofty precepts they claim guides them?

    1. Indeed.

      How does Marx end up giving us Stalin?

    2. That puts it in a nutshell. And that's why it's not just ideology, but actions that go toward the determination.

    3. Quite right.

      The very word "liberal" has all sorts of connotations and resonances. It does have a formal meaning as a political philosophy derived from John Locke and the Enlightenment thinkers, but it also has contemporary meanings that imply such things as open-mindedness, for example.

      Theory and practice. Ideology and behavior.

      I do not think that VB is actually a liberal. Fizziks may be a liberal, perhaps, but VB is not, at least not in terms of practice or behavior.

      He is a leftist, that is true, but he's kind of a Stalinist. This business about how some American Jews should just get the hell out of the country and move to Israel, from a diary from back when as you will recall, was pretty authoritarian.

      And, certainly, the inability to accept a reasonable diversity within Jewish community opinion is authoritarian, as well. He loves to censure and draw lines.

      But mainly this willingness to ruin the reputation of an individual, through accusations of insanity or criminality, for such paltry reasons is very much an authoritarian impulse and a very dangerous one.

      I hope his kids grow up to be Republicans!


    4. Mike you wrote:

      "How does Marx end up giving us Stalin?"

      Mike, are you serious? I wrote about this earlier.

      (And, btw, I used to be as "liberal" as anyone could be. Believe me. And, involved with that, I used to view Marxism in some kind of favorable light, and as being, if not quite beneficial, then, at worst, benign.)


      The Russian Loan, by KARL MARX, published in the New-York Daily Tribune on January 4, 1856

      "...Thus we find every tyrant backed by a Jew, as is every pope by a Jesuit. In truth, the cravings of oppressors would be hopeless, and the practicability of war out of the question, if there were not an army of Jesuits to smother thought and a handful of Jews to ransack pockets.

      "...the real work is done by the Jews, and can only be done by them, as they monopolize the machinery of the loanmongering mysteries by concentrating their energies upon the barter trade in securities… Here and there and everywhere that a little capital courts investment, there is ever one of these little Jews ready to make a little suggestion or place a little bit of a loan. The smartest highwayman in the Abruzzi is not better posted up about the locale of the hard cash in a traveler’s valise or pocket than those Jews about any loose capital in the hands of a trader… The language spoken smells strongly of Babel, and the perfume which otherwise pervades the place is by no means of a choice kind.

      "...Thus do these loans, which are a curse to the people, a ruin to the holders, and a danger to the governments, become a blessing to the houses of the children of Judah. This Jew organization of loan-mongers is as dangerous to the people as the aristocratic organization of landowners… The fortunes amassed by these loan-mongers are immense, but the wrongs and sufferings thus entailed on the people and the encouragement thus afforded to their oppressors still remain to be told.

      "...The fact that 1855 years ago Christ drove the Jewish moneychangers out of the temple, and that the moneychangers of our age enlisted on the side of tyranny happen again chiefly to be Jews, is perhaps no more than a historical coincidence. The loan-mongering Jews of Europe do only on a larger and more obnoxious scale what many others do on one smaller and less significant. But it is only because the Jews are so strong that it is timely and expedient to expose and stigmatize their organization. ..."

      On The Jewish Question, by KARL MARX, 1843

      "...Let us consider the actual, worldly Jew -- not the Sabbath Jew, as Bauer does, but the everyday Jew. Let us not look for the secret of the Jew in his religion, but let us look for the secret of his religion in the real Jew. What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money. Very well then! Emancipation from huckstering and money, consequently from practical, real Jewry, would be the self-emancipation of our time.... We recognize in Jewry, therefore, a general present-time-oriented anti-social element, an element which through historical development -- to which in this harmful respect the Jews have zealously contributed -- has been brought to its present high level, at which it must necessarily dissolve itself. In the final analysis, the emancipation of the Jews is the emancipation of mankind from Jewry. ..."


    5. Ernst Moritz Arndt, by FRIEDRICH ENGELS, published in Telegraph für Deutschland No. 2, January 1841

      "...True, it is a fixed idea with the French that the Rhine is their property, but to this arrogant demand the only reply worthy of the German nation is Arndt's: "Give back Alsace and Lorraine". For I am of the opinion, perhaps in contrast to many whose standpoint I share in other respects, that the reconquest of the German-speaking left bank of the Rhine is a matter of national honour, and that the Germanisation of a disloyal Holland and of Belgium is a political necessity for us. Shall we let the German nationality be completely suppressed in these countries, while the Slavs are rising ever more powerfully in the East? ..."

      Schelling and Revelation, by FRIEDRICH ENGELS, 1841

      "...This is our calling, that we shall become the templars of this Grail, gird the sword round our loins for its sake and stake our lives joyfully in the last holy war which will be followed by the thousand-year reign of freedom. ..."


      The German National Socialist (NAtionalsoZIalistische (Nazi)) party

    6. But, I digress. I'm very distressed. I'm too involved "in the world" (on-line). And I feel that my writing these things on the internet may be unbeneficial. Being involved in the world on-line in the way that I have been doing is very stressful to me. It's very unbeneficial for me. So I'm going to try to leave this behind. But I may pop in once in a while. But, I don't know. Maybe not. But maybe so. I don't know.

      But, in any case,

      Good luck. May you all do what's beneficial.

      May everyone be well and happy.

    7. Sorry to hear that, Daniel. Do what's best for you. Hope to see you around whenever you feel the time is right!

    8. This.

      "I do not think that VB is actually a liberal. [...] He is a leftist, that is true, but he's kind of a Stalinist."

      And all the rest you said, Mike. The runt is a petty little tyrant, with serious anger issues. I was unfortunate enough to be in email contact with him for about a year, and I've seen how he acts in 'private,' as well. If you can believe it, he's even worse and more unhinged there. He looks almost downright normal on the blogs, in comparison.

      If volleyboy's friends were truly his friends, they would sit him down and let him know that perhaps it's time he sought some help. Sane, responsible, mature, well-adjusted adults do not act like he does. Ever, really. Let alone every. single. time. I ever come across him on the internet.

    9. Daniel. Take care of yourself, man. Please pop by, as you say, when you feel better. Until then, take care.

    10. Daniel, you know this place is always open to you and I very much consider you a friend to the site.

      Now, where was I?

      Oh, yes, Volleyboy1.

      The guy is an online authoritarian without a fresh thought in his head and he is far, far more friendly to progressive-left anti-Zionists than he is to Jewish conservatives who comprise his real enemy.

      If you were to hold up pictures of Hassan Nasrallah and, say, William Kristol in front of Volleyboy1, it would be Kristol who he would immediately lunge at with hatred.

      No question about it.

    11. Take care Daniel. I enjoy your pieces.

    12. Stop giving the guy so much attention then! It serves little purpose to obsess, and it's wrong to speak about others in gratuitous terms, even if they act poorly.

      There is no love lost between VB and me, but I choose to walk a higher path. That does not mean I will not speak to wrongs, but I will say it and be done, rather than many exchanges saying the same thing ad nauseum.

      There is little doubt that he acts in ways that are contrary to my view of what it means to be liberal, but not contrary to being progressive. Censoring others based on content is an example, not to mention the unnecessary ridicule, disparagement and demonization, often on a personal level, of those that differ.

      He is setting a poor model for his kids. If nothing else, I would hope he could wake up to understand how ineffective his communication skills are. It does not take long before people tune him out.

      Will leave it at that.

    13. Wait a second.

      School, are you suggesting that I shouldn't rename this blog something like "Why Volleyboy1 Sucks"?


      You're probably right.

      I think that Jay and I are just getting this most recent episode out of our systems.

      It's rather ugly to watch, I think, but sometimes you need a good bleeding to get the black bile out.

      We'll be moving on shortly, I assure you.

    14. School - good to see you around lately, hope you can stop by more often!

      I know of your history with him. Oh, believe me, I know. And if you only knew how much he obsessed (and I'm sure, still does) about you in private, you'd be amazed.

      Anyway, here's the thing though. He is now officially stalking me from blog to blog, and spreading his disgusting smear against me everywhere he can.

      I mean, on one hand, I guess I should be impressed that of all the people that lunatic imagines are hiding under his bed out to do him and his family imminent harm, it ended up being me that sent him completely over the edge.

      Actually, there's something quite telling about that, too. It wasn't a Nazi like Diane Gee, or one of the Daily Qos Martyrs' Brigade who finally launched him off the crazy cliff... but rather a pretty mainstream liberal whose only real sin was to refuse to believe that Mike is the most evil person in the world.

      Again, this says quite a lot about him, I believe.

      But anyway, the issue here is the stalking. This is something new, and truly disgusting. Something out of all reasonable bounds.

      I'm trying to move on, but it's truly creepy.

      No wonder the handful of his friends, who essentially admitted to me in private that he's nuts, will not say anything to him personally.

      They don't want the unhinged lunatic to stalk and smear them for the foreseeable future, as well.

      There's a word (or five) for that, actually, but I don't much care to get into that.

      Anyway, moving on. I promise to ignore the scumbag as much as I can.

      I don't know about his (although I agree he sets a tragic example, and if his online behavior is any indication he's probably less developed toward adulthood than they are), but I damned well sure would never let my child anywhere even near the same vicinity as him.

  4. You know, in other happenings there, I find it quite fitting that the vile volleyboy1 is once again spewing venom and teenaged-girl-ish text acronyms at me, in all of his unhinged 'glory,' in that post about Henry Herskovitz.

    Not to mention his obvious stalking of Mike and I, showing up at a site where I'm a longtime regular contributor and where volley'd never been to before last night - a site he indeed once railed against as a 'probable right-wing' site - and his going on to derail a whole thread which deserved much better than volleyboy's typical juvenile detention center basketball court-style 'discourse.'

    Herskovitz and volleyboy1 are simply flip sides of the very same coin, when I think about it. Fascinating.

    1. Hey, am I wrong, or is it not common knowledge among people who follow the Arab-Israel conflict that anti-Zionism in the US, if not the west, more generally, comes out of the political left?

      That was the question that got their knickers all up in a bunch and got them to be really, really nasty.

      I thought it was common knowledge among those of us who care about this issue and to see them denying it up and down is just odd.

      Of course, we have to remember these are people who think that if we put up a video of an imam screaming genocidal hatred toward Jewish people, it makes us the racist.

      As for VB's defamation of yourself, what can anyone say?

      It's pretty darn low to claim that someone is threatening your kids when this is clearly and obviously not the case.

      Defamation is not a pleasant thing and, of course, the only reason that he did it was as an act of revenge against you. But, really, in revenge for what? For the fact that you chose to participate here?

      In other words, he was more than willing to smear your reputation for the terrible crime of submitting your opinions on this blog. How's that for all out of proportion? And this is coming from a guy who, when I first met him, told me that "we" need to be better than "them."

      Whomever "them" might be.

      In truth, it was one of more vile displays that I've seen online... and I have seen an awful lot of ugliness in the progressive-left blogosphere.

    2. He doesn't seem to realize that his two or three sycophants from other blogs do not reflect the opinion of reasonable people, and that his behavior generally ranges from appalling to atrocious at all times.

      He is the single most abrasive asshole I have ever had the displeasure of 'knowing' online.

      I am a pretty mainstream liberal, who has voted for Obama once and will be doing so again, mainly because I disagree with the Republicans on virtually all domestic issues. Yet I am representative of "the lunatic fringe." In his opinion. I'm not quite sure how, exactly, but honestly that's just something I laugh off.

      I will not laugh off being repeatedly falsely accused of a felony, however. In public. I blog with my own first name and my city, dozens of people know my real name, and anybody with a few minutes and even just basic internet skills can find out my name and narrow down the location of my home to within a few blocks. And I honestly don't even care about that (I can more than handle myself physically).

      What I do care about, though, is that I a currently in the process of seeking permanent regular work, and I will not have this petty little tyrant ruining my reputation and affecting my ongoing search in a negative way.

      Once again, the psychological projection continues. The only one who is actually possibly threatening anyone's livelihood is that vicious little coward.

    3. Well, I am packing it in for the evening.

      I'm actually meeting Laurie at the ballpark to watch the Giants beat the holy hell out of Nationals!

      As for VB and his ugliness, you do not have a whole lot of recourse.

      He's going to say whatever he wants to say, however snide or demeaning, and there's not much that anyone can do about that.

      I'm glad that you stood up for yourself, tho, because I do not admire dhimmis.

      And with that I am outa here!

    4. Hell yeah, beat those Nats!

      Washington still hasn't figured out a way to keep their park from being majority-Phillies fans during our series' down there. We call their stadium Citizens Bank Park South. They should enjoy this year, because we're taking back the division in 2013! ;)

      As for volleyboy1, it's okay. He stepped in waaaaaaay over his head (someone should have told him I'm not the typical drooling dKos knuckledragger he usually 'debates' with, to whom he even loses just as often as not) today and was completely discredited, 100%. Flailing around even more childishly and helplessly than usual. All I have to do is point anyone to that thread from here on out. It's just a beautiful thing. He may as well create a blogging sockpuppet now if he ever wants to be taken seriously again. I doubt even his two or three servile little followers can cover for the brutal beating he brought upon himself there today.


    5. "In truth, it was one of more vile displays that I've seen online... and I have seen an awful lot of ugliness in the progressive-left blogosphere."

      Absolutely. Why do I feel like I've just been through the blog-equivalent of a suicide bombing, Mike?

    6. Well, this was pretty awful.

      The question that I raised is a perfectly good question. Is BDS in the US primarily from the progressive-left? We both know the answer to that and the answer is yes.

      What fizziks did was demean and deflect, demean and deflect.

      "Now that I have proven that you do not know what liberalism is..."

      I mean, what hogwash. The question was not about me or my relative knowledge of the meaning of liberalism. That was a deflection and a BORING one, at that.

      Neither of those guys seem the least little bit capable of thinking on this issue in a fresh manner, i.e., a manner that does not reflect the Oslo Delusion.

      And for VB to start harping on you about your non-existent threat toward him was pretty stomach churning, actually.

      I thought once or twice that I might jump in to your defense, but I want as little contact with that guy as possible and you seemed to be doing pretty fine job of taking care of yourself.... which, y'know, I very much enjoyed.

    7. Oh, absolutely. I enjoyed it, too. It was like fish in a barrel, just almost unfair at times. ;)

      Of course, if anyone has ever deserved such a thing, it's him.

      Little fella should have stayed in his own league.

  5. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/07/09/1107881/-Today-I-m-Coming-Out

    Just look at the number of recs the Troubadour got for his pro-BDS diary at dKos. That's all one needs to see how the Progressive grassrooters feel. They are massively in favour of it. Massively. And it's not just the wackos. Meteor Blades is the first listed....that scion of Progressivism and dKos thought. Granted there may be some debate about whether MB is or isn't a wacko...but....

    1. Well, clearly that can be explained away by the fact that Meteor Blades and David "The Useful Idiot" Harris-Gershon are secret Republicans; and the 474 people other than Mr. Blades who recommended that diary (and all his other JVP-style pablum) are not in any way reflective of the 'community' there at one of the left's premier blogs, and / or are all well-known right wingers themselves.


      Umm. Well.

      Or it could actually just mean that volleyboy1 is one of the biggest fucking dolts on the planet.

      I'm going with the latter.

  6. It's really quite a shame that you absolutely refuse to face the obvious, fizziks.

    Is Helen Thomas right-wing?

    Is Alice Walker right-wing?

    The people who spear-head BDS, in the west, generally come out of the political left.

    This is all that I am trying to establish and it is so obviously the case that only the most ideologically blinkered partisans would even bother arguing otherwise.

    Everybody who cares about this issue knows it.

    It's hardly even a question at this point and the only reason that I insist upon it is because you, and some people like you, apparently, continue to deny the undeniable.

    What you need to be thinking about, perhaps, is working to reform your political movement so that it does not remain a home for political anti-Zionism.

    The last thing that you should be doing is pretending that the problem does not exist in your political home.

    I'm sorry, but it does.

    1. All "real progressives," could begin by starting a campaign at dKos to cleanse the place of the faux Progressives who support BDS like the 474 who supported David "The Useful Idiot" Harris-Gershon. Start with Meteor Blades. See how far it gets ya.

    2. I tell ya, Doodad, you have to be pretty smart to be as stupid as some of these people.

      I mean, it takes some intelligence to live so much in one's imagination that you cannot see that BDS is primarily a left political movement in the west.

      It could hardly be more obvious.

      Is Jewish Voice for Peace right-wing?

      Are the various NGOs that perpetually tear at Israel right-wing?

      Fuck, no.

      It's almost all coming out of the left.

      Was Rachel Corrie a Republican?

      How about Cynthia McKinnie?

      And on and on and on.

      Not only is Fizziks wrong on this question, he is stupendously wrong.

      But, again, we are talking about people who tend to blame Jews for our own persecution in the Middle East.

      We are talking about people who refuse to acknowledge and discuss the historical connections between the Nazis, the Muslim Brotherhood, and the Palestinian national movement.

      We are talking about progressive-left ideologues, like fizziks, who are exceedingly reluctant to acknowledge Arab and Palestinian Koranically-based racism as the fundamental source of the conflict.

      This makes "progressive Zionists" less than worthless on this issue.

      Fizziks is not stupid. He is merely a fool. And, under the apparent influence of Volleyboy1, has become a vicious fool to boot.

      I wonder if he agrees with Volleyboy1 that Israeli high school students need to be taught the "Palestinian narrative"?

      Now that is a profoundly stupid idea.

  7. Here's something interesting. I don't know much about the US 'right-wing blogosphere,' but I do remember that back when I used to participate at Daily Kos, RedState.com was widely considered to be the right wing version of what Daily Kos was to the left.

    So let's search RedState for articles supporting BDS.

    Well shit, apparently the site's down now. But I'll get to this tomorrow. I'll also try to look up some other right wing blogs, and see if support levels for BDS are similar amongst the grassroots activist right as it is amongst the grassroots activist left.

    Seems an easy way to quickly test the thesis, no?

    1. Hey,

      We're heading out early tomorrow morning, but I thought that I would pop in.

      The question that we've mainly been discussing lately is where anti-Zionism or Israel Hatred tends to come from within the political spectrum.

      So, yeah, absolutely one thing to look at would be articles denigrating Israel within right-wing venues versus articles denigrating Israel within left-wing venues.

      What you would find are many opinion pieces spitting hatred at Israel from the left and virtually none on the right doing so.

      And, you know of course, that the anti-Israel NGOs are on the left and the anti-Israel activity in the universities are definitely left, so it could not be more obvious that the base for anti-Semitic anti-Zionism in the west is the progressive-left.

      It is obvious and undeniable.

      To the extent that anyone knowledgeable on the topic seeks to obscure that fact is the extent that such an individual is dishonest.

      It is obvious that if you are a person who cares about Israel there are two main tracks to take on this. One can either seek to reform the progressive-left or one can leave it.

      I have chosen to leave it, but I certainly do not expect that all Jewish people make such a decision. I am still unquestionably a liberal on the issues, but that does not mean that I am under any obligation to support progressive or left-wing venues or candidates.

      But what one cannot honestly do is simply deny the problem.

      Anti-Zionism as it exists today in the west is mainly grounded in notions of universal human rights and social justice, i.e., the progressive-left. One would have to be either ignorant or dishonest not to recognize this.

      The problem is the rank hypocrisy of a political movement that claims to stand for universal human rights, but only seems to care about universal human rights when Jews are involved.

      Where is the left on Darfur or the Congo?

      Where is the left on women's rights in Saudi Arabia?


      The truth of the matter is that the progressive-left is dead.

      I'm just waiting for someone to bury it, because it's stinking up the joint.

      But, whatever.

      I just want to get into the countryside with Laurie.