- I Was So Surprised

Published on May 11, 2008 By Larry Kuperman In Current Events

Last weekend I was informed (loudly, repeatedly and, in my not-so-humble opinion, obnoxiously) that I am a supporter of genocide. The story follows and you can judge for yourself.

I will confess that I could have entitled this "I support genocide?" as a question rather than a statement, but the rebuke was offered to me so aggressively that I will keep the statement form.

For a decade, I have been a member of the Ann Arbor Jewish Cultural Society (http://www.jewishculturalsociety.org/ for anyone who cares to visit, feel free to click on Adult Education.) We are a Secular Humanist institution and school. If you are not familiar with Secular Humanism (and I mean in the sense of actually having VISITED a place) you may be surprised at all the things we have in common with churches. Yes, we have Sunday School and yes, we teach values and yes, we do community activities and we even observe the Sabbath. We just don't think that we have a monopoly on a vision of God.

I taught Sunday School to kids for five years and began the Adult Education class last year. Not exactly the profile of a mass murderer so far, right? (All my neighbors said that I seemed so normal....well, not really, being normal is not an accusation that is often leveled at me.) I also volunteer for activities as often as I can. Usually these are in the form of raking leaves for senior citizens and such. Last weekend I was called upon to do something else. (Cue the scary music.)

You see last weekend was the Sixtieth Anniversary of the Founding of Israel and we, the JCS and the JCC, hosted a community day. It is an annual event celebrating the foundation of the State of Israel. Members of all the other Jewish institutions were invited to attend. These included the Reform Congregation of Ann Arbor, the Conservative Congregation, even the Hasidim from Chabad House were represented. My good friend Rabbi Alter Goldstein was there. It is the one time of the year when we all gather together.

The celebration is very family oriented with lots of activities for kids. There was one of those big thingies where the kids can jump up and down. There were lots of booths with crafts and such. Artists were displaying their works. It is a sight that would be familiar to anyone.

If you have ever attended one of those events you know that there is always some poor schmuck wandering around in costume. Okay, confession time. I was that schmuck. I wore a costume as "Blue Box Bob" the blue box representing the charity or tzedekah box used to collect money for the less fortunate. The costume covered me from above my head (some people would say that was a GOOD THING) to about my knees. I was there to emphasize the importance of giving charity, a requirement if you accept the Bible and a value, an important value, if you are a Secular Humanist. I had just been in attendance at the last day of JCS Sunday School, where the kids got to announce the charities that we supporting this year. We support the Humane Society, Ronald McDonald House, the Red Cross. Last year, my class donated to the Invisible Children's Fund, a fund to help build schools in war-torn Africa. The Invisible Children's Fund was again supported this year. We also donated to Seeds of Peace, a camp in Maine, dedicated to bringing together kids from Israel and Palestine, India and Pakistan, the Balkans, and other areas of the world. How could I refuse to support such worthwhile efforts even at the risk of what little dignity I might have? (See http://www.seedsofpeace.org/about)

Kids at Seeds of Peace

So, all is good so far. I am sweating happily in my Blue Box Bob costume for a good cause, the sun is shining, kids are playing, everyone is having a good time....and then the protestors show up.

There were only three or four of them and in theory they were supposed to keep off our private property. They didn't but that is neither here nor there. You see they brought a bull horn. From fifteen or twenty feet away they screamed, screamed I say again, as loudly as they could that we were Zionist murderers, commiting genocide against the Palestinian people. I looked around (as well as I could inside my Blue Box Bob costume) and I didn't see any murderers. Just kids and their families trying to have a good time. Say, wait a minute, that eight-year old kid might be building a wall with his blocks....nah.

Blue Box Bob

Jokes aside, it was terrifying to the kids to have someone screaming at them through this bull-horn. How do you explain to a child why someone that you have never met hates you so much?

I should state that these were not were not ethnic Palestinians. These were Caucasian, "white bread" liberals from Ann Arbor. They were out there standing up for the "rights" of the downtrodden. And in all fairness, it is hard to come up with a people who have been more thoroughly screwed over than the Palestinians over the last sixty years. If you read up on the history of the al-Hijra al-Filasteeniya, or the 1948 Palestinian Exodus from Israel, it not clear as to what degree the Palestinians fled from what they believed to be a hostile Israeli government, or were forced to leave by a combination of terrorist acts by the Irgun and Lehi, followed by Palestinian reaction and then Hagannah reprisals. There is a lot of good work coming from the Israeli "New Historians" relying on recently (1980's) released government records that changes the way that shows that the traditional view of a voluntary exodus by the Palestinians in anticipation of the 1948 war is simply not true.

But regardless of what happened 60 years ago hating Israel just isn't helpful. Israel just isn't going to go away despite the Palestinian flag showing a Middle-East without Israel.

These people were not demonstrating for a two-state solution. Zionism was genocide to them, Israel was genocide...and I was genocide, just by exsting.

Do these people pay any attention to the news? Do they understand that Hamas refuses to accept Israel's right to exist as prerequisite for peace talks? Saying "I won't kill you" is usually a first step in the peace process.

The nature of their protest was that, in order for the Palestinians to have a homeland, Israel must go. What would happen to the 7 million Jews living there now? ...... Silence. If you look at how Jews have fared in the Arab lands since 1948, I think that answer is pretty clear.

You see, to them we are not the Chosen People, we are the inconvenient people. Our very existence is a threat. We commit "genocide" by our very existence. And, in their logic, I support genocide by affirming that the Jewish people have a right to exist and to have a land of our own. Even if I was wearing my Blue Box Bob costume.

Link is to a Haaretz article entitled: "If everything is genocide..." an interesting read.

Comments (Page 3)

Leauki

on May 14, 2008

Scotteh,

The BBC report claims that Israel bulldozed a police station in Jenin because of terrorist attacks in Israel originating from the city. (Of course, the BBC report said that Israel merely "claimed" that such terrorist attacks happened since a few dead Jews and an exploded Arab in the middle never constitute evidence that they have.)

And you made that into a story of Israel bulldozing "Palestinian" homes to build Jewish settlements and "Palestinians" fighting back because of that.

Do you really not see the difference between what you claimed you knew for sure and the actual report you cited as evidence for your "knowledge"?

The interesting bit here for me was that I honestly didn't know where those myths about Israel's crimes came from. What you told me was the "missing link", in a way.

I still don't understand where your population stats come from (and I still refuse to believe that only 170,000 Arabs lived in Israel in 1948) or whence you took the chutzpa to call many of the commenters here liars in your very first comment, but the one is bad maths, the other just an insult and both have little to do with the actual "argument" about Israel's alleged crimes.

Your very attitude and belief that media reports simply must have a pro-Israel bias and that hence Israel MUST have committed crimes that you haven't heard of is anti-Semitic enough.

It didn't even occur to you that the media reports could be objective and neutral OR have an anti-Semitic bias. And that is the problem, I think.

Adventure-Dude

on May 14, 2008

Scotteh,

Did you just hear about the Rocket Fire from Gaza Strip?>

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1210668635737&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,355635,00.html

Larry Kuperman

on May 14, 2008

I haven't been able to keep up with the discussion (on my own post, I know it is shameful of me) but i wanted to point out this article:

BBC pays £200,000 to 'cover up report on anti-Israel bias'

which can be found here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=444074&in_page_id=1770

Consider this a supplement to the links that I have already provided on Reuters acknowledged role in the reporting on the conflict in Lebanon.

There is a war being fought in the media and on the internet for the hearts and minds of people such as yourself. Did you watch the BBC produced documentary by Jeremy Bowen on Israel's Sixtieth Anniversary? Shown on-line only, the documentary opens with footage of the Islamic Dome of the Rock and then a cross superimposed on the Jerusalem backdrop. If one is perceptive, one might ask "Where is the Temple Wall? Where is the Star of David?" The film then goes to cite partial facts and omits inconvenient truths like the Hebron Massacre.

Scotteh, I don't think you are unintelligent. I think that you and many, many others have been fed disinformation about the actual state of affairs. You have then used reason to reach conclusions that are based on this disinformation.

TaBoo Tenente

on Jun 04, 2008

You don't know for sure. You "know" only what the "distorted" reports tell you. But oddly enough they told you about THAT.

Perhaps you are just assuming that the reports are distorted and that hence Israel must have committed worse crimes than the media report? You probably don't even consider it anti-Semitic to think like that.

But oddly enough, the reports you read are wrong. "Palestinian" villages are not bulldozed down to make room for Jewish "settlements". It's a lie and you fell for it.

And, incidentally, the question of "who shoots first" is not immaterial. It is quite material for those who are shot first.

what do you want, leauki? your own narrative is just as framed as the "media" frame. for example, reread your own quote: "it is quite material for those who are shot first."

look, i'm jewish. i'm also what you would call a liberal. i am part of several different narratives at the moment, as are you. you are arguing for a narrative where the jews were shot at first; but of course there is another narrative you are living, which is the one where israel suddenly became a state at the end of the 1940s and a population of palestinians were rendered homeless.

i feel for larry, and for the kids who had to listen to the angry bellowing i'm sure they couldn't understand.

but leauki, YOU understand, don't you? whether you're on their side or not, deep down, you know your own perspective is as framed as the media narrative you hate so much, don't you?

taboo

Leauki

on Jun 04, 2008

what do you want, leauki? your own narrative is just as framed as the "media" frame. for example, reread your own quote: "it is quite material for those who are shot first."

In this case I wanted to know where the accusation came from.

It _wasn't_ the media.

look, i'm jewish. i'm also what you would call a liberal. i am part of several different narratives at the moment, as are you. you are arguing for a narrative where the jews were shot at first; but of course there is another narrative you are living, which is the one where israel suddenly became a state at the end of the 1940s and a population of palestinians were rendered homeless.

"Suddenly" is perhaps not the right word to attack to a process that took decades.

But you probably know just as well as I do that the founding of Israel did not make anybody homeless. It was the war against Israel that made people homeless. Israel claimed to want to live in peace with her neighbours and her own Arab citizens. Whether that was a lie is a different question. I don't think it was a lie.

You are also focusing on 1948, as if that date was very important. It was not. Jews were persecuted in the middle east, including the region Israel, before the founding of Israel. And I doubt that during World War II, when the pan-Syrian fascists were most vocal their anti-Semitism had anything to do with anybody's homelessness.

Arabs did not attack Jewish settlements (and Jews all over the middle east) because Palestinians were homeless.

but leauki, YOU understand, don't you? whether you're on their side or not, deep down, you know your own perspective is as framed as the media narrative you hate so much, don't you?

My own perspective is framed by the fact that I have seen Arabs live in Israel walking the same streets and going to the same universities as Jews. If you can show that the same is true for Jews (or other minorities) in Arab countries of the region, I would perhaps think differently.

I wish that when Israel was founded the local Arabs, all of them, had defended the new country against the attackers and help build it. But most of them decided to help the attackers instead. That's history, not perspective. They are proud of it, not denying it.

"Liberal" has nothing to do with it. The Zionists back then were socialists.

The idea that the founding of Israel made Arabs "homeless" is ridiculous. They would have been full citizens of the new country (in contrast to the Jews in other countries founded after World War 1 from the former Ottoman Empire). Many people seem to think that living among Jews equals being homeless, but I disagree.

Those Arabs wouldn't have been the only minority living in a country which is "their own" only in the sense that they are citizens of it.

Think of Kurds in Iraq and Syria, Jews in all Arab countries, Aramaeans in Iraq and Syria, Mandaeans in Iraq, Druze in Israel, Lebanon, and Syria (who in all three countries accepted the state founded and fought for it). ALL of them are minorities in countries formerly part of Turkey. But none of them, except the Arabs and Druze of Israel were granted full citizenship with the right to vote and everything.

The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, who conspired with Hitler to exterminate the Jews, was then, before 1948, and is still considered a hero among Arabs. Do you really blame the events of 1948 (caused by the Arab attack) for a hatred that existed long before that date, for a hatred that did not only affect Jews but ALL OTHER MINORITIES in Arab countries as well?

TaBoo Tenente

on Jun 04, 2008

"Suddenly" is perhaps not the right word to attack to a process that took decades.

if you were a colonized nation and the imperial power that owned you was thinking about shipping in a new population and handing over the reigns to them, how long of a process would you prefer?

But you probably know just as well as I do that the founding of Israel did not make anybody homeless. It was the war against Israel that made people homeless. Israel claimed to want to live in peace with her neighbours and her own Arab citizens. Whether that was a lie is a different question. I don't think it was a lie.

you're skewing the truth again. you are right, but only within the framework of your own narrative. if you were objectively right, then it certainly wouldn't matter if the jews were given their own "homeland."

You are also focusing on 1948, as if that date was very important. It was not. Jews were persecuted in the middle east, including the region Israel, before the founding of Israel. And I doubt that during World War II, when the pan-Syrian fascists were most vocal their anti-Semitism had anything to do with anybody's homelessness.

again, not objectively true. i am not focusing on any date - you were focusing on the whole "who shot first" mess. now you see what i am saying. which dates matter? if not '48, then '39? how far do you want to go back? it will just get messier and messier the farther you want to look. who shot first? pure mythology.

i myself walked through the rubble on ben yehuda after a suicide bombing two months before the 50th anniversary. that same week, i ate lunch with a palestinian family in jericho - i'm sure they are no longer living there. in luxor, i spoke with a palestinian man who more than anything wished to return to jerusalem.

yes, your perspective is framed. no more than others - no more than mine.

I wish that when Israel was founded the local Arabs, all of them, had defended the new country against the attackers and help build it. But most of them decided to help the attackers instead. That's history, not perspective. They are proud of it, not denying it.

if you were the sort of person to lay a wager from time to time, would you have bet that "local arabs" would take up arms with the new boss in town?

"Liberal" has nothing to do with it. The Zionists back then were socialists.

first, i mentioned that i am liberal to demonstrate that, like you, my perspective is framed by several narratives.

second, both "liberal" and "socialist" denote leftist positions on the political spectrum.

The idea that the founding of Israel made Arabs "homeless" is ridiculous. They would have been full citizens of the new country (in contrast to the Jews in other countries founded after World War 1 from the former Ottoman Empire). Many people seem to think that living among Jews equals being homeless, but I disagree.

Those Arabs wouldn't have been the only minority living in a country which is "their own" only in the sense that they are citizens of it.

Think of Kurds in Iraq and Syria, Jews in all Arab countries, Aramaeans in Iraq and Syria, Mandaeans in Iraq, Druze in Israel, Lebanon, and Syria (who in all three countries accepted the state founded and fought for it). ALL of them are minorities in countries formerly part of Turkey. But none of them, except the Arabs and Druze of Israel were granted full citizenship with the right to vote and everything.

again, four walls and a roof does not make a home. is this a discussion about past and present hardships in other countries? comparing "arab" existence in israel to jewish experience in other countries? let's stick to a discussion about israel. you say the "arabs" would have been full citizens. from a very limited perspective, this is true. but once again, you are choosing not to consider the difference between what it would mean to be a jewish citizen and an "arab" citizen.

The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, who conspired with Hitler to exterminate the Jews, was then, before 1948, and is still considered a hero among Arabs. Do you really blame the events of 1948 (caused by the Arab attack) for a hatred that existed long before that date, for a hatred that did not only affect Jews but ALL OTHER MINORITIES in Arab countries as well?

the Who Shot First thing again. how many israeli prime ministers/terrorists do we need to name before we can start talking about the real subject at hand again? as for 1948, i place most of the blame of those events and consequences on roosevelt, churchill and stalin for the ridiculous mess they negotiated and created.

taboo

TaBoo Tenente

on Jun 04, 2008

Do you know that Wikipedia supports the "Wikipedians for Palestine" group, but has banned members that take exception to the promotion of this ideaology? This absolutely contradicts Wikipedia's self-proclaimed NPOV (Neutral Point of View) stance. The result is that when someone like yourself searches for "facts" you are given a very slanted point of view.

There is a war being fought in the media and on the internet for the hearts and minds of people such as yourself. Did you watch the BBC produced documentary by Jeremy Bowen on Israel's Sixtieth Anniversary? Shown on-line only, the documentary opens with footage of the Islamic Dome of the Rock and then a cross superimposed on the Jerusalem backdrop. If one is perceptive, one might ask "Where is the Temple Wall? Where is the Star of David?" The film then goes to cite partial facts and omits inconvenient truths like the Hebron Massacre.

exactly - this is exactly what i mean. "there is a war being fought in the media [...] and we are doing it here, too.

Leauki

on Jun 04, 2008

I am a bit sick already of your "within the framework" bit. Some things are objectively true.

I can tell you a simply objective truth.

It has been "difficult" for Jews in other countries, to put it mildly.

Without Israel, I am sure Jews in the middle east would have suffered AT LEAST a similar fate as other minorities have.

if you were the sort of person to lay a wager from time to time, would you have bet that "local arabs" would take up arms with the new boss in town?

The Zionists took that wager. They were optimists and believed in peace.

I hope I would have been as optimistic as they were. Anything else would be as wrong as the claim that living in Israel for an Arab means being "homeless".

The Druze are in that situation, in all three countries they live in.

I have myself spent the first half of my life in a country/place ruled by somebody else.

That "colonised nation" thing is rubbish. An Arab living in the same state as a Jewish majority is not more "colonised" than a Jew who lives in the same state as an Arab majority; only, probably, more alive.

Israel as a province of the Turkish Empire, not an Arab state. If anything, it was the Turks who were colonised and whose land was taken. Nevertheless, the JNF bought land for settlers, land in a region that can support millions and was inhabited by a few hundred thousand people.

It is NOT a tragedy to live among Jews, not even immigrant Jews, and it is NOT being "homeless" to live in a Jewish-majority country.

It could have worked perfectly well, if the Arabs had not falled for the dream of pan-Arabism. There was no reason to attack the new state, but the fact that the Arabs did started the war. (There was no reason to attack Jewish villages before the founding of Israel either, but the fact that the Arabs did that started the conflict.)

you say the "arabs" would have been full citizens. from a very limited perspective, this is true. but once again, you are choosing not to consider the difference between what it would mean to be a jewish citizen and an "arab" citizen.

Well, you CLAIM that the Arabs would somehow not have been full citizens (although Israeli Arabs are) and you CLAIM that it makes a difference whether one is Jew or Arab.

I am indeed choosing not to consider the "difference", because I don't believe in that difference.

Israel is a Jewish state (and is supposed to be a Jewish state) but whether a citizen is Arab or Jewish I don't care. And neither did the Zionists when they framed the declaration of independence.

Are we arguing here what Israel might have done? If you don't believe that the Arabs of Israel, all of them, had they not attacked the new state, would have been full citizens as the Zionists claimed they would have been, why is that relevant? It's your opinion, not a fact; and all your claims of "frameworks" don't change that fact.

If you have something real to say, not just claims about what the Zionists really meant when they said something else, we can talk.

But I feel it should be unnecessary to defend Israel against accusations of crimes based on the OPINION that Israel lied, while in reality the Arabs attacked before we could see whether it was a lie. (And perhaps it was. We'll never know.)

how far do you want to go back? it will just get messier and messier the farther you want to look. who shot first? pure mythology.

The beauty of "who shot first" is that in some cases, it is a chain that goes back a long time. But in others, such as this, it's not a chain, but restarting events.

To find out who shot first, we can just try out who shoots first.

Walk into any Jewish city in Israel, dressed up as an Arab supporter of "Palestine". And walk into any Arab city outside Israel, dressed up as a Jewish supporter of Israel. It will be very apparent to you "who shoots first" (present tense) and you will understand why there is a conflict.

You are under the misconception that Israel shoots at Arabs because Arabs shoot at Israel and vice versa. It's not the case, as my little experiment will easily demonstrate.

Israel shoots at Arabs because Arabs shoot at Israel. That is true.

But the reverse is not, and the experiment will show, I am sure, that unless you, dressed up as an Arab, shoot first, you will survive.

And the same would happen if the Arabs would stop shooting in the greater conflict, I am sure.

And if you don't believe me, let's try it out. I am perfectly willing to walk through Tel-Aviv with a pro-Palestinian t-shirt, if you agree to walk around an Arab city in Egypt with a pro-Israeli t-shirt; just to test who shoots at whom and whether it really has to do with a chain of violence.

We will both experience matters in our separate frameworks. The difference is that my framework is close enough to the truth to allow me to survive the experiment without police protection.

TaBoo Tenente

on Jun 04, 2008

oh, lord.

I am a bit sick already of your "within the framework" bit. Some things are objectively true.

well, it's your own argument, isn't it? you slapped whatsisname around for believing da hype. there is a reason you were right in your argument, but you are subject to the same rules as everyone else, aren't you? so, you're sick of the framework bit. it ain't going away. there may be "an objective truth" but it doesn't matter because our own perspective are inherently skewed. looking for objective truth is what got everybody into the mess in the first place.

I can tell you a simply objective truth.

It has been "difficult" for Jews in other countries, to put it mildly.

Without Israel, I am sure Jews in the middle east would have suffered AT LEAST a similar fate as other minorities have.

no, there's nothing objective about that, even though i agree with you. however, i'm not sure it relates to this discussion.

That "colonised nation" thing is rubbish. An Arab living in the same state as a Jewish majority is not more "colonised" than a Jew who lives in the same state as an Arab majority; only, probably, more alive.

hmmm. how would you describe the government in "israel" prior to 1948, then? it was a british mandate as of 1923. and before? while you're answering that one, tell me why the UN can't have a little vote to give texas to the palestinians right now? let's say bush 1.2 didn't like the idea . . . all right, let's move on.

It is NOT a tragedy to live among Jews, not even immigrant Jews, and it is NOT being "homeless" to live in a Jewish-majority country.

are you arguing with me? i never said it is a tragedy. i don't think it's a tragedy, though my ex-girlfriend might disagree.

It could have worked perfectly well, if the Arabs had not falled for the dream of pan-Arabism. There was no reason to attack the new state, but the fact that the Arabs did started the war. (There was no reason to attack Jewish villages before the founding of Israel either, but the fact that the Arabs did that started the conflict.)

disregarding any religious differences, i say this: come on! do you think "arabs" living in the area before 1948 were stupid? the british had been shipping jews into town for nearly a century. and i know you want to avoid using the word "palestinian" like the plague, but there are many nationalities in the area, and many of the people who live there are arabs, but they do not all have the same political agenda. the ones who were shorted by the wheeling and dealing of our fearless leaders we can call palestinians - or, if that offends your palette, maybe we can use the term palestinian-hopefuls. how does that sound?

Well, you CLAIM that the Arabs would somehow not have been full citizens (although Israeli Arabs are) and you CLAIM that it makes a difference whether one is Jew or Arab?

only if the arab citizen has interest in israeli leadership positions. otherwise, no, it doesn't make a difference. maybe you're right. maybe arab citizens of israel wouldn't want to participate in running their country.

I am indeed choosing not to consider the "difference", because I don't believe in that difference.

well, i guess you've solved that problem. somebody should make an announcement or something.

Israel is a Jewish state (and is supposed to be a Jewish state) but whether a citizen is Arab or Jewish I don't care. And neither did the Zionists when they framed the declaration of independence.

whoa - wait a minute! i thought you said there wasn't a difference. let me just say this: i live in the secular, freedom of religion-loving nation of USA, indivisible under god, whom we trust. i can tell you that i'm pretty tired with all those christmas trees they insert into the state/fed buildings in my secular country. and the USA isn't even a christian state. (. . . er.)

Walk into any Jewish city in Israel, dressed up as an Arab supporter of "Palestine". And walk into any Arab city outside Israel, dressed up as a Jewish supporter of Israel. It will be very apparent to you "who shoots first" (present tense) and you will understand why there is a conflict.

oye vey. do you think you can say, "all right arabs, let's forget about everything that's happened in the last 100 years. are we cool with that? good. NOW let's see who shoots first." don't you think that's a bit unfair?

Israel shoots at Arabs because Arabs shoot at Israel. That is true.

But the reverse is not, and the experiment will show, I am sure, that unless you, dressed up as an Arab, shoot first, you will survive.

And the same would happen if the Arabs would stop shooting in the greater conflict, I am sure.

unreal, Leauki. who do you think you are? do you have any idea what you're saying? why don't you walk into the hood somewhere in the good ole US of A. try baltimore. i have news: someone may demonstrate displeasure at your presence. why? because black people shoot first? i don't think so.

We will both experience matters in our separate frameworks. The difference is that my framework is close enough to the truth to allow me to survive the experiment without police protection.

how arrogantly clannish can you be? you're the reason why i can't attend synagogue anymore. open minded? human secularist? not you, anyway. i frown in your general direction. if i were someone on this planet other than you (which i am) i would be offended by your remarks.

taboo

TaBoo Tenente

on Jun 04, 2008

lastly:

larry, i really liked your article. sorry for ranting all over the place.

taboo

Anthony R

on Jun 26, 2008

The part that must really nag at you is the fact that the American left are generally supportive of this type of protest.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!