Tumeke boycott a red herring

I will not be joining the Tumeke boycott instigated by Whaleoil and now supported by Something should go here, maybe later and its stablemate Keeping Stock.

Tumeke’s mildly left-of-centre-ish in a libertarian pro-capital kind of way; Whaleoil is hard-right. Keeping Stock and SSGHML are variants of  some weird Christian intermediate thingy which both lean heavily rightwards.

The ostensible reason for the boycott, according to Whaleoil, is that Tumeke host Tim Selwyn is a holocaust denier because he dared to criticise media coverage of the walk-out during a speech by Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at the UN anti-racism conference in South Africa a few days ago.

Holocaust denial is actually a hard charge to sustain against Tim on any reading of his post. The main thrust of which is to have a go at New Zealand foreign minister Murray McCully for not attending the conference in the first place; to have a go at the soft coverage given to the walk-out and to point out that Zionism is actually a racist ideology.

Nothing wrong with that. Tim does not make any reference to support for the holocaust deniers and he doesn’t offer much defence of Ahmadinejad either. He mainly talks about how New Zealand is too close to the Americans on foreign policy – such as military involvement the Iraq and Afghanistan occupations.

So what’s with the charge of holocaust denial? It’s all premised on the accusation that Ahmadinejad is, himself, a holocaust denier. Well, that bit is probably true. In 2006 the former Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, David Duke and German-Australian denier Frederick Toben were feted guests at an international gathering to refute the holocaust held in Teheran.

In his speech to the Geneva conference a few days ago, Ahmadinejad made many references to the effect that Zionism equals racism – and that’s a political position, not anti-semitism.  I made an attempt to explain this in a post earlier this year during Israel’s sustained attack on Hamas and Palestinians in Gaza.

First of all being Jewish is not a racial thing, secondly not all Jews are Zionists and not all Zionists are Jewish. Third what part of the phrase “war crime” don’t these people understand?

The logic of the “attacking Zionism is anti-semitic” position is that if you are against the existence of Israel as a geographic and political entity in the Middle East you are of the same political ilk as the Nazis.

Bullshit! [Why defending Palestinians is not anti-semitic]

However, in the text of Ahmadinejad’s speech there are references that read as being anti-semitic. It seems, according to media reports, that these were not included in the spoken version. Most observers believe they were taken out to appease Iran’s opponents.

The offending pars are:

ahmadinejad-speech-11

This is the reference to the holocaust. It’s not the usual vitriolic outburst, but it’s clear that there’s an element of denial here.

and

ahmadinejad-speech-2

The first part is OK in my view, a political attack on Zionism, but in the second part, this turns into an anti-semitic rant about Zionism penetrating banks, etc. This is clearly code for anti-semitic ideology and it’s what makes Ahmadinejad so popular with crazy far-right white supremacists and the Islamic fundamentalists.
[full text of Ahamdinejad's speech]

The other point that Ahamdinejad makes here: the imposition of Zionist ideologies in western nations is also reasonably factual. There is a concerted effort among Zionists to push the line that criticising Zionism, or the Israeli state is the same thing as ant-semitism. It is not.

Anti-semitism is a racist ideology that focuses on Jews and Jewishness.

Anti-Zionism is a political position that supports national liberation struggles against Israeli military occupation in the Middle East and opposes the state of Israel on the grounds that

a) Israel is occupied Palestinian territory – despite the denial lies of those like SSGHML who wrote that it is due to their own “stupidity” that Palestinians don’t have their land any more and that they were “better off” under Israeli occupation

b) it is a client state of American imperialism that continues to destabilise the Middle East and poses a threat to both peace (Israel is a nuclear state) and to the Arab populations of neighbouring countries

c) Israel’s actions are a great recruiting tool for fundamentalist groups on all sides. [Zionism explained]

Anti-Zionism and support for the political struggle of the Palestinians is not the same thing as supporting terrorism. I am more than happy for Hezbollah, Hamas and other Palestinian groups to attack military targets, that is not the same as supporting suicide bombers who target buses and cafes. That does not mean that I support their Islamic state policies.

I draw your attention to an excellent pamphlet by Chris Harman called The Prophet and the Proletariat, which argues a position that I endorse. It concludes:

On some issues we will find ourselves on the same side as the Islamists against imperialism and the state. This was true, for instance, in many countries during the second Gulf War. It should be true in countries like France or Britain when it comes to combating racism. Where the Islamists are in opposition, our rule should be, “with the Islamists sometimes, with the state never”.

But even then we continue to disagree with the Islamists on basic issues. We are for the right to criticise religion as well as the right to practise it. We are for the right not to wear the veil as well as the right of young women in racist countries like France to wear it if they so wish. We are against discrimination against Arab speakers by big business in countries like Algeria – but we are also against discrimination against the Berber speakers and those sections of workers and the lower middle class who have grown up speaking French. Above all, we are against any action which sets one section of the exploited and oppressed against another section on the grounds of religion or ethnic origin. And that means that as well as defending Islamists against the state we will also be involved in defending women, gays, Berbers or Copts against some Islamists.

When we do find ourselves on the same side as the Islamists, part of our job is to argue strongly with them, to challenge them – and not just on their organisations’ attitude to women and minorities, but also on the fundamental question of whether what is needed is charity from the rich or an overthrow of existing class relations.

The left has made two mistakes in relation to the Islamists in the past. The first has been to write them off as fascists, with whom we have nothing in common. The second has been to see them as “progressives” who must not be criticised. These mistakes have jointly played a part in helping the Islamists to grow at the expense of the left in much of the Middle East. The need is for a different approach that sees Islamism as the product of a deep social crisis which it can do nothing to resolve, and which fights to win some of the young people who support it to a very different, independent, revolutionary socialist perspective.

I doubt that Tim Selwyn’s read this pamphlet (apologies Tim if you have), but I support him in this ridiculous blog war because after reading his post I can see that instinctively he’s on the right side on this question.

The existence of Israel is a root cause of terrorism in the Middle East and feeds the Islamic fundamentalism of the Taleban, Al Qaeda and Hamas. Both Zionism and Islamic fundamentalism are a real obstacle in the way of any path to peace in the Middle East.

The combination of Islamic fundamentalism and anti-semitism also help to sustain Ahmadinejad’s position as something of a hero in the eyes of the Iranian and Arab working class, but they do not help the working class to clearly see that its own interests are best served by opposing both Israel and the Iranian regime. Just as in Lebanon and Syria (and Saudi Arabia, the UAE and so on) a genuine and correct hatred of Zionism is confused by its association with Islamic fundamentalism. This is why the rhetoric of leaders like Ahmadinejad does become anti-semitic. By whipping up anti-Jewish hatred, he maintains his own illegitimate hold on power. So too do the leaders in other Middle Eastern countries and so to do Al Qaeda and the Taleban.

By the same methods the Israeli Zionist state also maintains its illegitimate hold on power.

This is a much more nuanced and complex position than that taken by many neo-cons and their fellow travellers. Further, equating anti-Zionism with anti-semitism is handy for the Christian right too. It allows them to attack their political opponents with charges of racism and holocaust denial.

Tumeke’s principals are not holocaust supporters and for Whaleoil to say so is a disingenious cheap shot.

Being critical of the walk-out, which in essence further’s the lie that anti-Zionism is anti-semitic, and making the point that Israel is an illegitimate state founded on racism and stolen land do not equate with holocaust denial and anti-semitism.

The walk-out itself futher perpetuates the myth and highlights the strong politcal support that Israel gets from western nations. It also signifies the demonisation of Iran in its fight with the United States over its nuclear policies.

However, once again – and to fend off the dribblejaws – criticising Israel does not mean that one supports Iran’s government. I am opposed to Iran getting its hands on nuclear weapons, but I am also against Israel’s much more available nuclear arsenal. I’m also against any hint of American aggression against Iran, though the US is too weak now, because of Iraq and Afghanistan, to open another front in the Middle East.

To end, it’s quite clear that the whole exercise of the anti-racism conference in Geneva was a poor joke. Nothing concrete or substantial has been achieved. It is merely an exercise in making the hidden racism of the west look good against the overt stupidity and twisted rantings of the Iranian lunatic.

Neither Washington, nor Tehran, but international socialism. Workers of the Middle East rise up. You have nothing to lose but your Islamic chains.

Down with Zionism. Down with Islamic fundamentalism. Yes to workers’ solidarity.

22 Responses to Tumeke boycott a red herring

  1. Tim Selwyn says:

    They picked the worst issue. If you read beyond the spurious reasons these bloggers give it is directed at the nz blogosphere – the sister website of Tumeke! – and the ratings (despite being scrupulously apolitical in its design and operation).

    It has naught to do with Zionism/Palestinians/Jews/Arabs/Iran/USA etc. – they could have chosen to “boycott” us at any point over those issues – we have always been vocal critics of the Israelis and Americans in the Palestinian situation – esp. when Gaza was besieged in the New Year. This is a ratings rivalry thing (out of nowhere I might add) – a red herring is exactly right.

  2. Inventory2 says:

    EM – did you read the comments on the Tumeke post? Tim Selwyn says in one:

    “Scott: I want Israel wiped off the map too – wiped off the map, but not in the way the Jewish state has wiped the Palestinians off the map. It should not be a brutal occupation of Israeli territory to bring self-security the way the Jewish state does to the Palestinians.”

    Sure, Selwyn is not suggesting a violent overthrow of Israel, but he is advocating the complete destruction of a legitimate state. That is completely untenable IMHO.

    And FYI, Keeping Stock is no-one’s stablemate. Three of us blog there – we comprise me, myself and I! From time to time we loosely align with other kindred blogs, but the creative genius ;-) comes from within. But thanks for visiting, and you’re welcome any time.

  3. OK Tim, so you think this has more to with wanting to promote the “Half Done” stats that SSGHML carries as opposed to the Tumeke version?

    Interesting. Is there money involved?

  4. Inventory2 says:

    Tim – I’m far enough down in the ratings that I can honestly say they no longer especially motivate me. I appreciate the time you put into them, but as an issue they pale into insignificance when you begin to advocate the overthrow of a nation.

  5. Is, stablemate in that you’re of the same ideological brood.

    I did notice Tim’s comment, so?
    Is Israel “legitimate”, what about the UN resolutions against the illegal occupation of Palestinian land?

    What about the terrorism that sustained its birth from the womb of Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin.

    No real, moral legitimacy there my fried.

    Same to you re the visit stuff.
    Cheers
    EM

  6. Tim Selwyn says:

    Money? No. We’ve co-operated before; but as I said this is all out of the blue.

  7. Tim Selwyn says:

    Inventory2 – I was directing the ratings comments at the other two, not you. You say:
    “…is not suggesting a violent overthrow of Israel, but he is advocating the complete destruction of a legitimate state. That is completely untenable IMHO.”

    And yet when the Israeli state attacks and refuses to recognise the other state as a state – that’s all OK? Israel has wiped Palestine off the map and their behaviour to date shows they are intent to keep it off the map – esp. with Leiberman as Foreign Minister. Go to the Israeli election website – Israel is the whole area and Palestine – the other state – does not exist.

    If you continue the quote you will find I make parallel cases with Bosnia and South Africa as examples of one state solutions that have ended warfare. The Bosnian situation is far from perfect and as Liberty Scott notes it is still divided politically and the provinces are controlled by ethnic parties etc., but it is one state and their are mechanisms for its citizens to choose where they live and their freedom of movement (not perfect and needs peacekeepers). But compare this to the situation in Israel/Palestine. At least in Bosnia there is the framework for normalising the security situation and residence position in a multi-ethnic nation state. All this is precluded by the two-state idea. Dayton and Bosnia worked in ending the war because the Americans were outside the parties rather than backing a certain side (from what I understand).

  8. scrubone says:

    Tim, my problem is this.

    You are in this post promoting something, which taken to it’s end point will result in genocide.

    We know where whipping up hatred towards jews ends up – we’ve seen it. Yet you seem to want us to sit there and pretend that “wiping off the map” half of all jews in the world is ok, but waterboarding 3 terrorists is not.

    I can accept that your view on Palestine is different – it’s a complicated place. I differ from many of my readers in believing that one can oppose the Jewish state and not be anti-semetic. But I strongly believe you cannot believe in wiping Israel off the map without being fine with killing half of the Jewish race and hence being anti-semetic.

    What I cannot accept is your description of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s raving lunatic comments as “all true”. They’re not, and they’re designed to achieve the same outcome as Hitler and you know it. Suggesting that NZ’s absence to hear him is somehow a US conspiracy is absolutely insulting and absurd. This guy has to be stopped, not encouraged. Yet you seem more concerned about criticizing the American press.

    Now I have put in work on my own time to help you in YOUR stats. This is work I did NOT have to do, yet I have repeatedly offered it for nothing. I was quite prepared to put in the time to help you develop something where you could publish ranking daily if you wished, with no more than a single click of the mouse.

    I’m sorry, but I have real problems doing something to help another human being who suggests opposing such racism and bigotry needs some sort of conspiracy. I have better uses for my time.

    Worse, in my email to you, I stated “I will have to think about what to do with my own blog rankings.” Prehaps that wasn’t clear enough – consider them suspended.

    Frankly, I couldn’t give a stuff about “who’s rankings are better – yours are. Mine are crap, it’s a formula which is totally absurd and I’ve never said anything different AFAIK. I published them to prove that it could be done faster, but now it’s a millstone and just gives me a headache twice a month.

    I was going to call you a coward for commenting here without replying to my email, but since I didn’t comment on your post, that would be a fair cop.

  9. scrubone says:

    “Israel is occupied Palestinian territory – despite the denial lies of those like SSGHML who wrote that it is due to their own “stupidity” that Palestinians don’t have their land any more and that they were “better off” under Israeli occupation”

    Palestinians have land, if they stopped attacking Israel they’d be better off because Israel would not be obligated to defend it’s people and invade. Israel can’t recognise a Palestinian state, because the second they did they’d be obligated to declare war on it, as the Palestinians would continue their attacks.

    They *were* better off under Israel’s (real and now finished) occupation. They were more wealthy, and more peaceful. They were in fact better off than most Arab countries. Now, thanks to their corrupt rulers who insist on picking fights with Israel (who agreed to their autonomy) they’re poor. That’s a tragedy, but one in their own power to avoid.

  10. scrubone says:

    “Go to the Israeli election website – Israel is the whole area and Palestine – the other state – does not exist.”

    I’ve seen that map, and your claim is dishonest.

    Your link was to a map from several years ago – when Jewish settlements were in Gaza. Settlements are still in the West Bank. Hey, it’s a bad look I agree, but there *is* a reasonable explanation – voters lived there so for electoral purposes the map was fine, and that’s what it was used for. Mountain, meet molehill.

  11. [...] Israel scrubone 11:00 pm Well, it seems that Tim has joined a conversation over at Ethical Martini. [...]

  12. Tom Semmens says:

    EM, in terms of articulating my position on Israel you are about the closest I’ve ever seen. It is frustrating to see any criticism of Israel turned into anti-semitism – David Farrar is particularly good at twisting any anti-Israeli at all into “anti-Semitism”.

    The thing that struck me most about this conference was that no one really actually talked about what Ahmadinejad said in terms of its Middle Eastern context.

    Anyone who knows any Arabs at all knows that the idea that the United States is manipulated by a zionist conspiracy is pretty much a mainstream opinion. Like it or not, Ahmadinejad is merely expressing the opinion of practically every Arab in the street when he articulates practically any conspiracy theory around the Holocaust and Zionism, no matter how outlandish it sounds to our ears. Surely it would be better to rationally acknowledge this fact, discuss it, and come up with a plan to deal with it? Isn’t that what racism conferences about? They are definitely not about sticking your fingers in your ears and going “Lalalalalalalala I’m not listening to this”.

  13. Madeleine says:

    Perhaps your should read my blog as to an explanation as to what the offending words were. Incidentally we are not, at this stage, joining the boycott but we definately have a clearer understanding than you do as to why others are.

    P.S. If “Tumeke’s mildly left-of-centre-ish in a libertarian pro-capital kind of way” then the pope is an athiest who has mild Christian leanings.

  14. singularian says:

    A better reason to boycott Tumeke is Bombers disgusting censorship and deletion of comments that either don’t agree with his POV or point out the many flaws in his weak, kneejerk arguments.

    It seems fairly typical of people of Bombers ilk to be all ‘high moral ground’ on the face of it but behind that face is just another control freak who doesn’t like contrary facts.

    I would, of course, prefer to to post this on Tumeke but it would just get deleted.

    You have to laugh when you compare Kiwiblog with the ‘Left’ blogs when it comes to censorship or banning. DPF has seemingly endless patience with people who oppose his POV and it would be a series of incidents before you get banned from there. Contrast The Standard (instant ban) or Tumeke (deletion of comments to try and shape discussion) and you can easily see why DPF has the most popular political blog in NZ.

    The ‘Left’ blogs just show themselves to be the intellectual lightweights that they really are.

    Tumeke will always be on the ‘foil hat’ outer edges while it continues to show this lack of robustness.

  15. Madeleine says:

    I only delete spam and I don’t moderate comments.

    We have had people disagreeing with us so much that they have been swearing and hurling abuse under anonymous handles and I have always left it up. I think it says more about them than me.

    I am not scared to leave critical comments up because if I cannot defend my position successfully against critique then I shouldn’t hold it.

    But then I am not left wing.

  16. singularian says:

    Indeed Madeleine.

    Check out the thread on Tumeke – moderation is on.

    The authors are deciding which comments are acceptable.

    Have a look at the comments that have got through the gate and tell me that Bomber and Tim aren’t Joo haters.

    EM – as you are defending them and actually say on that comment thread that you are on their side should we assume that you are a Joo hater too?

  17. Singularian wrote:

    EM – as you are defending them and actually say on that comment thread that you are on their side should we assume that you are a Joo hater too?

    Can’t even bring yourself to spell it correctly?
    If you bother to actually read my blog you’ll know the answer to that.

    And you say “too”? You are taking liberties here. Tumeke does not “hate Joos”. Do you?

  18. Edward Johns says:

    As a long term reader of tumeke I have noticed that comment moderation is put on when a couple of serial abusers surface. They are of the right wingnut variety and Tim drops moderation when they crawl back in their respective holes.

    Slater on the other hand simply bans people who best him in a debate.

  19. Tim Selwyn says:

    Scrubone:
    There are a few issues here, I will try to deal with them succintly:

    1. “You are in this post promoting something, which taken to it’s end point will result in genocide.” – No. That’s your assertion and it is wrong. The end point of one state for South Africa and one state for Bosnia – as I have commented – is proof that it does not have to be genocide. The assertion that ending the state of Israel (the legal regime and government) will mean genocide – automatically – for the Jewish people is the the policy of fear used to keep Israel’s aggression and occupation going. It is a false dichotomy with many assumptions built in – and I reject that. Any change to a single state would have to be well planned and well managed on both the legal and security fronts to avoid these things. The “end point” is different people sharing the same land in peace and security – and they will not get that if there is a two state scenario. This is something you alluded to yourself:
    “Israel can’t recognise a Palestinian state, because the second they did they’d be obligated to declare war on it, as the Palestinians would continue their attacks.”
    – Why would they continue their attacks? Because you assume that Israel will still be in occupation of Palestinian lands, and/or there is no right of return for the expelled Palestinians.

    2. “Suggesting that NZ’s absence to hear him is somehow a US conspiracy is absolutely insulting and absurd.” – No. You are being totally absurd if you think for one split second that the US did not put pressure on NZ and that the Israelis in turn did not put pressure on the US. Of course they did – it isn’t a “conspiracy” it is what would have occured in the routine workings of diplomacy at that level. They agreed their positions beforehand – the move by NZ was not unilateral and was not developed independently – it was a response to pressure from the US. If you think NZ is not pressured or influenced by the US in matters regarding Israel you are naive to a fault.

    3. Stats: Thanks for your help to date – it was and always will be appreciated despite whatever political disagreements arise. “I have real problems doing something to help another human being who suggests opposing such racism and bigotry needs some sort of conspiracy.” – That is an awfully weak reason because the facts don’t back it up. Defining the crux of not helping someone in some matter regarding a blog list as a dispute over whether the NZ diplomatic corps had been influenced by the Americans is so weak I am inclined to dismiss it completely. Conspiracies are not coming from me.

    Did you oppose the massacre that Israel inflicted on the refugee camps of Gaza in which a thousand civilians were killed by Israel? I did. That wasn’t a conspiracy that was reality. I don’t care whether the people being massacred by the Jewish State were Muslims or Christians or whatever – it was wrong for them to do that and I said so.

  20. [...] there was a strong left vs right political element. And as Ethical Martini pointed out (Tumeke boycott a red herring) a right wing “weird Christian intermediate [...]

  21. scrubone says:

    1. “You are in this post promoting something, which taken to it’s end point will result in genocide.” – No. That’s your assertion and it is wrong.

    >Well, it’s wrong in your opinion. Unfortunately there is a very poor history of other countries and nationalities protecting Jewish people, in their own state or not. There’s the holocaust, but even there, the rest of the world allowed Germany to do it – they weren’t prepared to go to war early on to prevent what became WWII.

    The IDF has the only record of protecting the Jewish people that those currently living in Israel will trust. The possible exception is the US, but I doubt the Iraq situation will give anyone confidence.

    The UN is currently doing a particularly poor job on the northern border right now, with Hezbollah rearming quite happily with arms from Iran, so don’t expect Israel to trust them any time soon.

    I recognise that you are sincere in what you are suggesting, and I apologize if I have said that you deliberately want a genocide, but it is impossible to believe that there is any scenario in the real world which will result in the end of Israel with no matching slaughter of the Jewish people. There is just too much hatred built up against Israel in too many parts of the Arab world.

    The fact is, that regardless of how you play around with the words Mahmoud Ahmadinejad spoke, a holocaust is what he wants, and what the terrorist organisations that Iran sponsor want. Any attempt to implement a plan like you are suggesting will weaken the IDF and open the door for slaughter.

    2. “Suggesting that NZ’s absence to hear him is somehow a US conspiracy is absolutely insulting and absurd.” …it was a response to pressure from the US. If you think NZ is not pressured or influenced by the US in matters regarding Israel you are naive to a fault.

    > Pressure, obviously. Israel is vigorous in it’s defense in all areas – their situation means they have to be. The deciding factor in the decision? I severely doubt it. Ahmadinejad has a well recorded record of racist and inflammatory statements, Key’s administration doesn’t need the US or Israel to point that out, or the consequences of encouraging that.

    Unfortunately, it seems some do. Which is particularly sad, because we know from history the result when people fail to stand up to such things.

    3. … Defining the crux of not helping someone in some matter regarding a blog list as a dispute over whether the NZ diplomatic corps had been influenced by the Americans is so weak I am inclined to dismiss it completely. Conspiracies are not coming from me.

    > Continuing from my point above, I consider that these forums are a key factor in stopping the genocide that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wants to inflict on the Jewish people.

    History tells us that we must confront such things early, in order to save lives. You are concentrating on trying to explain away what he said. When I sat down and considered the end result of such appeasement and apathy in light of such clear historical examples, I was utterly appalled at the implications.

    I did however in doing so read things into your comments that were clearly not your intended results. That was wrong.

    “Did you oppose the massacre that Israel inflicted on the refugee camps of Gaza in which a thousand civilians were killed by Israel? I did. That wasn’t a conspiracy that was reality. ”

    > Figures differ. The IDF believes it killed 300 civilians. Clearly you believe the 926 figure.

    What I did see a long overdue response to terrorist activities where civilians were killed after ignoring warnings to leave, and a considerable pile of fake evidence trying to implicate Israel in crimes it did not commit.

    More importantly, look at the intent. Israel spent millions to demonstrate it’s intent to only kill terrorists and militants. Hamas intended for each and every one of it’s rockets and mortars – thousands of them – to kill civilians. This is undeniable. The fact that Hamas failed is irrelevant – Israel had the moral obligation to protect it’s innocent civilians, and they did their best to accomplish this without harming Palestinians.

    “I don’t care whether the people being massacred by the Jewish State were Muslims or Christians or whatever – it was wrong for them to do that and I said so.”

    > But meanwhile you’ve consistently minimized the culpability of those trying to kill Jewish kindergartners, while maximizing the culpability of those trying to respond to that. That’s unbelievably sick, but I was prepared to put that aside because I do recognize that you are sincere at some level. (Though at times it’s hard to believe)

    However, suggesting that we should be happy to go and listen to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, hereby encouraging his quest to wipe out the Jewish race, plus the suggestion that taking a strong moral stance against that is only because we were pushed in some sort of underhanded way is where I draw the line.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,524 other followers

%d bloggers like this: