Trending Topics:

‘We ain’t got to walk around struttin’ talking about two state solutions’ — Marc Lamont Hill

Activism
on 42 Comments

Tomorrow the University of Massachusetts at Amherst will field a panel of fierce advocates for Palestinian freedom, in Roger Waters, Linda Sarsour, Sut Jhally, Dave Zirin and Marc Lamont Hill. UMass is a prestige space, and there have been many efforts to shut down the forum; one Israel lobby group sued for a federal injunction and compared the gathering to a rally of the Ku Klux Klan.

That motion was turned down by a district court judge yesterday. Here is Rachel Weber of Jewish Voice for Peace saying that the critics are equating criticism of Israel to anti-semitism; but it’s white supremacists who are a danger to Jews.

On Wednesday night, Hill, a Temple professor, gave a speech about the “radical imagination” at the annual dinner of the progressive organization WESPAC in White Plains, NY. It was a showstopper; I can only imagine what he will bring to the Massachusetts panel, which will focus on false anti-Semitism charges leveled against advocates for Palestine and is titled, “Not Backing Down.”

Hill lost his job as a commentator at CNN last year after he spoke at the United Nations and had the temerity to call for one state “from the river to the sea.” Equal rights in Israel/Palestine is a heresy in the mainstream.

Palestine continues to be at the center of his activism. Indeed Marc Lamont Hill seems emboldened by his firing, to speak of “gettin’ rid of the settler colonial project altogether” and to mock the term, “liberal Zionist, whatever that is.” His theme was the need for progressives to rise above social inhibitions and imagine true freedom, and he mentioned Palestine often.

He said that activists should channel the bravery of the abolitionists and enslaved “freedom fighters” in the time of slavery and not bend to conventional ideas of justice.

“If we have ambitious freedom dreams, we won’t dream about warmer and fuzzier prisons, we can dream about a world without prisons,” he said. “We ain’t got to walk around struttin’ talking about two state solutions… What about a world where everyone has freedom, justice, equality, safety and self determination? One person one vote. Gettin’ rid of the settler colonial project altogether.”

He linked that vision with the goal of ending toxic masculinity that is a cause of criminal conduct. Why not, he said, “eliminate the impulse and the idea and the logic and the ritual and the practice of unhealthy masculinity.”

He called on activists to listen to “women, other-abled folk, trans folk, and young folk” and said our presidential races should not focus on the middle class as the “marker of citizenship,” but on the vulnerable and the poor.

He said repeatedly that professional activists start to worry about their “grants” and “respectability politics,” when the question should be, “What would it take for us to listen to our original story?” Again, Palestine made an appearance.

What does it mean to invest in schools, only to criminalize young folk?

What does it mean for rape culture to prevail on our campuses and our world?

What does it mean for us to continue to fund an illegal occupation?

Hill said that different activists can’t operate in “silos,” there’s a direct connection between mass incarceration and bad schools, and militarism and Palestine.

[You say] ‘I’m worried about police brutality, I can’t think about Palestine.’ Oh yeah, well these deadly exchange programs in the United States and in Israel are creating models of practice that are being used by Israeli law enforcement and by United States law enforcement. They’re training each other. We got to pay attention to the intersection. Don’t tell me that you can be worried about poverty so you can’t take on militarism. Because who are the most vulnerable in the United States who get put in the front lines of these wars of aggression And who are the people in the global south who are being bombed and droned and exploited. The vulnerable, the poor and the black and the brown… Don’t tell me that you ain’t worried about the environment you’re worried about racism, go to Flint Michigan.

Hill lamented those who “have access to resources and choose to protect our power and privilege rather than change the world.” He referred to his own experience at CNN indirectly, and mocked liberal Zionists.

It’s easy sitting here and being radical as hell…. But what happens tomorrow when the job is on the line? Do you go from being a [unintelligible] to just a liberal Zionist, whatever that is? Do you go from being a radical to a liberal, become a pragmatist? What happens to our politics when they get tested? What happens when something is on the line. When the job promotion is on the line, when your friendship network is on the line, when your TV job is on the line, when your friend What are you going to sacrifice, what are you going to put aside for justice?.. Everybody’s rocking with you, when you’re popping. Everybody’s with you when you can get on board, everybody’s with you when you can hook em up…. What happens when you’re standing on the mountain alone?

He cited Angela Davis working for prison abolition when it wasn’t popular, Harriet Tubman running through the woods with freed slaves when official political culture opposed radical acts.

What happens to you when you’re speaking out for Palestine, what happens to you when you’re speaking out for Uganda, when you’re speaking out for Haiti? What happens to you when all those men who loved you when you were talking about race start to laugh when you’re talking about gender? You start to feel alone…

Some of you work with folk who are liberal on every issue but Palestine. You start to feel alone. But there’s never been a revolution started by the majority. The spark is always a few people, a few brave souls…. allies willing to sacrifice their privilege for justice…

Hill ended his speech with the word Palestine.

Thank you, free the land for Palestine!

P.S. Disclosure: My wife’s prisoner program is sponsored by WESPAC.

 

philweiss
About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

42 Responses

  1. annie
    annie on May 3, 2019, 3:08 pm

    wow, a real man.

    • Misterioso
      Misterioso on May 4, 2019, 10:15 am

      @annie, et al

      Just received from Canada – an update on Linda Sarsour’s very successful visit to Winnipeg.

      ‘Canada Talks Israel Palestine (CTIP)”

      “B’nai Brith suffers embarrassing defeat in Winnipeg over Linda Sarsour event”

      “B’nai Brith Canada lobbyists convinced Winnipeg Mayor Brian Bowman to argue that American activist Linda Sarsour should not be allowed to speak at an event organized by the city’s Social Planning Council. B’nai Brith claimed she is anti-Semitic. But the Council stood its ground, Sarsour did not make anti-Semitic remarks, and the event was a huge success….

      “B’nai Brith, a radical pro-Israel lobby group suffered a spectacular defeat recently by unwisely overplaying the ‘anti-Semitism card’ in an attempt to prevent a human rights activist from speaking at a public event in Winnipeg. The organization pulled out all the stops against Linda Sarsour, well known as one of the co-organizers of the huge Women’s march in Washington, by launching a ‘Sarsour not welcome in Winnipeg’ petition and issuing an aggressive press release.

      “At first, the campaign seemed to be working. Under pressure, the Seven Oaks school division which was to provide the venue cancelled the event. B’nai Brith was jubilant. ‘B’nai Brith Canada lauds Seven Oaks for deciding not to provide a platform to Sarsour’s brand of indefensible hatred,’ crowed Michael Mostyn, Chief Executive Officer of B’nai Brith Canada.

      “When organizers found a new location for the event, B’nai Brith doubled down. It joined with the Jewish Federation of Winnipeg to convince Brian Bowman, the Mayor of Winnipeg to call for Sarsour to be removed from the agenda. Flanked by representatives from B’nai Brith and The Jewish Federation, Mayor Bowman read a prepared statement which claimed it was not ‘appropriate to provide this individual a public platform to further propagate anti-Semitic views and hate.’ He called on the Social Planning Council to cancel their invitation to Sarsour.

      “But it didn’t work. A counter campaign began quickly, contesting the description of Sarsour as ‘anti-Semitic,’ and urging the Social Planning Council to stand its ground. Many organizations wrote to both the Mayor and to Kate Kelher, Executive director of the Social Planning Council, urging that the event continue as planned. In the end, the Social Planning Council held a joint a press conference with Sarsour announcing that the Council was not backing down.

      “Before the event, the Social Planning Council, along with several other Winnipeg organizations, held a press conference with Linda Sarsour explaining their intention to proceed.

      “Social media was annoyed over B’nai Brith’s clumsy usage of allegations of anti-Semitism as a smokescreen for trying to shut down an activist who has been openly critical of Israel. Even the Winnipeg Free Press objected to the Mayor’s call on the basis of free speech.

      “One very effective intervention was an interview on CBC radio with Rabbi David Mivasair who knows Linda Sarsour personally. He has also had experience with B’nai Brith leading him to believe that the organization manipulated the mayor.

      “Aftermath and lessons learned”
      “In the end, the event was a huge sold out success. In fact, Sarsour even joked that the controversy around her must have increased attendance.

      “CTIP spoke to Harold Shuster of Winnipeg about the event and its aftermath. (Apologies for the quality of the video. The image occasionally freezes, but Mr. Shuster’s voice comes through loud and clear.)

      “CTIP does agree that anti-Semitism is a reality and believes the Mayor is right to be concerned about it. But he should be wary of being drawn into a debate by those who would use the ‘anti-Semitism’ label as a way of shutting down legitimate criticisms of Israel.”
      _____________________________________________________________
      Canada Talks Israel Palestine (CTIP) encourages and promotes a thoughtful discussion among Canadians on the Israel/Palestine issue, including a well informed and sensitive discussion about solutions. CTIP encourages serious people who disagree with any column to make comment. Disagreements respectfully offered are welcome. To learn more about what CTIP does, contact us at [email protected].

      • annie
        annie on May 4, 2019, 1:52 pm

        what great news misterioso!

      • annie
        annie on May 4, 2019, 1:53 pm

        who could forget cigargod. yes, a legend.

    • Stephen Shenfield
      Stephen Shenfield on May 6, 2019, 12:07 pm

      Annie, perhaps you can explain something that puzzles me. I agree that Marc Lamont Hill displays some admirable qualities. He is perceptive and morally courageous. But what do you mean by calling him a ‘real man’? Would a woman with those same qualities qualify as a ‘real woman’ — or does that require different qualities? Or should we call such a woman ‘a woman with the qualities of a real man’? Some may view that as a dubious compliment. Or should we regard these qualities as those of a ‘real human being’ without regard to gender?

  2. Keith
    Keith on May 3, 2019, 4:57 pm

    MARC LAMONT HILL- “Some of you work with folk who are liberal on every issue but Palestine.”

    What a golden opportunity to quote Phil Ochs on liberalism!

    “In every political community there are varying shades of political opinion. One of the shadiest of these is the liberals. An outspoken group on many subjects. Ten degrees to the left of center in good times. Ten degrees to the right of center if it affects them personally. Here, then, is a lesson in safe logic.” (Phil Ochs) https://www.azquotes.com/author/11038-Phil_Ochs

  3. wondering jew
    wondering jew on May 3, 2019, 6:39 pm

    Quite often it is difficult to tell what part of my reaction is logical and what part is emotional.

    but at this moment, logically, the oppressed of Gaza will feel vindicated by Hill’s words.

    Emotionally, I react: AM YISROEL CHAI!

    We will see (and I say we metaphorically, for I might not live to see it) whether the vindication of the imprisoned of Gaza will be sufficient to overcome the desire of the Yehudi people to assert their need for a territory and an army based in Israel. We will see.

    • eljay
      eljay on May 3, 2019, 7:48 pm

      || wondering jew: Quite often it is difficult to tell what part of my reaction is logical and what part is emotional. … ||

      It doesn’t seem to matter, really, because both parts of your reaction resolve to Jewish / “Jewish State” supremacism.

      || … Emotionally, I react: AM YISROEL CHAI! … ||

      No kidding.

    • Mooser
      Mooser on May 4, 2019, 11:43 am

      “the desire of the Yehudi people to assert their need for a territory and an army based in Israel.” “WJ”

      Ah, yes, “based in Israel”, of course. But able to strike anywhere Jews are in peril. (After having their genes and genealogy checked, of course)

    • Mooser
      Mooser on May 4, 2019, 12:32 pm

      “Quite often it is difficult to tell what part of my reaction is logical and what part is emotional.”

      But one thing we can easily tell is that your reaction is completely colorblind.

  4. mondonut
    mondonut on May 3, 2019, 6:41 pm

    …had the temerity to call for one state “from the river to the sea.” Equal rights in Israel/Palestine is a heresy in the mainstream.

    What a clever little lie.

    Hill was not advocating for “one state” from the river to the sea, nor was he making an appeal to equal rights. He more accurately said “a free Palestine from the river to the sea” – and we all know what that means. As for anyone who pretends they do not, just reference pretty much everything Hamas has to say on the subject.

    • eljay
      eljay on May 3, 2019, 7:50 pm

      || mondonut: … What a clever little lie.

      Hill … more accurately said “a free Palestine from the river to the sea” – and we all know what that means. … ||

      It’s like that clever little Zionist lie – “Jewish and democratic” – and we all know what that means.

    • RoHa
      RoHa on May 4, 2019, 4:34 am

      ‘He more accurately said “a free Palestine from the river to the sea” – and we all know what that means. ‘

      Freedom for everyone between the river and the sea? What a terrible thought!

    • Misterioso
      Misterioso on May 4, 2019, 9:38 am

      @mondonut

      “…just reference pretty much everything Hamas has to say on the subject.”

      Your wish is my command. Here’s a sampling:

      On 16 June 2009, after meeting with former U.S. President Jimmy Carter, Ismail Haniya, prime minister of Hamas’s Gaza Strip government, announced that “If there is a real plan to resolve the Palestinian question on the basis of the creation of a Palestinian state within the borders of June 4, 1967 [i.e. 22% of historic Palestine] and with full sovereignty, we are in favour of it.” “Israel’ ignored the overture.

      “‘We accept a Palestinian state on the borders of 1967, with Jerusalem as its capital, the release of Palestinian prisoners, and the resolution of the issue of refugees,’ Haniyeh said, referring to the year of Middle East war in which Israel captured East Jerusalem and the Palestinian territories. ” (Haaretz, December 1, 2010) No response from “Israel.” (By calling for a “resolution of the issue of refugees,” Haniyeh was in accordance with UNGA Res. 194, which calls for financial compensation as a possible option for the Palestinian refugees rather than their “inalienable Right of Return.”)

      In its revised Charter, April, 2017, Hamas again agreed to a Palestinian state based on the 4 June 1967 borders. Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, “Israel” promptly rejected the Hamas overture instead of using it to open a dialogue.

      https://www.haaretz.com/isr…
      “Senior Hamas Official: ‘I Think We Can All Live Here in This Land – Muslims, Christians and Jews.’” By Nir Gontarz. March 28, 2018, Haaretz. No response from “Israel.”

      Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, “Israel’s” response to every peace overture from the Palestinians, including Hamas, has been rapidly increasing illegal settlement construction along with escalating dispossession and violent oppression of the indigenous Christian and Muslim Palestinian Arab inhabitants.

      As for Netanyahu and the Likud party, here’s a brief summation of their positions that are contrary to international law and explain why the conflict continues:
      The Likud Party Platform:
      a. “The Jordan river will be the permanent eastern border of the State of Israel.”
      b. “Jerusalem is the eternal, united capital of the State of Israel and only of Israel. The government will flatly reject Palestinian proposals to divide Jerusalem”
      c. “The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river.”
      d. “…. Settlement of the land is a clear expression of the unassailable right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel and constitutes an important asset in the defense of the vital interests of the State of Israel. The Likud will continue to strengthen and develop these communities and will prevent their uprooting.”

      • mondonut
        mondonut on May 4, 2019, 11:32 am

        @Misterioso, Your wish is my command. Here’s a sampling:

        As you know, none of what you quote are end of conflict peace offers. As Hamas has repeatedly made clear, the only solution is an Islamic state from the river to the sea.

    • bcg
      bcg on May 4, 2019, 10:18 am

      @Mondonut: Tell us what the endgame is.
      Does it look to you like two states are possible?

      • mondonut
        mondonut on May 4, 2019, 11:40 am

        @bcg , Does it look to you like two states are possible?

        There is no achievable two state solution the Palestinians would accept. The Israelis have zero reasons to divide the city of Jerusalem (nor should they) and the Palestinian concept of a RoR will never happen.

        But should the Palestinians of the West Bank ask for and accept annexation along with an offer of citizenship, then its possible the 2SS will emerge as a greater Israel and a Palestinian state in Gaza.

    • echinococcus
      echinococcus on May 4, 2019, 11:42 pm

      “more accurately said ‘a free Palestine from the river to the sea’ ”

      Only a supporter of colonial oppression, international banditism and major crimes against humanity can have any objection to a free Palestine from the river to the sea. Palestine was illegitimately invaded, its owners’ sovereignty subverted and its owners robbed, expelled and murdered by alien colonial criminals.

      Supporting equal rights for colonial invaders in the absence of a (highly unlikely) freely-given, representative consent by a majority of the Palestinian people, i.e. a consent to conquest by its victims, is being an accessory to the crime. It makes no difference at all if those supporting such illegitimate equal rights call themselves Zionists, colonialists, anti-Zionist liberals, progressives, or whatever else: they are accessories to crimes against humanity.

    • Stephen Shenfield
      Stephen Shenfield on May 5, 2019, 4:41 pm

      So you give Hamas a monopoly on determining the meaning of ‘free Palestine’ — no one else has the right to use the phrase with any other meaning?

      • mondonut
        mondonut on May 5, 2019, 6:37 pm

        @Stephen Shenfield, So you give Hamas a monopoly on determining the meaning of ‘free Palestine’

        A free Palestine can mean almost anything. But within the context of the I/P conflict “a free Palestine from the river to the sea” is well understood as Hamas’ goal of erasing Israel.

      • echinococcus
        echinococcus on May 5, 2019, 6:49 pm

        There is only one reading of the phrase “free Palestine” with regard to the presence of unauthorized invaders: without them. Period.
        Invader presence is by definition the opposite of freedom. Let’s see how you spin that.

      • Stephen Shenfield
        Stephen Shenfield on May 7, 2019, 10:09 pm

        My comment was intended as a response to Mondonut but it got displaced so echinococcus (a genus of tapeworms!) seems to think it was a response to him. Not that it matters. Both insist that ‘there is only one reading’ and they even agree on what that reading is. They are on different sides, that is all.

        I think that calls for freedom, especially freedom of countries, are demagogic because freedom, unlike the removal of specific unfreedoms, is unattainable in principle.

      • echinococcus
        echinococcus on May 8, 2019, 12:27 am

        Shenfield,

        You conveniently ignore the comment right above yours on “monopoly” (and the hundreds of times the argument was brought forward, unanswered.) Zionist invader presence is what you defend under the ridiculous pretext of “equal rights” for murderer and victim.

        The call for freedom of Palestine is specifically for freedom from invasion and foreign domination. Of course, because that’s what international law is about. Let’s not pretend it has anything to do with philosophising about unattainable spiritual BS.

  5. Ottawa observer
    Ottawa observer on May 3, 2019, 11:09 pm

    I still think a better (and clearer) slogan would be “from the river to the sea, Palestinians must be free”.

    • johneill
      johneill on May 4, 2019, 6:03 am

      from the river to the sea, everyone deserves equality.

      • echinococcus
        echinococcus on May 4, 2019, 11:52 pm

        Equality for the invader and its bound-and-gagged victim! The so-called liberals’ hypocrisy is as boundless as human stupidity.

        Any six-year old will tell you that the only thing an invader “deserves” is expulsion.

      • johneill
        johneill on May 5, 2019, 9:10 am

        the obvious lesson imo is that ethnic cleansing doesn’t solve anything. equality in everything, including the right of return, is a necessary condition for any kind of substantive reparations.

      • echinococcus
        echinococcus on May 5, 2019, 3:37 pm

        Johneill,

        “the obvious lesson imo is that ethnic cleansing doesn’t solve anything.”
        How so? It solves the pesky problem of surviving locals. When they aren’t around, alive and kicking, any longer… they stop kicking. In a way, it also solves all problems for the departed.

        Feel-good slogans are not helpful: they do not change the real world.

        Another point where feel-good slogans are causing intolerable prejudice to the owners of Palestine, now:
        “equality in everything, including the right of return…”
        `
        What the hell does that mean exactly?

        Only the Palestinian people, ejected from their country by a colonial invader, have a right of return here.

        What goddam “equality”? Only Palestinians have a right of return. Zionist invaders are not returning anywhere, only invading and committing genocide. Not only they don’t have a right to enter Palestine, they only have the right to get out PDQ.

        “… is a necessary condition for any kind of substantive reparations.”

        Substantive reparations mean at least giving back their country to Palestinians. Without the infernal encumberment of invaders and offspring thereof, or any other intruders undesirable to the collective Palestinian people.

      • johneill
        johneill on May 5, 2019, 10:25 pm

        this attitude strikes me as just as dogmatic as the zionist hardliners.

  6. RoHa
    RoHa on May 4, 2019, 4:37 am

    “What about a world where everyone has freedom, justice, equality, safety and self determination?”

    The man is clearly demented.

  7. wondering jew
    wondering jew on May 4, 2019, 7:58 am

    Here’s my definition of a Liberal Zionist:
    1. Accepts, endorses or celebrates the Jewish rejection of unilateral disarmament.
    2. Accepts, endorses or celebrates the choice of The Land as the place for this army.
    3. Views with deep suspicion the idea of minority rights in Arab Muslim nations.
    4. Rejects the de facto annexation of the West Bank, insofar as it involves the disenfranchisement of the indigenous.
    5. Accepts the necessity of the rejection of the Right of Return, because it would result in minority status in the new state and the subsequent disarmament of the Jewish people.
    And for practicality sake, let me add:
    6. Accepts the Beilin-Abd Rabbo Geneva “agreement” of 2003.

    • eljay
      eljay on May 4, 2019, 9:05 am

      || wondering jew: Here’s my definition of a Liberal Zionist … ||

      Both the “liberal Zionist” and the hard-core Zionist are hateful and immoral hypocrites who believe that the religion-based identity of Jewish grants to those who choose to hold it the “right”:
      – to be supremacists;
      – to have a religion-supremacist “Jewish State” (in as much as possible of geographic Palestine); and
      – to do unto others all manner of “necessary evil” they would not have others do unto them.

      Unlike the hard-core Zionist, the “liberal Zionist” prefers to have the unjust and immoral business of Zionism conducted in a “kinder, gentler” way.

    • Misterioso
      Misterioso on May 4, 2019, 9:42 am

      @wondering jew

      To state the obvious, the term “Liberal Zionist” is an oxymoron.

  8. bcg
    bcg on May 4, 2019, 10:23 am

    About the idea of two states –

    I recently heard Amira Hass speak, and she said that it’s now becoming more acceptable in Israel to speak of mass deportation of the Palestinians – Nakba II. There was always that undercurrent in Israeli society (she said), but now it feels freer to rear its ugly head.

  9. Arby
    Arby on May 4, 2019, 11:57 am

    “…one Israel lobby group sued for a federal injunction and compared the gathering to a rally of the Ku Klux Klan.”

    Here’s the usual perverse projection. Just call everyone what you are. Don’t even think about it. Put it on auto. Show that attitude. Satan approves.

    • umm al-hamam
      umm al-hamam on May 5, 2019, 7:49 pm

      As someone who grew up in the US south, I gotta say I’ve never seen or heard of an Israel lobby group trying to de-platform the Klan, threaten lawsuits against municipalities where they hold public rallies, etc. For some reason it’s always orgs like the NAACP and SPLC that are doing that and never the Simon Wiesenthal Centre or whatever. Wonder why. (no I don’t actually.)

  10. Arby
    Arby on May 4, 2019, 12:12 pm

    “He linked that vision with the goal of ending toxic masculinity that is a cause of criminal conduct. Why not, he said, “eliminate the impulse and the idea and the logic and the ritual and the practice of unhealthy masculinity.””

    “Riches?”
    https://arrby.wordpress.com/2013/05/20/riches/

    What happens when good people walk the talk, asks Hill? Those good people know. They get censored. They are forced to worry about how others will take them – because they don’t plan to go along in order to get along. But, The fact is that all solutions to all problems flow from caring. We need to stay sane. We need to stay caring. And we always need to self-examine because we are all imperfect.

  11. Mooser
    Mooser on May 6, 2019, 10:52 am

    This is a heck of a thing to wake up to on Monday:

    “The Institute for Social Policy and Understanding has a new public opinion report out on Islamophobia and Americans’ attitudes toward Muslims. The report covers a lot of ground and includes an easily accessible range of charts that makes it easy to dip into. I recommend it to you. What I want to focus on is one key finding: of all religious or ethnic groups in America, Jews have by far the most positive attitudes toward Muslims.” TPM.

    Conclusion: “Most of this public narrative (Islamophobia ) is – as some of us probably suspected – really about the hostility or white evangelicals and conservatives who use Jews as symbols or stalking horses or mascots to explain an antipathy Jews mainly don’t share.”

    Ah, I see. Those darn “conservatives” and “white evangelicals”

    • Keith
      Keith on May 6, 2019, 4:28 pm

      MOOSER- “Ah, I see. Those darn “conservatives” and “white evangelicals”

      So are Bill Maher and Pamela Geller conservatives or white evangelicals?

      • Mooser
        Mooser on May 6, 2019, 5:00 pm

        “So are…”

        Don’t ask me. I have a funny feeling TPM is overlooking something. Click on the link, and look at the absolutely convincing mass of charts, graphs, and percentages.

Leave a Reply