Monday, April 24, 2017

BDS Abuse of Freedom of Speech by CUNY City tax dollars paying for one who is an advocate and encourages terror to speak at the CUNY Commencement? Outrageous


CUNY invites  terror supporter and Jew hater Linda Sarsour to speak at Commencement?  She advocates for terrorists and calls little kids throwing rocks courageous! See her Twitter account. 

Brandeiss suppresses Pro Israel supporters from speaking. 

Both situations are  clearly abusing the 1st Amendment rights of Freedom of Speech. 

#CancelSarsour: Assemblyman Hikand calls on NY Governor Cuomo to intervene, rescind this commencement invitation: "Sarsour's support for terrorism disqualifies her" 
Brandeis University withdrew an invitation to brave Muslim apostate, Ayaan Hirsi Ali but terror supporter and vicious Jew-hater Linda Sarsour is invited to give the commencement address at CUNY? She should be in jail not on a podium says Congressman Dov Hikind. 

Robin Ticker

Israel Advocacy Calendar (
Activist emails sent to my list  are L'Ilui Nishmat Yisrael ben David Aryeh ob"m (Izzy - Kaplan) and Howard Chaim Grief great activists and lovers of Eretz Yisroel, Am Yisroel and the Torah. Yehi Zichronum Baruch.  May their memories serve as a blessing. 

Most of these emails are posted on 

Personal emails to individuals will not be posted to my blog. 

Muslim Brotherhood Written Plan for North America influence on Park Slope Food Coop BDS (PSFCBDS) PSFC International Trade Education Squad ITES..More.Brainwashing disguised as Education?


Muslim Brotherhood Written Plan for North America. BDS supporters in Park Slope Food Coop (PSFC) and elsewhere follow this plan by vilifying Israel under the guise of freedom, democracy, equality etc. Who needs to hear facts?

Another opportunity to "Educate" or Brainwash?
Park Slope Food Coop International Trade Education Squad


Proposal: The PS Food Coop will form a International Trade Education Squad (ITES) to keep members informed about on-going international trade negotiations and how trade agreements affect our ability to maintain our values and realize the goals of the Park Slope Food Coop as put forward in our Mission Statement:
“We try to lead by example, educating ourselves and others about health and nutrition, cooperation and the environment…We seek to avoid products that depend upon the exploitation of others…We strive to reduce the impact of our lifestyles on the world we share with other species and future generations…”
Since the corporate mass media doesn’t inform us, many are confused about how international trade agreements affect our lives, our community and our Coop. To understand the process of how agreements are reached and the policies that trade agreements require that we accept, we agree to take responsibility to study and bring to Coop members information for discussion that can lead to individual and/or collective action.

I assume that this committee will probably have an anti Trump bias as is the case with the Lineswaiter Gazette. I think I am on target with this assumption. They probably have a socialist and progressive agenda.

I see that the purpose of ITES is to keep members informed as per Trade agreements and the Coops ability to maintain our values and realize the goals of the Mission Statement. 

Och in Vey.

I really haven't studied what TPP is all about nor what has been presented in the ITES to form an educated opinion as per whether they are for or against TPP or even neutral and unbiased.  However what seems most suspect here is the mission statement that says that the COOP avoids products that depend on the exploitation of others. When it comes to BDS, the PSFC has determined wrongly that Israel is exploiting the rights of the Palestinians, stealing their land, violating their rights etc. when the violations are clearly the other way around.

Therefore why should anyone trust ITES values and judgement to educate in an unbiased fashion?  Even more worrisome, will they take the side of evil, misrepresent the facts with disinformation and bias and call it education as they have done with PSFC BDS  to clueless and uneducated members of the PSFC  like myself at least when it comes to Trade Agreements who will believe them? 

Robin Ticker

Friday, April 14, 2017

Fwd: Kurtz Op-Ed: Understanding the Campus Free-Speech Crisis


Time to discipline progressive/leftists who are supportive of BDS and BDS operatives. The have a proven record of disruption.. not visa versa! This post brings proof of anti Israel and progressive leftists disrupting pro Israel speech from way back. 

They must be disciplined as they have been quick to discipline the members of PSFC for protesting BDS....yes there is something we can learn from them....

We must not be afraid to disrupt and discourage a narrative based on hate and lies.

 At the same time we must not be afraid and be proactive to encourage and protect free speech that is Pro Israel.

Once and for all let us abolish BDS propaganda and lies!  

When will Pro Israel people have the same passion as anti Israel groups have had? 

One day...stop with the violence, stop with the hate...

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Zionist Organization of America" <>
Date: Apr 14, 2017 2:07 PM
Subject: Kurtz Op-Ed: Understanding the Campus Free-Speech Crisis
To: "" <>

Zionist Organization of America 



Kurtz Op-Ed: Understanding the Campus Free-Speech Crisis

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Print Email Addthis
For more information contact Morton A. Klein 212-481-1500
Follow @mortonaklein on Twitter

NEW YORK, April 14, 2017

By Stanley Kurtz

What's gone wrong on our college campuses and how can we fix it? This past week, Manhattan Institute scholar Heather Mac Donald, a knowledgeable supporter of America's criminal justice system and thoughtful critic of the Black Lives Matter movement, was repeatedly shouted down by protesters at UCLA, then silenced and forced to escape with a police escort the next day, during what should have been her talk at Claremont McKenna College.

These incidents follow the February riot that forced the cancellation of a Milo Yiannopoulos talk at UC Berkeley, and the March shout-down at Middlebury College of conservative Charles Murray, followed by the violent attack that sent Murray's liberal interlocutor, Professor Allison Stanger, to the hospital.

The immediate lesson of the UCLA shout-down and the Claremont shut-down is that widespread condemnation by all sides of the Berkeley and Middlebury incidents has not restored campus free speech. On the contrary, America's colleges continue their descent into low-grade anarchy.

Why is that? The immediate explanation is that leftist college students are furious at the election of Donald Trump as president. Yet often-illiberal demonstrations swept over the nation's campuses during the 2015–16 academic year, well before Trump became a factor. The crisis of free speech has also been aggravated by a rising tide of shout-downs and disruptions of pro-Israel speakers since 2014. Before that, I reported in 2013 on a few of the more egregious silencing incidents sparked by the campus fossil-fuel divestment movement, then in full swing. In fact, I began covering campus silencing incidents for NRO in 2001, when I wrote about angry UC Berkeley students storming the offices of the Daily Californian to destroy a run of papers containing a David Horowitz ad opposing reparations for slavery. Today's problems are hardly new.

Back in 2001, as reported by ABC News, thefts of campus newspapers had increased by 600 percent over the previous decade and campus speeches by former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, anti-preferences activist Ward Connerly, and Second Amendment supporter Charlton Heston were often disrupted or canceled. Here is a very partial excerpt from David Horowitz's description of his reception at various campuses in the early 2000s: "I once had to terminate a talk prematurely despite the presence of thirty armed police and four bodyguards at Berkeley. I had to be protected by twelve armed police and a German Shepard at the University of Michigan. I was rushed by clearly deranged individuals and saved only by the intervention of a bodyguard, twice — at M.I.T. and Princeton." (Sixteen years later, Horowitz has become the latest example of a campus free speech shut-down.)

A San Francisco Chronicle article from 2000 describes an incident at Berkeley in which 200 demonstrators broke through police barricades and blocked a talk by then-former Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The incident was publicly condemned in a column by Berkeley mayor Shirley Dean and condemned as well in a joint letter by several members of the original Berkeley Free Speech Movement. These interventions by prestigious voices on the left were fueled by "cumulative frustration over several years of leftist demonstrations, particularly at the UC campus, disrupting speeches of those they view as criminal in one form or another." Targets of UC Berkeley disruptions stretching from the mid 1980s to the year 2000 included Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, and former NATO commander General Wesley Clark.

The first in this series of UC Berkeley speaker disruptions of the post-1960s era seems to have been the 1983 shout-down down of Ronald Reagan's United Nations ambassador, Jeane Kirkpatrick, by hecklers opposed to U.S. policy in El Salvador. Although her words were drowned out, Kirkpatrick went through the motions of reading her talk. Her follow-up Berkeley lecture was canceled, however. This incident, at a time when shout-downs were rare, sparked a national discussion and broad condemnation. Yet far from this condemnation preventing further disruptions, the virus quickly spread. Kirkpatrick was shouted down two weeks later at the University of Minnesota and her scheduled 1983 commencement address at Smith was canceled. The current era of campus shout-downs, shut-downs, and disinvitations had arrived. Yet the origins of this era lay still further back in time.

The campus disruptions of the 1960s and early 1970s set the pattern for all that was to follow from the mid 1980s onward. Most important for our purposes, Yale's Woodward Report of 1974, the classic defense of campus free speech, identified a series of shout-downs and disinvitations stretching back eleven years as the pattern that Yale would need to break. What the Woodward Report called Yale's "failures" began in 1963 when President Kingman Brewster, "in the interest of law and order" and in deference to New Haven's black community, canceled a scheduled talk by segregationist Alabama governor George C. Wallace at the height of the Civil Rights struggle.

Keep in mind that the report's chairman, Yale historian C. Vann Woodward, had advised Thurgood Marshall's legal team as it argued for school desegregation in what became the Brown vs. Board of Education decision of 1954. And Woodward's book, The Strange Case of Jim Crow, had been dubbed "the historical bible of the civil rights movement" by Martin Luther King Jr. himself. Yet this Civil Rights hero, along with other liberal faculty members at Yale, pressured President Brewster to defend the freedom of speakers such as George Wallace.

None of this is to deny that the problem of campus shout-downs and disinvitations is getting worse. Yet it's important to keep in mind that today's pattern is an intensification of a long-standing crisis that has had its ups and downs since the early Sixties, but has not fundamentally changed in form for well over five decades. What's clear after 50-some years is that the academy has proven itself incapable of solving its free-speech problem on its own. Let's see why.

We can think of the challenges to free-speech since the Sixties as washing over our campuses in four great waves. The first wave ("Young Radicals") was made up of the illiberal and violent Sixties student radicals. Notwithstanding the views of the Free Speech Movement veterans who condemned the Berkeley Netanyahu shut-down of 2000, a great many of the Sixties radicals rejected classical-liberal conceptions of freedom in favor of a neo-Marxist analysis. In this view, free speech and constitutional democracy are tools used by the ruling class to suppress dissent and protect an oppressive society.

The second anti–free-speech wave ("Long March") hit colleges in the early-to-mid 1980s, as the radicals left graduate school and took up junior faculty positions, bringing their suspicions of free speech with them. These faculty did away with required Western Civilization courses as well, helping to launch the academic "culture war" that began at Stanford in 1987. After allied leftist faculty and students succeeded in abolishing Stanford's Western Civilization requirement in 1988, student demonstrators began demanding speech codes (partly in hopes of silencing students who had challenged them during the Western Civilization debate)

The third anti–free-speech wave ("Takeover") began in the mid 1990s, as the older generation of professors began to retire. At this point, the younger and more radical generation of faculty members reached critical mass. That is, they had the numbers to control hiring. Not believing in the classical-liberal vision of a marketplace of ideas, these faculty used the tenure system, not to seek out and protect the finest scholarly representatives of diverse perspectives, but to solidify an intellectual monopoly of the Left. By the 2000s, the tenured radicals constituted a controlling majority in many social science and humanities departments, and stood as the most powerful plurality in the university as a whole.

The fourth anti–free-speech wave ("Transformed Generation") consists of the late Millennial students who began demanding safe-spaces and trigger warnings around 2014, just as the number of university shout-downs and disinvitations began to spike. Free-speech advocate Gregg Lukianoff and social psychologist Jonathan Haidt attribute the new student sensitivities, in part, to parental coddling by the Baby Boomers. No doubt there is truth to this, but this college generation's K–12 curriculum also differed dramatically from past standards.

Although Lynne Cheney, former National Endowment for the Humanities chairwoman under Presidents Reagan and George H. W. Bush, managed to convince the U.S. Senate to condemn the proposed new multiculturalist National History Standards of 1994, the left-leaning post-Sixties generation of K–12 teachers adopted them in practice anyway. The rest of the curriculum was also quickly remodeled along lines that stressed group conflict and America's sins. The generation that brought us "micro-aggressions" and "white privilege" duly entered college 20 years later.

The key to solving the campus free-speech crisis lies in the decade-long interregnum between the radical Sixties and the kick-off of the campus culture wars in the mid 1980s. This was also a period of relative calm in the country as a whole.

The widely praised Woodward Report of 1974 marked the effective end of the Young Radicals phase (wave one), and ushered in the decade-long restoration of campus free speech. That restoration ended with the Jeane Kirkpatrick shout-down at Berkeley in 1983, which initiated the second wave of free-speech crisis.

What distinguished the Woodward Report of 1974 from Berkeley's response to the Kirkpatrick shout-down of 1983 was the issue of discipline. The Woodward Report not only eloquently upheld the principle of free speech, it insisted that students who shouted down visiting speakers must be disciplined. The Woodward Report also established a sanctions policy, and a system for warning disruptive students of potential disciplinary consequences. This approach carried the day at Yale and elsewhere during the post-Sixties restoration of free speech. In effect, the Woodward Report and its positive national reception helped return the credible threat of discipline for speaker shout-downs that had been abandoned by craven administrators during the 1960s.

A decade after the Woodward Report, things changed. While the Berkeley faculty as a whole condemned the students who shouted down Jeane Kirkpatrick in 1983, a faculty resolution to have Kirkpatrick's hecklers punished was defeated. This was likely a concession to the many junior faculty who openly defended Kirkpatrick's disruptors on the grounds that "oppressors" have no free-speech rights. Although many observers felt that disciplinary action against Kirkpatrick's hecklers had to be taken, the UC Board of Regents also declined to follow up on a demand for discipline initiated by Regents' chairman Glenn Campbell. Meanwhile, UC Berkeley chancellor Ira Heyman indicated that no disciplinary action would be taken.

With more leftist faculty streaming in over succeeding years, those who favored discipline for disruptors grew less powerful. The days when even (or especially) liberal Civil Rights heroes understood the need to grant free speech to segregationists were over. The policy of disciplinary sanctions for shout-downs instituted to national praise by Yale in 1974, definitively went by the boards at Berkeley in 1983. Speaker disruptions then slowly grew in frequency and force at Berkeley and beyond. So, the refusal to discipline the students who shouted down Kirkpatrick ultimately helped lock today's quasi-anarchic anti-speech system into place.

The thuggishness and violence of the Sixties demonstrations at their height exceeded what we see today. Yet today's chronic, pervasive, and steadily growing vice-grip of campus orthodoxy, punctuated and enforced by occasional shout-downs and meeting takeovers, is in its way more dangerous.

There are plenty of indications that campus free speech is more besieged nowadays than it's been in decades. Trigger warnings, safe spaces, and microaggressions signal a cultural sea-change. Anti-Israel shout-downs and disruptions have multiplied dramatically. These are no longer occasional embarrassing episodes but the fruit of a deliberate strategy devised by influential sectors of the campus left. FIRE (the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education), which keeps an index of disinvitations and shout-downs, says the overall rate of all such incidents is increasing.

Yet statistics tell only part of the story. We can't assume a constant rate of speakers attempting to counter campus orthodoxies. Top comedians and an unknowable number of conservative speakers now avoid college campuses. At some point, a decreasing rate of shout-downs may actually indicate that free speech, along with resistance to campus orthodoxies, has been successfully crushed. And in a world of social media and the 24-hour news cycle, a few well-publicized shout-downs may suffice to chill speech and encourage violent demonstrators across the entire country. Finally, in contrast to the Sixties, today's illiberal demonstrators, disruptive and ornery though they may seem, may actually be allied with significant sections of the faculty and administration (as KC Johnson has cogently argued).

So there are important reasons to believe that today's free-speech crisis is locked-in and unchangeable in the absence of outside intervention. The alliance of radical students with dominant sections of the faculty (precisely those faculty members who reject classical liberalism) means that few C. Vann Woodwards remain to pressure administrators into defending free speech. Meanwhile, the ideologically based "studies" programs (various ethnic studies, women's studies, and environmental studies majors) have grown to challenge the conventional academic departments in size and influence. This creates a large and permanent faculty and student constituency schooled in suspicion of classic liberalism.

Ultimately, the public has granted the academy certain rights and privileges — special financial and policy protections (especially tenure) — on the understanding that institutions of higher education will pursue truth under conditions of free inquiry and fairness to all points of view. There is a kind of implicit bargain or social contract here, and the academy has so consistently and persistently violated its side of the bargain that public action is now necessary.

In particular, the tenure system, designed to ensure freedom of speech and secure the marketplace of ideas, has been abused to create an illiberal intellectual monopoly. And precisely because of this monopolistic abuse of the unique privilege of academic tenure, along with the unresolved, decades-long crisis of campus free speech, the traditional policy presumption in favor of local control can no longer be sustained in this sector.

That is why state and federal legislators cannot look the other way but must act to restore our most basic liberties to the academy. And while legislation eliminating restrictive speech codes and so-called free-speech zones is very much in order, the underlying problem will not be solved until administrators are pressed to restore discipline for speaker shout-downs. The administrative refusal to discipline disruptors, which took off in the Sixties and resumed with the Kirkpatrick incident in 1983, must be reversed. Only a return to the policies and ethos of the Woodward Report offers hope.

There are several state-level campus free-speech bills on offer, but only the model legislation proposed in the Goldwater Report systematically addresses the problem of discipline for campus shout-downs. I have also offered a plan to tie federal aid to higher education to a restoration of discipline for speaker shout-downs, among other things.

The tattered campus climate of free speech ultimately rests on deeper cultural shifts that must be addressed by educators over the long-term. Yet legislative action to protect campus free speech could serve as the shock that initiates cultural change.

Short of legislative steps to restore discipline for disruption, even bipartisan condemnation of campus shout-downs will fail, as it has failed repeatedly in the past. The ranks of authentically liberal faculty members are far too thinned to do what Woodward and his colleagues did in 1974. Without an intervention by the public through its elected representatives, the structure of the anti-free-speech university is locked-in for the foreseeable future. After 54 years, we are indeed at an inflection point. Act now, or campus free speech will be lost for a lifetime.

This article was published by the National Review and may be found here.

Follow ZOA
Facebook Twitter Pinterest

About the ZOA

The Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) is the oldest and one of the largest pro-Israel organizations in the United States. With offices around the country and in Israel, the ZOA educates the public, elected officials, the media, and college/high school students about the truth of the ongoing Arab war against Israel. The ZOA works to strengthen U.S.- Israel relations through educational activities, public affairs programs and our work on Capitol Hill, and to combat anti-Semitism and anti-Israel bias in the media, in textbooks, in schools and on college campuses. Under the leadership of such presidents as Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, Rabbi Abba Hillel Silver, and current President Morton A. Klein, the ZOA has been - and continues to be - on the front lines of Jewish activism. For more information contact Morton A. Klein 212-481-1500.

This email was sent to
why did I get this?    unsubscribe
Zionist Organization of America
P.O. Box # 4518
New York, NY 10163

Thursday, April 13, 2017

Fwd: fyi Fighting BDS by fighting the Left who Kills Free Speech - "*Berkeley Hates Free Speech - David Horowitz..."


Chol Hamoed Pesach 5777. Happy Passover, the Festival of Freedom: Moadim LeSimcha!

I am a member to abolish BDS from the Park Slope Food Coop.

Dear Friends who are involved in fighting BDS.

I thought you might be interested in reading this recent article by David Horowitz regarding how they prevented him from speaking at Berkeley.

We are not surprised as this is their modus operandi.

My question to those of you who are lawyers is "Does David Horowitz have legal grounds to go on the offensive to win a case against Berkeley?

The reality is that BDS gets a platform in Berkeley  and anti BDS does not!

In Park Slope Food Coop: 
  • Members who disrupt a hate filled, antisemitic, BDS false narrative are guilty.
  • Those who provide a platform for hate filled, antisemitic lies and propaganda are members in positions of influence obviously not guilty.

BDS operatives have succeeded in silencing any alternative counter pro Israel Narrative by being in positions of influence that control the narrative.. 

We have brought to your attention and are doing so again, that an unwillingness to address what is happening in Park Slope Food Coop  is indicative why the legal establishment has been ineffective in fighting BDS nationwide.  

The reality is that in spite of all the hard work to fight BDS, Berkeley and other college campuses, and PSFC are unsafe places for those who express a pro Israel and anti Palestinian position.. 

BDS operatives, individuals or organizations, and they must be named, whether they are Professors or administrators or in positions of influence, like those in charge of security and discipline,  have afforded themselves the freedom to spread false one sided narratives about the illegal Occupation of Palestine or any left sided narrative they want to promote and suppress the opposite. They use Freedom of Religion to justify Islam when in fact they are justifying Radical Islamic terror. ...They take advantage of our American Constitution First Amendment rights to spread propaganda to justify the armed struggle of the Palestinian people.  This translates to justification of violent Jihad.  BDS promotion translates into their justification of economic jihad.  They use resources of the campus or organization which they have embedded themselves to reach a wide audience. In the case of David Horowitz they gain access to students via unions, student papers etc. to spread misinformation as they successfully suppress any other narrative that is Pro Israel, based on Truth.  The BDS operatives embedded in the administration successfully controls the logistics to prevent David Horowitz from speaking and fails to discipline those who rioted in the past when someone not of their persuasion spoke. 

Lawyers fighting BDS need to see the bigger picture and not get bogged down in the details which is blinding them. They must address underlying root of the matter rather than focus on merely the tip of the iceberg which is the actual boycotting of israeli products.  

What is transpiring in Berkeley is outrageous!  It is equally outrageous what has been transpiring in the PSFC for more than 8 years and that 4 long term members were suspended for protesting a BDS agenda item.

The deceitful way that BDS operates makes it very difficult to prosecute but that is no excuse.  For example not providing a room at a convenient time in an accessible location and then using Security as the excuse to cancel David Horowitz's talk are ways to suppress Freedom of Speech.

Their unwillingness to check real security concerns of the BDS camp and Captain Alex Yao should be investigated,  has led to real security concerns.

David Horowitz writes:

But the UC can't be bothered with actual concerns for public safety. In fact, the UC Police Department led by Captain Alex Yao, did nothing to stop or arrest the rioters, who as a result will not have to  think twice before rioting again, say at my event or at Ann Coulter's which is scheduled to take place at the end of the month.

 In addition they use a 16,000 UAW email list to spread more lies and defend their position.  David Freedman should take them to court for defamation of character, disproving that "Islamophic and xenophobic campaigns of the Freedom Center" are in fact based on truth and fact no different than calling a murderer a murderer. 

David Horowitz writes:

UAW union 3865 which represents over 16,000 "student-workers" across the UC system and sent out an email calling on the university not to give me a platform to speak on campus, citing alleged "Islamophobic and xenophobic campaigns my Freedom Center has sponsored."
Everyone is by now familiar with the left's desire to silence its political opponents. A liberal with integrity, Kirsten Powers, has even written a first-rate book titled, The Silencing: How the Left is Killing Free Speech. But the university regularly condones the antics of its leftist totalitarians, desperate for what all appeasers seek: peace in its time. So desperate is the administration to appease leftists within, in fact, that it willingly places placing crushing burdens on conservative students who want to hear other opinions – not possible in their classrooms because their professors and reading lists were long ago purged of conservative viewpoints.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Google+ (Sally Zahav) <>
Date: Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 7:11 PM
Subject: Shared a post - "*Berkeley Hates Free Speech - David Horowitz..."

Sally Zahav shared a post.
Berkeley Hates Free Speech - David Horowitz
by David Horowitz The totalitarian acts of a cowardly university days before my scheduled appearance. Reprinted from . The University of California Berkeley has an unearned reputation as the "home of the Free Speech movement," a reference t...
image not displayed
Berkeley Hates Free Speech - David Horowitz
by David Horowitz The totalitarian acts of a cowardly university days before my scheduled appearance. Reprinted from dail...

You received this notification because Sally Zahav was in a circle that you had subscribed to. Unsubscribe from these emails.
Privacy tip: Protect your info. Remove your email signature before you reply.
Google Inc., 1600 Amphitheatre Pkwy, Mountain View, CA 94043 USA


Robin Ticker

Israel Advocacy Calendar (
Activist emails sent to my list  are L'Ilui Nishmat Yisrael ben David Aryeh ob"m (Izzy - Kaplan) and Howard Chaim Grief great activists and lovers of Eretz Yisroel, Am Yisroel and the Torah. Yehi Zichronum Baruch.  May their memories serve as a blessing. 

Most of these emails are posted on 

Personal emails to individuals will not be posted to my blog.