Whenever any leader uses the words try something new; all I can think is what
are they going to think is new?
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Saturday, June 18, 2016 1:05 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Orlando: Obama Cried "Terror" Before He Knew
Diddly
What I would like to hear from the lips of our president is, "What we have been
doing is not making life safer. In fact, it's making life more frightening.
We must now try something new."
Carl Jarvis
On 6/17/16, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Boardman writes: "It would be nice if, in the wake of the horror of
the next Orlando, we could hear someone in authority somewhere say
something sometime that made us proud, something that motivated us to
act compassionately and rationally. But that is not where we are as a
country now, and haven't been for a long, long time, so very long that
it sounds almost antique to talk today about compassion and reason, or
even simple precision."
President Obama. (photo: Getty)
Orlando: Obama Cried "Terror" Before He Knew Diddly By William
Boardman, Reader Supported News
16 June 16
But the President was one of the saner, more decent public voices
Orlando touched off the usual backflow of moral and political oral
garbage that pollutes American public life, and sadly that's no
surprise. And it's no surprise, although it always should be, that our
public voices range from helpless to shrill, from limp impotence to
hate-filled bigotry. It would be nice if, in the wake of the horror of
the next Orlando, we could hear someone in authority somewhere say
something sometime that made us proud, something that motivated us to
act compassionately and rationally. But that is not where we are as a
country now, and haven't been for a long, long time, so very long that
it sounds almost antique to talk today about compassion and reason, or
even simple precision.
In his first comments on Orlando, President Obama promptly
characterized the shooting with the demagogic red herring of
"terrorism," even though he didn't know that, and it may not have been
that in any rational sense. He certainly didn't have to play the
"terrorism" card, surely he knew others would, and he could have
chosen to stand apart in thoughtful restraint. In any event, his tone
was modulated and low key, even as he uttered the heedless red-flag
words:
Today, as Americans, we grieve the brutal murder - a horrific massacre
- of dozens of innocent people. We pray for their families, who are
grasping for answers with broken hearts. We stand with the people of
Orlando, who have endured a terrible attack on their city. Although
it's still early in the investigation, we know enough to say that this
was an act of terror and an act of hate. And as Americans, we are
united in grief, in outrage, and in resolve to defend our people..
We are still learning all the facts. This is an open investigation.
We've reached no definitive judgment on the precise motivations of the killer.
The
FBI is appropriately investigating this as an act of terrorism..
[Emphasis added.] Actually, at that point and even now most likely, we
do not know "that this was an act of terror" in anything like the
9/11-al Qaeda-ISIS sense of the phrase. "Terror" and "terrorism" are
slippery words that ultimately carry no useful meaning, certainly not
these days in the fevered dialogue of the American public sphere. In
fear-drenched America, the deployment of terror-words is itself an act
of verbal terrorism that, purposefully or not, makes it harder to
think clearly about what is actually happening.
"Terrorism" is Orwellian language, used to make thought impossible
Orlando was an "act of terror" only in the generic sense, in the sense
that it terrified people, and that is a meaningless truism. In the
political context of today, the phrase is loaded with explosive
subtext, and to use the phrase is to set it off in the minds of
listeners. To what purpose does the President deploy this word-weapon
from the White House? Are there not adequate equivalents in English,
such as "act of hate," that the President uses almost as an
afterthought? Could he not have let it go at "brutal murder - a
horrific massacre"? Could he not have used unthinkable, harrowing,
unconscionable, barbaric, bloodthirsty, or any other extreme
equivalent instead of the politically loaded - and essentially inaccurate -
"act of terror"?
In our present context, it is fundamentally inaccurate, dishonest,
demagogic to speak of an "act of terror" without specifying the actual
terrorist who perpetrated it. Without some ideological context, an
"act of terror" like Orlando is just mass murder, which should be bad
enough to warrant our attention. (Consider: were the slaughters of
native peoples at Wounded Knee, Sand Creek, or elsewhere just mass
murder or deliberate acts of US
terrorism?) Terrorism is a tactic, often a tactic of the weaker side,
though not always. Terrorism is intended to weaken and demoralize the
other side, to the benefit of the terrorists. It is not known to be a
reliably effective tactic. The massive terror-bombing of World War II
seems mostly to have stiffened British, German, and Japanese resolve
to resist - until the ultimate terror-bombings of Hiroshima and
Nagasaki. Terrorism in our time has rarely reached anything like the
scale of carpet-bombing. Today's terrorism is typically the drone
strike, the bomb in the baby carriage, the suicide bomber - attacks
that wreak carnage, to be sure, but rarely on the scale of 241 dead
Marines in Beirut in 1983, or even 168 dead in Oklahoma City in 2001.
To be a meaningful "act of terrorism," the crime must be part of some
plan to achieve a larger end. In this sense serial killer Ted Bundy
was terrifying, but not a terrorist, while Charles Manson's delusional
apocalypticism qualifies him as at best a borderline terrorist;
unfortunately, real terrorists can be both sane and rational in at
least some of their behavior, as illustrated by Menachem Begin, Ho Chi
Minh, Houari Boumediene, Osama bin Laden, and others. In the full
context of history, however, terrorism has been less useful to
oppressed people than to ruthless governments (Hitler, Stalin, Mao,
Andrew Jackson, and their ilk).
And it's often useful for government to fearmonger its citizens with
the threat of "terror" from the likes of Omar Mateen, thereby
distracting from the government's own, greater terror campaigns (years
of drone war, years of night raids in Afghanistan, over a year of
genocidal war in Yemen, for a few examples).
Omar Mateen's profile: American, Democrat, divorced, father .
If Omar Mateen is a terrorist at all, the evidence so far puts him at
the Charles Manson end of the terrorist spectrum. Mateen was a
29-year-old New Yorker, a registered Democrat, an American citizen
born to naturalized Americans of Afghan birth. He lived in Fort
Pierce, about an hour away from Orlando. He worked as a security guard
for G4S, the world's largest global security firm, headquartered in
Britain, with more than 610,000 employees in
110 countries worldwide. G4S screened Mateen when it hired him in
2007. G4S screened Mateen again in 2013, after learning that the FBI
had investigated (and cleared) him. Mateen had claimed to have ties
both to the Shiite Hezbollah and the Sunni al Qaeda. G4S says now that
it did not know of the
2014 FBI investigation that also cleared Mateen. In 2011 and 2012 he
made pilgrimages to Mecca.
He met his first wife, Sitora Ali YuSufi, on Myspace in 2008. They
married in early 2009. She had left her native Uzbekistan when she was
11, as she wrote in a blog post: "Thanks to my father I spent a lot of
my childhood traveling, attending private schools and fluently
speaking 5 languages by the age of 8." With help from her parents, she
fled his company in August 2009, after three months of marriage (they
divorced in 2011). She has an active online presence, saying now that
he beat her then. She also says now that she believed then that he was
gay, an opinion now being reinforced by several Mateen acquaintances in the
LGBT community going back to 2006.
His current wife, Noor Zahi Salman, 30, is of Palestinian descent and
grew up in a Muslim family that would not allow her to drive. She may
have married Mateen in 2013, and they have a three-year-old son. She
is reportedly cooperating with the FBI, whose anonymous leaks suggest
she helped Mateen buy ammunition, that she drove him to the Pulse
nightclub on occasion, and that she tried to talk him out of attacking
it. Salman's online presence has been largely scrubbed. Reportedly,
Salman had separated from Mateen and moved in with her parents in
Rodeo, California, in December 2015, but subsequently returned to
Florida. The FBI maintains pressure on her in part by anonymously
briefing reporters that she could be arrested for knowing about a
crime in advance and not reporting it - not that they're accusing her,
they're just sayin'.
The only apparently credible, albeit remote tie between Mateen and
ISIS is an alleged 911 call he made the night of the shooting, during
which he supposedly pledged some sort of allegiance to ISIS. No 911
tape has been made public. Mateen's father observed that Mateen showed
no signs of being radicalized, by the way he talked, by the way he
dressed, or by growing a beard. The President and the FBI continue to
search for that needle in the haystack of Mateen's life.
Only one of Mateen's former co-workers, Daniel Gilroy, has come
forward in public. Gilroy, 44, a retired policeman, worked with Mateen
at G4S, which assigned them to gate duty at a low security PGA
Village. Gilroy calls Mateen "very racist, very sexist." Gilroy says
he complained multiple times about Mateen being dangerous, but nothing
came of his complaints. Gilroy says he quit his job when Mateen
"became obsessed" and started harassing him with more than 20 text
messages and a dozen phone calls daily. These have not been made
public.
Almost no credible evidence that Omar Mateen was an Islamic radical
Whatever his complexities, Omar Mateen was together enough to hold a
security guard job with an international company for almost a decade.
He was together enough to pass that company's screenings as well as
two FBI investigations. He was together enough to entice two
attractive women to marry him. He was together enough to make two
pilgrimages to Mecca and to practice his Muslim faith at least
minimally. He was together enough that the FBI didn't even try to
entrap him (so far as we know).
Compared to scant evidence that he was a terrorist, the evidence that
Omar Mateen was a closeted homosexual is compelling, albeit circumstantial.
Numerous people have come forward to say that Mateen frequently
attended Pulse, that he drank heavily and alone, that he used gay
dating apps, that he frequented other gay clubs, that he flirted with
other gay men, that he had gay friends, and so on. His ex-wife said he
might be gay, his father insisted he was not gay. If this is true, if
Omar Mateen was a closeted gay man, his apparently mixed persona makes
sense - if that was who he really was, it was an offense to his
religion and his Afghan culture. He had no easy way out. So he
committed a hate crime. And it may also have been a self-hate crime.
The Orlando massacre was so obviously, so primally a hate crime
against the LGBT community that the President and others seem almost
willfully stupid in their efforts to make it somehow more about
something else. Islamic terrorism is nowhere near as big a threat as
good old American bigotry.
Being gay or black or Latino or any number of ethnic/cultural
minorities in America today is to be widely despised in America. Being
poor or old or young in America today is to be widely despised in
America. Americans increasingly despise each other and rally around
the figureheads who bless their particular bigotries and sanctify
their own murderous impulses (abortion clinic bombers and doctor
assassins are real American terrorists, almost never called by their rightful
name).
Even though the President misled the country with his reflexive
terrorist baiting, he also spoke eloquently and sympathetically about
the gay community. And he again called for controlling automatic
assault weapons for the general public, albeit with comments that
sounded more like resignation than a call to serious action. Twenty
years ago, Australia had a mass shooting problem. Australia banned
assault weapons. It worked, and Australia has had no mass shootings
since 1996. What makes Americans so much more stupid than Australians?
Some of us don't see mass shootings of LGBT people as a problem.
Pastor Roger Jimenez of Verity Baptist Church in Sacramento,
California, told his congregation on the night after the shootings
that Christians "shouldn't be mourning the death of 50 sodomites.. The
tragedy is that more of them didn't die. The tragedy is - I'm kind of
upset that he didn't finish the job!"
Florida governor Rick Scott was quick to join the "terror"
demagoguery, but his only response to the massacre was that everybody
go pray. This has long been a popular political evasion, especially
given its demonstrable ineffectiveness, but it helps people,
especially Republicans, feel sanctimonious while actually taking no
responsibility for solving the problem. Demonstrating his level of
empathy and compassion, Scott also refused to acknowledge that the
LGBT community had been targeted. Asked what to do to help the
victims, Scott told CNN: "Just pray. Pray for the victims, pray for
their families, pray that this never happens again."
In mid-May, Rush Limbaugh was talking up a new tactic for Christian
bigotry for small business owners: "Instead of telling the gay couple
that you refuse to bake the cake for their wedding because you
disapprove of homosexuality, you should now say you are not going to
bake a cake for the gay wedding because you fear Muslim backlash. Or,
due to your respect of Islam, you cannot bake a cake for a gay wedding. See
how that flies."
And then there's Donald Trump, calling for banning Muslims coming into
the US - only Mateen was born here, so that wouldn't work unless it
were somehow made retroactive and people had to be removed because of
where they came from and what was done there. For example, using
Trumpery logic, both of Trump's parents came from Germany, so we need
to deport Trump now to protect ourselves from the threat of an
American Holocaust. That should work.
________________________________________
William M. Boardman has over 40 years experience in theatre, radio,
TV, print journalism, and non-fiction, including 20 years in the
Vermont judiciary. He has received honors from Writers Guild of
America, Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Vermont Life magazine,
and an Emmy Award nomination from the Academy of Television Arts and
Sciences.
Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work.
Permission
to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader
Supported News.
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink reference not
valid.
President Obama. (photo: Getty)
http://readersupportednews.org/http://readersupportednews.org/
Orlando: Obama Cried "Terror" Before He Knew Diddly By William
Boardman, Reader Supported News
16 June 16
But the President was one of the saner, more decent public voices
rlando touched off the usual backflow of moral and political oral
garbage that pollutes American public life, and sadly that's no
surprise. And it's no surprise, although it always should be, that our
public voices range from helpless to shrill, from limp impotence to
hate-filled bigotry. It would be nice if, in the wake of the horror of
the next Orlando, we could hear someone in authority somewhere say
something sometime that made us proud, something that motivated us to
act compassionately and rationally. But that is not where we are as a
country now, and haven't been for a long, long time, so very long that
it sounds almost antique to talk today about compassion and reason, or
even simple precision.
In his first comments on Orlando, President Obama promptly
characterized the shooting with the demagogic red herring of
"terrorism," even though he didn't know that, and it may not have been
that in any rational sense. He certainly didn't have to play the
"terrorism" card, surely he knew others would, and he could have
chosen to stand apart in thoughtful restraint. In any event, his tone
was modulated and low key, even as he uttered the heedless red-flag
words:
Today, as Americans, we grieve the brutal murder - a horrific massacre
- of dozens of innocent people. We pray for their families, who are
grasping for answers with broken hearts. We stand with the people of
Orlando, who have endured a terrible attack on their city. Although
it's still early in the investigation, we know enough to say that this
was an act of terror and an act of hate. And as Americans, we are
united in grief, in outrage, and in resolve to defend our people..
We are still learning all the facts. This is an open investigation.
We've reached no definitive judgment on the precise motivations of the killer.
The
FBI is appropriately investigating this as an act of terrorism..
[Emphasis added.] Actually, at that point and even now most likely, we
do not know "that this was an act of terror" in anything like the
9/11-al Qaeda-ISIS sense of the phrase. "Terror" and "terrorism" are
slippery words that ultimately carry no useful meaning, certainly not
these days in the fevered dialogue of the American public sphere. In
fear-drenched America, the deployment of terror-words is itself an act
of verbal terrorism that, purposefully or not, makes it harder to
think clearly about what is actually happening.
"Terrorism" is Orwellian language, used to make thought impossible
Orlando was an "act of terror" only in the generic sense, in the sense
that it terrified people, and that is a meaningless truism. In the
political context of today, the phrase is loaded with explosive
subtext, and to use the phrase is to set it off in the minds of
listeners. To what purpose does the President deploy this word-weapon
from the White House? Are there not adequate equivalents in English,
such as "act of hate," that the President uses almost as an
afterthought? Could he not have let it go at "brutal murder - a
horrific massacre"? Could he not have used unthinkable, harrowing,
unconscionable, barbaric, bloodthirsty, or any other extreme
equivalent instead of the politically loaded - and essentially inaccurate -
"act of terror"?
In our present context, it is fundamentally inaccurate, dishonest,
demagogic to speak of an "act of terror" without specifying the actual
terrorist who perpetrated it. Without some ideological context, an
"act of terror" like Orlando is just mass murder, which should be bad
enough to warrant our attention. (Consider: were the slaughters of
native peoples at Wounded Knee, Sand Creek, or elsewhere just mass
murder or deliberate acts of US
terrorism?) Terrorism is a tactic, often a tactic of the weaker side,
though not always. Terrorism is intended to weaken and demoralize the
other side, to the benefit of the terrorists. It is not known to be a
reliably effective tactic. The massive terror-bombing of World War II
seems mostly to have stiffened British, German, and Japanese resolve
to resist - until the ultimate terror-bombings of Hiroshima and
Nagasaki. Terrorism in our time has rarely reached anything like the
scale of carpet-bombing. Today's terrorism is typically the drone
strike, the bomb in the baby carriage, the suicide bomber - attacks
that wreak carnage, to be sure, but rarely on the scale of 241 dead
Marines in Beirut in 1983, or even 168 dead in Oklahoma City in 2001.
To be a meaningful "act of terrorism," the crime must be part of some
plan to achieve a larger end. In this sense serial killer Ted Bundy
was terrifying, but not a terrorist, while Charles Manson's delusional
apocalypticism qualifies him as at best a borderline terrorist;
unfortunately, real terrorists can be both sane and rational in at
least some of their behavior, as illustrated by Menachem Begin, Ho Chi
Minh, Houari Boumediene, Osama bin Laden, and others. In the full
context of history, however, terrorism has been less useful to
oppressed people than to ruthless governments (Hitler, Stalin, Mao,
Andrew Jackson, and their ilk).
And it's often useful for government to fearmonger its citizens with
the threat of "terror" from the likes of Omar Mateen, thereby
distracting from the government's own, greater terror campaigns (years
of drone war, years of night raids in Afghanistan, over a year of
genocidal war in Yemen, for a few examples).
Omar Mateen's profile: American, Democrat, divorced, father .
If Omar Mateen is a terrorist at all, the evidence so far puts him at
the Charles Manson end of the terrorist spectrum. Mateen was a
29-year-old New Yorker, a registered Democrat, an American citizen
born to naturalized Americans of Afghan birth. He lived in Fort
Pierce, about an hour away from Orlando. He worked as a security guard
for G4S, the world's largest global security firm, headquartered in
Britain, with more than 610,000 employees in
110 countries worldwide. G4S screened Mateen when it hired him in
2007. G4S screened Mateen again in 2013, after learning that the FBI
had investigated (and cleared) him. Mateen had claimed to have ties
both to the Shiite Hezbollah and the Sunni al Qaeda. G4S says now that
it did not know of the
2014 FBI investigation that also cleared Mateen. In 2011 and 2012 he
made pilgrimages to Mecca.
He met his first wife, Sitora Ali YuSufi, on Myspace in 2008. They
married in early 2009. She had left her native Uzbekistan when she was
11, as she wrote in a blog post: "Thanks to my father I spent a lot of
my childhood traveling, attending private schools and fluently
speaking 5 languages by the age of 8." With help from her parents, she
fled his company in August 2009, after three months of marriage (they
divorced in 2011). She has an active online presence, saying now that
he beat her then. She also says now that she believed then that he was
gay, an opinion now being reinforced by several Mateen acquaintances in the
LGBT community going back to 2006.
His current wife, Noor Zahi Salman, 30, is of Palestinian descent and
grew up in a Muslim family that would not allow her to drive. She may
have married Mateen in 2013, and they have a three-year-old son. She
is reportedly cooperating with the FBI, whose anonymous leaks suggest
she helped Mateen buy ammunition, that she drove him to the Pulse
nightclub on occasion, and that she tried to talk him out of attacking
it. Salman's online presence has been largely scrubbed. Reportedly,
Salman had separated from Mateen and moved in with her parents in
Rodeo, California, in December 2015, but subsequently returned to
Florida. The FBI maintains pressure on her in part by anonymously
briefing reporters that she could be arrested for knowing about a
crime in advance and not reporting it - not that they're accusing her,
they're just sayin'.
The only apparently credible, albeit remote tie between Mateen and
ISIS is an alleged 911 call he made the night of the shooting, during
which he supposedly pledged some sort of allegiance to ISIS. No 911
tape has been made public. Mateen's father observed that Mateen showed
no signs of being radicalized, by the way he talked, by the way he
dressed, or by growing a beard. The President and the FBI continue to
search for that needle in the haystack of Mateen's life.
Only one of Mateen's former co-workers, Daniel Gilroy, has come
forward in public. Gilroy, 44, a retired policeman, worked with Mateen
at G4S, which assigned them to gate duty at a low security PGA
Village. Gilroy calls Mateen "very racist, very sexist." Gilroy says
he complained multiple times about Mateen being dangerous, but nothing
came of his complaints. Gilroy says he quit his job when Mateen
"became obsessed" and started harassing him with more than 20 text
messages and a dozen phone calls daily. These have not been made
public.
Almost no credible evidence that Omar Mateen was an Islamic radical
Whatever his complexities, Omar Mateen was together enough to hold a
security guard job with an international company for almost a decade.
He was together enough to pass that company's screenings as well as
two FBI investigations. He was together enough to entice two
attractive women to marry him. He was together enough to make two
pilgrimages to Mecca and to practice his Muslim faith at least
minimally. He was together enough that the FBI didn't even try to
entrap him (so far as we know).
Compared to scant evidence that he was a terrorist, the evidence that
Omar Mateen was a closeted homosexual is compelling, albeit circumstantial.
Numerous people have come forward to say that Mateen frequently
attended Pulse, that he drank heavily and alone, that he used gay
dating apps, that he frequented other gay clubs, that he flirted with
other gay men, that he had gay friends, and so on. His ex-wife said he
might be gay, his father insisted he was not gay. If this is true, if
Omar Mateen was a closeted gay man, his apparently mixed persona makes
sense - if that was who he really was, it was an offense to his
religion and his Afghan culture. He had no easy way out. So he
committed a hate crime. And it may also have been a self-hate crime.
The Orlando massacre was so obviously, so primally a hate crime
against the LGBT community that the President and others seem almost
willfully stupid in their efforts to make it somehow more about
something else. Islamic terrorism is nowhere near as big a threat as
good old American bigotry.
Being gay or black or Latino or any number of ethnic/cultural
minorities in America today is to be widely despised in America. Being
poor or old or young in America today is to be widely despised in
America. Americans increasingly despise each other and rally around
the figureheads who bless their particular bigotries and sanctify
their own murderous impulses (abortion clinic bombers and doctor
assassins are real American terrorists, almost never called by their rightful
name).
Even though the President misled the country with his reflexive
terrorist baiting, he also spoke eloquently and sympathetically about
the gay community. And he again called for controlling automatic
assault weapons for the general public, albeit with comments that
sounded more like resignation than a call to serious action. Twenty
years ago, Australia had a mass shooting problem. Australia banned
assault weapons. It worked, and Australia has had no mass shootings
since 1996. What makes Americans so much more stupid than Australians?
Some of us don't see mass shootings of LGBT people as a problem.
Pastor Roger Jimenez of Verity Baptist Church in Sacramento,
California, told his congregation on the night after the shootings
that Christians "shouldn't be mourning the death of 50 sodomites.. The
tragedy is that more of them didn't die. The tragedy is - I'm kind of
upset that he didn't finish the job!"
Florida governor Rick Scott was quick to join the "terror"
demagoguery, but his only response to the massacre was that everybody
go pray. This has long been a popular political evasion, especially
given its demonstrable ineffectiveness, but it helps people,
especially Republicans, feel sanctimonious while actually taking no
responsibility for solving the problem. Demonstrating his level of
empathy and compassion, Scott also refused to acknowledge that the
LGBT community had been targeted. Asked what to do to help the
victims, Scott told CNN: "Just pray. Pray for the victims, pray for
their families, pray that this never happens again."
In mid-May, Rush Limbaugh was talking up a new tactic for Christian
bigotry for small business owners: "Instead of telling the gay couple
that you refuse to bake the cake for their wedding because you
disapprove of homosexuality, you should now say you are not going to
bake a cake for the gay wedding because you fear Muslim backlash. Or,
due to your respect of Islam, you cannot bake a cake for a gay wedding. See
how that flies."
And then there's Donald Trump, calling for banning Muslims coming into
the US - only Mateen was born here, so that wouldn't work unless it
were somehow made retroactive and people had to be removed because of
where they came from and what was done there. For example, using
Trumpery logic, both of Trump's parents came from Germany, so we need
to deport Trump now to protect ourselves from the threat of an
American Holocaust. That should work.
William M. Boardman has over 40 years experience in theatre, radio,
TV, print journalism, and non-fiction, including 20 years in the
Vermont judiciary. He has received honors from Writers Guild of
America, Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Vermont Life magazine,
and an Emmy Award nomination from the Academy of Television Arts and
Sciences.
Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work.
Permission
to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader
Supported News.
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
