PERISHING FROM THE EARTH: Revolution of the saints!

FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 2017

Part 5—You may be a Puritan if...:
We hate to start with the Maddow Show again, but you pretty much have to go where the statements are most instructive.

On Wednesday night, the host of that cable news show interviewed Beth Reinhard. She's one of the trio of Washington Post reporters who broke the Roy Moore story last week, whatever that story is taken to be.

Last Friday morning, Reinhard and two colleagues reported that Moore had been accused of sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl, an attack which was said to have occurred in 1979.

They also reported that Moore had dated two young women at that same time. They were 17 and 19 years old. According to the Post, both mothers were cheering ol' Roy on, dreaming of possible marriage.

(That may represent a cultural difference. Are we enlightened impressive progressives prepared to tolerate that?)

From that day to this, the saints have been trying to define what Moore is accused of. In this morning's New York Times, Jennifer Steinhauer muddles the matter in a way many others have done:

"Roy S. Moore, the Republican candidate for Senate in Alabama, has been accused of sexual misconduct with teenage girls."

So says Steinhauer, in today's Times, perhaps at the direction of editors. But is that what Moore has been accused of? Does he stand "accused of sexual misconduct with teenage girls?"

Hopelessly muddled scribe, please! In our lexicon, Moore has been charged with two counts of criminal sexual assault, one of which involved overt acts of physical violence. The saints seem to think it's equally bad that he once dated a 19-year-old, kissing her two separate times with her mother cheering him on.

Moore kissed someone 19 years old when he was 32! We wouldn't recommend that as a general matter, but do Steinhauer and her editors think that was "sexual misconduct?" At any rate, the saints can't quite seem to distinguish a violent sexual assault from a pair of consensual kisses. This led to that peculiar exchange on Wednesday's Maddow Show.

Beth Reinhard is one of the scribes who brought us that report at the Post. Last Wednesday was the first time we got to hear her in person.

As Maddow ended her telephone interview with Reinhard, she asked a rather odd question, with a bit of high drama thrown in. For our money, Reinhard, in her statement, may have marked herself as one of the saints. For ourselves, we're inclined to trust her judgment less because of what she said.

In a new report in the Post, Reinhard had reported that Moore had dated two other teenage women or girls. He'd kissed one in an undesired manner. As she ended her interview, Maddow asked a peculiar question:
MADDOW (11/15/17): Have you discovered any evidence that Roy Moore ever dated someone age-appropriate? That he ever dated somebody his own age? I mean, the discrepancy between the age of these teenage girls and the fact that he was 30 and older does seem remarkable. It's the source of all this controversy. He's defended it himself by saying he denies dating girls who were below the legal age of consent.

That—if that denial is accurate, that may leave open the possibility he was still a 30-something man pursuing girls in tenth grade. Did you find any evidence of him dating women his own age?

REINHARD: Uh—we haven't.

[SLIGHTLY UNUSUAL PAUSE]

MADDOW: Beth Reinhard, part of this remarkable team has broken this story over. Thank you for joining us on very short notice tonight, Beth. Appreciate it.
Several parts of Maddow's question struck us as odd. For starters, she said "the source of all this controversy" lies in the fact that Moore, who was over 30, was dating "teenage girls."

Really? That's the source of the controversy? We would have thought the controversy stemmed from the fact that Moore has been accused of criminally assaulting two young women, one 14 and the other 16, in one case in an overtly violent manner.

We would have thought the "controversy" had possibly stemmed from that! But when the saints begin to rampage, they'll often be unable to imagine such distinctions.

All offenses, real and imagined, will now seem equal in their eyes. That will include a pair of kisses with a 19-year-old "girl" whose mother is praying that Moore might want to marry her daughter, perhaps in line with regional cultural norms of the type we brilliant progressives deride, except in the widely-praised 1979 film Manhattan.

When the saints begin to rampage, all judgment leaves the room. But as a second part of that question, Maddow, who has long been a saint, seemed to say that a date can only be "age appropriate" if the man in question is dating a woman who is "his own age."

Can that possibly be what she meant? Plainly, that's what her words implied. Could she possibly mean that?

At any rate, how about it? Did the Washington Post find any evidence that Moore had ever "dated women his own age?" We thought it was strange when Reinhard said no, though she can't be blamed for the oddness of the question.

What made that question seem strange? In December 1984, Moore, who was then 37, met Kayla Kisor, a 23-year-old mother who was separated from her husband. You can read all about it in the Washington Post.

Moore and Kisor began to date. One year later, they got married. They're still married today.

At the time they started dating, he was 37, she was 23. Were their dates "age appropriate," puritanically speaking?

Maddow seemed to say they weren't. Reinhard offered no resistance, no clarification, no nuance.

Were those dates "age appropriate?" If not, do we understand how many dates, and how many marriages, will have to be denounced? Do we understand how many happily married people will have to be frog-marched off to the camps? How much re-education will have to be performed?

Were those dates age appropriate? Did Maddow, a long-time saint, really mean to say that they weren't?

We don't know, but just for the record, when Rachel Maddow met Susan Mikula, she was 26 years old; Mikula was 41. Should we organize an intervention to rescue Rachel from Susan's home? These are the kinds of questions which may arise when saints stage a moral revolution, setting their minds at ease.

When Roy Moore began dating his wife, were those dates "age appropriate?" We regard that question as strange, but the saints will say those dates were wrong.

We know that's what the saints will say because of William Saletan.

We met Saletan briefly once, long ago. By any normal standard, he is thoroughly sane. But when the saints go rampaging in, very strange judgments may start to appear. This past Tuesday, in a laborious effort to show that Moore was lying about various matters, Saletan offered this bizarre assessment at Slate:
SALETAN (11/14/17): “I’ve been married to my wife, Kayla, for nearly 33 years.” Moore presents this as proof of his character. But do the math. Thirty-three years ago, when they met, Moore was 38, and his wife-to-be was 24. That’s a difference of 14 years, roughly the same age gap his accusers describe. Kayla Moore’s bio also mentions that she had “previously been named Miss Alabama US Teen 2nd Runner up.” Moore didn’t just date pretty women who were 14 years his junior. He married one.
How weird in that final remark? After doing the math, Saletan seems to suggest that a man shouldn't marry someone 14 years younger—and certainly not if the woman in question is pretty! So what should he say about Maddow's life with the person she loves? Maddow was fifteen years younger than the person she met!

Why have we described Maddow and Saletan, and possibly Reinhard, as saints? Let's consider a famous book which may speak to these very strange times.

In 1965, at the age of 30, Michael Walzer published The Revolution of the Saints: A Study in the Origins of Radical Politics.

Walzer went on to a long career, which continues today, as a "public intellectual" of the left. The Revolution of the Saints became a well-known book. According to the Harvard University Press, it's "a study, both historical and sociological, of the radical political response of the Puritans to disorder."

For the record, we're mainly talking about Puritans in England, not here in North America. (Where their response to disorder produced, among other things, those famous Salem witch trials, when we Americans famously decided, for the first time, that we should always "believe the girls.")

Walzer was talking about the Puritans in the 16th and 17th centuries, as the feudal system was breaking down, producing confusion, uncertainty and disorder—and attendant anxiety. At the Moral Imagination site, Ron Sanders pens a capsule of that era, which perhaps and possibly seems to reflect our own times:
SANDERS: [Walzer] argues that Calvinism’s appeal (the dominant theological perspective of the Puritans) was that it confirmed and explained, in theological terms, “perceptions men already had of the dangers of the world and the self " and that it presented a remedy to the anxiety created by the shifting tide of culture through the rigid discipline of “sainthood.” The important theological themes that characterized Calvin’s ideology were, (1) “the permanent, inescapable estrangement of man from God,” (2) “a cure for anxiety not in reconciliation but in obedience,” (3) a “holy commonwealth” and (4) the necessity of “wholehearted participation” on the part of his followers.

The state (holy commonwealth), for Calvin, had dual roles. Its negative role was to repress sin in individuals. Walzer states that, “Calvin accepted politics in any form it took, so long as it fulfilled its general purpose and established an order of repression.”
Does Sanders get Walzer right? We can't tell you that. But at various times in history, anxieties and upheavals have led to puritanical revolutions which feature extremely crazy judgments producing large amounts of dumbness, disorder and death.

At times of upheaval and disorder, people may escape anxiety "through the rigid discipline of sainthood." In China, they frog-marched the intelligentsia off to the camps during the Cultural Revolution. In this country, they hung the witches until sanity prevailed; later, they found a Commie under every bed, then locked up the McMartin Preschool teachers.

Today, they can't tell the difference between kissing a 19-year-old woman (two times!) and conducting a violent sexual assault. It's all just unthinkably evil, wrong, inappropriate, bad!

The last eight days have produced the craziest revolutionary conduct we've seen in a great long time. For example, even after Duke and UVa, the saints insist we have to believe accusers instantly, every single time.

Can humans actually get this stupid? Answer: Yes, we can!

By Friday morning of last week, the saints were already attacking the "if true" crowd—the people who said we ought to maybe wait a few hours before we make our final judgment about that Post report.

In theory, Duke and UVa had shown the world that some accusers who come along are just completely crazy! But even after Duke and UVa, even after the moral stampede in the preschool cases, our rampaging modern-day saints were trashing the "if then" crowd, who wouldn't deliver instant judgments.

How crazy do the saints become when they start to rampage? Historically, the saints are often fairly young, and they can get very crazy.

If we might borrow from Brother Foxworthy, you might be a Puritan if you can't tell the difference between a violent sexual assault and two kisses, over three months, delivered to a 19-year-old woman (not a girl) whose mother hopes you're on your way to marriage.

Also this:

You may be a Puritan if your own age difference is 15 years, and you're willing to hang the witch because his age difference is a much-too-large 14 years! Plus, have you heard the Bentley sex tape, where someone actually dared to say he loved his lover's body?

"The fear that somewhere, someone is happy?" How crazy do you have to be to keep on playing that tape?

Lincoln has come to us this week to warn us about what's happening. A continental nation can't long endure, he has masterfully said, if fifteen years up north is fine, but fourteen in Bama is not.

If living with a 17-year-old is high art when it's cinematically performed in Manhattan, but kissing a 19-year-old is a crime when it's done Down There.

That said, the saints are on the march. Last night, we saw an utterly crazy discussion on Don Lemon's CNN show. This morning, the initial Morning Joe segment was fraudulent all the way down.

That said, our press elites have been stunningly fraudulent lost souls for a long time now. They know how to pursue their careers by repeating their scripts. They seem to know little else.

The end of the feudal system was, of course, a great advance for humanity. But massive change creates anxiety. In a search for blessed relief, the saints came rampaging in.

We also live at a time of great change today. For example, the rapid acceptance of love like Rachel's with Susan represents a phenomenal social advance. Opportunities and norms have rapidly changed in many other realms.

These are the days or miracle and wonder, just like Paul Simon said. But rapid change can also produce conflict, confusion, disorder.

Down through the many death-dealing years, we humans have sometimes fled the anxiety of rapid change through the adoption of sainthood regimes. It's been happening in the past week all over cable TV, among the ranks of bogus souls who have fought their way onto such programs.

The various children of all ages are living in times of remarkable change. Again and again and again and again, they seem to be amazingly stupid, unpleasant, tribal, self-serving and scared.

Next week: Believe the accusers! (of Clinton)

52 comments:

  1. I don't know f iad hominems hurts or helps but Bob Somerby is the order of the day idiot. What about Fox news? Never criticize Maddow.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. FOX was actually sober-minded last night about Franken. Bemused, even.

      MSNBC by contrast was foaming at the mouth.

      Bob's right about all this. The sanctimony and blatant inaccuracy of that crowd is impossible to take.

      Delete
    2. FOX and MSNBC are both corporate-owned, right-wing propaganda machines. You're being played.

      Delete
  2. The outrage associated with Moore's candidacy isn't about dating younger women or marrying one, despite Somerby's examples of outliers saying odd things. It is about illegal behavior with several of those young girls. The statue of limitations has run out but this election is about his fitness to hold office as a senator. When he committed those acts, he was an officer of the court, an Assistant District Attorney, sworn to uphold the law not break it. He surely knew that what he was doing was illegal. He broke the law anyway. Should such a person become a senator, much less a judge (where he twice was removed from that position due to failure to uphold the laws of his state)?

    Somerby doesn't want to argue that case. He instead creates a strawman by taking what he considers to be Puritan views and ascribing them to liberals as a group. We don't all hold those views. Most of us have no trouble telling the difference between the yucky behavior of dating teens when you are an older man and the illegal behavior of (1) engaging is sexual behavior with someone below the age of consent, and (2) forcing sexual behavior on someone of any age, against her wishes.

    Now there are a total of 8 women complaining about Moore's behavior toward them when they were teens. There will be more because Moore did this stuff over a period of years. Somerby likes to focus on and examine the details of specific cases, but this is about Moore's ongoing pattern of actions and his sexual proclivities -- plus his obvious belief that it was OK for him to keep bothering young teens. Moore's judgment is highly relevant to his upcoming election. Somerby ignores that fact.

    Perhaps Somerby sees all of this but considers the trivialities he has focused on to be more important. Most columnists would start with a nod to the larger issues before moving on to the smaller ones (Maddow's wrongdoing, etc.). And then, he has to call everyone stupid, unpleasant, tribal, self-serving and scared. Paging Dr. Freud, projection in the house!

    Moore is not an innocent man unfairly accused. He is a guilty man who stalked teens and tried to engage in sexual activities with them, some of them underage and many of them unwilling. That makes him unfit for the office of Senator. And that is all that is at stake these days. The election.

    Kayla, his wife, attended class with Nelson, one of Moore's accusers. He first met Kayla when she was a young teen, not the 23 year old Somerby describes. She, at least, had the chance to grow up a little before marrying Moore.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But they keep talking about the other women to bolster the argument that Moore's guilty of assault. There's no connection of course, so they have to embroider the stories to the point that buying a glass of wine for an 18 year old is evidence of grave moral culpability.

      And, that dating teenage girls ( of legal age) is deeply immoral and repugnant.

      Like, since when. Perhaps ill-advised, but on a par with sexual assault and "pedophilia"?

      That's the level the MSNBC crowd is that.

      Delete
    2. One was under aged. Allegedly.

      And there's no crime in dating "teenage girls" at the ages cited. I get a kick out of all of the must-be personally hypocrisy going on with the MSNBC crowd when it comes to their current notions of age-appropriateness.

      Especially guys of Matthews'and O'Donnels's age. Gimme a break.

      Delete
    3. 7:55 PM,
      You should check out Roy Moore's "House of Christian Sanctimony", if you really get a kick out of hypocrisy.

      Delete
    4. "And there's no crime in dating "teenage girls" at the ages cited."
      If you're looking for illegalities, Moore has that covered too. Bringing the 10 Commandmments into the court of law is blatantly illegal.

      Delete
  3. "By any normal standard, he is thoroughly sane."

    Saletan? Sure, there's an outside chance that he might be sane, but he's definitely one of the stupidest liberal hacks ever. What does his sanity have to do with anything?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Србија ПолитикаNovember 17, 2017 at 2:41 PM

      Питање правно обавезујућег документа са Приштином није ново, познато је од отварања преговора са ЕУ с тим што мало ко зна шта треба да буде садржај тог докумета, изјавио је министар спољних послова Србије Ивица Дачић.

      Delete
  4. As a side issue, Bob is literally correct when he says, "In this country, they hung the witches until sanity prevailed". However, the overwhelming number of witch trials occurred in Europe, over a period of several centuries. Witch-mania in Salem was nothing compared to Europe.

    You can read about European witch mania in the classic, Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds by Charles Mackay. Everyone should read this book IMHO. It also addresses the tulip craze in Holland, fiat money in France, the Crusades and several other spates of irrational behavior.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We don't need to look at European history for that. we have the Republicans and the Trump Presidency.

      Delete
    2. D in C - does he have a chapter on Trump supporters?

      Delete
    3. AC/MA -- that would have difficult, since the book was first published in 1841. Seriously, there's a reason why this book is still in print. I recently had dinner with a friend who's a Professor at Northwestern. They still use this book for a course.

      Delete
  5. "We hate to start with the Maddow Show again"
    Bob has started with the Maddow show since 2008.
    And her ratings have skyrocketed.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Yeah, I almost fell over when Maddow asked that question, because her own relationship is nowhere NEAR "age appropriate."

    The utter hypocrisy (and stupidity) of the woman.

    And now tonight, the Matthews crowd had the AUDACITY to suggest that "Monica Lewinsky's life" was "destroyed" by Bill Clinton (!!!)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No one is arguing that relationships must be age appropriate. They are saying that adults need to leave kids alone when they choose their dates.

      Delete
    2. There's nothing "age-inappropriate" about a relationship between full adults; e.g., Rachel and Susan were both over the ages of 25 when they met, 26 and 41 was the "15-year difference" in question.

      It would have been a different matter at 16 and 31, or 6 and 21.

      Currently their ages are 44 and 59, which makes the issue even less a matter of "adults need to leave kids alone"....

      Delete
  7. Best essay I've seen from Bob in a long time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes. Better than the "Maddow is a poopyhead" essays but not as good as the "liberals are zombies" essays. Not sure where it falls compared to the "media made Gore lose" essays.

      Delete
    2. "liberals are zombies" essays.

      Mischa, is that you? Only you could think of your posts as essays.

      Delete
    3. "Best essay I've seen from Bob in a long time."

      I agree.

      It's the perfect material to illustrate Bob's longtime point about the tribal craziness of "the left" and their parade of irrationality and emotion.

      I detest Republicans, but this current MSNBC mania is truly depressing. They get everything wrong, and then go out of their way to make things up on top of it. And to what purpose?

      Joy Reid is atrocious now (used to like her.) The Matthews crowd tonight actually tried to blame Bill Clinton for "destroying" Monica Lewinsky's life -- which not only is extremely condescending, but also would be big news to her.

      Because THEY were the problem, not Bill. Especially Matthews.

      Btw-- being from LA I also remember McMartin well. People went completely nuts in outrage-- at even their defenders.

      And then, when that poor family was not only acquitted but also proven victims of a news conspiracy between the DA and KABC TV (and others), everyone suddenly got mum.

      Delete
    4. I enter into evidence, TDH, by Bob Somerby;

      "Werewolves of cable upset about cuts!
      FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 2017

      Arrive rather late at the fire: In his new column, Paul Krugman tells a familiar story about Paul Ryan. Also about tax cuts.

      If we liberals were humans, not zombies, an obvious question would arise:"

      and so on it goes...but I stopped reading after Bob affirms Mao's views.

      Delete
  8. Bob's blogging keeps reaching lower and lower depths of deplorability. Moore may have committed sexual assault, but hopelessly disingenuous blogger please, why don't we focus on Moore's dating habits, which weren't misconduct,...allegedly. How does Somerby know Moore dated teenagers? The same reporting that gave us the assault story, the one that Bob finds "very credible", but unknowable; but the teenage dating, that is defended as if proven. Then to lecture us on Puritanism, as if that isn't a trait of the right.
    Has Somerby done something he's ashamed of?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. His dating habits were misconduct -- just not illegal. He was a skeezy pervert who stayed just this side of legal, most of the time but not always.

      We know this not because of the media but because the girls themselves said so, as did the people who worked at the malls, high schools, etc. that were his stalking grounds.

      Delete
    2. I don't know if these dating habits are "misconduct." They were actually pretty common back then. In So Cal I knew dozens of Hispanic teenage girls who had MUCH older boyfriends. Who they often got started with on their own.

      But "dating teenagers" is different than assaulting them. There's no logical or empirical connection. Try telling that though to the MSNBC scolds.

      "He bought her wine!
      "Alcohol!"

      Yeah, Mateus. Which I haven't thought about in years (loved those bottles.) It was a teen wine all during the mid-70s. Kind of like Kahlua.

      The horror, yes.

      Delete
    3. this is completely common and expected in europe. in germany the age of consent and the age to drink is both 16. to have a moral panic about this is obscenely partisan and grotesque. libs are well on their way to creating a new victorianism

      Delete
    4. Don't know if it's a good thing, but the incredible hypocrisy here (from the males especially) is appalling. So, so holier than thou.

      Ron Reagan Jr, was a hoot the other night -- waxing sanctimonious about Moore when a couple of news sources had just reminded everyone about his own father "seducing" Piper Laurie when she was 18 and he was 39. At least according to her.

      I mean, how do they function with a straight face? You think they'd be a little more judicious or introspective, no?

      Delete
    5. "How does Somerby know Moore dated teenagers? The same reporting that gave us the assault story, the one that Bob finds "very credible", but unknowable; but the teenage dating, that is defended as if proven."

      So what's the problem with Moore?

      -- That he dated "young ladies"?
      -- Or, that he assaulted them?

      Because they're two different things.

      The MSNBC crowd is not only conflating the two, they're then falling back on the claim that there's something morally wrong with just the dating contact -- which by some kind of logic then establishes the validity of the assault claims.

      And the more they're pushed on it, the more extreme their "Puritanical" streak becomes, as if that's enough of an argument against him. It's like circular intolerance.

      Delete
    6. The news didn’t invent the claims of the two young women, which were reported to others at the time Moore assaulted them. The others substantiate the fact that Moore pursued young teens. It makes it way less likely the more serious claims were invented. That’s why so many believe the accusers.

      Delete
    7. Most of these idiot commenters completely miss the point. But then, that's what idiots do. But then, they are just following Somerby's lead: "what's wrong with a 32 year old dating teenagers, ya puritanical freaks?", as if that's a more salient question than: "what's wrong with a grown man molesting a 14 year old?"
      Ah, but the molestation isn't proven, you say? Funny how you believe the dating stories, but not the molestation stories. Ah well. Another Republican bites the dust. Or he doesn't.

      Delete
    8. Dating teenagers corroborates with molesting 14 year old girls just as being gay corroborates with molesting a 14 year old boy. It just makes sense right? That's what *those people do*

      Delete
    9. @10:21: You need to look up the definition of "corroborate".

      Delete
    10. MADDOW (11/13/17): Remember that all five women who have made these allegations against Roy Moore have described remarkably similar types of behavior. They've all given their names. None of these women apparently knew each other in any other context. They say they have not coordinated their efforts.

      The initial Washington Post story not only named all four women accusers, they also corroborated these women's allegations with 30 other interviews.

      Delete
    11. @1:33pm, like @10:21: corroborates...with is part of the tell: that’s not an actual English usage.

      Possibly you’ve mixed it up with some similar-looking or -sounding word/phrase such as “collaborated with” or “correlated with”; but at least neither of these, when substituted, would mean anything at all related to the topic.

      Delete
    12. Ah, I see: you're quoting a passage where the phrasing is used to mean something entirely different, to justify your incorrect usage.

      Maddow uses “corroborated” in the sense of “confirmed”: the WaPo confirmed these allegations by conducting 30 other interviews.

      This is not like “correlating [A&B] with” each other, e.g. your earlier usage:
      “Dating teenagers corroborates with molesting 14 year old girls just as being gay corroborates with molesting a 14 year old boy.”

      Delete
  9. The Bannon/Breitbart trolls are out in full force, shilling for their hero, Moore. Congrats, Bob. You led the way with your nuanced argumentation. Godspeed, and keep pissing on us liberals, mmmK?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Us liberals are doing a great job. A right wing religious nut whack job would have been (and still may be) elected to the Senate but it takes his unacceptable past sexual proclivities to give us a chance to defeat him. Even that wasn't enough with Trump. We aren't doing a good job, and should welcome intelligent criticism.

      Delete
    2. Alabama voters have a chance to elect a good Democratic candidate in Doug Jones. Let's see what they do. If they still vote for the pedophile (as their governor says she will do), then that's on them.

      I do welcome intelligent criticism when it occurs.

      Delete
    3. Remember AC, liberals are stupid, snobbish, hateful, pitiful, ...(just like the conservatives have always said)...did I leave out any of Somerby's adjectives? Real constructive criticism, that.
      Oh, and we liberals have to have the "love ethic" when dealing with The Others. Not a half-baked idea at all.

      Delete
    4. 1;08 PM,
      I'm sur AC knows that. He was probably just pre-occupied with his coastal, elite, liberal friends ridiculing "flyover country". LOL.

      Delete
  10. والرائدة فى نظافة المنازل بالرياض بأقل التكاليف بيد عاملة محترفة ومدربة علي تنظيف شركة الشعلة الرياضالشقق و البيوت بخصم يصل إلي 40% شركة تنظيف منازل

    ReplyDelete
  11. شركة تنظيف منازل بالرياض لا داعي للتعب في التنظيف بعد اليوم فمعنا في شركة تنظيف بالرياض شركة نظافة المنازل بالرياض و ايضا شركة تنظيف بي

    ReplyDelete
  12. تقوم افضل شركة تنظيف منازل بالرياض بعمل شركة تنظيف فلل بالرياض كل المهام المنزلية التي تعتني بالنظافة و التعطير و التلميع و التعقيم بأقوي مواد التنظيف مع الضمان

    ReplyDelete