At trivia last week, one of the categories was "Conspiracy Theories". We debated just putting down "Jews" for every answer. I mean, what are the odds it'd be wrong?
Of course that being said, everyone knows that the lunar landing -- if not the moon itself -- is just one large Zionist conspiracy. The team of Israeli scientists seeking to make Israel the third country to land a probe on the moon by the end of 2012 is clearly just trying to cover their tracks.
(Title references this post).
Sunday, January 29, 2012
Friday, January 27, 2012
Go Strong or Don't Go At All
An interesting letter from Zionist Organization of America hit the mailboxes of various Jewish media outlets. In it, one Robert I. Lappin declares that "Western Civilization is at war with Islam", which is "not a religion of peace". "Saying that we are at war with terror, or radical Islam, or Islamic extremists, provides American Muslims with a rationale to do nothing."
Now, it isn't exactly surprising to see ZOA descend into Islamophobia (hell, it's no longer surprising to see them endorse anti-Semites willing to sign onto their destructive, anti-Israel agenda). But contacted by the media, Mort Klein -- well, distanced himself doesn't seem quite right. He says that the email was not intended to be "from" ZOA, but that he had allowed a prominent donor (Lappin) access to it "as a favor". ZOA, he said, was neither "endorsing" nor "condemning" the letter's contents.
Oh come on, that's just weak sauce. If you're going to allow someone to send a bigoted email through to your mailing list, either stand behind it or disavow it. This whole, "it was a favor, it doesn't mean anything" nonsense isn't persuading anyone.
Now, it isn't exactly surprising to see ZOA descend into Islamophobia (hell, it's no longer surprising to see them endorse anti-Semites willing to sign onto their destructive, anti-Israel agenda). But contacted by the media, Mort Klein -- well, distanced himself doesn't seem quite right. He says that the email was not intended to be "from" ZOA, but that he had allowed a prominent donor (Lappin) access to it "as a favor". ZOA, he said, was neither "endorsing" nor "condemning" the letter's contents.
Oh come on, that's just weak sauce. If you're going to allow someone to send a bigoted email through to your mailing list, either stand behind it or disavow it. This whole, "it was a favor, it doesn't mean anything" nonsense isn't persuading anyone.
Attackerman Attacked for Attacking Anti-Semitism
Spencer Ackerman has up a very sensible, bordering on mundane, article objecting to the use of the term "Israel-firster". The point is simple: "Israel-firster" has a sharp anti-Semitic pedigree (not to mention it might be conceptually incoherent if we're to accept the premise that even minorities are allowed to construct and forward their own conception of American "interests") and should be abandoned. It's not like it plays some critical role in buttressing the progressive argument regarding the proper US/Israel relationship or the best policies for securing a safe, democratic, Jewish state of Israel. That's a debate progressives are well-positioned to win on the merits, what with the GOP going all one-stater.
Of course, left-wing purveyors of "Israel-firster" can't possibly comprehend that there might be a progressive critique of anti-Semitism that nonetheless sometimes implicates fellow progressives. So, for example, M.J. Rosenberg of Media Matters proclaimed that Ackerman "put your rightist buddy & your career over principle". For those of you who don't recall the circumstances of Ackerman's departure from The New Republic (he sardonically offered to "skull-fuck a terrorist" to counter charges he was squishy on foreign policy), I think it is fair to say that Ackerman's problem has not historically been that he is too deferential to conservative sensibilities in pursuit of his career ambitions. But as Rosenberg aptly demonstrates, the problem here is simply that some people think there is no such thing as anti-Semitism when it used for "noble" reasons, and will react with all the fury and indignation of a Heritage Foundation staffer whose just been condemned for racist dogwhistles (it's a distraction from "real racism", dontcha know?).
Of course, left-wing purveyors of "Israel-firster" can't possibly comprehend that there might be a progressive critique of anti-Semitism that nonetheless sometimes implicates fellow progressives. So, for example, M.J. Rosenberg of Media Matters proclaimed that Ackerman "put your rightist buddy & your career over principle". For those of you who don't recall the circumstances of Ackerman's departure from The New Republic (he sardonically offered to "skull-fuck a terrorist" to counter charges he was squishy on foreign policy), I think it is fair to say that Ackerman's problem has not historically been that he is too deferential to conservative sensibilities in pursuit of his career ambitions. But as Rosenberg aptly demonstrates, the problem here is simply that some people think there is no such thing as anti-Semitism when it used for "noble" reasons, and will react with all the fury and indignation of a Heritage Foundation staffer whose just been condemned for racist dogwhistles (it's a distraction from "real racism", dontcha know?).
Thursday, January 26, 2012
Gingrich Scores the Coveted Duke Cunningham Endorsement
Newt Gingrich -- who, let us recall, was forced to resign from Congress in disgrace after a slew of ethics scandals -- has just won the endorsement of a prominent former Congressman. Unfortunately, both the reason he's "prominent" and the reason he's "former" is because ex-Rep. Duke Cunningham (R-CA) is currently in prison after being convicted of bribery.
Cunningham also said Gingrich enjoyed the support of "80%" of the inmates who watched the debate. And while they can't themselves vote (being in jail and all), Cunningham thinks they might be able to sway their extended families.
(Note: This post does not reflect a change in my underlying belief that prisoners probably should be allowed to vote).
Cunningham also said Gingrich enjoyed the support of "80%" of the inmates who watched the debate. And while they can't themselves vote (being in jail and all), Cunningham thinks they might be able to sway their extended families.
(Note: This post does not reflect a change in my underlying belief that prisoners probably should be allowed to vote).
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Minnesota Poll: Klobuchar Annhilates Everyone, Franken Does Well
PPP has some new polling out, with the main emphasis on Sen. Amy Klobuchar's (D) 2012 reelection. And, no surprise, the insanely popular senior senator throttles everyone who could conceivably challenge her, including a whopping 15 point lead against former governor and presidential-wannabe Tim Pawlenty (who hasn't expressed any interest in the race). One might think that Klobuchar's sponsorship of SOPA might have dimmed her star a little, but apparently not.
Possibly more surprising is some early numbers for Sen. Al Franken (D), who isn't up for re-election until 2014. Franken squeaked past Norm Coleman in a 2008 nailbiter, and for that reason has long been viewed as vulnerable given his polarizing public figure and the high-water nature of 2008. But he's actually looking pretty decent, sporting a six point lead over Pawlenty (his most dangerous potential challenger) and a 15 point margin over Michele Bachmann.
I've mentioned before that, while Franken is kind of a dick, he's also been a stellar Senator. And I think a lot of Minnesotans have seen that he's serious about his job and serious about being a legislator, and that's what has him in such a strong political position even as Democratic political fortunes have taken generally taken a turn for the worse since 2008.
Possibly more surprising is some early numbers for Sen. Al Franken (D), who isn't up for re-election until 2014. Franken squeaked past Norm Coleman in a 2008 nailbiter, and for that reason has long been viewed as vulnerable given his polarizing public figure and the high-water nature of 2008. But he's actually looking pretty decent, sporting a six point lead over Pawlenty (his most dangerous potential challenger) and a 15 point margin over Michele Bachmann.
I've mentioned before that, while Franken is kind of a dick, he's also been a stellar Senator. And I think a lot of Minnesotans have seen that he's serious about his job and serious about being a legislator, and that's what has him in such a strong political position even as Democratic political fortunes have taken generally taken a turn for the worse since 2008.
Monday, January 23, 2012
Jewish Newspaper Editor Who Called for Obama's Assassination Resigns
Obviously good riddance. The editor, Andrew Adler of the Atlanta Jewish Times, faced a torrent of criticism from all quarters for his repulsive column, including from the AJC and ADL, as well as finding his paper cut loose by the Jewish Federation of Greater Atlanta until Adler left the paper. Adler, who owned as well as managed the newspaper, is also looking to sell it to another owner to complete his withdrawal.
Oh, and since I've been hearing murmurings that Adler isn't being investigated by the Secret Service because Jew Jew special treatment Jew, it's worth noting that he is, in fact, being investigated by the Secret Service. Which is appropriate, but it is almost certainly the case that he didn't do anything illegal -- just repulsive (abstract advocacy of violence, particularly against public figures, is protected by the First Amendment. Unless he had an actual conspiracy in motion, which seems more than a little far-fetched, his column falls into that category).
Oh, and since I've been hearing murmurings that Adler isn't being investigated by the Secret Service because Jew Jew special treatment Jew, it's worth noting that he is, in fact, being investigated by the Secret Service. Which is appropriate, but it is almost certainly the case that he didn't do anything illegal -- just repulsive (abstract advocacy of violence, particularly against public figures, is protected by the First Amendment. Unless he had an actual conspiracy in motion, which seems more than a little far-fetched, his column falls into that category).
Washington Ready To Legalize Gay Marriage
The announced support of state Sen. Mary Margaret Haugen (D) provides the crucial 25th vote that will put gay marriage over the top (it already has sufficient support in the House, and Governor Christine Gregoire (D) has likewise come out in favor). Like a fellow Marylander friend of mine, I'm pouting that they beat my state to it -- and for that matter, Maryland also provides a cautionary tale to not count your chickens before they hatch. But still, things are looking good right now.
Sunday, January 22, 2012
Gabby Giffords Stepping Down
Rep. Gabby Giffords (D-AZ), still recovering from brain injuries after being shot by a deranged constituent, has announced she is stepping down as Congresswoman in order to focus on her recovery. She promises, however, that she will return to public life in the future.
Obviously, best wishes to Rep. Giffords as she continues her remarkable recovery.
Obviously, best wishes to Rep. Giffords as she continues her remarkable recovery.
Thursday, January 19, 2012
J Street and the "Boy Who Cried Wolf" Theory of Anti-Semitism
As the debate over whether "Israel-firster" is anti-Semitic language flares up again, J Street's Jeremy Ben-Ami appears to have stepped in it:
Ouch. Ben-Ami immediately backtracked, calling "Israel-firster" a "bad choice of words" and saying it was a "conspiracy theory that American Jews have dual loyalty [which] must be refuted in the strongest possible way." (Headline notwithstanding, this is not "expanding" on his morning comments so much as it is reversing them, but still, it is welcome).
I've noted before that, my general affinity for J Street notwithstanding, one thing I do not like is their "mushiness" on anti-Semitism. They really seem either uninterested or incapable of taking a strong stand on the issue, and it is really alienating. I've written about the serious problems with the "dual loyalties" charge even on a conceptual level, but in a sense I'm even more concerned about Ben-Ami's demand that Jewish groups "tread lightly" in talking about anti-Semitism.
This returns us back into How Would You Like Me To Raise It Territory, of course. As usual, I think it is wrong to imply that most claims of anti-Semitism are done in bad faith or otherwise are instances of crying wolf. But beyond that, I think that there's a descriptive misapprehension here -- simply put, there is no reason to believe that "anti-Semitism" is taken any more serious when groups adopt narrow definitions and raise the alarm only in extreme cases, than when the definition is broader and more encompassing. Aside from being victim-blaming, it's not like these groups find themselves aroused from their slumber even in the "clear" cases (like Gilad Atzmon). Rather, it just turns out that nothing counts as "clear", and thus nothing is ever anti-Semitic. It becomes a wholly abstract concept (and thus quite easy to oppose, since opposition never has to be anything more than a theoretical commitment).
Jeremy Ben-Ami, president of J Street, a left-leaning voice on Israel issues, said he had no problem with “Israel-firster.”
“If the charge is that you’re putting the interests of another country before the interests of the United States in the way you would advocate that, it’s a legitimate question,” Ben-Ami said.
Ben-Ami added that Jewish groups “should tread lightly” when they make accusations of anti-Semitism. “Because when they do need to use that word, people won’t take you seriously,” he said.
Ouch. Ben-Ami immediately backtracked, calling "Israel-firster" a "bad choice of words" and saying it was a "conspiracy theory that American Jews have dual loyalty [which] must be refuted in the strongest possible way." (Headline notwithstanding, this is not "expanding" on his morning comments so much as it is reversing them, but still, it is welcome).
I've noted before that, my general affinity for J Street notwithstanding, one thing I do not like is their "mushiness" on anti-Semitism. They really seem either uninterested or incapable of taking a strong stand on the issue, and it is really alienating. I've written about the serious problems with the "dual loyalties" charge even on a conceptual level, but in a sense I'm even more concerned about Ben-Ami's demand that Jewish groups "tread lightly" in talking about anti-Semitism.
This returns us back into How Would You Like Me To Raise It Territory, of course. As usual, I think it is wrong to imply that most claims of anti-Semitism are done in bad faith or otherwise are instances of crying wolf. But beyond that, I think that there's a descriptive misapprehension here -- simply put, there is no reason to believe that "anti-Semitism" is taken any more serious when groups adopt narrow definitions and raise the alarm only in extreme cases, than when the definition is broader and more encompassing. Aside from being victim-blaming, it's not like these groups find themselves aroused from their slumber even in the "clear" cases (like Gilad Atzmon). Rather, it just turns out that nothing counts as "clear", and thus nothing is ever anti-Semitic. It becomes a wholly abstract concept (and thus quite easy to oppose, since opposition never has to be anything more than a theoretical commitment).
It's Official: Republicans are One-Staters
Here's the text of the latest RNC resolution on Israel:
This is arguably a little vague, but between the claim that Israel is not "an occupier of the lands of others" and the call for a "united Israel under one law for all people", I really don't think it admits of any other interpretation. The Republican Party has officially entered the one-state camp. To be sure, this isn't really surprising -- the GOP's anti-Israel slant has been bursting through for some time now, with folks like Huckabee and Santorum explicitly joining the one-state camp. But now we have an official resolution that, in essence, calls for the dissolution of Israel as a Jewish, democratic state.
In other words, with respect to Israel, voters now have a clear choice between a party which supports the perpetuation of a Jewish, democratic state, and one that wishes to see that state abolished. Not a difficult call, in my book.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the members of this body support Israel in their natural and God-given right of self-governance and self-defense upon their own lands, recognizing that Israel is neither an attacking force nor an occupier of the lands of others; and that peace can be afforded the region only through a united Israel governed under one law for all people.
This is arguably a little vague, but between the claim that Israel is not "an occupier of the lands of others" and the call for a "united Israel under one law for all people", I really don't think it admits of any other interpretation. The Republican Party has officially entered the one-state camp. To be sure, this isn't really surprising -- the GOP's anti-Israel slant has been bursting through for some time now, with folks like Huckabee and Santorum explicitly joining the one-state camp. But now we have an official resolution that, in essence, calls for the dissolution of Israel as a Jewish, democratic state.
In other words, with respect to Israel, voters now have a clear choice between a party which supports the perpetuation of a Jewish, democratic state, and one that wishes to see that state abolished. Not a difficult call, in my book.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
