Degrees of Bigotry

The front page of the times had the arresting photo (see left) of some freak, John Gallano, who I assume is either an artist or a professional clown. It appears that the clown has emitted an anti-Semitic slur. Charlie Sheen, aka Carlos Estevez, has also been fired recently for making anti-Semitic comments. While I applaud any action that destroys bigots and scumbags, I do want to draw a distinction between 2 acts of bigotry.

Sheen, according to the Times, went on a radio show and railed against his boss, Chuck Lorre, all the while calling the boss "Hayim Levine." Yeah, it's odd that someone whose name was changed is mocking another ethnic name changer, but it also evinces anti-Semitism (so I'm told) and so he has been fired. Or something - to be honest, I never wanted to watch his show so I don't follow this too closely.

I'd like to point out, though, that as anti-Semitism goes, this is as mild as you can get. Consider that Sheen already has screamed anti-Black epithets in public, and that wasn't a firing offense. Why should anti-Semitism trump that?

Well, I don't think it did and I'm annoyed that it's being depicted that way. My presumption is that Sheen was fired because he was meant to clean up in rehab and instead he walked out of the 'hab and into a radio booth to insult his boss. Is it his bigotry or his aggressive stupidity at fault? I'd prefer to say it's the latter.

Especially in light of the Galliano clown. Here's what the Times says:

The video, posted on the Web site of the British tabloid The Sun, appears to show Mr. Galliano taunting other patrons at the bar, La Perle, declaring in a slurred voice that “I love Hitler” and that “people like you would be dead,” and “your mothers, your forefathers” would all be “gassed.” It was unclear when the video was recorded.

Do you see the difference? Sheen wasn't as much a bigot as a raving jackass. Galliano actually hates Jews. Because nobody but a true hater would even *think* of calling on Jews to be murdered by Hitler again. Seriously, folks.

This was the same case I made about Michael "Kramer" Richards who didn't *just* say the n-word, but actually talked wistfully about the bygone days when you could lynch blacks. Again, the difference is that using the n-word can be put in the category of using angry-talk (like the f-word, or any other word-words), but actively talking about committing specific murder is another category altogether.

Even though I am happy to continue exposing bigots and penalizing people who use racist slurs (which I have no urge to do myself, so I can comfortably condemn that class of scum), I do want to make a distinction between rage-words and actual bigots.

Flotilla Context: Another Mexican Shot by US Border Patrol

Just to give some context to the Gaza Flotilla-Palooza, see this top-story from the AP (not found on the NYTimes front page) about the murder of a Mexican teenager by the U.S. Border patrol. OK, you can say that it's not news because we're Americans and we generally get a free pass to kill people whenever we want (it's called He Who Has the Most Nukes Makes the Rules) - like the unmanned wedding-crashing drones in Afghanistan - but let's dig deeper:

The killing of the Mexican by U.S. authorities — the second in less than two weeks — has exposed the distrust between the two countries that lies just below the surface, and has enraged Mexicans who see the death of the boy on Mexican soil as an act of murder. Mexico's government says the number of Mexicans injured by U.S. immigration authorities has increased this year. ... [The boy] was found 20 feet (six meters) into Mexico, and an autopsy revealed that the fatal shot was fired at a relatively close range, according to Arturo Sandoval, a spokesman for the Chihuahua state attorney general's office. Mexican authorities said a .40 caliber shell casing was found near the body, suggesting that the Border Patrol agent might have crossed into Mexico to shoot the boy.

Compare and contrast.

Pic presumably of the Mexico-US border from here.

Helen Thomas and Applying the Double Standard

As you doubtless have heard, Helen Thomas - the bubbie-like senior White House Correspondent for the world, a chum of Steven Colbert and champion of freedom under George "The Scumbag" Bush - turns out to be a raging wacko anti-Semite. Thankfully, she has announced her retirement after her these comments were spread all throughout modern technology's platforms:

Thomas was asked by Rabbi David Nesenoff on May 27 if she had "any comments on Israel."

"Tell them to get the hell out of Palestine," she said.

Nesenoff, who was attending the first Jewish American Heritage Month event at the White House, asked where Jews should go.

"Go home," Thomas said. Asked to elaborate, she said: "Poland, Germany and America, and everywhere else."

Ya see, simple point for Helen and her fellow Nazis: it rankles many of us Hebrews, or really any thinking educated human, when someone tells Jews to go back to Germany. It's clear Nazi talk. Just a reminder.

You got to see the video for the full effect. She's one crazy Nazi:


OK, now that she's been successfully retired, let's apply a little bit of the double standard that's normally applied to us (Jews/Israelis). First, it should be noted that her comments were made before the Flotilla Debacle, so unlike her soul-brother Mel Gibson, who made his drunken comments in the midst of the Second Lebanon War, she was neither drunk nor responding to a recent crisis.

Second of all, it turns out that she's the child of Lebanese Christians - which shows that it's not easy to profile the enemies of Israel and the Jews into simple categories.

Third: a good sign for an anti-Semite is the automatic conflation of "Israel" with "Jew." Israelis should go back to where they came from? Yeah? And that's Germany & Poland - the wonderlands of genocide - or America (part of the Jewish American notorious Israel lobby, no doubt). An anti-Zionist non-Anti-Semite (who may exist) would say, possibly, "Europe" instead of the concentration-camp intensive specific countries. Just playing Devil's advocate. Almost literally.

Fourth: let's apply the double standard here. This evil woman was a "dean" of the Press Corps and she's a closet neo-Nazi. I think that just as every Jew is put on the hot-seat every time Netanyahu commits another in his colossal string of screw-ups, so now every journalist should be under the presumption of being a barely hidden anti-Semite. Payback's a beeyatch.

Lieberman, The Nut

As I just explained, one of the heroes of my 20s, Senator Joe Lieberman, has turned into a real monster. This was apparent soon after the 2006 Midterms and, according to my social-psychological calculations, was the major trigger for is now 3 year long psychotic episode. There have been many effects, his endorsement of McCain and speaking at the RNC Convention are major league sins, but his recent behavior about health-care-reform is just unspeakable.

Repercussions of His Monstrosity

He's no longer my senator nor quasi-congregant, so why should I care? Well, besides my early ardent support (just see my blog posts from 2003-2006), he is probably the most prominent Orthodox Jew in the world. And because his behavior is terrible, it is a chillul Hashem. In a year following Madoff (and the Jewish *sounding* Goldman Sachs, a point for another time), we Hebrews are taking a major hit. Prominent pro-Israel schmucks like Lieberman contribute to the mainstreaming of anti-Zionism, as well.

An Example

Many decent, moderate-leftists have been pillorying Lieberman over the past few days - and with good cause - because he has just killed the public option for health-care-reform. Mark Kleiman, of the Reality Based Community, states:

In 2000, when Al Gore selected Joe Lieberman as his running-mate, Jesse Jackson decided to throw a tantrum about it, portraying Lieberman as some sort of crypto-reactionary creep. My reaction at the time was that Jackson was acting like a jerk and helping hand the election to the Republicans.

Of course I had no idea how close the election would be; as things turned out, Jackson’s move was probably the difference between having George W. Bush as President and not having him as President, which means the difference between war with Iraq and no war with Iraq. So Jackson was, indeed, acting like a jerk.

But, as Joe Lieberman has amply demonstrated, Jackson wasn’t wrong.

Now, while I will write Kleiman and suggest to him that in 2000 Joe wasn't so bad, I feel torn about lending any credibility to Lieberman and his rishus. But the crucial point of Kleiman's post isn't the original author, but from one of his commenters Ed Whitney" who says :

"[Lieberman's] goody-goody sanctimony combined with regressive politics was captured by Calvin Trillin in The Nation in 2000. He wrote his contribution to the tune of "O Tannenbaum" that went in part:

Joe Lieberman, Joe Lieberman,
A Democrat who’s newish,
Joe Lieberman, Joe Lieberman,
We’re awfully glad you’re Jewish.
Though welfare kids may live on gruel,
At least you’ll always go to shul,
Joe Lieberman, Joe Lieberman,
Your Shabbas rides are fewish."

OK, got that? Some random blogger, in reminiscing about how bad Lieberman is, needs to quote treife-celebrating, Xmas-ogling, self-hating Jew Trillin to write an anti-Semitic jingle against Lieberman (in 2000!) set to a Xmas carol.

That's how chillul-Hashems work, my friend. And especially how Trillin - the terminal sinner - comes off as a better person than Lieberman, the Orthodox Jew. And I can't really argue that point now: Lieberman's actions are indefensible.

Defending Myself

His fall has been swift, in my mind and the shame I feel is mitigated by my feeling/knowledge that he wasn't always like this. I made a similar point when I had my final break with John Mamzer Edwards:

many people are correct only by chance. For example, the smartasses who said that John Edwards was *of course* cheating on his wife... basing their assertions on the sole facts that (a) Edwards was good-looking, and (b) they disagreed with Edwards' policies/profession/accent.

Not liking somebody, and thus attributing to the disliked person all sorts of crimes, does not make your criticisms prophetic. You just got lucky.

However, if you said that Edwards was a wife-cheater because of certain provable factors (e.g. you knew of some shady behaviors, you read in his book that 'cheating on your cancer-stricken wife ain't the worst thing a person can do', or if you personally slept with him), then - fine - you can be considered a perceptive prognosticator.

For the record, I didn't believe the rumors that Edwards was cheating on his wife because I didn't think that someone as successful as him (self-made multi-millionaire, young Democratic senator in a red-state) would do something so destructive and stupid. I mean, it was Spitzer-esque! And even then, I had some glimmering that Spitzer was a sexual-schkutz because he intermarried. Ya see, that's a provable indicator. Sex crime here leads to sex crime there. But Edwards? Why would someone running for president - someone who constantly references his wife's terminal cancer - have an affair on the campaign trail.

I feel the same way about Lieberman, and not just because I have counter-proof: what Lieberman is doing now is new and while his sanctimoniousness is a constant, and makes his wickedness especially galling (a holier-than-thou villain is hard to take), it is not his current crime. So those who say they were right for hating him in 2000 are deluded: his sanctimoniousness wasn't a crime then, nor now. His moderate-contrarianism wasn't a crime then, nor now. He's not being just 'contrary' now, he's being a Republican, and it's because his only friends now are Republicans (McCain, Graham - who, it should be said, are being shoved off by their own party).

So, Smarty Pants, What Happened?

When I lived in New Haven, I was told these main reasons for why Lieberman changed/was changing:

1. In general, Joe is not the brightest bulb in the electric menorah. No, he's definitely not stupid - he's not in the Bush league (har). It was tough for a Jew to go to Yale in 1964; to quote the Wiki:

   "He received a dual Bachelor of Arts in political science and economics from Yale University in 1964 and was the first member of his family to graduate from college. At Yale he was editor of the Yale Daily News and a member of the Elihu Club. He later attended Yale Law School, receiving his law degree in 1967. "

   But he's not in the league of Bill Clinton or even Al Gore.


2. He's not a Natural Politician = This needs to be added to the intelligence problem: he's not really an ambitious suck-up, like Bill Clinton, or a political legacy, like Al Gore or Chris Dodd. From what I heard, he became a politician because of a collection of friends, hangers-on, and especially because of his Mother. And that leads us to the most crucial reason for his fall from grace.
   
   
3. He lost his Political Soul in 2001 and again in 2005: For these facts, you needed to be on the Connecticut inside, but basically Joe lost two people over that time, his political head and his political heart: Jimmy O'Connell in 2001 and his mother in 2005. I will let this Chicago Tribune story from 2006 give the details:

   But the chapter that started in November 2000 would not end, not only because of the presidential campaign, but because of personal tragedy.
   
   Since Lieberman first ran for the State Senate in 1970, Jimmy O'Connell was Lieberman's eyes and ears on the Connecticut ground, one of those political pros who seemed to know every Democrat in every town-and someone who could tell the boss where he may have to make a phone call or a diner visit to calm an angry town chairman.
   
   In December, 2001, O'Connell, 53, was found slumped in his car off an exit ramp off I-91 in Windsor, the victim of an apparent heart attack.
   
   Three and a half years later, Lieberman's mother Marcia died. Lieberman for years has taken comfort and advice from four strong women: Brown; his wife Hadassah; Washington chief of staff Clarine Nardi Riddle; and his mother.
   
   Joe and Marcia Lieberman were not only close, they were political soulmates. Marcia Lieberman had traveled the country with her son in his national campaigns, vigorously defending him before voters and reporters-and one of the few people able to tell the senator when things didn't seem right.
   
   After her death in March, 2005, Lieberman seemed different to his extended family, less inclined to dive into intraparty politics. Ornstein, for one, said he regular lunches with the senator stopped.

   All of that corroborates what I heard in New Haven, and it should be said, that the Tribune story was in August 2006 - before it became totally clear that Lieberman was cracking up.

To review: Lieberman, not super-intelligent and a bad-fit politician, had his career created and sustained by two people - O'Connell and Joe's mom - who both died between 2001 and 2005. What I heard was that O'Connell was Joe's political brain and Joe's mom was his heart.

Is it any surprise, then, that Lieberman seems to be a stunningly stupid politician - as his August 2006 primary performance showed - and also a person who has lost his neshama - as his Republicanism of 2008-2009 shows.

Makeh B'Patish: The Final Hammerblow

The primary loss of 2006 has been, correctly, credited as the moment when Lieberman The Good became Bizarro Lieberman. For any outside observer, it's when he felt that his true friends were not Democrats - who abandoned him - but his Senate pals McCain and Graham. But with the above data, you can see why 25+ year political veteran (10 years in State Senate, 6 years as state AG, 3 terms as CT Senator) felt betrayed by a political - not personal - setback. Because he's not a natural pol; he actually felt he had "friends" in politics; and since his political & moral compasses had, by that year, both died, he made decisions not as a politician but as an aggrieved, friendless, persecuted old weirdo.

So I do not regret supporting him in 2006 - before it became known how nuts he was; and possibly, had the idiot leftoids of the Nader Democrats not tried to kill him in '06, he'd be a friendlier ally right now (to paraphrase the ultra-fictional Omar: "if you come at the king, you best not miss.")

But since his opposition to Obama in '08, I've grown apart from him, and now I must repudiate him as a politician. It's not personal, Joe. But you're a chillul Hashem and you seriously need to do teshuva.

Pics have been used before by me, except the Palpatine one, which I've thought for years, and the Wonder Twins from here.

Modern Moldovan Anti-Semitism

From the JTA: Moldovan Christians tear down public menorah

Did I expect something like this not to happen? Yes, virginia, Christians *invented* anti-Semitism.

Brother Going to Portugal

For professional reasons, my brother is leaving tonight, [yeah yeah on a jet plane like there's propeller ones still around], for Portugal. You guesers (Portuguese-ers) better treat him well. I don't want a repeat of the 16th Century, or, ironically enough, I will get Medieval on you.

Pic from here.

Is Sullivan an Anti-Zionist?

Quick answer: Evidently not, but its complicated. In the past few months, really ever since Cast Lead, he has been getting more an more crazy about Israel. He's bought straight into the canard that the settlements cause Palestinian violence, and he seems to knee-jerk respond *against* Israel. This is bothersome.

But this is sort of the price I pay when I read Sullivan.

So why do I? Why should I care about him? Especially since he does no reporting and holds many ideas I find stupid, annoying, and/or just plain wrong. So, here's something I wrote about him for another blog's comments:

The thing about Sullivan is that when he gets an idea, he clings to it with fierce tenacity. And the tenacity results in massive amounts of near real-time linkage that comes as close to reporting as an opinion blog will get.

Examples: he hates Hillary with a weird rancor, so he was great in links to support Obama; he hates Palin even more than Hillary so he was the go-to guy for that; he hates that the US tortured, so he gave great linkage for that.

So when I agree with his obsession, his website is gold, because he gives me enormous amounts of info. But for all those things that he's wrong about, no matter of facts will sway him, and I just skip those posts.

Caveat: Nothing will sway him - except his own tortured mind. That's why it's hard to predict where he'll wind up on an issue, because of the above-mentioned personality quirkiness (British Catholic Gay HIV-Positive Thatcherite). His load of cognitive dissonance is enormous and it's now cracking into pieces. Somehow, I think he hates being associated for so long with the Democrats...

So I still read him, and send him letters (which he has never, nor will ever, respond to), because I still think he's an important resource. He's the purest form of blogger, and as such, the purest expression of the power of the internet. And so far his weirdness about Israel hasn't undermined that; I just put it in the same category as his worship of Ronald Reagan and his British drag equivalent (Thatcher).

Backpost finished 2009-12-02. Pic from around the 'net.

Oh, Those Wacky Catholics

Bishop Richard Williamson, one of the fun loving Bishops de-excommunicated by Pope "ex-Hitler Youth" Benedict, in his own words denying the Holocaust:

This video came via Christopher Buckley's blog (which I found via Sullivan, as is often the case). And, if you don't mind reading harrowing impressions of a visit to Auschwitz (something I generally avoid), here's Buckley's (Irish ex-Catholic) memoir of his visit in 2001.

Anti-Semitic Vandalism in Portland

I heard from the Brandeis JLI rabbi that: Portland Synagogue Has Swastika Painted On Sign. For some reason the news is not yet on JTA (and when I tried to email JTA to give them the story, there was no easily found address to send them news... odd). I know the rabbi of the shul, too.

And the reason why I got the news from the JLI rabbi was that he led a Shabbaton of Brandeis students to that selfsame shul on the day the vandalism was committed. Gevalt.

Backpost: Why they deny the Holocaust

Backpost from 12/18/06, 9:51 PM. I just had the link

Notes: The story is still online and it gives over some important facts about the virulent anti-Semitism in the Muslim world.

From the Los Angeles Times: Why they deny the Holocaust

Video of the Day

Why have I never even *heard* of this sketch before? From 1992 SNL "Sabra Price is Right" with Tom Hanks as an Israeli electronics store owner. Whooo! Making fun of yordim* is the only time when I will claim that being anti-"Israeli" is not being either anti-Zionist or anti-Semitic. And boy is this anti-Yordim. (And since it's SNL, the ending stinks).

Here's the transcript, and below is the video:



*Yordim (sing. yoreid) are Israelis who have left Israel to settle in the Diaspora. The word literally means "one who goes down" (it's the inverse of someone who immigrates to Israel, called an oleh, someone who goes up). It's an accurate term, but not a nice thing to say to a yoreid's face.

h/t: Onion AV Club.

Diplomacy, Appeasement, GOP Credibility

I was on the road for Appeasement-Gate (or Bush-Knesset-gate), when Bush accused strawmen of appeasing dictators, just like bad people did back in the 30s with Hitler. (Oh, funny side-point, turns out Prescott Bush, the president's Senator grandfather, was one of those appeasers... heh). Anyway, in the past 8 years, Bush has shown either to mean exactly what his words sound like or to be a complete liar, whichever happens to be worst at the time. That is not a joke. When he sounds like he's saying something good, he's lying ("heckuva job", "we don't torture") and when it sounds bad, it is bad.

Bush's comments at the Knesset were OBVIOUSLY referring to Obama and the Democrats in general. Duh. Duh duh duh. And the Press understood it too, which is an uncommon admission, given their slavish acceptance of every lie uttered by the Bush administration so far (cf. Iraq war, Iran, torture, civil liberties, the attorney firing).

Yeah, some bullet-heads are still claiming that Obama overreacted, but they're the same people who believe that Bush is the reincarnation of King Arthur and Richard "First Crusade" Lionheart, so whatever.

McCain, gotta love him, is so maverick-y that he immediately followed Bush's lead. That'll show 'em how independent you are John! You mavericky mavericking maverick, you.

What I wonder is why ANYBODY believes that the GOP knows what it's doing with foreign policy anymore. Seriously. The concept that diplomacy=appeasement has resonance only if you are 6 years old and are presently in a schoolyard. Outside of that puerile universe, diplomacy is how actual real life occurs. I'd go so far as to say that the bright-shining-line between childish and adult personality is the recognition that life is about compromise and negotiation and not about violence and absolutes.

Bush is a big baby, this is clear. He is a bully and a spoiled brat. Bully proof comes from how he treats those out of power; spoiled brattishness has been amply shown with his recent comments about nobly giving up golf in recognition of the sacrifice of the thousands of casualties from his foolish war.

McCain is following along because he doesn't actually appear to possess leadership qualities. Yeah, maybe when he was in the military, but in the Senate? That's the downside of being a maverick: unless you can translate your rebellion into a movement, then you're just a troublemaker, a noisemaker, not a leader.

Why is diplomacy not appeasement. Here's a good summary by Matt Yglesias:

The problem here is that, once again, we see hawks not understanding what diplomacy is. But think of diplomacy as a kind of bargaining. Like you might do at a yard sale or something. Diplomacy doesn't exist at one end of a spectrum of coercive measures -- we try war, we try sanctions, we try diplomacy -- any more than bargaining operates on a smooth continuum with robbery. The point of bargaining with a vendor is to see whether or not it's possible to find mutually acceptable terms that improve both parties' positions. In terms of diplomacy with Iran, the idea isn't that Obama's steely gaze would force concessions out of the Iranians, the idea is that we might be able to give Iran something Iran deems more valuable than weapons-grade nuclear material, and in exchange we would get verifiable disarmament.

The "something" here would presumably be some form of security assurances plus an accommodation to Iranian interests in Iraq, along with Teheran and Washington laying out a pathway to gradual normalization of relations in exchange for an end to Iranian support for terrorism and Palestinian rejectionist groups. Would it be possible to strike such a deal? Maybe, maybe not. But the purpose of a negotiating session would be to find out by attempting to do the bargaining rather than having five more years of back-and-forth blog posts speculating about the possibility. The general theory of diplomacy is that rational actors should, through negotiations, be able to achieve positive-sum settlements rather than negative-sum conflicts. It's always possible that your would-be negotiating partner will prove irrational (as George W. Bush did when he rejected Iranian peace overtures several years back) and the process will fail, but it's worth attempting in good faith.

And just in case Yglesias is too much of a squishy leftie to truly understand things, here are two recent examples of (sane) Republicans who agree, Sen. Specter (from Yglesias) and James Baker III (from Sullivan):





Summaries: Specter is asking Sec of Defense Gates why Bush is calling negotiation appeasement when negotiation is normal, logical, and sensible. Specter assails the Bush perspective and hopes Gates can talk some sense into the President.

Baker is even more clear; he says that a strong leader talks to enemies. He himself travelled to Syria 15 times, on Bush Sr's request, to get Syria to recognize Israel and on the 16th trip Syria agreed to negotiate at the Madrid Peace Talks. Baker, while an anti-Semite GOP running-dog, is also from the time when the GOP were considered competent. Not any more; Baker (and Specter) are as slimy as Obama. Only Bush and McCain know what to do!

Bobby Fischer, Anti-Semitic Wacko, Chess Master, Dead

From the Times: Bobby Fischer, Chess Master, Dies at 64.

On the first blog, I wrote about Fischer (twice). Basically, after seeing the movie "Searching for Bobby Fischer" I wanted to learn more about the wistful chess genius... and discovered that he was a disturbing figure not worthy of veneration. So he plays a game well? So does Barry Bonds. Whoop-de-doo. Just because the game is cerebral doesn't make it better. Fischer proves you can be 'smart' and be odious.

Pic is from here, of a rook, see definition 2. Backpost finished 4/8/08, 12:41 pm, I had just the title and the link.

Is Ron Paul an Anti-Semite?

Rep. Ron Paul has been accused so it needs to be cleared up. (Some accusations: from John Podhoretz at Commentary, some guy at the NY Sun, and another random guy at the right-wing Pajamas Media).

Most of the accusers are neo-con wannabes who assume that anyone against the Iraq War (or their desired Iran War) are against Israel and thus anti-Semitic. Note, these wannabes also assume that when someone criticizes any "neo-con" or even uses the term then they are anti-Semitic. For the record, when the neo-cons start keeping Shabbas, then I'll listen to them about what is Jewish.

The two main arguments that he's an anti-Semite are that (1) racist and quasi-Antisemitic comments were made in a newsletter under his name, and (2) he has voted against American aid to Israel.

According to this July 2007 NYTimes story both accusations can be explained away via Paul's inveterate idiosyncrasies:

In the 1996 general election, Paul’s Democratic opponent Lefty Morris held a press conference to air several shocking quotes from a newsletter that Paul published during his decade away from Washington. Passages described the black male population of Washington as “semi-criminal or entirely criminal” and stated that “by far the most powerful lobby in Washington of the bad sort is the Israeli government.” Morris noted that a Canadian neo-Nazi Web site had listed Paul’s newsletter as a laudably “racialist” publication.

Paul survived these revelations. He later explained that he had not written the passages himself — quite believably, since the style diverges widely from his own. But his response to the accusations was not transparent. When Morris called on him to release the rest of his newsletters, he would not. He remains touchy about it. “Even the fact that you’re asking this question infers, ‘Oh, you’re an anti-Semite,’ ” he told me in June. Actually, it doesn’t. Paul was in Congress when Israel bombed Iraq’s Osirak nuclear plant in 1981 and — unlike the United Nations and the Reagan administration — defended its right to do so. He says Saudi Arabia has an influence on Washington equal to Israel’s. His votes against support for Israel follow quite naturally from his opposition to all foreign aid. There is no sign that they reflect any special animus against the Jewish state.

As far as I can tell, Paul is ideologically simplistic but his backing of Israel's right to defend itself is the most important aspect of his practical philosophy. I believe that he didn't say the racist stuff because many people have come forward and 'testified' that he doesn't talk like that. His support for Israel is limited by his even greater support for Libertarian Ayn-Randism.

His biggest problem as it relates to 21st Century Identity Politics is that his libertarianism is quite attractive to fringe groups, wackos, neo-Nazis, and the like. The fact that someone ghost wrote racist comments under his name is proof of this... that Paul attracts, and seems to hire, Klan type wackos who think he holds their views. Note, I don't think he does. But can he be held accountable for being passive about the wackos he attracts?

Well, the GOP has those same Klan wackos as part of their voting bloc (the whole immigrant bashing path demonstrates this). The GOP does more than Paul does in courting those people. Paul seems passive about the wackos; he doesn't pander to them like the GOP has done with the "southern strategy" racism and Tancredo anti-immigration-ism. Now *that* stuff is racist.

I'd say that Paul is too small time to be held accountable for the wackos he attracts but if he starts getting into a national office, he needs to be explicit in his anti-anti-Semitism and anti-racism.

And, note to the Republicans crying "anti-Semite" about Ron Paul: (1) clean your own house, (2) I thought you didn't like identity politics?, (3) you guys say vicious things about Muslims and anyone who makes unsubstantiated blanket statements about an ethnicity should be under suspicion for racism, so your claims of anti-Semitism are disingenuous (a.k.a. you're a bunch of slimeball liars).

{2009 Update: Ron Paul as Che T-Shirt pic from here.}

Ann Coulter - Not Good for the Jews

Holy freakin' cow. See this transcript (originally from Media Matters) from Monday night of an interview between Ann Coulter and Donnny Deutsch (a Hebrew) on CNBC

DEUTSCH: Christian -- so we should be Christian? It would be better if we were all Christian?

COULTER: Yes.

DEUTSCH: We should all be Christian?

COULTER: Yes. Would you like to come to church with me, Donny?

DEUTSCH: So I should not be a Jew, I should be a Christian, and this would be a better place?

COULTER: Well, you could be a practicing Jew, but you're not.

DEUTSCH: I actually am. That's not true. I really am. But -- so we would be better if we were - if people -- if there were no Jews, no Buddhists --

COULTER: Whenever I'm harangued by --

DEUTSCH: -- in this country? You can't believe that.

COULTER: -- you know, liberals on diversity --

DEUTSCH: Here you go again.

COULTER: No, it's true. I give all of these speeches at megachurches across America, and the one thing that's really striking about it is how utterly, completely diverse they are, and completely unself-consciously. You walk past a mixed-race couple in New York, and it's like they have a chip on their shoulder. They're just waiting for somebody to say something, as if anybody would. And --

DEUTSCH: I don't agree with that. I don't agree with that at all. Maybe you have the chip looking at them. I see a lot of interracial couples, and I don't see any more or less chips there either way. That's erroneous.

COULTER: No. In fact, there was an entire Seinfeld episode about Elaine and her boyfriend dating because they wanted to be a mixed-race couple, so you're lying.

DEUTSCH: Oh, because of some Seinfeld episode? OK.

COULTER: But yeah, I think that's reflective of what's going on in the culture, but it is completely striking that at these huge megachurches -- the idea that, you know, the more Christian you are, the less tolerant you would be is preposterous.

DEUTSCH: That isn't what I said, but you said I should not -- we should just throw Judaism away and we should all be Christians, then, or --

COULTER: Yeah.

DEUTSCH: Really?

COULTER: Well, it's a lot easier. It's kind of a fast track.

DEUTSCH: Really?

COULTER: Yeah. You have to obey.

DEUTSCH: You can't possibly believe that.

COULTER: Yes.

DEUTSCH: You can't possibly -- you're too educated, you can't -- you're like my friend in --

COULTER: Do you know what Christianity is? We believe your religion, but you have to obey.

DEUTSCH: No, no, no, but I mean --

COULTER: We have the fast-track program.

DEUTSCH: Why don't I put you with the head of Iran? I mean, come on. You can't believe that.

COULTER: The head of Iran is not a Christian.

DEUTSCH: No, but in fact, "Let's wipe Israel" --

COULTER: I don't know if you've been paying attention.

DEUTSCH: "Let's wipe Israel off the earth." I mean, what, no Jews?

COULTER: No, we think -- we just want Jews to be perfected, as they say.

DEUTSCH: Wow, you didn't really say that, did you?

COULTER: Yes. That is what Christianity is. We believe the Old Testament, but ours is more like Federal Express. You have to obey laws. We know we're all sinners --

DEUTSCH: In my old days, I would have argued -- when you say something absurd like that, there's no --

COULTER: What's absurd?

DEUTSCH: Jews are going to be perfected. I'm going to go off and try to perfect myself --

COULTER: Well, that's what the New Testament says.

DEUTSCH: Ann Coulter, author of If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans, and if Ann Coulter had any brains, she would not say Jews need to be perfected. I'm offended by that personally. And we'll have more Big Idea when we come back.

[...]

DEUTSCH: Welcome back to The Big Idea. During the break, Ann said she wanted to explain her last comment. So I'm going to give her a chance. So you don't think that was offensive?

COULTER: No. I'm sorry. It is not intended to be. I don't think you should take it that way, but that is what Christians consider themselves: perfected Jews. We believe the Old Testament. As you know from the Old Testament, God was constantly getting fed up with humans for not being able to, you know, live up to all the laws. What Christians believe -- this is just a statement of what the New Testament is -- is that that's why Christ came and died for our sins. Christians believe the Old Testament. You don't believe our testament.

DEUTSCH: You said -- your exact words were, "Jews need to be perfected." Those are the words out of your mouth.

COULTER: No, I'm saying that's what a Christian is.

DEUTSCH: But that's what you said -- don't you see how hateful, how anti-Semitic --

COULTER: No!

DEUTSCH: How do you not see? You're an educated woman. How do you not see that?

COULTER: That isn't hateful at all.

DEUTSCH: But that's even a scarier thought.

To sum up: Coulter: "we just want Jews to be perfected." There's not much to add to this except to remind everyone that she is basically the face of the Republican Party. The GOP, according to her, stands for being against Blacks, Hispanics, Gays, and now non-Christians. Yeah, we knew this to be the case but not actually SPOKEN ALOUD.

{2009 Update: Pic from here.}

Don't Sign That Petition

From Haaretz:

ADL warns Web users not to sign petition against anti-Semitic site

By Lisa Zilberpriver

The Anti-Defamation League on Monday issued a statement warning Internet users against signing an online petition to have Google remove the anti-Semitic Web site www.jewwatch.com from its search results for the word 'Jew'.

The petition, which was initiated in 2005 by an Internet user identified only as 'SMW' makes signatories' names publicly accessible. According to the ADL these have been posted to anti-Semitic Web sites which then published offensive commentary about them.

At the time of writing, the petition requesting Google ban the site from its results had 455178 signatories.

In response to the original petition, Google published a statement which appears below the anti-Semitic site when a search is performed, explaining that its searches are based on algorithms which cannot censor results.

ADL spokesperson Arieh O'Sullivan told Haaretz that his organization was aware of Google's explanation, but had requested Google respond to new allegations of signatories' names appearing on other Web sites.

I was worried about this. I hate online petitions for a number of reasons (e.g. nothing worthwhile comes from something of such little effort, online ANYTHING is dangerous), but this takes the cake. Our enemies *really* do study our behavior and know that the best way to attack us is to lunge for our sense of togetherness (petitions) and feelings of persecution.

Hat tip: EM. 2009 Update, pic from here.

More About Bollinger

As much as I'm loath to connect to anything by Jamie "True Grit" Kirchick, it's OK here because he's largely quoting someone else:

Lee Bollinger clearly considers himself to be a hero. It was so evident in his preening, faux-heroic speech on Monday, in which the Columbia University president valiantly told a Holocaust-denying, homosexual-murdering, genocide-inciting dictator "You exhibit all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator." What courage.

Several days ago, I received the following message from Helen Suzman, the legendary South African parliamentarian who spent 36 years in office opposing apartheid, often as the only voice of reason in that body.

Sir,

As a once-proud recipient of an Honorary Doctorate of Law from Columbia University, I am disgusted that its President Lee Bollinger should have provided a platform for Iranian President Ahmadinejad, who has more than once pronounced that Israel should be "wiped off the face of the earth". Does President Bollinger not know the difference between hate speech, which incites violence, and freedom of speech?

Helen Suzman

Lee Bollinger self-importantly thinks that he store down evil in the face on Monday. Helen Suzman actually made a career confronting it. A favorite anecdote concerns the hundreds of parliamentary questions she would submit every session, designed to expose the apartheid regime's abuse of human rights. A government minister shouted at her: "You put these questions just to embarrass South Africa overseas." To which she replied: "It is not my questions that embarrass South Africa. It is your answers."

Lee Bollinger has embarrassed his university, certainly in the eyes of liberals abroad like Mrs. Suzman,"once-proud" to have received an Honorary Doctorate of Law from the institution. Most recipients of honorary degrees from Ivy League universities would be hesitant to renounce such an accolade. But Mrs. Suzman is the recipient of 27 such honorary degrees from institutions like Harvard, Yale, Oxford, Cambridge, and many others. She can well afford it.

Even though Kirchick is a jackass, he's on target here.

More About Columbia's Hypocrisy

From the comments section of the New Republic's Marty Peretz's Spine, about Columbia U President Bollinger and his aiding/abetting anti-Semitic nonsense:

When there was a scandal at Columbia with anti-Semitic professors in 2005, he named a committee to investigate that.

Of the five faculty omn the committee, two had signed anti-Israel boycotts (Farah Jasmine Grifin and Jean Howard - subsequently promoted university vice-president). A third (Mark Mazower) had written Israel is Nazi and should not exist. A fourth was none other than lovely Lisa Anderson.

Lisa Anderson had been the PhD advisor of Joseph Massad (and recruited him as a faculty subsequently), one of the most anti-Semitic professors and one of the accused. So much for the honorable lawyer Bollinger handles conflict of interest. Lisa Anderson, as a dean, also invited Khaddafi at a Columbia conference (he din't come but addressed them by video) and then, one year later, invited Ahmadinejad at Columbia.

The man overseeing Bollinger's committee was Nicholas Dirks,a university vice-president who was one of the initiators of the anti-Israel boycott.

Not so surprising that Aminabalajad was invited, eh?

{2009 Update: pic from here.}

Columbia: Bad

As you doubtless have heard, Columbia University has invited Iranian "President" Mahmoud Aymamzer to speak at the University. Many have speculated whether Columbia would have been so gracious to even Hitler. Well speculate no longer, according to this clip, the Columbia dude says '(Zeig) Heil Yes!'

Note, as much as I'm loath to use Fox "News" as proof, it's been recycled through Vosizneias.com, so it's kosher.

Circumcision Letter to Sullivan

[Background: Andrew Sullivan thinks circumcision is just awful. He calls it MGM - Male Genital Mutilation. I don't know if there's a broader connection between his antipathy and his being a gay European - America circumcises all male babies as a matter of course and gay men probably venerate that organ more than others do. Whatever the reasoning, I don't like his position and wrote him this letter, to which he has not responded, neither to me personally or on his blog. Score another against him.]

Dear Andrew,

I've been reading your blog steadily for a few years now (and even subscribed to the print Atlantic because I was impressed that a magazine would the guts to have both you and Yglesias as bloggers) and I enjoy reading your perspective, especially because I do not agree with much of it.

It's in this context that I wish to comment about your on-and-off again criticism of circumcision. I am an Orthodox Rabbi and whenever I read a particularly intense post of yours attacking circumcision, I get a chill of fear. In Jewish history and tradition, to attack circumcision is to attack the heart of Judaism. It is the symbol of the Jewish male because it is the symbol of the covenant of Abraham.

(These articles, one from the Jewish Encyclopedia and another from the Christian Easton's Bible Dictionary give a good overview).

Naturally, I'm not positing that it's off-limits to criticize Judaism; Jewish law very well may be antagonistic to many of the things you hold dear. The fear I feel is from the historical linkage between those who attack Jewish practice and anti-Jewish violence. Some of the anti-Jewish edicts have been or are against kosher slaughter (cf. the Nazis) but traditional Jewish education emphasizes that our enemies have taken a special target
against circumcision.

For example, the holiday of Hanukkah (your mate Chris Hitchens' favorite, or so I'm told), is based on the rebellion against an evil government that prohibited circumcision:

From the Jewish Encyclopedia about "Antiochus":

"[Antiochus'] royal decree proclaimed the abolition of the Jewish mode of worship; Sabbaths and festivals were not to be observed; circumcision was not to be performed; the sacred books were to be surrendered and the Jews were compelled to offer sacrifices to the idols that had been erected. The officers charged with carrying out these commands did so with great rigor; a veritable inquisition was established with monthly sessions for investigation. The possession of a sacred book or the performance of the rite of circumcision was punished with death. "

The Hadrianic persecutions, of those fun-loving crucifixion happy Romans,
also forbade circumcision:

'Circumcision is one of the commandments which, having been accepted with joy, are ever obeyed with joy, and, because the people gave their lives for them, are observed with steadfast loyalty" (R. Simeon b. Eleazar, in [the Talmud]). This refers to the martyrdom which the Jewish people underwent during the Hadrianic persecution, which was especially directed against circumcision."

A modern enemy of circumcision was the Soviet Union
(see this page from an organization trying to reverse that history) - as part of their assault on religion, I would suppose.

Circumcision is thus both part of Jewish identity, a symbol of our commitment to God and a litmus test for a government's tolerance of freedom of religion and of Judaism.

Note, I don't think criticism of circumcision is invalid. Jewish law dictates that the life of the child comes before circumcision. For an example from my rabbinate: a congregant's child, born three weeks ago, has a medical condition and can't undergo circumcision until the doctors say the procedure will be risk free - which may be never. The circumcisions you are decrying are, for the most part, against Jewish law. As such, I agree with you that circumcision, were it to be done in a way that risks a boy's life, is evil.

Yet when you get into the deeper ideologies against circumcision you need to know about which alarm bells you are inadvertently ringing. For me, I hear the alarm bells of the Greek persecution, the Roman slaughter, and the Soviet Union.

And just as being anti-Zionist does not make someone anti-Semitic; the anti-Zionists who are *not* anti-Semitic need to know that they share odious company. So too with those who oppose circumcision: there may be good reasons to do so but you need to work hard to make sure you're not lumped in with the wicked historical bedfellows.

Thank you for all the work you do on your blog
All the best,
The Styx

P.S. Two professional mohelim (circumcision rabbis) who may be effective in answering questions you have about how a proper, healthy, circumcision is done are Rabbi Phil Sherman and Rabbi Pinchas Katzenstein

Sept 7 Postscript: The boy mentioned in my letter will, BE"H, have his bris this Sunday.

2009 Update, picture is a sculpture of Hadrian killing a Jew, according to here. Backpost finished 9/7/07.