Ismail's Comments | Jewcy.com

"...which were perpetrated ... 12/03/08 5:08 pm

"...which were perpetrated by people much closer to his creed than to mine"

My creed? You mean the perpetrators of the Mumbai savagery worshipped at the altar of Billie Holiday? Maybe there's a little good in everyone after all.

Note that this worthless dimwit apparently believes I am a Muslim and goes on to make the usual scurrilous implication of all Muslims with the acts of murderers. First, I'm not a Muslim (as Joe E. Brown famously remarked, nobody's perfect). Second, if I were, why should I apologize for the actions of some of my co-religionists? Does Kaine feel the need to apologize for the actions of Jewish criminals?

And Christian blood in all kosher food? Don't assume that all gentiles have a "goyische kopf" and fall for such silly, baseless slander.

Everyone knows it only goes into the matzoh.

Whoops. There you go ... 12/03/08 3:05 pm

Whoops. There you go again.

"...despite your inexplicable support for Hamas..."

As I've explained to you before, my feelings about Hamas are quite a bit more complicated than your remark suggests. For the benefit of the newbies out there, let me recap; I oppose religious states of any variety and so would not welcome an Islamic state in Palestine-bad news for Hamas if they're looking for my endorsement. I condemn the killing of innocents. To the extent that Hamas has undertaken such crimes, I condemn them.

Now for the good news. Hamas has not participated in the massive theft from the Palestinian people engineered by Arafat and his successors in Fatah. It has delivered food, education, health care etc.to its constituents. It has put forth a credible military threat to those who murder its people, as patriots ought to do. And please, do not wag your finger at the hurling of flying pipes into Sderot while you remain (nearly) silent about the ongoing destruction of Palestinian society by Israel.

And yes, I know that some Hamas clerics have made revolting, anti-Semitic remarks. Why anyone would resort to crackpot fictions when Israeli behavior is so condemnable on ordinary humanitatrian grounds I'll never know, but that's people for you. Anyway, you know that there are any number of Israelis, both clerics and secular politicians who don't have the excuse of obeying the commands of a peevish Sky-Daddy, who've said equally horrible things about Arabs. I'd argue that their behavior is in fact worse, in much the same way that Richard Pryor making fun of nasal honky speech is more acceptable than a white guy doing Amos 'n Andy shtick-relations of power make a difference.

Look, the people of Palestine deserve better than either Fatah or Hamas. But I reject the simplistic equation of Hamas with nothing but terrorism and the attendant proscription of talking with them. This is no way to achieve peace.

Besides, I've had it with those fuckers at Hamas ever since Farfur dissed my mom's hummus recipe.

"...your belief that Israel is the worst aggressor on the planet..."

When have I made such a statement? This must be your hyperthyroid way of saying that I find no problem with directing criticism at Israel despite there being other malefactors, maybe even worse ones, lurking about the place. As I've painstakingly explained before, my position is precisely that a nation need not be "the worst aggressor on the planet" to correctly be the focus of one's political disapproval. You must stop claiming otherwise.

"...your conflation of Zionism with racism...."

Again, let's be precise. Zionism makes two interesting claims, near as I can tell: First, that Jews constitute a nation, and second, that the best realization of that nation's interests is to be found in its own state. As for the first, who knows? To paraphrase the excellent old joke, if there were no one left on earth but two Jews, there would be three opinions about what constitutes Jewishness. As for the second, I am no Goldhagen-ite; I believe that history moves on, and that we are happily at a place in which Jews may be assured of full rights and influence in virtually any Western country (insofar as non-western countries go, all bets are off, and not just for Jews). But look, if some Jews think they need a state and they can arrange to found one in agreement with the affected parties, go to town. I have no principled objection-who, besides Naturei Karta types, would?

So far, no racism. But if we jump from the airy precincts of theory to the actual instantiation of Zionism in Palestine, we have another story. Three-quarters of a million indigenes swept from their homes? Civil privileges reserved for Jewish citizens? Until recently, driver's licenses distinguishing citizens by nationality? Niceties like building permits doled out effectively according to nationality? Arab areas consistently underfunded in areas of civil necessities (schooling, infrastructure, etc)? Yup, racism.

Now, I know you are capable of such cognitive precision as is required to appreciate these points, yet you insist on saddling me with your bumper-sticker version of my beliefs. I can only assume that you do this for the most sordid propagandistic reasons. This is beneath you, and must stop. I'm looking out for your soul, bro.

"...Ron's (point) pertained exclusively to the insanity of a capital murder charge leveled against an Iraqi statesman whose only crime was visiting an enemy nation."

Well, no. Ron's point was to throw up his hands at yet another Arab perfidy. No one in the Jewcy audience needs to be convinced that impeding travel or killing an opponent's family are wrong-at least when those crimes are committed by Arabs (see my earlier remarks about Rosenbaum's indifference to travel restrictions when the victims are Palestinian Fulbright scholars).

Consider: I'm sure you've seen one or two of those noxious sites littering the ether which delight in posting mugshots of African-Americans along with hyperventilating lists of their transgressions. Is it true that Black communities suffer more from certain sorts of crimes than do White ones? Sure. Do ghettos produce a lot of crackheads? Yup-white people prefer their cocaine in more expensive forms. Most of us understand these sad facts as legacies of America's unhappy racial history. No one is surprised to learn that poverty and discrimination have awful consequences. But the point of such websites is not to inform-it is to gloat and to reinforce ugly stereotypes.

So it is with Rosenbaum, who is tireless in his broadcast of Arab malfeasance. Or maybe you think there is a benighted constituency out there which needs to be convinced that travel restrictions and killing people are bad policies?

You are right that Israel imposes no death penalty upon those who transgress its prohibition against travelling to meet with unfavored entities. This is because, for one reason, Israel doesn't have a death penalty at all-unless you count those carried out without reference to such niceties as courts, hearings etc. Is the death penalty the issue, though? Would Rosenbaum be fine with imprisoning an Iraqi legislator who went to Israel, as Israel has threatened to do to those who would speak to its enemies?

So here you are, trafficking in those same old manufactured complaints. In light of this, I'll have to amend my earlier Orson Welles reference: Paul Masson's promise was, "We will sell no wine before its time". Michael's appears to be, "I will try to sell the same old whine, time after time".

Thanks, Shmarya, for your ... 12/03/08 12:37 pm

Thanks, Shmarya, for your very informative pieces on Postville and Agriprocessors. On the behalf of all decent human beings, let me apologize for the disgraceful comments of Herbert Kaine, who tries to make ideological capital from the tragedy in Mumbai and maligns you in the process.

In an effort to remove from our collective mouth the bad taste left by the filthy Kaine, I will relate an amusing story which bears tangentially upon Agriprocessors.

Informed by the peerless obsessionals at Cook's Illustrated of the gustatory superiority of Aaron's Best poultry, I was delighted to find that my local Trader Joe's carried that Rubashkin brand. I stopped purchasing same once the problems at Postville became known.

Just before Thanksgiving, I noticed that Trader Joe's was offering kosher turkeys at a good price. The birds were marketed under the Trader Joe's name, though, and bore no further identification, so I asked the earnest young fellow at the customer service counter about the turkey's provenance, lest I unwittingly line the pockets of the latter-day robber barons of Postville. He said he wasn't sure which company TJ's bought the birds from but that he would find out for me.

A few minutes later, the lad returned, beaming. I must have missed the company's name on the packaging, he told me, but it was there, plain as day. The turkeys came from the Glatt company. Glatt Kosher, to be precise.

Gentiles. You gotta love us.

"Was he not aware of it? I ... 12/03/08 10:16 am

"Was he not aware of it? I hope that’s the reason, rather than that he left it out knowingly."

Pot, meet kettle. As he suggests that Friedman knowingly omitted a significant datum from his story, Rosenbaum refers to Friedman's mention of a petition supporting al-Alusi in "an Iraqi newspaper". But Friedman actually names the paper in his piece; it's "Al-Umma al-Iraqiya". Why is this significant? Because the paper is the house organ of the Iraqi Umma Party. And who leads this party? Why, al-Alusi, of course. So did Rosenbaum leave this fact out on purpose, or did he just not know? Hmmmm?

More on al-Alusi: upon his return from the Light Unto Nations, he announced that, "In Israel, there is no occupation-there is liberalism". Interesting viewpoint, that, and likely to come as a shock to the besieged indigenes of Palestine. And attending a counterterrorism conference in Israel hardly qualifies the plucky Iraqi for a merit badge. Let's recall that Israel's counterterrorism measures include the withholding of pharmaceuticals from infants, forcing a captive population to subsist on animal feed, et al.

Of course, none of this excuses the brutal and unpardonable extra-judicial killings perpetrated by the monsters who killed al-Alusi's sons (extra-judicial killings are another counterterrorism measure favored by Israel, let's remember), and al-Alusi should be free to travel wherever he wishes.

I wonder if Rosenbaum's respect for this freedom extends to the Gazan scholars forbidden by their Israeli masters to travel to the universities which have awarded them scholarships? How about the freedom of elderly cancer-ridden farmers to travel for medical treatment? Or the freedom of spouses to visit one another?

And this is my point. Of course political murder is loathesome, and of course the freedom to travel ought to remain unfettered. But Rosenbaum's attachment to these values is highly contingent. The political murder of al-Alusi's sons is horrifying evidence the undying, feral impulses of the Wog, but the political murder of several families in a Gaza apartment block-well, that's no murder at all, just regrettable collateral damage. Preventing a legislator from meeting with a brutal occupying power-primitivism, pure and simple. And if Israel forbids an MK from talking to, say, Hamas? Good common sense from The Only Democracy in the Middle East.

This is of a piece with breathless Western reporting on, say, honor killings in Jordan (15 to 20 a year, according to the BBC) despite US per capita rates of murders of women by men far in excess of those in the Hashemite gated community. Of course, the Jordanian killings are performed by exotic sand apes, driven by an unquenchable, prehistoric bloodlust, while American killers of women are properly socialized feminists who've just slipped up a little.

I blame Weiss for this. Despite my inexplicable affection for the little guy, I denounce in the strongest possible terms his packing the joint with such wreckage as Rosenbaum and Chesler, both of them nasty viruses he seems to have picked up during his stay at Pajamas Media. At one time, Michael was responsible for bringing us the excellent Koffler; now, it's these two. You're too young for such a disgraceful plummet, Mike. Orson Welles took 30 years to go from "Citizen Kane" to hawking Paul Masson wine.

While I remain dismayed at ... 12/01/08 1:35 pm

While I remain dismayed at the addition of the irrelevant Chesler to Jewcy's roster, I must agree that the restriction upon women's right to worship as they please that she describes is appalling. Of course, singling out this particular sin while The Light Unto Nations continues to starve children in Gaza betrays a highly idiosyncratic hierarchy of outrage, don't you think?

I was especially brought to attention by this Cheslerian gem, though: "...Chief Justice Aharon Barak, a man who has been able to find justice for Palestinian Arabs, both Christians and Jews but not for Jewish women."

I suspect Chesler meant to say "Muslims" rather than "Jews" (unless there are lots of Jewish Palestinian Arabs I didn't know about), but more important is the disgraceful racism implicit in her complaint. She's indignant that a magistrate who can dispense justice to Palestinians withholds same from Jewish women. What can this mean?

1. The judge acts against Chesler's sisters because they are Jewish, i.e., he's an anti-Semite. Probably not what she meant.

2. The judge acts against Chesler's sisters because they are women. Serious charge, but remember that Chesler compares the judge's actions towards these women to his behavior towards "Palestinian Arabs", among whom, I am reliably informed, may be found numerous women. So that can't be it.

3. Maybe the judge has it in for folks who are both Jewish and women? See 1, above.

4. Perhaps Chesler's asking, "How could an official of a Jewish state be more compassionate to non-Jews than he is to Jews?" Ahh, I think we're getting warmer. First, we have the assumption that the judge's findings are best understood with reference to the plaintiff's ethnicity. But perhaps those Palestinians just had a good case. Next, note the expectation that the civil operations of a democratic state should be somehow informed by religious/ethnic/cultural privilege. I love it when partisans of Right-wing Zionism give the game away in this fashion.

Again, why compare Arab to Jewish outcomes in the way Chesler does unless one feels that Jews ought to get a better shake in Israel than other Israeli citizens do? And if that's the case, no fair crowing about democracy.

"You really scary (sic) me, ... 11/24/08 4:28 pm

"You really scary (sic) me, Ismail."

Didn't realize you were so easily frightened. Calm down. You may be a shameless apologist for evil, but I mean you no harm.

"I had pancakes tonight, though without the lingonberries. How did you know?"

C'mon. Doesn't most of your writing assume an omnipresent Islamofascist threat? You must know we're watching you. By the way, next time, don't beat the batter quite so long-develops gluten, makes for tougher pancakes.

And yes, you correctly identified the picture. Must feel odd to have gotten something right. But why do you find it a curious choice?

What a stunning riposte. And ... 11/24/08 2:42 pm

What a stunning riposte. And further evidence of young Widen's abject cluelessness.

First, unless you're the most primitive sort of essentialist, it appears that Wittgenstein was no Jew at all, good or bad. His mom's father (but not mother) was Jewish, so he's already in halachically goyische territory; nor was Judaism the house religion. While his dad's family was Jewish, they converted to Protestantism. Ludwig himself was raised Catholic.

Secondly, he didn't kill himself, unless you believe that people give themselves cancer.

Thirdly, if he had, it would not have been to outfox the nazis, who had themselves passed away several years before Ludwig's demise in 1951.

Finally, are you really so bereft of factual ammunition that you must resort to stupid insults like implying that I would have anything whatsoever to do with killing anyone? (Before any Widen supporters leap to their keyboards with an outraged "Ismail's not one to talk! He insults people all the time!", please note the modifier "stupid"; mine tend to be related to my target's inaccuracies and are reliably witty.)

Of course, having had a look at your droppings at this site, I shouldn't be surprised to find you historically ignorant and morally empty.

The point of your reply, of course, is to equate my horror at the monstrousness of Israel's policies towards the Palestinians with a fondness for "killing Jews". This underhanded bullshit may fly at your Likudnik get-togethers, but the minimally discerning reader will have none of it.

You'll find those lingonberries go quite well with pancakes. Go enjoy a stack, and stop pretending you know anything.

Look, I understand that my ... 11/24/08 9:07 am

Look, I understand that my own views regarding the Middle East are considerably to the left than those of even the most enlightened Jewcer, and I'm happy to consider the viewpoints of others, but for heaven's sake, must we suffer this tsunami of horseshit from poor Widen?

"The informal truce between Israel and Hamas..."

Why "informal", given that the truce was announced on 7/18/08 by governments of both parties, complete with exact time and date of commencement. Perhaps Widen means "informal" in recognition of the casual regard with which Israel reliably treats its commitments to such agreements.

"...IDF soldiers darted 250 meters into the Gaza Strip and blew up a tunnel."

Kudos to Widen for correctly describing the causal direction of the current hostilities. As usual, Israel concocts a justification for intensifying the siege it continues to carry out against an entire population (in contravention of international law, by the way, an entity Israel regards as it would a unicorn-pretty, but entirely fictional) . Extra credit for shoehorning mention of Iranian materiel in there.

"Four Hamas terrorists were killed..."

Please advise re use of "terrorist" here. Were these particular Hamas men terrorists with reference to some standard other than their membership in Hamas, or is "Hamas terrorist" a redundancy in the Widen worldview?

"Israel has suspended the transfer of humanitarian goods to the Strip following the renewed attacks on its civilians..."

For those readers who are not residents of Wonderland (if you're unsure, check for pink, feathered croquet mallets in your immediate vicinity), this line should read:

"Israel has increased its baseline level of snarling indifference to human life by by allowing even fewer necessities into Gaza than usual, this on top of breaking a truce yet again"

"...yet the terrorists continue with their theatrical vows of revenge as if their words actually meant something."

Let's see, Hamas is just a bunch of impotent blowhards, then? So no worries about the 140 rockets? Ashkelon may carry on as normal? Can't have it both ways, pal.

"Not only is every military response immediately branded as disproportionate, but even a non-military response such as the closing of border crossings is condemned off hand. It has come to the point where Israel can't even scratch its nose in response to these rocket attacks, much less pick it."

Wah. Poor Israel. It deprives infants of antibiotics with the predictable consequences, and the next thing you know, a bunch of anti-Semitic bleeding hearts start whining.

First, lose the nose metaphor, which is senseless. More important, be specific with your claims. Has Israel's every action really been called "disproportionate"? Do you think any have actually been so, or is Israel incapable of disproportionate action? What is your gauge of proportionality?

Next, please explain how a brutal blockade, enforced by the region's most powerful army, is construed as "non-military"?

As for the "boiled frog" metaphor, it is entirely apt, not in the way Widen meant, but with reference to ezg's and Zeevico's comments. Both casually consider the effacement of a people in terms of cost, loss of popularity, etc., as cold-bloodedly as any nazi. This is what comes with fealty to the perpetrators of a forty-year occupation -the eating away of one's ethical faculties, slowly, invisibly, rendering them as lifeless as that frog, blithely unaware of what's becoming of him.

I see young Widen hails from Sweden. I suggest looking into a career preparing lingonberry jam, which holds out greater promise for him than this article suggests the journalism route does.

Hey Isaac- "From the ... 11/22/08 1:31 pm

Hey Isaac-

"From the president-elect, who broke previous campaign-fundraising records by collecting more small contributions from anyone else..."

Whoops. Maybe more as an absolute number, but as a matter of actual fact, a greater proportion of McCain contributions were of the "smaller than $200" variety. Surely the percentage of small contributions is the more interesting measure.

As for as the preposterous quote from Obama goes, how can you take such rubbish seriously? He received far more money from the finance/insurance sector than did McCain, and he has already surrounded himself with the most horrifying collection of business-as-usual Clinton retreads imaginable.

Very sorry that you too appear to have quaffed so deeply from the same cup o' delusions as has the bulk of the American Liberal community.

Obama is a con man of Olympian proportions.

Eat your heart out, Dave Barry ... 11/22/08 10:46 am

I congratulate Jewcy on having hired a humor columnist and look forward to more hilarity from Ms. Reader.

I suggest adding horoscopes and a crossword puzzle next.

"Because Nader's such an ... 11/20/08 8:06 pm

"Because Nader's such an expert on what constitutes a betrayal of the hopes, dreams and aspirations of Black Americans, right?....To take your comment seriously, one would have to assume as much."

Hello again, Isaac.

Why do you frame your disagreement with Nader in this way? Are you saying he's not such an expert (which no one says he is-only that he has an opinion)? I hope you're not suggesting that, as a demi-honkie (Arab heritage, remember), he is unqualified to pronounce upon matters racial. We hear a variant of this preposterous trope from women who think men's opinions about abortion are less valid owing to that pesky Y chromosome, among others. You couldn't be discounting someone's opinion because of their melanin deficiencies, could you?

If not, then what are you saying, other than that you disagree with the excellent Nader?

The real story here is not ... 11/20/08 9:32 am

The real story here is not that Zawahiri dissed Obama, but that Obama achieved the level of support in the Arab world that he did. This surely represents an epidemic of delusion about Obama's progressive bona fides almost as significant as that which ran like wildfire through America's Left community.

Your swipe at Nader puzzles me. Nader believes that Obama's policies will be bad for the poor, an exceptional number of whom in the US are African-American. More specifically, he believes that Obama has allied himself with corporate actors whose interests necessarily disadvantage the poor, and he has done this to further his own rise to power.

And, as Obama and his supporters have reminded us for years, his race is crucial to understanding who he is and what his significance to American politics represents. But surely this cuts both ways. If a black man acts against the interests of black people in general, this is properly seen as different in interesting ways from a white man's doing the same. And if he is seen as doing so in an effort to cozy up to the forces responsible for his people's miseries, well, history and literature have provided us with a pithy descriptor-Uncle Tom.

Again, if an anti-Semitic holocaust denier happens to be Jewish, we raise an eyebrow just a tad higher than we would if she were not, and if literature provided us with a model for such a person, rather than the clunky "self-hating jew", we would use it. Yet again, we have a word for Jewish betrayers of Jews-kapo- while Gentile betrayers are simply monsters. This is because we intuitively understand that there is something distinct and notable about intragroup betrayal.

So you may disagree with Nader's politics, but to take to the fainting couch because he used a term that precisely describes his take on Obama's perfidy, one which furthermore acknowledges the Obamanoids insistence that our understanding of their candidate must necessarily be informed by the category of race-well, that's just the prissiest sort of PC nonsense.

I don't want to belabor this ... 11/20/08 8:37 am

I don't want to belabor this issue, since it's clear that the poobahs of Jewcy have made up their minds and it is, after all, their store. I would note, though, that my main concern-that the decision to change the comments policy was taken without notice to or consultation with Jewcy's users-remains unacknowledged and unaddressed.

Even the Grey Lady's dotty spinster auntie, The Boston Globe (my hometown paper) alerts its readers when it decides to re-format its comics page or run Wednesday's recipes on Monday. This is simple courtesy.

By the way, I like Comment Is Free quite a bit. I trust myself to winnow the substantive from the empty, and if the reasoned analyses of the sober were not studded with the splenetic eruptions of malcontents, I'd feel poorer.

But I don't think you need to worry about succumbing to anarchy if you allowed an open commentariat. The Guardian has a couple more readers than Jewcy, at least for now, so there's no immediate danger of Jewcy's being overrun by hordes of Robs, as you suggest CIF has been.

Recently,I’ve had an ... 11/19/08 9:07 am

Recently,I’ve had an email conversation or two with the honchos at Jewcy regarding comments policies, banning and related matters. Since my concerns are grounded mainly in notions of community, it makes more sense to bring them to the netizenry rather than just having private conversations with our overlords.

A shorttime ago, Jewcy changed its comments policy such that unregistered users may no longer post their thoughts. I happen to think that this represents a wrong turn-why not let a hundred flowers bloom, even if this allows for a stinkweed or two? Alert readers may recall my earlier, unregistered comments, each a miracle of wit and analysis, bringing to the conceptually thirsting reader the sweet nectar of my insights. How many immiserated Jewcy users will be denied the riches of how many new Ismails, now that maverick non-joiners are forbidden a voice?

But reasonable people may disagree, and I’ve heard coherent arguments for requiring registration. What bothers me is that no one, reasonable or not, has had the opportunity to discuss this change-it just appeared one day, without notice or rationale, and this seems to me to violate crucial elements of the idea of community that I suspect most Jewcers embrace; transparency, participation, a genuine interest on the part of ruling cabal to know the minds of us users.What we lost by not hearing what I’m sure would have been a thoughtful and impassioned discussion is not balanced by potentially being spared the dull or blockheaded stupidities of this troll or that.

Which brings me to Rob. It’s not clear to me why this nuisance was banned. I urge readers to have a look at Jewcy’s comments policy, last revised 9 months ago and still, I’m told, a work in progress. As it stands, the policy proscribes,“…comments (that) are blatantly racist, sexist or homophobic…(as well as)…anything personally defamatory or insulting…”, in addition to spamming, sock puppetry and endless cut and pastes. My own inclination would be to make the criteria stricter-i.e., to make it harder to be banned. I’m thinking out and out libel,pornography (unless funny or truly hot)- but constructions like “personallydefamatory or insulting” give me the willies. Shall we decaffeinate Hemingway v. Stein? Hellman v. McCarthy? Vidal v. Capote? Defamations and insults galore,and we are the better for them.

So how did Rob violate the policy? (and I shouldn’t have to say this, but Rob’s emissions here have been absolute anathema to me on many grounds-he’s dull,repetitive, humorless, a political caveman; I’ve had better conversations with my dog, and she’s a particularly dull instance of her breed. By the way, was that insulting? Defamatory? Should I be banned?). Michael cites Rob’s jejune misapprehensions about neo-conservatism, his humorlessness, his stylistic infelicities. But these failings would disqualify several busloads of contributors (sorry, Jewcy commenters, but you know who you are.) Michael also cites Rob’s confusing someone else’s comment with his (Michael’s) and lacking the grace to acknowledge his mistake when so informed. So he’s an insecure lout, which shouldn’t be an actionable offense. But the clincher seems to have been Rob’s remark to Tara, which I cite in its entirety:

HeyTara

Where were you when this site was showing Larry Flint's porno on Palin?

Spare me your sisterhood BS. Your a phony.

Now I suspect that Michael is a fine guy to work for, but perhaps his chivalry and paternal protectiveness towards his colleagues were more responsible than the content of Rob’s ungrammatical little bark for his outrage. Really, do those lines, desperate and shriveled as they may show their author to be, warrant banishment? Answer:nope. To construe these impotent and splenetic yips as violations of the comments policy requires such a stretch as to make the trials of Procrustes seem like a Pilates class.

Look,if you’re searching for evidence of Rob’s noisomeness, you have only to note that he’s been friended by the right-Zionist harpy Karol Sheinen. (Uh oh. Defamatory? Insulting?). This is a mark of infamy far more damning than his silly bleats of pique.

The whole affair has an unpalatable, ad hoc timbre, and I’m afraid I catch a whiff of the popular kids ganging up on the social misfit. Having been a pudgy and bookish maladroit before the Miracle of Adolescence gifted me with the sleek and well-contoured form I (and others) enjoyed in my prime, maybe I’m especially sensitive to this dynamic, but I say that Jewcy”s ruling class is acting like a feral pack of Heathers.

I retain the romanticized notions of Jewish culture that I think I may have alluded to before in some comment or other; the almost fetishistic embrace of dispute, a suspicion of hierarchies, a commitment to democratic participation,an ear for the smallest voice (note: an attachment to right-wing Zionism tends to mitigate these virtues. Bad for the Jews…and for us all). As an example,my favorite narrative from the Catholic school canon was the story of the barely-pubescent Jesus, more wiseass pisher than Deity, flummoxing the rabbis with his command of halachic nuance and his argumentative wizardry. To my delight and amazement, the graybeards didn’t scold or ostracize the little upstart; on the contrary, they marveled at his erudition. Very ironic that this tale was offered in a school where the tiniest particle of dissent would get you pasted in the face by a dessicated Irish spinster in medieval drag. Guess the moral was that you could question your betters as long as you were Hashem's kid, but otherwise...

So maybe I labor under a narrow or caricatured or optimistic idea of Jewish culture, but I don’t expect this sort of thing-disembodied authority,pronouncements from on high, no discussion- from the folks running this site.

Or have you guys secretly started taking Communion?

"...questions have ... 10/01/08 7:00 pm

"...questions have arisen..."

"..apparently..."

"...it appears that..."

Never have I read such a decisive exposure of Obama's chicanery! I'm sold!

Seriously, dude, why would such a rough, tough, gun-totin' maverick as yourself resort to such transparent weaselisms as this?

Actually, Rob, if you read ... 10/01/08 6:47 pm

Actually, Rob, if you read Ahmadinejad's recent interview with Amy Goodman (http://www.democracynow.org), you'll see that he did not mean that there were no gays in Iran in the sense that there are no unicorns there. The actual quote was

"In Iran, we don’t have homosexuals like in your country. We don’t have that in our country."

The emphasis is on "like in your country", that is, free to express their sexuality, demand rights , participate openly in civil society, etc. He knows full well that some Iranis are gay, he just wants them to keep it to themselves. Of course, he's a huge asshat for promoting such foolish and cruel restrictions upon the human spirit, but it's best for all of us to oppose his actual bigotries rather than invent fictional ones.

Oh, and he never threatened to wipe Israel off the map, either. He merely predicted Zionism's eventual place upon the trash heap of history. Quite right about that, even if he's a dunce re human liberty.

Hey, I just realized that ... 09/29/08 6:02 pm

Hey, I just realized that Bong-Hit Max called me a cow! Max, watch out for that negative energy, dude. That shit'll fuck with your karma.

But I wonder, why a cow? These are, after all, dull and unthinking beasts, slow and herdlike; surely no one, regardless of their dislike of my politics or demeanor, would describe me in those terms. Shark, maybe, or porcupine-disagreeable creatures, but I could see how someone who didn't like me might make that connection. But cow?

Or does he mean that I'm sacred? Does he want to make shoes out of me? Or perhaps a nice leather stash pouch? Would he fancy me on a bun with some lettuce and a slice of tomato?

I'm stumped. Tell us, dude. What in the world was making its painful way across your abused synapses when you said that?

and another... ... 09/29/08 7:12 am

Yes, that's really me

Calling myself out up there

Not an imposter.

More ad hominems From that ... 09/29/08 7:09 am

More ad hominems

From that nasty Ismail.

Damn latte sipper.

monday's haiku ... 09/29/08 7:07 am

The ninny rogue jew.

Like farts in a tiny room

His thoughts circulate.

"I needed a Rabies vaccine ... 09/28/08 6:03 pm

"I needed a Rabies vaccine after leaving."

Dude, you needed one from the get-go.

And do you really see no difference

between watching an outdoor parade

and "attending a gathering"?

Isaac, thanks for your kind words and your

suggestion re indenting until House Wizard

Craig swoops in and makes everything

better again.

As a bonus, indenting makes everyone's

comments look like poetry.

Grow a cerebral cortex, Rob. ... 09/27/08 10:03 pm
Grow a cerebral cortex, Rob. I didn't call for censorship of anyone, including such dildos as yourself and your pal Rogue.

Hey, Craig! The left hand ... 09/27/08 11:17 am
Hey, Craig! The left hand margin of the comments fields is acting up. The leftmost couple of words in each line are being eliminated. Help!

Where did you come from? Has ... 09/27/08 11:15 am

Where did you come from? Has Jewcy become so starved for content that it's giving space to such a hackneyed and uninteresting presentation of the conservative viewpoint?

And making the first comment on your own thread? Which does nothing more than restate the thread's one tiny idea? Very lame. Simply not done.

This silly film whose ideas you apparently endorse faults liberals for not entertaining other perspectives. Let me ask how open you are to the alternatives to the notions you embrace; guns, no wealth distribution, limited government et al? Why is it a plus to be open to ideas one has already examined and rejected? This idea-people should be tolerant of their opponents' ideas-is one of those formulae which sounds like it means something but upon even the most superficial examination is shown to be senseless or trivial. Sure, express yourself all you want, let a hundred flowers bloom, but please-don't ask me to anything but agree or disagree.

And those awful latte-drinking NY liberals the film depicts; what exactly is their great sin? Robustly and unequivocally denouncing the medieval perspectives of McCain/Palin? Please. (And by the way, how about retiring such hoary tropes as "latte-drinking"? Uncreative, cliched and dumb. Reach for a novel slur, how about?)

Honestly, it'd be great to hear from an intelligent conservative, but these warmed-over automatisms are nothing but a sleep aid.

Who knew Ted Nugent was Jewish?

Jay- Your heart seems to be ... 09/26/08 8:32 am

Jay-

Your heart seems to be in the right place, my friend, but I think your politics may need a little nudge to the left.

First, you address your remarks to "my more conservative countrymen" who you claim ignored the signs that Bush's Iraq policy was lunacy. Which conservatives? Kerry? HRC? The entire Democratic establishment, all of whom enthusiastically enabled the criminal enterprise in Mesopotamia?

Regarding bank deregulation, you are of course aware that the Glass-Steagall disaster, a foundational component of financial deregulation, was shepherded through by the arch-conservative Bill Clinton (as was the entire Reaganian smorgasbord of NAFTA-GATT, welfare "reform", et al.)

And conservatives have no lock on voting for appearance over substance. You'll recall the hapless Texan Kirk Watson, an Obama supporter who couldn't come up with a single legislative accomplishment of the hallowed bag of wind from Illinois. I myself have witnessed this same political vacancy on the faces of my many friends who are gaga over Barack.

I entirely agree with you that McCain, Palin and the rest of Bush's progeny are drooling moral neanderthals, but your implicit imprimatur to the Democrats is problematic (I say "implicit" because I assume that by "conservative" you are excluding the Democratic establishment. If I am wrong, my apologies).

Vote Nader!

"You almost had me convinced ... 09/22/08 7:41 pm

"You almost had me convinced that the Middle East would be a utopian bastion of political enlightenment were it only not for the United States and Israel."

I wonder where you got that crackpot idea-certainly not from me. Oh, yeah, I remember-that's one of the hoariest Zionist ploys around; someone decries the specific actions of Israel and they become saddled with the lunatic notion, which no rational person has ever claimed, that the Levant would be a paradise absent Zionist thuggery.

Guess what. If US racism disappeared tomorrow, there would still be serious problems in America. Shall I therefore not fight racism?

The history lesson re prior Islamic satraps is simply not apposite. Who cares?

My advice? Don't be a putz. If you want to argue that the US has shown a serious interest in brokering a peace in the Levant, go for it. If you think that Israel is ready to do what it takes to achieve a two-state solution, be my guest and demonstrate same. That is, address the topic.

But I'd can your clumsy attempts to argue against a position that I simply haven't proposed.

And, yes, you're a very clever lad and recite unrelated particles of history quite nicely. Good for you. OK, one cookie and off to bed with you. Sleep tight.

"In conclusion, that is why ... 09/22/08 7:57 am

"In conclusion, that is why Iran is a threat and why I think I should be elected class president."

Thank goodness for your sense of humor, which lends at least one modest virtue to your writings.

"Iran ... funds a plethora of 'resistance' movements in the Middle East. ... This destabilises Iraq."

Oddly, some folks believe that the unwarranted and craven invasion of Iraq by the US might have a teensy bit to do with the destabilization of that unhappy land. Go figure.

"...such as Hezballah, Fatah or Hamas."

Hamas, as even the casual student of the area must know, is a Sunni organization and as such is unlikely to be funded by Shia Iran. But these petty details mean little to those who prefer to imagine an undifferentiated and irrational Arab population motivated by hatred and not politics.

"This destabilises the situation in Israel and the Palestinian territories."

Funny, some of us think the 40 year Israeli occupation, with its attendant slaughter of children and ongoing sociocide, has a bit of a destabilizing effect upon the region. Again, go figure.

"Achieving a stable democratic Iraq and a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, along the lines of a two-state solution, are key perceived American interests, as is the move towards democratic rule in Lebanon."

This is perhaps your most hilarious sentence, a fantasy whose absolute detachment from reality should be apparent to anyone. The US has resolutely supported each and every settlement-expanding, cluster bomb-sowing, infanticidal border-closing, medication-embargoing horror that Israel has chosen to perpetrate. If the US were genuinely interested in a resolution, it would need only to insist that its Zionist client abide by the numberless resolutions it flouts daily.

"Hezballah is not helping matters in Iraq or Lebanon."

Odd how many Lebanese think otherwise. Maybe its because the impotent Lebanese army, when it wasn't colluding with Israeli atrocities, was unable to end either Israeli occupation of Lebanon, while Hizbollah did so twice.

"I understand you disagree with the basis of America's endeavour to achieve peace in the Middle East. "

Not exactly. I see little reason to believe, given the US's behavior in the Middle East, that it has a robust interest in achieving peace there.

Zeevico- I don't think I ... 09/21/08 9:29 am

Zeevico-

I don't think I understand your point. My first response is to say that, in a discussion of what percentage of white blood-15% or 20%-should be required for voting rights, I wouldn't feel constrained to couch my reply within the discourse of those who would give a number greater than zero for an answer.

Similarly, the point here is that the dominant American perspective on the Middle East is nuts. To accept its terms is to give up.

But this is obvious, so you must mean something else. Perhaps you can clarify.

"Unbelievably, the radicals ... 09/17/08 3:14 pm

"Unbelievably, the radicals will make this claim, with a gun to our heads (sic)....."

"Of course, this is the ultimiate goal of socialism which takes on all parental roles on behalf of parents. Down and down we go--where it stops, nobody knows."

"Today, we can speak up on behalf of parents--tomorrow's brave new world the state will assume it all..."

Hello. This is Planet Earth speaking. Today, at 1:35 PM, David N. Friedman officially propelled himself from my surface into the unknowable regions of deepest outer space. Those interested may observe him in the night sky, finally free from the gravitational pull of reason, logic and good sense, hurtling towards the limitless darkness of his own fevered imaginings.

'Bye, David.

"First, this comment is a ... 09/17/08 9:30 am

"First, this comment is a candid admission that having gay parents is a disadvantage--tisk, tisk."

Not in the way you mean. Having gay parents may expose a kid to some grief, just as having black parents might. Sadly, the world still contains more than a few of the sort of neanderthals who'd make such a kid's life difficult. This is a result of the pathology of the kid's tormentors, not the favored nasty bits of the kid's parents.

"...there is something that is both significant and specific about having a mother and a father that is critical to one's emotional and psychological well being..."

Here Friedman kindly provides a succinct description of the kernel of his argument. It involves a theoretical claim about human development. Fine so far. Note that it appears to be an empirical claim; that is, the sort of claim whose truth we determine via some sort of observation (unlike, say, mathematical claims).

So now we quite naturally ask what set of possible observations Friedman is appealing to when he makes this claim? That is, how does he know that lacking two parents of different genders leads to fundamental developmental disadvantage?

Well, the research evidence he cites (which he appears not to have actually read, since it often declares the exact opposite of what he thinks it does) doesn't help his case; it generally finds no significant differences in outcomes like emotional health, sociability, etc. between straight-parented kids and lesbigay-parented ones. No problem for Friedman-he makes fun of social science research, except when he erroneously believes it supports his case. Not a very scientific attitude, picking and choosing whose studies you like based on whether or not you approve of their conclusions, is it?

Right, so research doesn't support his empirical claim. What's next? Well, a sort of thought experiment:

"How about if we interviewed that young man and he indicated that he really loved his Moms, he found his upbringing interesting and even inspiring and he felt he would be a good person as a result of the experience? Do we have the legitimacy to believe that he is mistaken and he was actually deprived? Yes."

and,

"A child without a mother and father is harmed in a significant and fundamental way, it is difficult to weigh and balance the extent of the loss. The fact of the loss is clear, even if the victim has been down so long it looks like up."

Here Friedman gives the game away. He had us thinking that he was making an empirical claim. But he's not. Even if we find a kid who disconfirms our expectations about the results of lesbigay parenting, he says, it's not so. The kid is mistaken about his own self-report. Maybe he overcame the injuries he denies having, but that's no prize. That is, when counterevidence comes along, discount it. Postulate events that must have intervened between the kid's shoddy upbringing and his self-reported happiness, events which themselves place an unfair burden on the kid. That is, Friedman's convictions are matters of faith, not evidence. He admits that if you find a kid who appears to undermine his theories, the kid is mistaken. Again, there is no conceivable evidence that will shake Friedman's beliefs.

The very core of Friedman's argument, the sine qua non of his develpmental notions, the claim upon which his entire hypothesis rests turns out to be....an assertion. An unsupported assertion. Not only does Friedman cite zero evidence for his claim, the research he does mention undermines it.

This is what we call "begging the question", that is, assuming the truth of the very proposition whose accuracy your argument is supposed to demonstrate.

At this point I am done with this thread. Those of you with a fully functioning cerebral cortex will see that I've provided a decisive corrective to Friedman's misapprehensions about the formal qualities of a sound argument. For the rest, I am powerless to do more.

David, by defending and disseminating your flimsy apologies for what is at base simple prejudice, you are making the world a worse place. For someone with serious concerns about social ethics and the moral life, as I believe you are, this is an unenviable position to be in.

bong-hit max returns ... 09/17/08 8:32 am

Angry Max! Max hates grownups! Max hates kids!

Does Max want a cookie?

OK, David, let me take a ... 09/16/08 2:24 pm

OK, David, let me take a chance and address you more seriously (despite your not having addressed my concerns re your citing studies when it suits you and ignoring them when it doesn't).

Your opposition to lesbigay parenting seems to hinge on your conviction that a gay couple, by choosing to parent, is making a decision for a third party (their kid) which will affect that party negatively; no one would knowingly choose gay parents for himself.

Leaving aside your certainty that gay parents would never be a preference, your argument would seem to exclude all sorts of poor souls from the joys of parenting, as Craig notes above; all other things being equal, would a child prefer to be born into a poor home rather than a comfortable one? No? Then why should poor people deign to make that choice for their unsuspecting future kids? How about identical families except that one has a intermittently depressed mom? Who'd choose her? So, no kids except for the permanently happy? And so on.

Your attempt to dress up your prejudice with the appearance of a rational argument just isn't very convincing.

One more thing-Hey, Craig, ... 09/16/08 12:09 pm

One more thing-Hey, Craig, you've undoubtedly noticed the spam-bomb which now litters the "recent comments" box. What's up? Can you delete all that bullshit for the sake of us all?

Thanks.

The coward Friedman strikes ... 09/16/08 12:06 pm

The coward Friedman strikes again, this time with another ridiculous citation.

Those with a moment to waste should have a look at the paper Friedman has so thoughtfully provided. Its conclusion cites the very same Stacy and Biblarz study I mentioned before, the one which Friedman's Comrades in Hate enjoy citing. Trouble is, S&B come to the exact opposite conclusion from the one Friedman endorses. As the passages I quoted earlier demonstrate, S&B explicitly aver that their findings show no negative consequences from lesbigay parenting. Friedman's pals simply ignore S&B's conclusions and misrepresent their findings consistently.

Perhaps Friedman should consider giving a critical reading to these shoddy bits of "scholarship" he so breathlessly provides. Then again, as I pointed out earlier, it would make no difference. He's happy to cite social scientists he (mistakenly) thinks agree with him, while denigrating those he opposes. When he is told that the former are actually the latter, he shrugs.

Evidence means nothing to this hater.

As for his stupid thought experiment, let's recast it a bit. Suppose you are about to be born into a family in Poland in 1940. You can choose between a Gentile family or a Jewish one of absolute equivalence save for their religion. The wise fetus might choose the Gentile one, given the horrors being performed against Jews. Does this say anything about the absolute superiority of Gentile families?

Of course there are retrograde social currents that might make living in a lesbigay household more challenging than in a straight one-maybe-but this says nothing about the superiority of straight families.

Poor Friedman-I wish all the foes of dignity were such easily unmasked stumblebums as he.

This just in...Friedman ... 09/15/08 2:24 pm

This just in...Friedman remains in his cave, refusing to come out and answer the specific, referenced counterarguments of his betters.

Must be dark way back in there, David. You run into Osama Bin Laden, by any chance?

I'll try one more time. You cite an article which misrepresents at least one of its sources. Since you cite the article approvingly, you must accept the authority of the authors mentioned. But these authors in fact make the exact opposite claim to yours. Whoops. What a pickle. Let's see...you could decide that their expertise, which a moment ago you embraced, has suddenly evaporated for no other reason than that they disagree with you. But that wouldn't look to good, would it? Or you could decide you were mistaken and recant. Probably not likely. Hmmmm....quite a dilemma. Well, what do you do?

By the way, don't go criticizing social scientists when you propose silly thought experiments like "would you have been the same without your father?" You must realize that a sadly large number of people would answer that they'd give anything to have not grown up with their particular father. And that's really the point. It's the particular qualities of the particular parent-not some global, engendered characteristic of the Average Expectable Parent-that determines the quality of a kid's life.

OK, I realize you're stumped. You can go back to your cave now.

You want a chuckle? OK, ... 09/15/08 11:24 am

You want a chuckle? OK, here's a chuckle; a priest, a rabbi and an imam walk into a bar...oh, wait, an imam in a bar? that won't work....OK, a priest, a rabbi and an imam go out for a cheeseburger...whoops, nope......hmmm...got it!..a priest, a rabbi and an iman decide to get laid...aw, shit...

Never mind. Go find your own chuckle.

"And last time I checked, ... 09/15/08 11:15 am

"And last time I checked, African Americans were not stateless.'

Tsk tsk. I said that you're not stupid. I'm sure it was clear to you from context that I was referring to the Palestinians. You weren't just trying to score unearned rhetorical points, were you?

Didn't care at all for Oren's pack o' lies re 1967, so I can't promise to rush right out to check his latest, but I'll keep it in mind.

"Be specific Ismail. Which ... 09/15/08 7:56 am

"Be specific Ismail. Which Palestinian parents? The parents of martyrs?"

C'mon, Isaac. You're not stupid. I mentioned the (widely-reported) recent outrage in which the brave lads of the IOF detained a pregnant woman at a checkpoint as she moaned in pain, ultimately giving birth right there to a child who had the poor manners to quickly die and, selfish anti-Semite that the brat was, make the soldiers look bad. Are you now proposing the appearance of pre-natal martyrs?

And, believe me, I know that Americans see Israelis as their cultural kin. And why shouldn't they? Both nations attack other countries at will, both are fond of torture, both have a filthy history of supporting retrograde bullies like apartheid South Africa and this Central American fascist or that.

I soundly condemn both Jordan and Egypt for their lapdog ways vis a vis US and Israeli malfeasance, as it happens. Their opinions re Iran have everything to do with currying favor from the US and Israeli bullies, and nothing to do with Iran's potential for belligerence.

"Obama doesn't care any less about Palestinian youths as individuals."

Evidence, please. Any evidence at all.

"Obama is not some namby pamby pushover when it comes to the failings of the people who want to work with him and ask for his support."

Really? Then what accounts for his disgusting tango of sycophancy before AIPAC, and his unmitigated genuflections to Israel despite the latter's nose-thumbing at official US policy re settlement expansion? Where's his bravery? Or is he brave only when it comes to stateless and immiserated populations?

Give me a break.

Friedman has wisely declined ... 09/15/08 7:39 am

Friedman has wisely declined to reply to the specifics of my post. When your position is indefensible, hiding may be the best option.

But what's this? He's provided a source for Zeevico's edification. Let's have a look, shall we?

He references an article in Lifesitenews, a right-wing, anti-gay, anti-choice site. How refreshingly free this must be from the ideological bias that afflicts the pagans from the APA. How delighted Friedman must be to have found such an unbiassed source.

I spent about 5 minutes following up one of the sources cited in the paper Friedman provides. The paper cites a study which claims that approx. one third (!) of children in lesbigay families are abused by one of their parents. One-third!!

I checked out the paper which Lifesitenews quoted approvingly as condemning same-sex parenting and, more specifically, claiming this incredibly high incidence of child abuse among lesbigay parents. It appears in the American Sociological Review (is this social science journal OK by you, David? Why?). Here's a quote from the conclusions section:

"Most of the differences in the findings discussed above cannot be considered deficits from any legitimate public policy perspective. They either favor the children with lesbigay parents, are secondary effects of social prejudice, or represent “just a difference” of the sort democratic societies should protect and respect."

What a withering condemnation! Hang your heads, you fairies!

Here's another quote from the authors of that study, from their deposition in a court case:

" In this affidavit, we criticize and reject Professor Nock’s assertion that there is no scientifically valid evidence of equal outcomes between children with same-sex parents and children with heterosexual parents. He is simply wrong to say that all of the studies published to date are virtually worthless and unscientific. There is significant, reliable social scientific evidence that lesbian and gay parents are as fit, effective and successful as similar heterosexual parents. The research shows that children fo same-sex coupels are as emotionally healthy and socially adjusted and at least as educationally and socially successful as children raised by heterosexual parents. We conclude that granting same-sex parents the freedom to marry would likely result in positive outcomes for such parents, their children, gay and lesbian people, and society as a whole. We also reject the assertions of Professor Craig Hart. His analysis is intellectually flawed and the studies cited are irrelevant to the issues in this case."

Odd that they should come to this conclusion when they claim that 1/3 of these parents abuse their kids. Oh, wait...they don't make that claim! Friedman's lunatic source just sort of slipped that in there!

OK, that's just one example of slippery citation from the Coalition of Hatred. It took me all of 10 minutes to track down, while I sipped my morning coffee. Wonder how reliable the rest of Friedman's impeccable source is?

OK, Mr. F., a question for you: you were happy to cite approvingly a source which you were led to believe supported your position. You've now been schooled-the researchers cited actually endorse lesbigay marriages, or at least find nothing wrong with them. So, what do you do? You cited them when you thought they endorsed your position, which one imagines means you accept their expertise. Now that you know you were lied to by the family-friendly folks at Lifesitenews, do you accept the authors' (stacy and biblarz, by the way) conclusions re the fundamental OKness of lesbigay parenting? If not, why not? Have they suddenly lost their expertise?

The jig is up, Friedman. If you want to justify your prejudices, stay with your interpretation of halacha; don't try to dress up your medieval opinions by referencing scientific research. That'd just be....oh, I don't know, call it putting lipstick on a pig.

By the way, may I make ... 09/14/08 7:37 pm

By the way, may I make another request for people to either register or adopt a nom de keyboard when conversing here? It makes addressing particular people easier and aids in following the sometimes byzantine twists discussions here take. One can easily imagine the difficulty in responding to an "anonymous" when there are (or seem to be) several of them on the same thread.

All you need to do is invent a screen name for yourself and put it in the "your name" box, whose default is "anonymous" but which will accept your own alias. Painless, quick, you don't have to register and a blessing to the community.

Thanks.

"...it's simply identifying ... 09/14/08 7:32 pm

"...it's simply identifying one of the distressing ironies of the conflict in the Middle East: that Muslims and Jews have a hell of a lot in common and yet are such vicious enemies. I think your anger at Smith is largely misplaced and unnecessarily critical."

Nope. First of all, the conflict is not between Muslims and Jews; it's between Palestinians and Israelis, or Zionists and non-Zionists, or displacers and the displaced, or occupiers and the occupied. It's become a reflexive trope of what sadly counts as reasoned discussion of the Middle East that the conflict is between Muslims and Jews. This obscures the fact that Christian Arabs also resent being displaced, and that, generally speaking, one dislikes those who drop bombs upon their homes and one does so without needing to check the religious affiliations of the bombardiers.

Just about all warring parties bear some similarities to one another-Brits and the Irish, Tamils and Sinhalese, Kosovars and Serbians et al. It is beneath trivial to note the "irony" of those Semitic cousins in the Levant warring with each other.

I see no purpose whatsoever in Smith's article except for him to emit a sigh of disappointment at the blockheadedness of Israelis and Arabs for not subscribing to his infinitely vague and untutored reflections on a matter whose importance is matched only by Smith's outlandish superficiality.

Oh, and as I noted, his "they all need to shape up" rhetoric did not go so far as to detail a single Israeli malfeasance, only a checklist of Arab shortcomings. Is it uncharitable of me to notice this glaring omisssion?

How you could describe Smith's spacy musings as "...discuss(ing) the possibilities for peace in the middle east" is beyond me. And how it is that you construe my objections as "trivialities" when they are simply specific disagreements with his "argument" is equally mysterious.

Perhaps you are better with the sort of global apprehension of pieces like Smith's than I am. I'm more of a detail guy, and I have this odd affection for fact, logic and rigor.

If Smith wants to tell us how frustrating the world is to him, fine. Just be clear that this may be a psychologically interesting account of his internal states, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with peace in the middle east.

"Palestinian identity is the ... 09/14/08 3:23 pm

"Palestinian identity is the only national identity that depends on the destruction of another country."

You're kidding, right? From the very inception of Israel, its leaders have acknowledged that Zionism required the displacement of the indigenes.

"According to the Koran, Jews are apes, pigs and dogs worthy of being killed."

Citation, please. And what does the Koran, whatever it says, have to do with questions of international law? And is the Bible devoid of passages suggesting that Jews are blameless in annihilating whom they please? Shall I judge Israel by such savage ancient texts?

"The safety of murderers in war is not guaranteed."

Murderers like the pregnant woman recently detained at a checkpoint until she delivered? Murderers like her infant, who did not survive?

"Ismail, why dont you put your money where your mouth is, stop blogging and fight the IDF? You arent contributing anything here"

We all fight in our own ways. And I daresay I contribute a thousand times more than illiterate non-entities such as yourself. You should be grateful for the free education.

By the way, where is the "fakestinians" guy? You know, "palestineisamyth"-he should be piping up just about now.

"...I was just as happy when ... 09/14/08 2:22 pm

"...I was just as happy when Barack Obama told me that he wants to "make sure that the people of Israel, when they kiss their kids and put them on that bus, feel at least no more existential dread than any parent does whenever their kids leave their sight."

How nice. Would you be happy to hear Obama express equal determination that Palestinian parents not worry that their kids will take one between the eyes courtesy of the IDF when they send them off to school or out to play soccer? Do you wonder why he hasn't?

The myopia of Zionists never ceases to amaze. Israel bombs sovereign nations with impunity, conducts a 40 year occupation, strafes fishing boats, conducts deliberate sociocide, embargoes medicines, jails members of another polity without trial, etc, etc., while Iran has a loudmouth (and powerless) president and zero recent history of aggression. Of course, it follows that Iran is the major regional threat. Of course.

"So, what do you do when one ... 09/14/08 12:34 pm

"So, what do you do when one of your core ideas is out of sync with the predispositions of the American public? You spend your days talking about lipstick on pigs."

Or you might consider talking about one of your other core ideas. Unless, of course, they're all out of synch with the Amrrican public's concerns. In which case, you probably should not be running.

Really, McCain's resorting to this scumbag discourse about lipstick because one of his ideas may not play? This is his only recourse? Riiiight.

I find pieces like this so ... 09/14/08 10:30 am

I find pieces like this so incredibly dispiriting. Where shall I begin?

1. The opening anecdote has only the sketchiest relevance to the point of the article (which is, as far as I can tell, that people ought to be nice), not to mention bearing the faint odor of novelistic invention (a Hasid in NYC unsure of how to get to Williamsburg? Really?) Although the part about Lebanese guys with heroic honkers certainly rings true.

2. Smith warns us not to blame one side, then spends the rest of the piece cataloguing the shortcomings of the Palestinian leadership, which is like shooting fish in a barrel. But to mention Palestinian impoverishment and the dearth of medications without referencing the Israeli siege? The disgusting Suha Arafat is the main problem?

3. "...the day that Bush took office he should have taken Arafat and whoever the Israeli guy was at the time ..."

Look, if you don't know that Barak was PM at the time (remember, Bush's first term more or less coincided with the end of the Camp David talks-an auspicious time that would cause even the casual student of the region to recall the names of the principals-anyway, Bush would hardly collar Barak knowing that, in two month's time, he'd in all likelihood be replaced) and couldn't be bothered to invest the 20 seconds you'd need to find out, why do you think anyone would think you have a single interesting syllable to utter about the Middle East?

4. Despite your kumbaya notions that everyone's in the same boat and no one's (everyone's) to blame (although, as I've pointed out, you don't really believe this, citing as you do Palestinian mischief only), the Israelis happen to be the occupying force of four decades standing. For many in the reality-based community, this makes them the aggressors.

You guys have got to find better guest bloggers. Bring back Batya, the charmingly nutty West Bank settler-criminal with the funny hat, whose insane reflections didn't bother with the phony insipidities of this current guy.

Zeevico- You seem to be an ... 09/14/08 9:44 am

Zeevico-

You seem to be an unfailingly polite and reasonable person, but I think you are barking up the wrong tree by engaging Friedman in the sort of discourse you clearly embrace.

Asking Friedman to cite evidence for his views and providing him with what seem to you to be counterexamples is beside the point. He is determined to see homosexual marriages as condemnable for reasons that are logically prior to any consideration of evidence.

First, despite his insistence that no reference to halacha is necessary to condemn gay marriages, it is a simple fact that his own understanding of Jewish law compels such condemnation. That is, there is no conceivable social scientific finding that would cause him to smack his forehead and declare that he'd been mistaken. His unshakeable religious conviction will always trump any scientific finding.

Second, he has a problem with the epistemology of social science in general, not just with regard to gay marriage. As I read him, he is upset that psychiatric opinion can change "suddenly" and without a earthshaking discovery like a "gay gene". Let's leave aside for a moment that the model of a single breathtaking observation ushering a new paradigm is by no means typical of progress in the physical sciences, either. The point is that theories of development, psychopathology et al develop over time. Would we expect that any idea in the social sciences would remain unchanged forever?

Third, you can't pooh-pooh the epistemic pedigree of social science and then cite (or offer to cite) social scientific studies to buttress your own prejudice opinion.

Fourth, it won't do to disparage social science studies as insufficiently rigorous and then offer as an alternative the millennia-old musings of shepherds somewhere near Mesopotamia.

Fifth, to give credit where credit is due, Friedman's observations are not entirely worthless. Like the stopped clock which is correct twice a day, Friedman occasionally stumbles upon an interesting truth. In this case, he correctly points out the influence of politics upon the investigations of some researchers. This is a very important issue in the philosophy and sociology of science, but it bedevils both physical and social science, despite Friedman's suggestion otherwise. Mengele, Tuskegee, Gardisil, SSRIs and the pharmacology of depression-the list is infinite.

Hi Isaac-

I do think that it's a tactical blunder to sneer at Palin's family situation and fetishize her lack of sophistication, as many on the left are prone to do. It comforts only those who are already aligned with us and does nothing to convince fence-sitters. As for her kid's pregnancy and her abstinence-only position, I think this is tremendously ironic and provides a tasty schadenfreude opportunity for her opponents, but otherwise has nothing to do with anything. Her quaint ideas need to be addressed as false and dangerous, but this would be equally so even if her kid were the paradigm of unsullied virginity. And no abstinence supporter would claim that her position doesn't assume there will be backsliders. In fact, they might take Palin fille's condition as buttressing their position-"see what can happen if you're not abstinent"?

Basically, attack the policy, not the person.

...here's a thought... ... 09/14/08 8:57 am

"...despite evidence that many of these arabs engage in anti jewish violence once they get to America."

Please cite one teensy particle of evidence for this claim. No, your cut and paste from the NYT doesn't count, having nothing whatsoever to do with Arab immigration to the US.

You will be unable to provide such evidence, of course, so my second suggestion would be that you go fuck yourself. Repeatedly. Without lube. On a very sandy beach.

"As a religious Jew, Sarh ... 09/12/08 9:12 am

"As a religious Jew, Sarh Palin has been my pick for VP for the entire summer."

Sarah Palin is not a religious Jew. What you mean is, "As a religious Jew, I've supported SP's candidacy for the entire summer."

Your political beliefs are terrible, but you might at least express them with a little grammatical correctness.

Thank you.

Zeevico- As I said, this is ... 09/12/08 8:59 am

Zeevico-

As I said, this is not my field of expertise, but you may find the American Psychological Association's statement on the fitness of gay and lesbian parents relevant. Its prologue cites numerous peer-reviewed studies regarding the emotional health of these kids, their parents' parenting styles, etc. These studies find no significant differences between these folks and their straight counterparts on any of these dimensions.

You must take these findings with a grain of salt, of course. After all, they are based on mere scientific method, featuring specific, testable questions and open, conventionally-approved methods for answering them. Friedman, on the other hand, gets the straight dope from God Himself, so he's got the edge there.

The point here, of course, is that empirical findings mean nothing to Friedman, since his opposition is literally non-rational. Even if he were convinced by unassailably rigorous research that the kids of straight couples were indistinguishable from their swishy-parented counterparts on any interesting measure-happiness, intelligence, ability to relate to and love their fellow human beings, productivity-he wouldn't care a whit. His opposition doesn't depend upon observing reality; it follows from the beliefs of one desert dweller or another, who got it direct from a blazing shrub somewhere near Mesopotamia.

The APA statement may be found at:

http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/policy/parents.html

Isaac-

Hello again. I'm having a hard time discerning the point which I'm sure lurks somewhere within what I find to be your unnecessarily obscure writing style.

If I understand you, you're saying I apply a double standard by criticizing Friedman for the same things I give a pass to Palin for doing. You then go on to (correctly) catalogue the numerous ways in which this lightweight would be a disaster for the country. But my point was that she ought to be denounced for her policies, not the particulars of her home life. While you say that the single instance of her pregnant daughter ought not make or break the case against her, you describe it as an "embarassing reminder to anyone with integrity or reason". Reminder of what? Her daughter's pregnancy has no more to say about her (lunatic) endorsement of abstinence-only than the discovery of a welfare cheat would have to say about the concept of public assistance. Her situation may be ironic and provide a tasty schadenfreude opportunity, but that's all.

A policy is good or bad depending upon its utility, logical rigor and effectiveness, among other things, not because there are no instances of unexpected outcomes.

Sometimes I think you just like to pick fights with me.

"Andrea may well be as good ... 09/11/08 4:16 pm

"Andrea may well be as good of a person in God's eyes as myself--in fact, she might be better."

"...people have become brow-beaten with non-judgmentalism gone beserk to the point that artificially inseminated lesbians are supposed just as good as anyone else."

Which is it?

"Now consider the statistics with homosexual relationships--whoops, you just won't do that, will you? "

What statistics? This is not my field, but the studies with which I'm familiar suggest no significant difference on measures of emotional difficulties, socialization etc between kids of straights and kids of gay or lesbian parents. Perhaps you know of others. If so, let me know. It'd be nice if the study appeared in a peer-reviewed journal and not in the personal newsletter of some medieval cleric or another.

Your command of logic is shaky and your heart is stony and cold. Go back to your self-imposed ideological shtetl and leave those who remain open to uncertainty, curiosity and love alone.

"I think what's also ... 09/11/08 8:18 am

"I think what's also fascinating is that "feeling" or connection we get that someone is Jewish (even if we don't know that). Call it Jewdar, perhaps."

Guess I'm a Jewdar jammer, then. You could power a small city from the kinetic energy released from all the dropped jaws when Jews learn that I'm a Gentile. And Christian. And an Arab. Been happening since high school. Work colleagues, neighbors from the dog park, girls (pre-marriage, of course), clients et al. The default assumption is that I'm Jewish-people don't ask, they just relate to me as though it was obvious-with that same level of "comfort" that you describe. (By the way, many Gentiles make the same assumption. Must be the payis.) And this misapprehension is not a momentary event-it persists until I mention my Christmas tree or my early incarceration in parochial school, which might happen down the road a while. Then, it's mandible, meet gravity.

Now, it's true that I speak with a mild Brooklyn accent (muted, upwardly-mobile variant), sport a head of thick, formerly black curls, am smart as a whip, disputatious as they come, practice a profession highly associated with Jews and I suck at sports. Still, many Gentiles boast these virtues without being taken for MOTs.

So, you tell me-what is it that is being scanned when your Jewdar starts beeping?

" I am sorry that it does ... 09/10/08 10:06 pm
" I am sorry that it does not make sense to you."

Please don't give it a thought. The fact that your odd logic makes no sense to me only certifies the soundness of my thinking.

For one thing, excessive alcohol or tobacco use during pregnancy has definite, measurable negative effects upon the baby. Being a lesbian or undergoing artificial insemination, on the other hand, have no such demonstrable downsides. Immensely faulty analogy on your part.

But the real kicker for me is your use of the word "damnable" to describe Andrea's actions. This gives the lie to your disclaimers about "only Hashem knows for sure" and " she may be better than me", pro forma niceties which attempt to conceal your worldview's judgemental and uncharitable center.

It is I who should be sorry for you.

"We are given a mind and a ... 09/10/08 2:38 pm

"We are given a mind and a Torah to judge actions and her action here is not right by any standard--"

Well, sure, if what you mean by "any standard" is "those standards espoused by a (vanishingly small) subset of American Jews".

This should go without saying, but if the moral algorithm you describe (mind+Torah=ethical correctness) were sound, we'd have only two ways of accounting for the different opinions we know exist among those who look to Torah for guidance: either those you disagree with have inadequate minds, or they really don't know Torah like you know Torah. For obvious reasons, neither is very persuasive.

Like the New Testament, the Qur'an or (getting to a realm I feel more comfortable inhabiting) the US Constitution, Torah is open to interpretation. I realize that you, like your friends on the Christian Right, are certain that you've stumbled upon exactly what the Deity had in mind when he inspired his amanuenses to scribble their accounts of his wishes, but....no, you don't. This is hubris, a useful concept despite having been developed by our theologically extinct predecessors.

Andrea's kid will doubtless need to deal with the insults and hurts of dopey cranks who think the kid's life lessened due to insufficient penile presence, so I guess in that sense Andrea's decision is going to make his life a little tougher. But just a little, given the salutary progressive drift of the US public re gender issues.

Look, we all bequeath our kids some reason for them to suffer. My kid has an Arabic surname. She's already encountered some bullshit on that account. Should I have foregone parenthood? Oh, wait...I'll bet you think that we towelheads should do just that-the fewer of us, the better. Bad example. But you catch my drift, right?

RW- Do you really think ... 09/10/08 8:17 am

RW-

Do you really think that, because Andrea's's political philosophy is likely to lead her to disapprove of any Repub candidate, her disagreements with any particular candidate are not interesting?

If established as a general principle, this would make for some very brief political conversations.

...and if the nuttiest is unable to fulfill its duties... ... 09/09/08 10:28 pm

"When you create life and bring another soul into this community, in making that choice, you have committed an intentional cruelty ..."

Second.Nuttiest.Utterance.Ever

we have a winner... ... 09/09/08 3:14 pm

"...President Bush--the most moderate man in America..."

Nuttiest.Utterance.Ever.

“I think women can and ... 09/08/08 1:27 pm

“I think women can and should do what they want. As men do. But I don’t think you can say you’re a hockey mom and pretend to uphold family values, and at the same time neglect your four-month old baby.”

So you would also rag on a male candidate with a 4 month old who talked about how important fatherhood is to him (as they all do)? And how exactly do you know that she's "neglecting" her kid?

"Sarah Palin is the model mother, even if one of her teen-age daughters is pregnant."

I see. The kid screws up and of course it's the mother's fault. Rather retrograde sexual politics, that.

Comments like yours are part of the reason that the left has sloughed off a good portion of its natural constituency since Reagan. Palin is a troglodyte whose politics are a horror, and for that she ought to be pilloried mercilessly. Her kid's pregnancy and your wildly snooty imaginings about her maternal shortcomings have nothing to do with anything. Similarly, McCain's a dangerous pinhead who's been implicated in the worst foreign policy disaster in recent memory. Who cares if his robot wife used to pop pills?

This snarky and Puritanical finger-wagging does nothing to convince undecided voters about the perils of the Viagra/Vagina ticket; more likely, it just alienates them.

Liberals can suck each other's dicks (lap each other's lady bits) over how much better they are than those flannel-cap-wearers between the coasts, or they can do the hard work of mounting a serious critique of the atrocious policies of McPalin that addresses the ways in which those policies will brutalize the very folks about whom they're now happy to merely snicker.

You choose.

another idea... ... 09/06/08 12:24 pm
Or Juan Epstein Askowitz-(partner's name here), after the Welcome Back Kotter guy.

problem solved ... 09/06/08 9:04 am
Jesusowitz (with the Hispanic pronunciation, of course-"haysoosowitz"-this will mask the Christian reference to unsuspecting Anglophonic ears)

"The bad is Christmas trees, ... 09/05/08 7:36 am

"The bad is Christmas trees, Christian prayer services, nuns in the hallways..."

The morons who ripped down the Purim decorations should be hanged on Mordechai's gallows, for sure, but you're distressed about nuns in the hallway?

Intolerant much?

Sure, more crazy Obama ... 09/04/08 10:51 am

Sure, more crazy Obama stuff-what else is new?

What shocks me is that, several days after McCain's announcing his veep choice, we haven't heard a peep about the MILFy Palin from Jewcy.

What don't you guys understand about the term "news cycle"?

And while I'm at it, the "featured Jewcer" item and the pull quote just above it have remain unchanged since, what...the Nixon administration? Is everyone on vacation over there, or have there simply not been any quotable comments for weeks? I know I haven't been writing much lately, but still....

Nope. We know for a fact ... 09/02/08 7:25 pm

Nope. We know for a fact what Yosef's prescriptions for Arabs are, so we may compare these disgusting opinions to his concern for tasty birds. Shmarya has not remarked on the Park Hotel victims, although he has given no rational person reason to think anything other than that he shares the average person's horror at these deaths.

He simply won't fall into your silly rhetorical demand that he prove the same bona fides that no one but a deranged ideologue would question in the first place.

Read and think a little more, then talk.

to paraphrase anatole france.... ... 09/01/08 3:04 pm
Yes! And the rich have exactly as much right to sleep under bridges as the poor!!

"I have read that both Rabbi ... 09/01/08 2:57 pm

"I have read that both Rabbi Ovadia Yosef and Rabbi Moshe Feinstein had banned foie gras due to cruelty to anumals..."

Delighted to learn that Ovadia Yosef has bravely come to the defense of the helpless goose. Perhaps if the residents of New Orleans had been barnyard fowls instead of human beings, they might have earned his compassion. Instead, as you'll recall, he attributed their travails at the hands of nature and an uncaring government to inadequate Torah study on their part.

In another magnanimous moment, Yosef compared Jerusalem's Palestinians to ants and hoped that they would soon go to hell, a journey he suggested Moshiach would facilitate. In another context, he urged that these same hapless Arabs be "shown no mercy and annihilated".

I myself am no halachic sage, so perhaps someone else can explain to me how this learned man expresses his wisdom or holiness in showing greater empathy for poultry than for Palestinians?

"He has made an entire ... 08/25/08 12:18 pm

"He has made an entire career of defaming Judaism."

I don't know his entire career, but on the basis of his remarks at this site, I'd say he cares rather deeply about Judaism and is horrified by those individuals or groups who seem to him to be hijacking Judaism for their own political ends. Christian fanatics do this, as do Muslim fanatics, Hindu fanatics et al. You think maybe Jews don't?

I pity the religious believer or patriot who finds deep structural problems with elements of his group; he must forever hear that he is a "defamer" or hater of his country from those who can't bear hearing bad news.

"Why cant he say-I have problems with x,y, and z aspects of Judaism but I condemn the Park Hotel bombing?"

And then what? Would you feel one iota different about the actual substance of his criticisms?

"...I am concerned about his ... 08/25/08 11:16 am

"...I am concerned about his failure to condemn the Park Hotel murders."

What exactly is the nature of your concern? Do you seriously believe that Mr. Rosenberg endorses or is indifferent to murder? I mean seriously...not as a rhetorical tactic, but as an honest belief. If so, where in his writings do you discern even a scintilla of a suggestion that he is such a moral brute?

Or are you perhaps saying that if Mr. Rosenberg buys into your completely irrelevant demand, you will scratch your head and say, "Gee, maybe he has a point...I hadn't thought of that" about his substantive comments? Can a ritual incantation acknowledging the horror of murder really have such power to you?

Or is this just the ten millionth instance of a defender of Israel's least savory policies hauling out an immaterial demand when he can't come up with an apposite reply to his critic?

Inquiring minds want to know.

"A population crash, which ... 08/20/08 11:14 am

"A population crash, which if it were a species of seal, bear or bird, would be front-page news."

I wasn't aware that Jews constituted a separate species of humans, except in the minds of their oppressors. Please advise.

"...Ismail uses big words to ... 08/17/08 9:20 pm

"...Ismail uses big words to overcompensate for having a small dick"

Actually, none of the words I use are particularly big ones. I do note, however, that you used the unnecessarily lengthy "overcompensate" when "compensate" would have been more correct. Given your theories of word use, I wonder what you are telling us about your own phallic heft.

But enough...I know when I am beat. The "small dick" comment was a clearly decisive move; in this one deft maneuver, you have parried my every argument and shown that you are the better man.

Gee, accusing my opponent of having a sm

Site

People

Search

User login

Jewcy Book Club

Featured Jewcer

ISMAIL'S COMMENTS because he's still not a user.