Advertisement
Jewcy Book Club
Welcome Authors
Benyamin Cohen
& Matthew Rothschild
who are posting all week.
Coming up:
- 12/08: Seth Greenland
No More Lewinsky's |
|
 by ThorsProvoni, June 25, 2008 |
|
TNR Versus Senator James Webb
Peretz' Logic for Disqualifying VPs
by Joachim Martillo (ThorsProvoni@aol.com)
The New Republic has published two articles in opposition to a Barack Obama James Webb ticket in the presidential campaign.
Web of Deception by Richard Just argues that Webb is a reactionary with whom Obama should not team even though in the past VP candidates were often chosen to appeal to constituencies different from those that back the presidential nominee.
Mad Skills by Eve Fairbanks argues that Webb really appeals to exactly the same voter base as Obama and adds nothing to the ticket.
TNR is trying to cover all the bases in its opposition to Webb.
Jim Webb's Anti-Semitic Campaign Fliers « C.A.R.D may give a better hint of the real concerns of Editor-in-Chief Martin Peretz, for this blog entry argues that Webb is an anti-Semite.
In the discussion Why Is The New Republic Bent on Tearing Webb? from Mondoweiss, I point out:
Liberalism really isn't the issue.
Peretz is not exactly a liberal, and there is little in Nazi ideology with which he would not agree as long as Arab is substituted for Jew, Jew for German, Medinat or Eretz Israel for Germany, and Palestine for Poland.
While Webb does not seem to like Arabs much (see http://eaazi.blogspot.com/2008/05/nuremberg-law-and-hollywood-films.html ), he has not shown any particular affection for Jews, and with his psychological profile, Webb probably is not particularly amenable to Zionist manipulation and might even make achieving Zionist influence over Obama more difficult -- probably the only real issue for Peretz, CanWest [part owner of TNR] and TNR.
Webb has some personal integrity. I have a slight acquaintance, who was hitting on him a few years ago before she knew he was married. He proved resistent, and when she realized he was married she quit.
With Webb as VP, there would not be any Lewinsky's in the VP's office.
Becoming a father made me a superstud
Polish travel tips from an American secularist
Jimmy Jamshid Delshad is a new kind of Jewish politican
In the final day of their dialogue, Paul Gottfried and Jonathan...
| Dev Blog | Privacy | FAQ | Contact | |  | | Comment Policy | About Us | Submissions |
| Hosting provided by Tilted Planet | ||
Shootingsparks
good post.
Anonymous
there should not be an apostrophe after "lewinsky". you are not saying "lewinsky is"; you are saying "lewinsky", plural.
that is pathetic.
ThorsProvoni
It may be an age issue, but the rule for pluralizing proper names used to specify an 's ending, to wit:
One Hamilton Fish, two Hamilton Fish's.
I have seen plurals like Stanislawskys from Stanislawsky, but it certainly was not allowed when I used to check newspaper copy.
Anonymous
It's not a possessive. No apostrophe. It's Lewinskys.
Fish's might be an exception, because of the awkward shs letter combination, which is unusual.
See "Eats, Shoots and Leaves" by Lynne Truss.
Shabbat Shalom.
ThorsProvoni
Orthography Changes
I had the wrong reason for the apostrophe on Lewinsky.
Apparently until the 20th century, many US publishers (books and newspapers) often pluralized foreign origin nouns that ended in a vowel with an apostrophe-s. The rule was in applied to both common and proper nouns.
The rule required the plural of Lewinski to be Lewinski's.
It is not clear that the rule required Lewinsky to become Lewinsky's in the plural, for Kennedy seems to have been pluralized as Kennedys, but Kennedy might have been considered less foreign than Lewinsky.