More stupidity...
Kristopher
wearing an anti-war T-shirt, I offer the story of Citrus
College prof Rosalyn Kahn, who offered extra credit to students
who wrote anti-war letters to the White House, but not to those
who wrote in with other positions on the matter.
Stupidity is equal-opportunity, I guess. And it seems it's
also not much of an obstacle to becoming a professor.
If anyone can get this link to work...
Never mind the "peace" supporters who trashed a 9/11 memorial
during an anti-war event...
--
Kristopher
"I'll never trust myself again, but I don't care...
Just set that plastic world on fire, and watch it melt."
Monster Magnet -- "Melt"
Joel Rosenberg
> As a counterpoint to the arrest by a mall rent-a-cop of a man
> wearing an anti-war T-shirt, I offer the story of Citrus
> College prof Rosalyn Kahn, who offered extra credit to students
> who wrote anti-war letters to the White House, but not to those
> who wrote in with other positions on the matter.
>
> Stupidity is equal-opportunity, I guess. And it seems it's
> also not much of an obstacle to becoming a professor.
Yup. Then again, I think it's not unreasonable to require a higher
understanding of principles of free expression for college professors
than it is for rent-a-cops, although, ideally, most kind of folks
should understand the basic principles, as they're not terribly
complicated.
--
------------------------------------------------------------
http://islamthereligionofpeace.blogspot.com
Steve Glover
<eosl...@net-link.net> writes
>As a counterpoint to the arrest by a mall rent-a-cop of a man
>wearing an anti-war T-shirt, I offer the story of Citrus
>College prof Rosalyn Kahn, who offered extra credit to students
>who wrote anti-war letters to the White House, but not to those
>who wrote in with other positions on the matter.
That's wrong. If the mark's for activism, then activism on either side
of an issue should get the credit (even if I personally believe that the
ones who'd write in support of a pointless and unnecessary war against
the wrong target
>Stupidity is equal-opportunity, I guess. And it seems it's
>also not much of an obstacle to becoming a professor.
I think the title's already pretty dilute on your side of the Atlantic -
here we tend to have only one or two professors per academic department,
and those with chairs tend to deserve them.
>If anyone can get this link to work...
How about http://makeashorterlink.com/?P144628C3 ? Citrus College
doesn't look like the most academically rigorous of environments,
either.
>Never mind the "peace" supporters who trashed a 9/11 memorial
>during an anti-war event...
I didn't hear about this. But it's also shocking. On the other hand
no-one ever claimed the peace movement was monolithic. Oh, except some
of the war party who want to tar us all with the same brush, that is.
Steve
--
Steve Glover, Fell Services Ltd. Available
Weblog at http://weblog.akicif.net/blogger.html
Home: steve at fell.demon.co.uk, 0131 551 3835
Away: steve.glover at ukonline.co.uk, 07961 446 902
Joel Rosenberg
> In article <3E6F7658...@net-link.net>, Kristopher
> <eosl...@net-link.net> writes
>
> >As a counterpoint to the arrest by a mall rent-a-cop of a man
> >wearing an anti-war T-shirt, I offer the story of Citrus
> >College prof Rosalyn Kahn, who offered extra credit to students
> >who wrote anti-war letters to the White House, but not to those
> >who wrote in with other positions on the matter.
>
> That's wrong. If the mark's for activism, then activism on either side
> of an issue should get the credit
Which is how it finally came down; students were given credit for
writing letters to officials supporting the students' own political
positions.
--
------------------------------------------------------------
http://islamthereligionofpeace.blogspot.com
David Dyer-Bennet
> In article <3E6F7658...@net-link.net>, Kristopher
> <eosl...@net-link.net> writes
> >Stupidity is equal-opportunity, I guess. And it seems it's
> >also not much of an obstacle to becoming a professor.
>
> I think the title's already pretty dilute on your side of the
> Atlantic - here we tend to have only one or two professors per
> academic department, and those with chairs tend to deserve them.
The title basically means "somebody who teaches at a post-secondary
educational institution" here. It's not limited to those with tenure
or anything. So an adjunct professor of vocal performance is still a
professor. Named chairs are rare, and generally not important even
when they exist. Well, they may be important to the person holding
them, but they're not widely known, and not generally used as part of
identifying their current occupant.
Probably due to familiarity, I'm more comfortable with this than the
rather stuffy European arrangements.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd...@dd-b.net / http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
John Dyer-Bennet 1915-2002 Memorial Site http://john.dyer-bennet.net
Dragaera mailing lists, see http://dragaera.info
A.C.
news:sZEu+VRp...@akicif.fsnet.co.uk...
> >also not much of an obstacle to becoming a professor.
>
> I think the title's already pretty dilute on your side of the Atlantic -
Yet still people come all over the world to study here...
> here we tend to have only one or two professors per academic department,
> and those with chairs tend to deserve them.
I think the nomenclature may be misleading you. She was referred to by the
article as an adjunct professor; that's basically a part-time lecturer
position, not a full-time faculty one.
Steve Glover
<nomadi...@removethistomailmehotmail.com> writes
>> I think the title's already pretty dilute on your side of the Atlantic -
>
>Yet still people come all over the world to study here...
I know. I'm not saying that your academics are stupid, just that the
nomenclature's different.
>> here we tend to have only one or two professors per academic department,
>> and those with chairs tend to deserve them.
>
>I think the nomenclature may be misleading you.
That was the point I was trying to make. Here, it goes something like
(Junior Lecturer)
Lecturer
Senior Lecturer or Reader (often based on teaching versus research)
Professor
Some professors get "named" chairs, or chairs with titles attached,
while others are "personal". A personal chair is usually awarded if
someone is doing professorial quality work, but there isn't a named
chair available in the department. They're pretty rare.
>She was referred to by the
>article as an adjunct professor; that's basically a part-time lecturer
>position, not a full-time faculty one.
I thought it might have been something like that.
Andre Lieven
> As a counterpoint to the arrest by a mall rent-a-cop of a man
> wearing an anti-war T-shirt, I offer the story of Citrus
> College prof Rosalyn Kahn, who offered extra credit to students
> who wrote anti-war letters to the White House, but not to those
> who wrote in with other positions on the matter.
>
> Stupidity is equal-opportunity, I guess. And it seems it's
> also not much of an obstacle to becoming a professor.
>
> If anyone can get this link to work...
>
> http://www.looksmart.com/r?lt&iabw&panel=news{day=Wed{cat=TopStories{art=wed/bp/Aanti-war-letters.RNqW_DMC{colorAanti-war-letters.RNqW_DMC=FFFFFF
>
> Never mind the "peace" supporters who trashed a 9/11 memorial
> during an anti-war event...
I picked up a song parody on another group that covers well the
apparent view of such as this prof:
--
> We are progressive, caring, socially advanced, egalitarian and
> freedom-loving progressives.
> We really care about people.
> We think peace is wonderful and war is evil.
> We are marching to prevent the American imperialists from mistreating
> Iraqis.
> We oppose American hegemony.
> We think George W. Bush is a mad cow boy.
> We love Palestinians and want them to be free.
>
> Here we present to you our Grand Marching Song. Set to John Philip
> Sousa.
> All together:
>
> We believe in enlightened government and progress.
> And that is why we support Arab fascism.
>
> We believe in peace.
> And that is why we support all military aggression against Israel.
>
> We believe in democracy.
> And that is why we believe that Israel is the only country in the
> Middle East that must be destroyed.
>
> We believe in freedom.
> And that is why we support Saddam Hussein and Hafez Assad, as well as
> Yassir Arafat.
>
> We believe in the freedom of speech and of the press.
> And that is why we support the Palestinian Authority.
>
> We believe in self-determination and self-definition for all.
> But not for Jews.
>
> We oppose violence.
> And that is why we support Palestinian terror.
>
> We believe in human dignity.
> And that is why we applaud when Arabs blow up Jewish women and
> children.
>
> We believe in human rights.
> And for this reason we support Arab atrocities and think the US got
> its comeupance from al-Qaida..
>
> We believe in fraternity and the brotherhood of nations.
> Which is why we have no problem with the fact that our Arab friends
> are seeking to perpetrate genocide against Jews.
>
> We believe in voting.
> Which is why we applaud Libya, Sudan, Iran, and Iraq and demand that
> Israel be destroyed.
>
> We believe in freedom of movement and migration.
> Except for Jews.
>
> We favor equality.
> As in Syria, Iraq and Libya.
>
> We favor minority rights.
> But not for Jews, Kurds, Southern Sudanese, Copts or any other
> politically incorrect groups.
>
> We believe in freedom.
> But do not mind that slavery still exists in Sudan, Saudi Arabia and
> elsewhere among Arabs.
>
> We believe in a free press.
> And so we support censorship by the PLO.
>
> We believe in freedom to practice religion.
> But only for Moslems.
>
> We believe in affirmative action preferences for those who suffered
> from past discrimination.
> But not for Jews.
>
> We believe in progress and enlightenment.
> And so we support Jihad and pogroms and genocide.
>
> We believe in egalitarianism.
> And so we support demands for ethnic cleansing of the Middle East to
> drive out the Jews.
>
> We love children and living things.
> And this is why we applaud suicide bombers.
>
> We hate it when people blame the victims.
> Which is why all terrorism is the Jews' fault.
>
> We believe in education.
> As long as we never have to read any books.
>
> We believe in multiculturalism.
> As long as no one ever has to learn respect for the Jews or for
> Christians or for the West or for Amerika.
>
> We believe in progress.
> And so we celebrate barbarism and savagery.
>
> We believe in progress.
> As long as Arab countries never are asked to progress beyond the 12th
> century.
>
> We believe in democracy.
> But not for Arabs.
>
> We believe in prosperity.
> And that is why we support Arab feudalism and kleptocracy.
>
> We believe in equal citizenship.
> Just as long as Israel never conscripts its Arabs.
>
> We believe in freedom of expression.
> Which is why people who do not agree with us must be censored.
>
> We believe the human rights of Arabs must be protected.
> But not in Arab countries.
>
> We are upset by illiteracy.
> And that is why we practice it.
>
> We believe in women's equality,
> but not among Arabs.
>
> We oppose torture,
> Except when it is by the Palestinian Authority or similar progressive
> Arab force.
That seems to sum it up...
Andre
--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.
Pete McCutchen
<st...@fell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>Never mind the "peace" supporters who trashed a 9/11 memorial
>>during an anti-war event...
>
>I didn't hear about this. But it's also shocking. On the other hand
>no-one ever claimed the peace movement was monolithic. Oh, except some
>of the war party who want to tar us all with the same brush, that is.
Of course it's not monolithic. Some members of the peace movement
prefer to beat up Jews at York University, in Toronto. Those who
prefer not to actually beat anybody up can agitate in favor of
cop-killers, or North Korea. And then of course there's a riot to
plan in San Francisco, timed to begin just after the war starts.
--
Pete McCutchen
Mark Atwood
>
> Of course it's not monolithic. Some members of the peace movement
> prefer to beat up Jews at York University, in Toronto. Those who
> prefer not to actually beat anybody up can agitate in favor of
> cop-killers, or North Korea. And then of course there's a riot to
> plan in San Francisco, timed to begin just after the war starts.
And the ones who may agree that all this is wrong, but who don't
hesitate at little things like bumperstickering cars that aren't
theirs, putting up their "No Iraq War" signs on every lamppost and
piece of public lawn in the city, and actively planning more "take to
the streets and jam all traffic citywide" direct actions timed for
when the war starts.
Feh on the lot of them. Every single one.
--
Mark Atwood | Well done is better than well said.
m...@pobox.com |
http://www.pobox.com/~mra
Karen Lofstrom
> That seems to sum it up...
No, it doesn't. I'm against the idiotic Iraq war, but I'm not
pro-Arab-dictators and I'm not anti-Semitic. (I'm a Bundist rather than a
Zionist, but that's beside the point.) The "song" is a gross
mischaracterization of the views of the vast majority of anti-war folks.
--
Karen Lofstrom lofs...@lava.net
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have a mind like, um, what do you call it, one of those things that are
made of metal and grab animals by the leg ....
Karen Lofstrom
> Of course it's not monolithic. Some members of the peace movement
> prefer to beat up Jews at York University, in Toronto. Those who
> prefer not to actually beat anybody up can agitate in favor of
> cop-killers, or North Korea. And then of course there's a riot to
> plan in San Francisco, timed to begin just after the war starts.
Pete, that is unfair. 99% of the people in the peace movement are NOT in
favor of beating up Jews, freeing Mumuia, or supporting North Korea. OR
rioting.
--
Karen Lofstrom lofs...@lava.net
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bool bool bool! It makes me laugh just to "trink" about it.
Joel Rosenberg
> In article <f0ks6v0ak5n637cc9...@4ax.com>, Pete McCutchen wrote:
>
> > Of course it's not monolithic. Some members of the peace movement
> > prefer to beat up Jews at York University, in Toronto. Those who
> > prefer not to actually beat anybody up can agitate in favor of
> > cop-killers, or North Korea. And then of course there's a riot to
> > plan in San Francisco, timed to begin just after the war starts.
>
> Pete, that is unfair. 99% of the people in the peace movement are NOT in
> favor of beating up Jews, freeing Mumuia, or supporting North Korea. OR
> rioting.
>
I think that's true. (Well, not quite; I think the support for Mumia
Abu Jamal is somewhat larger than 1%.) Then again, something close to
that of Republicans are not in favor of legally-mandated segregation,
either, yet -- quite appropriately -- the Republicans came in for a
rather large amount of criticism during the Lott fiasco.
Still, it seems to me that there is, at best, a huge amount of
tolerance for antisemitism among the folks involved in anti-war
marches.
--
------------------------------------------------------------
http://islamthereligionofpeace.blogspot.com
Kris Hasson-Jones
posted the following for all the world to see:
>In article <f0ks6v0ak5n637cc9...@4ax.com>, Pete McCutchen wrote:
>
>> Of course it's not monolithic. Some members of the peace movement
>> prefer to beat up Jews at York University, in Toronto. Those who
>> prefer not to actually beat anybody up can agitate in favor of
>> cop-killers, or North Korea. And then of course there's a riot to
>> plan in San Francisco, timed to begin just after the war starts.
>
>Pete, that is unfair. 99% of the people in the peace movement are NOT in
>favor of beating up Jews, freeing Mumuia, or supporting North Korea. OR
>rioting.
Do you really think it's as many as 99%? I'd only go as high as 80%
myself. In fact, leaving in the rioting, I'm not sure I'd go that
high.
--
Kris Hasson-Jones sni...@pacifier.com
What Would Aragorn Do?
A.C.
> In article <0ELba.4308$Em1.1...@twister.nyc.rr.com>, A.C.
> <nomadi...@removethistomailmehotmail.com> writes
> >> I think the title's already pretty dilute on your side of the
Atlantic -
> >
> >Yet still people come all over the world to study here...
>
> I know. I'm not saying that your academics are stupid, just that the
> nomenclature's different.
My apologies, I read it wrong.
> That was the point I was trying to make. Here, it goes something like
>
> (Junior Lecturer)
> Lecturer
> Senior Lecturer or Reader (often based on teaching versus research)
> Professor
Someone who works in the academy would be able to give you a more accurate
picture, but I believe it goes something like this here:
Instructor
Adjunct Professor
Assistant Professor
Associate Professor
Professor
An adjunct professor's prestige is based more on who that individual is
rather than on the position itself. Many are people who haven't been able
to get into a tenure track position, others are leaders in their field who
teach on the side out of enjoyment while their main work is at laboratories,
think tanks, hospitals, or courtrooms.
> Some professors get "named" chairs, or chairs with titles attached,
> while others are "personal". A personal chair is usually awarded if
> someone is doing professorial quality work, but there isn't a named
> chair available in the department. They're pretty rare.
I believe named chairs here are the most prestigious, mostly because they
pay the best. John Q. Smith Professor of Whatever usually trumps a plain
old professor.
Mark Atwood
>
> Pete, that is unfair. 99% of the people in the peace movement are NOT in
> favor of beating up Jews, freeing Mumuia, or supporting North Korea. OR
> rioting.
Then why the fuck do you keep giving them the microphones?
Trinker
Mark Atwood wrote:
> lofs...@lava.net (Karen Lofstrom) writes:
>
>>Pete, that is unfair. 99% of the people in the peace movement are NOT in
>>favor of beating up Jews, freeing Mumuia, or supporting North Korea. OR
>>rioting.
>
>
> Then why the fuck do you keep giving them the microphones?
Oh, I forgot. Everyone on the *Right* is an eminence of reason and
logic and brilliance.
--Trinker
David Bilek
>lofs...@lava.net (Karen Lofstrom) writes:
>>
>> Pete, that is unfair. 99% of the people in the peace movement are NOT in
>> favor of beating up Jews, freeing Mumuia, or supporting North Korea. OR
>> rioting.
>
>Then why the fuck do you keep giving them the microphones?
Mark, do you think that the left wing nutbars have
A) MORE
B) LESS
C) ABOUT THE SAME
influence and access to media of right wing nutbars like Pat Robertson
or Jerry Falwell?
-David
Mark Atwood
> >
> >Then why the fuck do you keep giving them the microphones?
>
> or Jerry Falwell?
I was referring to your own damn microphones at your own damn events.
You can complain that onlookers are zeroing in on the worst case
nutbars, but you have no valid cause for that complaint when said
nutbars are the ones on the stage behind the podium.
Joel Rosenberg
I don't know about him, but I think both certainly have some access
(the vast majority of it paid for by their supporters -- I certainly
see each of a dozen antiwar nutbar celebrities on the talking heads
shows far less frequently than I see Falwell, and I can't remember the
last time I saw Robertson being interviewed), and in terms of the
media, very little influence.
--
------------------------------------------------------------
http://islamthereligionofpeace.blogspot.com
Trinker
Joel Rosenberg wrote:
> David Bilek <dbi...@attbi.com> writes:
>
>
>>Mark Atwood <m...@pobox.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>lofs...@lava.net (Karen Lofstrom) writes:
>>>
>>>>Pete, that is unfair. 99% of the people in the peace movement are NOT in
>>>>favor of beating up Jews, freeing Mumuia, or supporting North Korea. OR
>>>>rioting.
>>>
>>>Then why the fuck do you keep giving them the microphones?
>>
>>Mark, do you think that the left wing nutbars have
>>
>>A) MORE
>>
>>B) LESS
>>
>>C) ABOUT THE SAME
>>
>>influence and access to media of right wing nutbars like Pat Robertson
>>or Jerry Falwell?
>>
>>-David
>
>
> I don't know about him, but I think both certainly have some access
> (the vast majority of it paid for by their supporters -- I certainly
> see each of a dozen antiwar nutbar celebrities on the talking heads
> shows far less frequently than I see Falwell, and I can't remember the
> last time I saw Robertson being interviewed), and in terms of the
> media, very little influence.
I don't know that Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell are the best examples
to use anymore.
But is it really important, in the face of unidentified "left wing
nutbars", to actually name the rightwing ones, or can we just assume the
spherical cow, here?
--Trinker
Joel Rosenberg
> David Bilek <dbi...@attbi.com> writes:
> > >
> > >Then why the fuck do you keep giving them the microphones?
> >
> > influence and access to media of right wing nutbars like Pat Robertson
> > or Jerry Falwell?
>
> I was referring to your own damn microphones at your own damn events.
>
> You can complain that onlookers are zeroing in on the worst case
> nutbars, but you have no valid cause for that complaint when said
> nutbars are the ones on the stage behind the podium.
In many cases, it's the folks that I think most reasonable people
would classify as nutbars who have organized the event.
Not, by any means, always. A friend who went to the Minneapolis
antiwar demonstration was understandably pleased -- both, I believe,
for moral and tactical reasons -- to find that the frequently-reported
antisemitic signs at other demonstrations were in complete absence.
My guess is that that had a lot to do with the folks who organized the
event; I doubt that it was random.
--
------------------------------------------------------------
http://islamthereligionofpeace.blogspot.com
Joel Rosenberg
> Joel Rosenberg wrote:
> > David Bilek <dbi...@attbi.com> writes:
> >
>
> >>Mark Atwood <m...@pobox.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>lofs...@lava.net (Karen Lofstrom) writes:
> >>>
> >>>> Pete, that is unfair. 99% of the people in the peace movement are
> >>>> NOT in favor of beating up Jews, freeing Mumuia, or supporting
> >>>> North Korea. OR rioting.
>
> >>>
> >>>Then why the fuck do you keep giving them the microphones?
> >>
> >>Mark, do you think that the left wing nutbars have
> >>
> >>A) MORE
> >>
> >>B) LESS
> >>
> >>C) ABOUT THE SAME
> >>
> >>influence and access to media of right wing nutbars like Pat Robertson
> >>or Jerry Falwell?
> >>
> >>-David
> > I don't know about him, but I think both certainly have some access
>
> > (the vast majority of it paid for by their supporters -- I certainly
> > see each of a dozen antiwar nutbar celebrities on the talking heads
> > shows far less frequently than I see Falwell, and I can't remember the
> > last time I saw Robertson being interviewed), and in terms of the
> > media, very little influence.
>
> I don't know that Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell are the best
> examples to use anymore.
Me, neither. I think their fifteen minutes have been over for years.
Then again, David picked 'em; I didn't.
>
>
> But is it really important, in the face of unidentified "left wing
> nutbars", to actually name the rightwing ones, or can we just assume
> the spherical cow, here?
>
>
>
> --Trinker
>
I dunno. Lots of folks seem to have fun metaphorically beating up Ann
Coulter, and she does seem determined to keep giving people sticks to
pound her with. At least Kevin Maroney tried to look for another word
to mean what I think she honestly (albeit stupidly) uses "treason"
for.
As to identifying the left wing nutbars, that'd be fine, too. I could
start a list?
--
------------------------------------------------------------
http://islamthereligionofpeace.blogspot.com
Pete McCutchen
>In article <f0ks6v0ak5n637cc9...@4ax.com>, Pete McCutchen wrote:
>
>> Of course it's not monolithic. Some members of the peace movement
>> prefer to beat up Jews at York University, in Toronto. Those who
>> prefer not to actually beat anybody up can agitate in favor of
>> cop-killers, or North Korea. And then of course there's a riot to
>> plan in San Francisco, timed to begin just after the war starts.
>
>Pete, that is unfair. 99% of the people in the peace movement are NOT in
>favor of beating up Jews, freeing Mumuia, or supporting North Korea. OR
>rioting.
Then they shouldn't make common cause with those who do. ANSWER is a
radical communist organization, tied directly to those who support
North Korea and advocate the freeing of Mumia. Decent opponents of
the war are obligated to distance themselves from ANSWER and similar
outfits. I wouldn't go to an anti affirmative action rally sponsored
by the KKK, and if I did, I'd rightfully be lumped in with them. By
many who simply don't care that the anti-American, anti-capitalist,
anti-semeitic, anti-globalization far left has taken control of the
anti-war movement.
Whenever I have any doubts about my position, I simply go to anti-war
web pages, and read their arguments.
--
Pete McCutchen
Pete McCutchen
wrote:
Left wing nutbars have about the same amount of influence and more
sympathetic access to the media than Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell.
_The New York Times_ and _Washington Post_ don't do puff-pieces about
Robertson or Falwell, and their followers. And that doesn't even take
into account academia. Pat Robertson had to start his own university,
but the professariate certainly has its share of Chomskyites.
Including, well, Chomsky himself.
Plus, it's not really a fair comparison. While Robertson and Falwell
are nutbars, they're not nearly as nutty or dangerous as the far left.
I'd certainly prefer to live in a country governed by Jerry Falwell
and Pat Robertson than a country governed by Noam Chomsky and Ramsey
Clark.
--
Pete McCutchen
Pete McCutchen
wrote:
No. But I haven't seen libertarian opponents of affirmative action
going to KKK-sponsored rallies against it, either.
--
Pete McCutchen
Priscilla H Ballou
>I'd certainly prefer to live in a country governed by Jerry Falwell
>and Pat Robertson than a country governed by Noam Chomsky and Ramsey
>Clark.
Let me guess. You're a heterosexual caucasian male, aren't you?
Priscilla
--
"I would listen to Priscilla. Her advice is excellent!"
-- Frankenmel (Sharon) on alt.support.menopause
David Bilek
>David Bilek <dbi...@attbi.com> writes:
>> >
>> >Then why the fuck do you keep giving them the microphones?
>>
>> influence and access to media of right wing nutbars like Pat Robertson
>> or Jerry Falwell?
>
>I was referring to your own damn microphones at your own damn events.
>
Hee. Hee. Hee.
Look! Mark has lumped me in with lefties! And anti-war protests!
I am amused.
(You really don't keep track of people's views, do you? Not that you
necessarily should, but this one is rather humorous.)
-David
Trinker
Pete McCutchen wrote:
[...]
> Plus, it's not really a fair comparison. While Robertson and Falwell
> are nutbars, they're not nearly as nutty or dangerous as the far left.
> I'd certainly prefer to live in a country governed by Jerry Falwell
> and Pat Robertson than a country governed by Noam Chomsky and Ramsey
> Clark.
Bingo. Do we really need to start playing "your nutbars are worse than
mine" ?
--Trinker
not fond of the idea of living in a country governed by nutbars, but
feeling these days like it's already true.
Trinker
Joel Rosenberg wrote:
> Trinker <trinke...@yahoo.com> writes:
[nutbars left and right.]
[All of a sudden, I have a craving for Mounds bars.]
>>I don't know that Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell are the best
>>examples to use anymore.
>
> Me, neither. I think their fifteen minutes have been over for years.
> Then again, David picked 'em; I didn't.
I'd like to know why David picked those names, because I can think of
others that are far worse, and with far more influence on current
administration.
>>But is it really important, in the face of unidentified "left wing
>>nutbars", to actually name the rightwing ones, or can we just assume
>>the spherical cow, here?
>
> I dunno. Lots of folks seem to have fun metaphorically beating up Ann
> Coulter, and she does seem determined to keep giving people sticks to
> pound her with. At least Kevin Maroney tried to look for another word
> to mean what I think she honestly (albeit stupidly) uses "treason"
> for.
Sorry, reference? ("Kevin Maroney tried...")
> As to identifying the left wing nutbars, that'd be fine, too. I could
> start a list?
I'd rather start a list of "reasonable folks from any part of the
spectrum with half a chance of getting into power so as to outvocalize
the nutbars".
--Trinker
who recently had a really depressing conversation with someone who
basically said, in different words, "oh, [leader] is horrible, but is a
STRONG LEADER." Here Trinker thought that only got said by cardboard
Russians in bad stories.
Joel Rosenberg
So are, as far as I know, Noam Chomsky and Ramsey Clark.
--
------------------------------------------------------------
http://islamthereligionofpeace.blogspot.com
Kevin J. Maroney
wrote:
>I dunno. Lots of folks seem to have fun metaphorically beating up Ann
>Coulter, and she does seem determined to keep giving people sticks to
>pound her with. At least Kevin Maroney tried to look for another word
>to mean what I think she honestly (albeit stupidly) uses "treason"
>for.
Hey, I don't care what word Ann Coulter uses to describe the
activities of people she hates. I care about the fact that she lies
constantly, wishes death on people who have done her no harm, and, in
the immortal words of Bill Maher, "just makes this shit up".
Right-wing nutbars. That's a new confection from M&M Mars, right?
--
Kevin J. Maroney | k...@panix.com
Games are my entire waking life.
Kevin J. Maroney
<p...@shell01.TheWorld.com> wrote:
>>I'd certainly prefer to live in a country governed by Jerry Falwell
>>and Pat Robertson than a country governed by Noam Chomsky and Ramsey
>>Clark.
>
>Let me guess. You're a heterosexual caucasian male, aren't you?
I think that the person to whom you are responding is not very
familiar with the political ideals of Pat Robertson, which include the
elimination of the international banking system and generational
"jubilee" years in which all debts are cancelled.
And that's not even counting the trials for blasphemy and apostacy.
Priscilla H Ballou
>Priscilla H Ballou <p...@shell01.TheWorld.com> writes:
>> Pete McCutchen <p.mcc...@worldnet.att.net> quoth:
>> >I'd certainly prefer to live in a country governed by Jerry Falwell
>> >and Pat Robertson than a country governed by Noam Chomsky and Ramsey
>> >Clark.
>>
>> Let me guess. You're a heterosexual caucasian male, aren't you?
>So are, as far as I know, Noam Chomsky and Ramsey Clark.
Yes, but their minds don't exclude from "worthy humanity" people who are
nto.
David Bilek
>Joel Rosenberg wrote:
>> Trinker <trinke...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>[nutbars left and right.]
>
>[All of a sudden, I have a craving for Mounds bars.]
>
>
>>>I don't know that Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell are the best
>>>examples to use anymore.
>>
>> Me, neither. I think their fifteen minutes have been over for years.
>> Then again, David picked 'em; I didn't.
>
>I'd like to know why David picked those names, because I can think of
>others that are far worse, and with far more influence on current
>administration.
>
Because I was living in the past. Can I retro-actively pick Michael
Savage? He's a right-wing nutbar and just got his own television show
to go with the popular radio show.
-David
Trinker
Kevin J. Maroney wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Mar 2003 22:15:26 GMT, Joel Rosenberg <jo...@ellegon.com>
> wrote:
>
>>I dunno. Lots of folks seem to have fun metaphorically beating up Ann
>>Coulter, and she does seem determined to keep giving people sticks to
>>pound her with. At least Kevin Maroney tried to look for another word
>>to mean what I think she honestly (albeit stupidly) uses "treason"
>>for.
>
> Hey, I don't care what word Ann Coulter uses to describe the
> activities of people she hates. I care about the fact that she lies
> constantly, wishes death on people who have done her no harm, and, in
> the immortal words of Bill Maher, "just makes this shit up".
Dunno what else you've been saying here lately, Kevin, because I haven't
been lurking during my posting hiatus, but I'll give an unqualified
ditto to what you just said here.
> Right-wing nutbars. That's a new confection from M&M Mars, right?
Don't I wish.
--Trinker
unwrapping a Dove Promise dark chocolate.
A.C.
news:siau6vc6305ljvali...@4ax.com...
> Left wing nutbars have about the same amount of influence and more
> sympathetic access to the media than Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell.
So name someone as far to the left as Robertson and Falwell are to the right
who gets airtime.
> _The New York Times_ and _Washington Post_ don't do puff-pieces about
> Robertson or Falwell, and their followers. And that doesn't even take
> into account academia. Pat Robertson had to start his own university,
> but the professariate certainly has its share of Chomskyites.
> Including, well, Chomsky himself.
That's because Robertson has no academic ability worth mentioning about.
Why the right loves to just demonize Chomsky, he didn't achieve his position
because of his political views; he got it because he's the most influential
linguist of the past 50 years or so.
> Plus, it's not really a fair comparison. While Robertson and Falwell
> are nutbars, they're not nearly as nutty or dangerous as the far left.
> I'd certainly prefer to live in a country governed by Jerry Falwell
> and Pat Robertson than a country governed by Noam Chomsky and Ramsey
> Clark.
If you're a white Christian heterosexual male, no, it wouldn't be that bad.
I'm not sure why you measure danger or power in terms of the media; my
concern is not that the right-wing nutbars gain access to the media, it's
that they have access to the White House.
Check out http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/02/04/cpac/index.html. You
really wouldn't mind these fruit loops in charge?
Trinker
Thank you. He's the one I had in mind, myself. But whose name I didn't
immediately remember, because I don't spend a great deal of time
listening to repetitive @^$#!$^! if I can avoid it.
--Trinker
Marilee J. Layman
wrote:
>In article <f0ks6v0ak5n637cc9...@4ax.com>, Pete McCutchen wrote:
>
>> Of course it's not monolithic. Some members of the peace movement
>> prefer to beat up Jews at York University, in Toronto. Those who
>> prefer not to actually beat anybody up can agitate in favor of
>> cop-killers, or North Korea. And then of course there's a riot to
>> plan in San Francisco, timed to begin just after the war starts.
>
>Pete, that is unfair. 99% of the people in the peace movement are NOT in
>favor of beating up Jews, freeing Mumuia, or supporting North Korea. OR
>rioting.
I *am* in favor of freeing Leonard Peltier.
--
Marilee J. Layman
Handmade Bali Sterling Beads at Wholesale
http://www.basicbali.com
A.C.
news:at127vkl77a0od3mf...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 13 Mar 2003 22:15:26 GMT, Joel Rosenberg <jo...@ellegon.com>
> wrote:
> >I dunno. Lots of folks seem to have fun metaphorically beating up Ann
> >Coulter, and she does seem determined to keep giving people sticks to
> >pound her with. At least Kevin Maroney tried to look for another word
> >to mean what I think she honestly (albeit stupidly) uses "treason"
> >for.
>
> Hey, I don't care what word Ann Coulter uses to describe the
> activities of people she hates. I care about the fact that she lies
> constantly, wishes death on people who have done her no harm, and, in
> the immortal words of Bill Maher, "just makes this shit up".
God bless Bill Maher. His new show is great, and it's really fun to watch
him do what Democrats are too scared to; loudly, forcefully, clearly respond
to his critics. He was on CNN today debating Ron Silver, and I think he
came out ahead.
Avram Grumer
Mark Atwood <m...@pobox.com> wrote:
> David Bilek <dbi...@attbi.com> writes:
> >
> > >Then why the fuck do you keep giving them the microphones?
> >
> > influence and access to media of right wing nutbars like Pat
> > Robertson or Jerry Falwell?
>
> I was referring to your own damn microphones at your own damn events.
I don't know if the people you're talking to own any microphones or any
events. I know I don't.
> You can complain that onlookers are zeroing in on the worst case
> nutbars, but you have no valid cause for that complaint when said
> nutbars are the ones on the stage behind the podium.
I love it when the people who pay lip service to individualist politics
go sloppily lumping people into groups.
I've mentioned this before, but it's worth repeating. Jim Henley,
libertarian, marched in the ANSWER-organized rally last October,
carrying a sign that said "PEACE NOW, SOCIALISM NEVER". Do you think
you could tell me just how this works out to support of ANSWER's
pro-communist agenda?
For bonus points, you could show some awareness of the fact that the
more recent anti-war protests _weren't_ organized by ANSWER.
--
Avram Grumer | av...@grumer.org | http://www.PigsAndFishes.org
"There are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns --
that is to say, there are things that we now know we don't know but
there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we do not know we
don't know." -- Donald Rumsfeld
Joel Rosenberg
Each to his own. I've found the two episodes I've watched only
intermittently funny, at best.
--
------------------------------------------------------------
http://islamthereligionofpeace.blogspot.com
A.C.
news:m2el5ah...@joelr.ellegon.com...
That's what I like about them. His old show was handicapped by the fact
that the hollywood cretins he got tried to turn everything into a joke. For
them it was a career thing, like a talk show appearance. This crowd is
much, much more interesting to listen to.
Avram Grumer
Pete McCutchen <p.mcc...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Left wing nutbars have about the same amount of influence and more
> sympathetic access to the media than Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell.
> _The New York Times_ and _Washington Post_ don't do puff-pieces about
> Robertson or Falwell, and their followers. And that doesn't even
> take into account academia. Pat Robertson had to start his own
> university, but the professariate certainly has its share of
> Chomskyites. Including, well, Chomsky himself.
Who do they do puff-pieces about? (And cites, please.)
> Plus, it's not really a fair comparison. While Robertson and Falwell
> are nutbars, they're not nearly as nutty or dangerous as the far
> left. I'd certainly prefer to live in a country governed by Jerry
> Falwell and Pat Robertson than a country governed by Noam Chomsky and
> Ramsey Clark.
How do you feel about the Christian Reconstructionists? These are the
folks that Falwell thinks are extreme. Really. Here:
Invitation to a Stoning
Walter Olson, Nov. 1998
http://reason.com/9811/col.olson.shtml
: For connoisseurs of surrealism on the American right, it's hard to
: beat an exchange that appeared about a decade ago in the Heritage
: Foundation magazine _Policy Review_. It started when two associates
: of the Rev. Jerry Falwell wrote an article which criticized Christian
: Reconstructionism, the influential movement led by theologian Rousas
: John (R.J.) Rushdoony, for advocating positions that even they as
: committed fundamentalists found "scary." Among Reconstructionism's
: highlights, the article cited support for laws "mandating the death
: penalty for homosexuals and drunkards." The Rev. Rushdoony fired off
: a letter to the editor complaining that the article had got his
: followers' views all wrong: They didn't intend to put _drunkards_ to
: death.
Now, these folks aren't out in the public eye, like Falwell and
Robertson, but they aren't exactly powerless. One of the financiers of
the Reconstructionist Chalcedon Institute is involved with one of those
companies that manufactures electronic voting machines. I'd trade any
dozen newspaper puff-pieces for control of the vote-tallying in
Nebraska.
http://www.ecotalk.org/VotingMachineCompanies.htm
Avram Grumer
Joel Rosenberg <jo...@ellegon.com> wrote:
> Still, it seems to me that there is, at best, a huge amount of
> tolerance for antisemitism among the folks involved in anti-war
> marches.
Nice broad brush you use for spreading your slime, Joel. Must get the
job done real quick.
Joel Rosenberg
Again, each to his own. Some of the folks he's had on have written
stuff I've found interesting, but the twenty or so seconds -- at most
-- before somebody interrupts doesn't seem to me to leave much time to
develop an idea.
--
------------------------------------------------------------
http://islamthereligionofpeace.blogspot.com
Joel Rosenberg
> In article <m2fzpr9...@joelr.ellegon.com>,
> Joel Rosenberg <jo...@ellegon.com> wrote:
>
> > Still, it seems to me that there is, at best, a huge amount of
> > tolerance for antisemitism among the folks involved in anti-war
> > marches.
>
> Nice broad brush you use for spreading your slime, Joel. Must get the
> job done real quick.
>
Obviously, I exclude the folks who have refused to march along with
the antisemites. (I'm tempted to add, "all three of them," but I'll
leave the cheap shots to you, Avram.)
--
------------------------------------------------------------
http://islamthereligionofpeace.blogspot.com
Randolph Fritz
>
> Plus, it's not really a fair comparison. While Robertson and Falwell
> are nutbars, they're not nearly as nutty or dangerous as the far left.
>
On the other hand, try the Christian Reconstructionists, Rushdoony &
that lot. Or just the leaders of the Assembly of God, John Ashcroft's
church. A USA under them would resemble the Taliban with nukes.
Ummmmm...
> I'd certainly prefer to live in a country governed by Jerry Falwell
> and Pat Robertson than a country governed by Noam Chomsky and Ramsey
> Clark.
Chomsky's an anarchist--he (in theory & probably in practice) would
not govern at all. I don't think Clark *could* govern.
Randolph, tired & cranky
ObSF: *If This Goes On...*
Avram Grumer
Joel Rosenberg <jo...@ellegon.com> wrote:
> Avram Grumer <av...@grumer.org> writes:
>
> > In article <m2fzpr9...@joelr.ellegon.com>,
> > Joel Rosenberg <jo...@ellegon.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Still, it seems to me that there is, at best, a huge amount of
> > > tolerance for antisemitism among the folks involved in anti-war
> > > marches.
> >
> > Nice broad brush you use for spreading your slime, Joel. Must get
> > the job done real quick.
>
> Obviously, I exclude the folks who have refused to march along with
> the antisemites. (I'm tempted to add, "all three of them," but I'll
> leave the cheap shots to you, Avram.)
I call 'em the way I see 'em.
Michalak
> No. But I haven't seen libertarian opponents of affirmative action
> going to KKK-sponsored rallies against it, either.
No, not KKK rallies (I think the last time the KKK had a public rally
in Colorado Regan was still president and I can't remember any rallies
again affirmative action, ever).
But there was this rally by the "We The People Congress" warning the
government of "dire consequences" if the government didn't immediately
repeal all the laws they consider unconstitutional. Prominent at the
rally was the Colorado Libertarian party's candidate for Senator, Rick
Standly.
Googoling I find:
-------------------
"We're trying to give the government a warning, kind of like a final
warning," said Rick Stanley, a Denver businessman and member of the
Libertarian Party, who recently tried to unseat Sen. Wayne Allard,
R-Colo.
In March, Stanley released a comprehensive list of demands, including
repeal of "all unconstitutional laws" at all levels of government. "In
other words, they've been given the petition for redress of grievances
many times, and the bottom line is we want them to obey the
Constitution ... or else," he said.
Asked what "or else" means, Stanley was evasive, but he hinted at
armed rebellion, mentioning a "Million Gun March" he is planning for
July 4, 2003.
"We're coming to make sure that they comply with the Constitution and
with our petition demands.
"To me, it [the Million Gun March] will be the thing that dislodges
the government that has overthrown America from its perch. And what's
going to happen is 'We, the people' will be running the government
from that day forward."
----------------
Now to be fair Rick Standley is a particularly wacky individual, but
the "We The People Congress" is at best a snake oil outfit that claims
the 16th amendment was not properly ratified and encouraging people to
not pay income taxes. And while Standley is not representative of all
Libertarians, he is representative of many that I have encountered in
Colorado.
Mishalak
Alan Winston - SSRL Admin Cmptg Mgr
>"Joel Rosenberg" <jo...@ellegon.com> wrote in message
>news:m2el5ah...@joelr.ellegon.com...
>that the hollywood cretins he got tried to turn everything into a joke. For
>them it was a career thing, like a talk show appearance. This crowd is
>much, much more interesting to listen to.
I'm ambivalent about Larry Miller on the show, because, while he clearly has
deeply held opinions (which I often disagree with), he goes for the cheap gag
about half the time.
-- Alan
===============================================================================
Alan Winston --- WIN...@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU
Disclaimer: I speak only for myself, not SLAC or SSRL Phone: 650/926-3056
Paper mail to: SSRL -- SLAC BIN 99, 2575 Sand Hill Rd, Menlo Park CA 94025
===============================================================================
A.C.
wrote in message news:00A1CD1E...@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU...
> In article <E29ca.89$K51.2...@twister.nyc.rr.com>, "A.C."
<nomadi...@removethistomailmehotmail.com> writes:
> >That's what I like about them. His old show was handicapped by the fact
> >that the hollywood cretins he got tried to turn everything into a joke.
For
> >them it was a career thing, like a talk show appearance. This crowd is
> >much, much more interesting to listen to.
>
> I'm ambivalent about Larry Miller on the show, because, while he clearly
has
> deeply held opinions (which I often disagree with), he goes for the cheap
gag
> about half the time.
Yes, that was my one problem. Also, he didn't really seem to know what he
was talking about. Fortunately he wasn't in the last episode.
Lee Ratner
> In article <b4qad8$1pm$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca>, Andre Lieven wrote:
>
> > That seems to sum it up...
>
> No, it doesn't. I'm against the idiotic Iraq war, but I'm not
> pro-Arab-dictators and I'm not anti-Semitic. (I'm a Bundist rather than a
> Zionist, but that's beside the point.) The "song" is a gross
> mischaracterization of the views of the vast majority of anti-war folks.
As a Zionist I would like you or any other Bundist to answer if
possible. I am not trying to be a troll. Bundism advocates satisfying
Jewish national and cultural ambitions by Jewish autonomy as far I
know. How will you implement a system of Jewish autonomy in the modern
world?
Marilee J. Layman
wrote:
Yeah, and he called GLAAD "Nazis":
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A43013-2003Mar4.html
Joel Rosenberg
Having just watched the third, dreary episode of the new Maher show, I
missed Larry Miller.
--
------------------------------------------------------------
http://islamthereligionofpeace.blogspot.com
Joel Rosenberg
That's remarkably dumb. If he, err, needs whipping boys, ACTUP is a
much better target, although Godwinizing them seems a bit much.
Isn't Savage the guy who was picked to replace Donahue?
Speaking of Robertson, he was on one of the talking head shows
tonight; first time I've seen him on anything in a loooong time,
although I'd guess that he's still on his 700 Club, assuming it's
still on at all.
--
------------------------------------------------------------
http://islamthereligionofpeace.blogspot.com
Karen Lofstrom
> Then they shouldn't make common cause with those who do. ANSWER is a
> radical communist organization, tied directly to those who support
> North Korea and advocate the freeing of Mumia. Decent opponents of
> the war are obligated to distance themselves from ANSWER and similar
> outfits.
Use of the passive cleverly disguising the fact that you are the one
imposing the obligation. You mean to say, I think, that you will consider
anyone who goes to a demonstration as sharing all the opinions of that
organization.
I don't think people are necessarily that picky when it comes to getting
involved in politics. They'll look for people with whom they can cooperate
in pursuit of selected goals and ignore the differences. Until the
differences get too divisive to ignore.
The left-wing nutbars were the first out there with organized protests
and so people took what they could get -- while kvetching about the
company. Hence the much more moderate single-issue "fronts" that sprang
out soon after.
I have NEVER marched in any demonstration sponsored by ANSWER. Nor done
anything else to support them.
Of course, I can't march because I'm so crippled I can't walk very far.
I'd have to rent a wheelchair to "march".
--
Karen Lofstrom lofs...@lava.net
----------------------------------------------------------------------
CLIP-ON NOSE RINGS ARE HERE!
Karen Lofstrom
Lee Ratner wrote:
> As a Zionist I would like you or any other Bundist to answer if
> possible. I am not trying to be a troll. Bundism advocates satisfying
> Jewish national and cultural ambitions by Jewish autonomy as far I
> know. How will you implement a system of Jewish autonomy in the modern
> world?
By abandoning the idea of the nation state as presently constituted. I
support Jewish bunds, Christian bunds, Buddhist bunds, libertarian bunds,
lutefisk bunds, shopaholic bunds, big-endian bunds. However people want to
organize themselves. No state should support any particular religion,
culture, language, ideal of the family, gender definition, etc.
To put it in Muslim language, we should all be dhimmis. With our own
charitable budgets and family courts.
The Jewish Bundists just didn't go far enough. I'm a radical ecumenical
Bundist.
--
Karen Lofstrom lofs...@lava.net
----------------------------------------------------------------------
inconceivable!
David Bilek
>Marilee J. Layman <mjla...@erols.com> writes:
>> On Thu, 13 Mar 2003 22:45:55 GMT, David Bilek <dbi...@attbi.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Because I was living in the past. Can I retro-actively pick Michael
>> >Savage? He's a right-wing nutbar and just got his own television show
>> >to go with the popular radio show.
>>
>> Yeah, and he called GLAAD "Nazis":
>>
>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A43013-2003Mar4.html
>
>That's remarkably dumb. If he, err, needs whipping boys, ACTUP is a
>much better target, although Godwinizing them seems a bit much.
>
>Isn't Savage the guy who was picked to replace Donahue?
>
Yes. I caught his first show. Remarkably dull.
I expected it to be offensive, but I figured he'd at least be
entertaining and offensive. How very, very wrong I was.
It was even more boring than last weeks episode of Real Time with Bill
Maher.
-David
John R. Owens
wrote:
> In article <E29ca.89$K51.2...@twister.nyc.rr.com>, "A.C."
> <nomadi...@removethistomailmehotmail.com> writes:
>> "Joel Rosenberg" <jo...@ellegon.com> wrote in message
>> news:m2el5ah...@joelr.ellegon.com...
>>> "A.C." <nomadi...@removethistomailmehotmail.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>> God bless Bill Maher. His new show is great, and it's really fun to
>>>> watch him do what Democrats are too scared to; loudly, forcefully,
>>>> clearly respond to his critics.
>>>
>>> Each to his own. I've found the two episodes I've watched only
>>> intermittently funny, at best.
>>
>> That's what I like about them. His old show was handicapped by the
>> fact that the hollywood cretins he got tried to turn everything into a
>> joke. For them it was a career thing, like a talk show appearance.
>> This crowd is much, much more interesting to listen to.
>
> I'm ambivalent about Larry Miller on the show, because, while he clearly
> has deeply held opinions (which I often disagree with), he goes for the
> cheap gag about half the time.
Are you objecting to the half of the time where he does or doesn't go for
the cheap gag?
--
John R. Owens http://www.ghiapet.homeip.net/
Ah, arrogance and stupidity all in the same package. How efficient of
you!
--Londo Mollari
Daniel R. Reitman
wrote:
>. . . .
>Still, it seems to me that there is, at best, a huge amount of
>tolerance for antisemitism among the folks involved in anti-war
>marches.
Oy. Do we have to deal with this canard again?
Dan, ad nauseam
(:-(
Alan Winston - SSRL Admin Cmptg Mgr
>Marilee J. Layman <mjla...@erols.com> writes:
>
>> >
>> >Savage? He's a right-wing nutbar and just got his own television show
>> >to go with the popular radio show.
>>
>> Yeah, and he called GLAAD "Nazis":
>>
>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A43013-2003Mar4.html
>
>much better target, although Godwinizing them seems a bit much.
ACTUP isn't sponsoring a boycott of his show.
>
>Isn't Savage the guy who was picked to replace Donahue?
>
I think Jesse Ventura is supposed to be the power hitter in the new Foxified
lineup. Savage is on at a somewhat marginal time.
Alan Winston - SSRL Admin Cmptg Mgr
>On Fri, 14 Mar 2003 03:20:35 +0000, Alan Winston - SSRL Admin Cmptg Mgr
>wrote:
>> <nomadi...@removethistomailmehotmail.com> writes:
>>> "Joel Rosenberg" <jo...@ellegon.com> wrote in message
>>> news:m2el5ah...@joelr.ellegon.com...
>>>> "A.C." <nomadi...@removethistomailmehotmail.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>> God bless Bill Maher. His new show is great, and it's really fun to
>>>>> watch him do what Democrats are too scared to; loudly, forcefully,
>>>>> clearly respond to his critics.
>>>>
>>>> Each to his own. I've found the two episodes I've watched only
>>>> intermittently funny, at best.
>>>
>>> That's what I like about them. His old show was handicapped by the
>>> fact that the hollywood cretins he got tried to turn everything into a
>>> joke. For them it was a career thing, like a talk show appearance.
>>> This crowd is much, much more interesting to listen to.
>>
>> I'm ambivalent about Larry Miller on the show, because, while he clearly
>> has deeply held opinions (which I often disagree with), he goes for the
>> cheap gag about half the time.
>
>the cheap gag?
I'm not sure; that's why I'm ambivalent.
(The two things I used to not like about the old show were all the shouting and
interruptions, and that real and interesting discussion was often sidetracked
either by running out the clock for that segment or by somebody going for the
gag. On the other hand, I like it when the gags are funny.)
-- Alan
discussion would start to occur and then get side
Jonathan J. Baker
>> Still, it seems to me that there is, at best, a huge amount of
>> tolerance for antisemitism among the folks involved in anti-war
>> marches.
>Nice broad brush you use for spreading your slime, Joel. Must get the
>job done real quick.
No, no, it's true. Viz. the banning of Rabbi Michael Lerner, *the*
leftist rabbi, from antiwar rallies in his own city.
See <http://www.thenation.com/capitalgames/index.mhtml?bid=3&pid=385>
for example.
And now this Moran flap - Congressmen don't tend to speak in a vacuum.
--
Jonathan Baker | Knock knock. Who's there? Mischa. Mischa who?
jjb...@panix.com | Mishenichnas Adar I marbim besimcha ketanah.
New on Webpage: On Mendelssohn's Biur <http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker/biur.html>
Kip Williams
> Avram Grumer <av...@grumer.org> writes:
>
>>In article <m2fzpr9...@joelr.ellegon.com>,
>> Joel Rosenberg <jo...@ellegon.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Still, it seems to me that there is, at best, a huge amount of
>>>tolerance for antisemitism among the folks involved in anti-war
>>>marches.
>>
>>Nice broad brush you use for spreading your slime, Joel. Must get the
>>job done real quick.
>
> Obviously, I exclude the folks who have refused to march along with
> the antisemites. (I'm tempted to add, "all three of them," but I'll
> leave the cheap shots to you, Avram.)
Funny, but from here, Avram looks more like the guy who insists on
facts and figures -- I'd expect a 'cheap shot' from him to be
something along the lines of using data with only one footnote.
I guess it helps if you redefine 'cheap shot' to mean 'pointing out
someone else's cheap shot.'
--
--Kip (Williams) ...at members.cox.net/kipw
"Why, what a splendid trifle, young man! You and your friends may
travel for free!" "Cor!" "Hooray for Tommy!" --Tommy and his Trifle
Joel Rosenberg
> In article <m2llziz...@joelr.ellegon.com>, Joel Rosenberg <jo...@ellegon.com> writes:
> >Marilee J. Layman <mjla...@erols.com> writes:
> >
> >> >
> >> >Because I was living in the past. Can I retro-actively pick Michael
> >> >Savage? He's a right-wing nutbar and just got his own television show
> >> >to go with the popular radio show.
> >>
> >> Yeah, and he called GLAAD "Nazis":
> >>
> >> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A43013-2003Mar4.html
> >
> >That's remarkably dumb. If he, err, needs whipping boys, ACTUP is a
> >much better target, although Godwinizing them seems a bit much.
>
> ACTUP isn't sponsoring a boycott of his show.
Ah.
>
> >
> >Isn't Savage the guy who was picked to replace Donahue?
> >
>
> I think Jesse Ventura is supposed to be the power hitter in the new Foxified
> lineup. Savage is on at a somewhat marginal time.
Jesse's radio show here, while not wonderful, was usually reasonably
interesting.
--
------------------------------------------------------------
http://islamthereligionofpeace.blogspot.com
Joel Rosenberg
> In <> Avram Grumer <av...@grumer.org> writes:
> > Joel Rosenberg <jo...@ellegon.com> wrote:
>
> >> Still, it seems to me that there is, at best, a huge amount of
> >> tolerance for antisemitism among the folks involved in anti-war
> >> marches.
>
> >Nice broad brush you use for spreading your slime, Joel. Must get the
> >job done real quick.
>
> No, no, it's true. Viz. the banning of Rabbi Michael Lerner, *the*
> leftist rabbi, from antiwar rallies in his own city.
>
> See <http://www.thenation.com/capitalgames/index.mhtml?bid=3&pid=385>
> for example.
>
> And now this Moran flap - Congressmen don't tend to speak in a vacuum.
>
Yup. Although Moran's gotten some not particularly surprising support
-- Pat Buchanan's come out for him. As Jay Leno said, some years ago,
in a different context, something to the effect of, "that's sort of
like Lyle coming out in support of Eric."
--
------------------------------------------------------------
http://islamthereligionofpeace.blogspot.com
Joel Rosenberg
> Joel Rosenberg wrote:
> > Avram Grumer <av...@grumer.org> writes:
> >
>
> >>In article <m2fzpr9...@joelr.ellegon.com>,
> >> Joel Rosenberg <jo...@ellegon.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>Still, it seems to me that there is, at best, a huge amount of
> >>>tolerance for antisemitism among the folks involved in anti-war
> >>> marches.
>
> >>
> >> Nice broad brush you use for spreading your slime, Joel. Must get
> >> the job done real quick.
>
> > Obviously, I exclude the folks who have refused to march along with
>
> > the antisemites. (I'm tempted to add, "all three of them," but I'll
> > leave the cheap shots to you, Avram.)
>
>
> Funny, but from here, Avram looks more like the guy who insists on
> facts and figures -- I'd expect a 'cheap shot' from him to be
> something along the lines of using data with only one footnote.
Fair enough. How many URLs of reports at of antisemitic
signs/speeches at antiwar protests would you like?
--
------------------------------------------------------------
http://islamthereligionofpeace.blogspot.com
Kip Williams
> Kip Williams <ki...@cox.net> writes:
>
>
>>Joel Rosenberg wrote:
>>
>>>Avram Grumer <av...@grumer.org> writes:
>>>
>>
>>>>In article <m2fzpr9...@joelr.ellegon.com>,
>>>>Joel Rosenberg <jo...@ellegon.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Still, it seems to me that there is, at best, a huge amount of
>>>>>tolerance for antisemitism among the folks involved in anti-war
>>>>>marches.
>>>>
>>>>Nice broad brush you use for spreading your slime, Joel. Must get
>>>>the job done real quick.
>>>
>>>Obviously, I exclude the folks who have refused to march along with
>>
>>>the antisemites. (I'm tempted to add, "all three of them," but I'll
>>>leave the cheap shots to you, Avram.)
>>
>>Funny, but from here, Avram looks more like the guy who insists on
>>facts and figures -- I'd expect a 'cheap shot' from him to be
>>something along the lines of using data with only one footnote.
>
> Fair enough. How many URLs of reports at of antisemitic
> signs/speeches at antiwar protests would you like?
Depends. How many are there? "All but three?"
Joel Rosenberg
> Joel Rosenberg wrote:
> > Kip Williams <ki...@cox.net> writes:
> >
>
> >>Joel Rosenberg wrote:
> >>
> >>>Avram Grumer <av...@grumer.org> writes:
> >>>
> >>
> >>>>In article <m2fzpr9...@joelr.ellegon.com>,
> >>>>Joel Rosenberg <jo...@ellegon.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>Still, it seems to me that there is, at best, a huge amount of
> >>>>>tolerance for antisemitism among the folks involved in anti-war
> >>>>>marches.
> >>>>
> >>>>Nice broad brush you use for spreading your slime, Joel. Must get
> >>>>the job done real quick.
> >>>
> >>>Obviously, I exclude the folks who have refused to march along with
> >>
> >>>the antisemites. (I'm tempted to add, "all three of them," but I'll
> >>>leave the cheap shots to you, Avram.)
> >>
> >>Funny, but from here, Avram looks more like the guy who insists on
> >>facts and figures -- I'd expect a 'cheap shot' from him to be
> >>something along the lines of using data with only one footnote.
> > Fair enough. How many URLs of reports at of antisemitic
>
> > signs/speeches at antiwar protests would you like?
>
>
> Depends. How many are there?
Lots. How many do you want? Or can we just agree that antisemitic
signs/speeches at antiwar protests are common?
>"All but three?"
>
As I said, that would have been a cheap shot.
--
------------------------------------------------------------
http://islamthereligionofpeace.blogspot.com
Pete McCutchen
<p...@shell01.TheWorld.com> wrote:
>Pete McCutchen <p.mcc...@worldnet.att.net> quoth:
>>I'd certainly prefer to live in a country governed by Jerry Falwell
>>and Pat Robertson than a country governed by Noam Chomsky and Ramsey
>>Clark.
>
>Let me guess. You're a heterosexual caucasian male, aren't you?
The "caucasian" part really doesn't enter in to it. Both Falwell and
Robertson come from that part of the evangelical movement which has
rejected racism. In fact, for many years, Pat Robertson's co-host on
The 700 Club was African American. Bob Jones lost that argument in
the evangelical world. I really don't see either Pat Robertson or
Jerry Falwell trying to take us back to the fifties, in terms of race
relations.
They would, however, almost certainly enact policies that would have
the manifest intent of taking us back to the fifties when it came to
gender and homosexuality. You could expect to see stronger
enforcement of sodomy laws, for example. Yet it's not at all clear to
me that homosexuals would be all that much better off in the world
ruled by Noam Chomsky and Ramsey Clark. Both admire Cuba, and Fidel
is hardly tolerant of homosexuals. If anything, he treats them worse
than they'd be treated under the Falwell/Robertson regime. And I
think they'd probably try to get women back to the home, though I'm
not sure what specific policies they'd enact.
The thing is, I don't think identity politics are that relevant.
Would Pat Robertson and Jerry Fallwell enact some pernicious policies,
if given the chance? Of course they would. But I'd expect Ramsey
Clark and Noam Chomsky to do the full communist horror pile-of-skulls
bit, given the opportunity. Robertson and Falwell would turn us into
Saudi Arabia Lite, which would be bad. But they probably wouldn't
butcher ten or twenty million class enemies. And Falwell and
Robertson believe in democracy, at least at some level, which means it
would be easier to vote them out of office.
--
Pete McCutchen
A.C.
news:jv007v88s6m7s10c8...@4ax.com...
> The thing is, I don't think identity politics are that relevant.
> Would Pat Robertson and Jerry Fallwell enact some pernicious policies,
> if given the chance? Of course they would. But I'd expect Ramsey
> Clark and Noam Chomsky to do the full communist horror pile-of-skulls
> bit, given the opportunity.
Do you have any basis for this hypothesis, other than personal distaste?
> And Falwell and
> Robertson believe in democracy, at least at some level, which means it
> would be easier to vote them out of office.
"Maybe if you understood democracy and it's moral overtones, you would
understand that rejecting democracy lines right up with Christian
principles. In the ultimate sense, democracy is the cause of all world
problems. Yes, democracy which is calling itself a remedy of such problems
is the real culprit."
-Pat
Robertson
Joel Rosenberg
> "Pete McCutchen" <p.mcc...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:jv007v88s6m7s10c8...@4ax.com...
>
>
> > The thing is, I don't think identity politics are that relevant.
> > Would Pat Robertson and Jerry Fallwell enact some pernicious policies,
> > if given the chance? Of course they would. But I'd expect Ramsey
> > Clark and Noam Chomsky to do the full communist horror pile-of-skulls
> > bit, given the opportunity.
>
> Do you have any basis for this hypothesis, other than personal distaste?
They do seem to have stood up for a variety of dictators -- do you
think that they didn't mean it?
>
> > And Falwell and
> > Robertson believe in democracy, at least at some level, which means it
> > would be easier to vote them out of office.
>
> "Maybe if you understood democracy and it's moral overtones, you would
> understand that rejecting democracy lines right up with Christian
> principles. In the ultimate sense, democracy is the cause of all world
> problems. Yes, democracy which is calling itself a remedy of such problems
> is the real culprit."
I think that demonstrating that Robertson is a nutbar is easy fun, but
probably too easy.
That said, we've had Presidents who have at least insinuated that
their election was God-inspired -- Jimmy Carter, for one -- but I
don't recall any US President refusing to leave office when his term
was up.
Still, I don't think that the next US President will be a demagogic
nutbar Christian preacher, despite the popularity in some quarters of
Al Sharpton.
--
------------------------------------------------------------
http://islamthereligionofpeace.blogspot.com
Kris Hasson-Jones
Reitman) posted the following for all the world to see:
It's not a canard.
However, I agree that I'd much rather not have to deal with it again.
The weekly protest march that often blocks my commute home (it's every
Friday evening and hits my office's block about the time I get off
work) is definitely anti-semitic based on the signs I've seen. And
yes, I can distinguish between being anti-Israel and being
anti-semitic.
--
Kris Hasson-Jones sni...@pacifier.com
What Would Aragorn Do?
Joel Rosenberg
Depends on who you listen to, I suppose. Buchanan spent his sixty
seconds on his show yesterday half defending Moran, and half
explaining that antisemitism isn't nearly the problem that accusations
of antisemitism are.
Canard? Isn't that a French word for "duck", as in "if it looks like
a duck, if it walks like a duck, if it quacks like a duck . . . "
--
------------------------------------------------------------
http://islamthereligionofpeace.blogspot.com
Michael Kube-McDowell
wrote:
>Lots. How many do you want? Or can we just agree that antisemitic
>signs/speeches at antiwar protests are common?
"Common" could mean anything from "You'll likely see at least one at
any demonstration over 100 people" to "You'll likely see them all
around you at any demonstration over 100 people" to "Organizers make
them up in advance and hand them out, so no one misses the message."
The latter two I would find troubling; the first I would chalk up to
the Fugghead Principle. ("There is no cause so noble that it will not
attract fuggheads.")
Joel Rosenberg
> On Fri, 14 Mar 2003 13:58:38 GMT, Joel Rosenberg <jo...@ellegon.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Lots. How many do you want? Or can we just agree that antisemitic
> >signs/speeches at antiwar protests are common?
>
> "Common" could mean anything from "You'll likely see at least one at
> any demonstration over 100 people" to "You'll likely see them all
> around you at any demonstration over 100 people" to "Organizers make
> them up in advance and hand them out, so no one misses the message."
Sure.
> The latter two I would find troubling; the first I would chalk up to
> the Fugghead Principle. ("There is no cause so noble that it will not
> attract fuggheads.")
>
>
Fair enough. And, should moderate rightwing folks be involved in a march where
there are Klanners wearing t-shirts with a picture of Dr. King,
crosshairs over his face, and the legend "Our Dream Came True"
emblazoned on it, surely nobody should find that troubling.
Hell, that would be like making a fuss over one Republican senator
going over the top in praising an centenarian at his birthday party.
Meanwhile, in a totally unrelated matter to the increase of
antisemitism, the French are investigating and considering the
possibility that three masked men grabbing a Jewish woman and carving
a Magen David on her arm just might, possibly, be an antisemitic
incident.
--
------------------------------------------------------------
http://islamthereligionofpeace.blogspot.com
Joel Rosenberg
> On Fri, 14 Mar 2003 13:58:38 GMT, Joel Rosenberg <jo...@ellegon.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Lots. How many do you want? Or can we just agree that antisemitic
> >signs/speeches at antiwar protests are common?
>
> "Common" could mean anything from "You'll likely see at least one at
> any demonstration over 100 people" to "You'll likely see them all
> around you at any demonstration over 100 people" to "Organizers make
> them up in advance and hand them out, so no one misses the message."
Sure.
> The latter two I would find troubling; the first I would chalk up to
> the Fugghead Principle. ("There is no cause so noble that it will not
> attract fuggheads.")
>
>
Fair enough. And, should moderate rightwing folks be involved in a march where
there are Klanners wearing t-shirts with a picture of Dr. King,
crosshairs over his face, and the legend "Our Dream Came True"
emblazoned on it, surely nobody should find that troubling.
Hell, that would be like making a fuss over one Republican senator
going over the top in praising an ex-segregationist centenarian at his
Michael Kube-McDowell
wrote:
>Michael Kube-McDowell <KMac_...@yahoo.com.null> writes:
>
>> On Fri, 14 Mar 2003 13:58:38 GMT, Joel Rosenberg <jo...@ellegon.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Lots. How many do you want? Or can we just agree that antisemitic
>> >signs/speeches at antiwar protests are common?
>>
>> "Common" could mean anything from "You'll likely see at least one at
>> any demonstration over 100 people" to "You'll likely see them all
>> around you at any demonstration over 100 people" to "Organizers make
>> them up in advance and hand them out, so no one misses the message."
>
>Sure.
>
>> The latter two I would find troubling; the first I would chalk up to
>> the Fugghead Principle. ("There is no cause so noble that it will not
>> attract fuggheads.")
>>
>>
>
>Fair enough. And, should moderate rightwing folks be involved in a march where
>there are Klanners wearing t-shirts with a picture of Dr. King,
>crosshairs over his face, and the legend "Our Dream Came True"
>emblazoned on it, surely nobody should find that troubling.
There hasn't been anything remotely analogous to that at the peace
marches locally. Consequently, I've been reading the quarrelling here
over antisemitism at peace rallies with surprise and puzzlement.
"What? Really? Who? Where?"
>Hell, that would be like making a fuss over one Republican senator
>going over the top in praising an centenarian at his birthday party.
Unlike any of the scenarios involving anonymous persons at mass
demonstrations, the Republican senator in question was clearly
speaking for himself, on the record.
>Meanwhile, in a totally unrelated matter to the increase of
>antisemitism, the French are investigating and considering the
>possibility that three masked men grabbing a Jewish woman and carving
>a Magen David on her arm just might, possibly, be an antisemitic
>incident.
Whether antisemitism exists (obviously it does) and whether
antisemitism plays a significant part in the antiwar/peace protests
(not at all obvious from here) are almost entirely separate questions.
I know a number of people locally who are opposed to the coming war,
and some have expressed that through taking part in public
demonstrations. None of the people I know, though, got there through
ethnic prejudice. By and large they're not even talking about Israel;
it's not part of the equation.
David Bilek
>Jonathan J. Baker <jjb...@panix.com> writes:
>
>> In <> Avram Grumer <av...@grumer.org> writes:
>> > Joel Rosenberg <jo...@ellegon.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> Still, it seems to me that there is, at best, a huge amount of
>> >> tolerance for antisemitism among the folks involved in anti-war
>> >> marches.
>>
>> >Nice broad brush you use for spreading your slime, Joel. Must get the
>> >job done real quick.
>>
>> No, no, it's true. Viz. the banning of Rabbi Michael Lerner, *the*
>> leftist rabbi, from antiwar rallies in his own city.
>>
>> See <http://www.thenation.com/capitalgames/index.mhtml?bid=3&pid=385>
>> for example.
>>
>> And now this Moran flap - Congressmen don't tend to speak in a vacuum.
>>
>
>Yup. Although Moran's gotten some not particularly surprising support
>-- Pat Buchanan's come out for him. As Jay Leno said, some years ago,
>in a different context, something to the effect of, "that's sort of
>like Lyle coming out in support of Eric."
It's amazing how many of the people who excoriated Trent Lott are
keeping silent on the Moran issue. You can hear the crickets
chirping.
-David
raycun
> me that homosexuals would be all that much better off in the world
> ruled by Noam Chomsky and Ramsey Clark. Both admire Cuba, and Fidel
> is hardly tolerant of homosexuals.
Do you have a cite for this? Because I have
http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/other/lbbs9408-cuba.html
"As for the regime, it's a dictatorship, often brutal though a teddy
bear in comparison with numerous US friends and clients, with plenty
of human rights violations, etc.... Personally, I'd like to see the
regime overthrown by an internal libertarian revolution (and not that
one alone)."
That doesn't look like admiration for Castro to me.
(I've no idea who Ramsey Clark is)
Ray
raycun
> "A.C." <nomadi...@removethistomailmehotmail.com> writes:
>
> > "Pete McCutchen" <p.mcc...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> > news:jv007v88s6m7s10c8...@4ax.com...
> >
> >
> > > The thing is, I don't think identity politics are that relevant.
> > > Would Pat Robertson and Jerry Fallwell enact some pernicious policies,
> > > if given the chance? Of course they would. But I'd expect Ramsey
> > > Clark and Noam Chomsky to do the full communist horror pile-of-skulls
> > > bit, given the opportunity.
> >
> > Do you have any basis for this hypothesis, other than personal distaste?
>
> They do seem to have stood up for a variety of dictators -- do you
> think that they didn't mean it?
Cite?
Where has Chomsky stood up for dictators?
Ray
(Ramsey Clark I'll give you since I've no idea who he is)
Mark Atwood
>
> It's amazing how many of the people who excoriated Trent Lott are
> keeping silent on the Moran issue. You can hear the crickets
> chirping.
"No enemies on the left".
Not amazing, just business as usual.
--
Mark Atwood | Well done is better than well said.
m...@pobox.com |
http://www.pobox.com/~mra
Mark Atwood
>
> There hasn't been anything remotely analogous to that at the peace
> marches locally. Consequently, I've been reading the quarrelling here
> over antisemitism at peace rallies with surprise and puzzlement.
> "What? Really? Who? Where?"
I've seen the blue star of david with the red circle and slash over it
on more than one placard here.
Cathy Doyle
Joel Rosenberg wrote:
>Marilee J. Layman <mjla...@erols.com> writes:
>
>
>
>>On Thu, 13 Mar 2003 22:45:55 GMT, David Bilek <dbi...@attbi.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Trinker <trinke...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Joel Rosenberg wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Trinker <trinke...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>[nutbars left and right.]
>>>>
>>>>[All of a sudden, I have a craving for Mounds bars.]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>I don't know that Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell are the best
>>>>>>examples to use anymore.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>Me, neither. I think their fifteen minutes have been over for years.
>>>>>Then again, David picked 'em; I didn't.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>I'd like to know why David picked those names, because I can think of
>>>>others that are far worse, and with far more influence on current
>>>>administration.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Because I was living in the past. Can I retro-actively pick Michael
>>>Savage? He's a right-wing nutbar and just got his own television show
>>>to go with the popular radio show.
>>>
>>>
>>Yeah, and he called GLAAD "Nazis":
>>
>>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A43013-2003Mar4.html
>>
>>
>
>That's remarkably dumb. If he, err, needs whipping boys, ACTUP is a
>much better target, although Godwinizing them seems a bit much.
>
>Isn't Savage the guy who was picked to replace Donahue?
>
>Speaking of Robertson, he was on one of the talking head shows
>tonight; first time I've seen him on anything in a loooong time,
>although I'd guess that he's still on his 700 Club, assuming it's
>still on at all.
>
>
>
Pat Robertson has been sick lately, he's been operated on for prostate
cancer. He can still be
seen on the 700 Club.
Cathy
Cathy Doyle
David Bilek wrote:
David in today's paper in SE Virginia there's an article that states six
members of the House have spoken
out against Moran, including the House Minority Leader. And primary
challanges are lining up
against him now, including creditable challangers. You might not be
seeing this in your papers
because you don't live in Virginia like we do.
Cathy
David Bilek
>David Bilek wrote:
>>Joel Rosenberg <jo...@ellegon.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>Yup. Although Moran's gotten some not particularly surprising support
>>>-- Pat Buchanan's come out for him. As Jay Leno said, some years ago,
>>>in a different context, something to the effect of, "that's sort of
>>>like Lyle coming out in support of Eric."
>>>
>>>
>>
>>It's amazing how many of the people who excoriated Trent Lott are
>>keeping silent on the Moran issue. You can hear the crickets
>>chirping.
>>
>>
>members of the House have spoken
>out against Moran, including the House Minority Leader. And primary
>challanges are lining up
>against him now, including creditable challangers. You might not be
>seeing this in your papers
>because you don't live in Virginia like we do.
>
I'm not talking about them. I'm talking about (for example) bloggers
who rode the Lott story like a pit bull, or even people on this
newsgroup.
-David
Joel Rosenberg
> David Bilek wrote:
>
> >Joel Rosenberg <jo...@ellegon.com> wrote:
> >
>
> >>Jonathan J. Baker <jjb...@panix.com> writes:
> >>
> >>
>
> >>>In <> Avram Grumer <av...@grumer.org> writes:
> >>>
>
> >>>>Joel Rosenberg <jo...@ellegon.com> wrote:
> >>>>
>
> >>>>>Still, it seems to me that there is, at best, a huge amount of
> >>>>>tolerance for antisemitism among the folks involved in anti-war
> >>>>> marches.
>
> >>>> Nice broad brush you use for spreading your slime, Joel. Must
> >>>> get the job done real quick.
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>No, no, it's true. Viz. the banning of Rabbi Michael Lerner, *the*
> >>>leftist rabbi, from antiwar rallies in his own city.
> >>>
> >>>See <http://www.thenation.com/capitalgames/index.mhtml?bid=3&pid=385>
> >>>for example.
> >>>
> >>>And now this Moran flap - Congressmen don't tend to speak in a vacuum.
> >>>
> >>>
>
> >>Yup. Although Moran's gotten some not particularly surprising support
> >>-- Pat Buchanan's come out for him. As Jay Leno said, some years ago,
> >>in a different context, something to the effect of, "that's sort of
> >>like Lyle coming out in support of Eric."
> >>
...
>
> >
> >It's amazing how many of the people who excoriated Trent Lott are
> >keeping silent on the Moran issue. You can hear the crickets
> >chirping.
> >
> >-David
> >
>
> David in today's paper in SE Virginia there's an article that states
> six members of the House have spoken out against Moran,
Sure. (Although I think it's a lot more than six, if you include
Republicans.) Henry Waxman was rather, err, fervent in his
denunciation, although Nancy Pelosi seemed to suggest that his apology
should end the matter, and what I've seen from Gephardt seemed to be
rather pro forma.
Still, Waxman aside, it would be hard to suggest that this little
tempest is on the same scale as the Trent Lott scandal.
Not that Moran hasn't given additional ammunition to his critics: "I
thought it would be a healthy thing for some non-Jewish citizens to be
able to contribute a bit more to the dialogue on Mideast issues." Ah.
That's what it was. And: "I don't know if I'll be given the
opportunity [to mend relations with the Jewish community. JR]. I
think they need to do a whole lot of venting before they start
listening." Yeah, it's the listening problem, all right.
And David's point is quite correct in fact -- many of the people (on
the left, at least) who beat the drums over Lott have left the drums
at home on Moran.
There's a particularly significant contrast, I
think, between the loud and immediate excoriation of Lott -- for what,
at least arguably, was little more than a stupidly over-the-top
tribute to an old man at his birthday party -- and relative silence
over Moran.
Lott's obnoxious bigotry cost him his leadership post. Moran?
Interesting commentary -- in several ways, both for what it says and
doesn't say -- from Josh Marshall at
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/march0302.html#031103739pm
Lest there be any doubt, Congressman Jim Moran's comments really were
way beyond the pale.
And frankly I think the response has been too muted. Joe Lieberman
said: "The comments made by Jim Moran recently were deeply offensive
and morally wrong. Such sentiments are inconsistent with the ideals
of tolerance and diversity upon which our nation was
founded. Comments like these have no place in our public discourse."
That sounds a touch mild to me. I'm not in the business of saying
people should resign. That's for their constituents to decide. But
this is a fairly big deal. I guess that given the nature of the
statement it's really up to a non-Jewish pol to lower the boom on
Moran.
Hmm...
(Moran told a town meeting in his Northern Virginia district that "if
it were not for the strong support of the Jewish community for this
war with Iraq, we would not be doing this" and later suggested that
Jewish leaders could get the war called off.)
There's been a debate recently over whether it's somehow anti-Semitic
to discuss the fact that the president's foreign policy team is
heavily weighted with a number of advisors -- a number of them Jewish
-- who are big supporters of the Sharon government in Israel and that
these advisors have been decisive in pushing the case for war within
the administration. (Let's not forget that two of these advisors are
Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld, who are -- in case you didn't know it
-- not members of the tribe.) As Mike Kinsley said recently, "It is
the proverbial elephant in the room: Everybody sees it, no one
mentions it." Lawrence Kaplan notwithstanding, it's a real
issue. (I'll say more about this whole issue later.)
I hope our public debate is flexible and astute enough to see that
the one thing is entirely unacceptable and the other is completely
appropriate.
> including the House Minority Leader.
I've missed that. Happen to have a cite handy? I don't doubt you,
but it would be interesting to see just what he said.
And primary challanges are
> lining up against him now, including creditable challangers. You
> might not be seeing this in your papers because you don't live in
> Virginia like we do.
>
It's in the Washington Post -- the most prominently mentioned
challenger, at present, is an ex-congresswoman, who's now a state
senator.
--
------------------------------------------------------------
http://islamthereligionofpeace.blogspot.com
Kris Hasson-Jones
following for all the world to see:
>Michael Kube-McDowell <KMac_...@yahoo.com.null> writes:
>>
>> There hasn't been anything remotely analogous to that at the peace
>> marches locally. Consequently, I've been reading the quarrelling here
>> over antisemitism at peace rallies with surprise and puzzlement.
>> "What? Really? Who? Where?"
>
>I've seen the blue star of david with the red circle and slash over it
>on more than one placard here.
Yeah, but. Really, that's ambiguous enough to pass for anti-Israel
rather than anti-Jew, considering the Israeli flag.
I've seen the red circle and slash with the words "Jews" in it at the
local peach march. Just once, but that was enough.
Joel Rosenberg
Among the bloggers who rode the Lott story like a pit bull were a lot
of the rightwing/warblogger folks, btw, including Glenn Reynolds at
Instapundit -- probably the most prominent.
I've been looking for the equivalent on leftish blogs -- and I'm
certain that it's out there, somewhere -- but, so far, I've missed it.
But, sure, it's not been a big issue here. Different folks are
outraged by different things, I guess.
--
------------------------------------------------------------
http://islamthereligionofpeace.blogspot.com
Avram Grumer
Jonathan J. Baker <jjb...@panix.com> wrote:
> In <> Avram Grumer <av...@grumer.org> writes:
> > Joel Rosenberg <jo...@ellegon.com> wrote:
>
> >> Still, it seems to me that there is, at best, a huge amount of
> >> tolerance for antisemitism among the folks involved in anti-war
> >> marches.
>
> >Nice broad brush you use for spreading your slime, Joel. Must get
> >the job done real quick.
>
> No, no, it's true. Viz. the banning of Rabbi Michael Lerner, *the*
> leftist rabbi, from antiwar rallies in his own city.
>
> See <http://www.thenation.com/capitalgames/index.mhtml?bid=3&pid=385>
> for example.
No, no, it's NOT true, unless you redefine Joel's overly broad "the
folks involved in anti-war marches" to mean "International ANSWER", the
folks who organized the October marches, but not the more recent, much
larger, ones.
--
Avram Grumer | av...@grumer.org | http://www.PigsAndFishes.org
"There are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns --
that is to say, there are things that we now know we don't know but
there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we do not know we
don't know." -- Donald Rumsfeld
Joel Rosenberg
> On 14 Mar 2003 10:07:39 -0800, Mark Atwood <m...@pobox.com> posted the
> following for all the world to see:
>
> >Michael Kube-McDowell <KMac_...@yahoo.com.null> writes:
> >>
> >> There hasn't been anything remotely analogous to that at the peace
> >> marches locally. Consequently, I've been reading the quarrelling here
> >> over antisemitism at peace rallies with surprise and puzzlement.
> >> "What? Really? Who? Where?"
> >
> >I've seen the blue star of david with the red circle and slash over it
> >on more than one placard here.
>
> Yeah, but. Really, that's ambiguous enough to pass for anti-Israel
> rather than anti-Jew, considering the Israeli flag.
Sure. Ambiguity, and the ability to pass off being antisemitic as
anti-Israel, is the careful antisemite's friend -- there's still folks
who will make that defense of Pat Buchanan, for example, and that was
a component of Buchanan's heartfelt defense of Moran the other day.
--
------------------------------------------------------------
http://islamthereligionofpeace.blogspot.com
Avram Grumer
David Bilek <dbi...@attbi.com> wrote:
> It's amazing how many of the people who excoriated Trent Lott are
> keeping silent on the Moran issue. You can hear the crickets
> chirping.
Chirp:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13012-2003Mar11.html
: OUR VIEW THAT Rep. James P. Moran Jr. is unfit to serve in Congress
: is not new. Last July, citing Mr. Moran's ethical obtuseness, we
: urged Democrats in Alexandria and surrounding neighborhoods to find
: another candidate for the fall election. Now, by blaming American
: Jews for an Iraq policy he opposes, the seven-term congressman has
: confirmed our opinion about him. House Democratic leaders quickly
: dissociated themselves from his remark; it will be interesting to see
: whether they, and Northern Virginia Democrats, will make an effort to
: find a better candidate to run in 2004.
Chirp:
http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=2371766
: WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Rep. James Moran of Virginia, under fire for
: saying Jews were behind the buildup toward war with Iraq, should not
: seek re-election next year, six fellow Democrats in the U.S. House
: of Representatives said on Wednesday.
Avram Grumer
Mark Atwood <m...@pobox.com> wrote:
> David Bilek <dbi...@attbi.com> writes:
>
> > It's amazing how many of the people who excoriated Trent Lott are
> > keeping silent on the Moran issue. You can hear the crickets
> > chirping.
>
> "No enemies on the left".
>
> Not amazing, just business as usual.
Is Moran on the left? (He's a Democrat, but that's not even close to
being the same thing.) I know nothing of his voting record.
Joel Rosenberg
> In article <b4sj46$k35$1...@reader2.panix.com>,
> Jonathan J. Baker <jjb...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> > In <> Avram Grumer <av...@grumer.org> writes:
> > > Joel Rosenberg <jo...@ellegon.com> wrote:
> >
> > >> Still, it seems to me that there is, at best, a huge amount of
> > >> tolerance for antisemitism among the folks involved in anti-war
> > >> marches.
> >
> > >Nice broad brush you use for spreading your slime, Joel. Must get
> > >the job done real quick.
> >
> > No, no, it's true. Viz. the banning of Rabbi Michael Lerner, *the*
> > leftist rabbi, from antiwar rallies in his own city.
> >
> > See <http://www.thenation.com/capitalgames/index.mhtml?bid=3&pid=385>
> > for example.
>
> No, no, it's NOT true, unless you redefine Joel's overly broad "the
> folks involved in anti-war marches" to mean "International ANSWER", the
> folks who organized the October marches, but not the more recent, much
> larger, ones.
>
See the URL, above. I don't think that Avram's attempt to airbrush
ANSWER out of the post-Octover demonstration picture stands up
terribly well.
In this specific case, the rally at which Lerner was banned took place
in February of this year (which, by my calculation, is more recent
than October), and was organized by, in addition to ANSWER, Not in Our
Name (NION), and United for Peace & Justice. (The Nation piece says
that there was another group, in addition to those three, that
organized the event, but doesn't name it.)
ANSWER also organized the January march in Washington. Also from the The Nation piece:
At its January march in Washington, ANSWER handed a microphone to
Abdul Malim Musa, a Muslim cleric. On October 31, 2001, Musa had
appeared at a news conference at the National Press Club with other
Muslim activists and members of the New Black Panther Party, where
speakers asserted that Israel had launched the 9/11 attacks and that
thousands of Jews had been warned that day not to go to work at the
World Trade Center. At that press conference, Musa blasted the
"Zionists in Hollywood, the Zionists in New York, and the Zionists in
D.C." who "all collaborate" to put down blacks and Muslims.
--
------------------------------------------------------------
http://islamthereligionofpeace.blogspot.com
Joel Rosenberg
> In article <k3547v019l0gjfted...@4ax.com>,
> David Bilek <dbi...@attbi.com> wrote:
>
> > It's amazing how many of the people who excoriated Trent Lott are
> > keeping silent on the Moran issue. You can hear the crickets
> > chirping.
>
> Chirp:
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13012-2003Mar11.html
>
> : OUR VIEW THAT Rep. James P. Moran Jr. is unfit to serve in Congress
> : is not new. Last July, citing Mr. Moran's ethical obtuseness, we
> : urged Democrats in Alexandria and surrounding neighborhoods to find
> : another candidate for the fall election. Now, by blaming American
> : Jews for an Iraq policy he opposes, the seven-term congressman has
> : confirmed our opinion about him. House Democratic leaders quickly
> : dissociated themselves from his remark; it will be interesting to see
> : whether they, and Northern Virginia Democrats, will make an effort to
> : find a better candidate to run in 2004.
>
> Chirp:
> http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=2371766
>
> : WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Rep. James Moran of Virginia, under fire for
> : saying Jews were behind the buildup toward war with Iraq, should not
> : seek re-election next year, six fellow Democrats in the U.S. House
> : of Representatives said on Wednesday.
>
Yup. No question that a corporal's guard among folks on the left who
beat the Lott drums have given a few swipes at Moran, and if David had
said that each and every one of them has remained silent, he'd have
been wrong.
--
------------------------------------------------------------
http://islamthereligionofpeace.blogspot.com
Matt Austern
> In article <m3of4ds...@khem.blackfedora.com>,
> Mark Atwood <m...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> > David Bilek <dbi...@attbi.com> writes:
> >
> > > It's amazing how many of the people who excoriated Trent Lott are
> > > keeping silent on the Moran issue. You can hear the crickets
> > > chirping.
> >
> > "No enemies on the left".
> >
> > Not amazing, just business as usual.
>
> Is Moran on the left? (He's a Democrat, but that's not even close to
> being the same thing.) I know nothing of his voting record.
Which is, of course, part of the point. Moran is a Representative
I've never heard of before. Lott was Senate Majority Leader, i.e. one
of the half dozen most powerful people in the country. Most sensible
people don't feel the urge to excoriate people they've never heard of.
And, of course: Lott is still a powerful Senator. Should Moran be
made a Senator too, just so we can satisfy ourselves that we're
treating Lott and Moran exactly the same?
Trinker
Mark Atwood wrote:
> Michael Kube-McDowell <KMac_...@yahoo.com.null> writes:
>
>>There hasn't been anything remotely analogous to that at the peace
>>marches locally. Consequently, I've been reading the quarrelling here
>>over antisemitism at peace rallies with surprise and puzzlement.
>>"What? Really? Who? Where?"
>
>
> I've seen the blue star of david with the red circle and slash over it
> on more than one placard here.
>
Refresh my memory on where your "here" is, please?
--Trinker
Andrew Plotkin
>>David Bilek wrote:
>>>
>>>It's amazing how many of the people who excoriated Trent Lott are
>>>keeping silent on the Moran issue. You can hear the crickets
>>>chirping.
> [...] I'm talking about (for example) bloggers who rode the Lott
> story like a pit bull, or even people on this newsgroup.
I see Moran mentioned on weblogs of Avedon Carol, Liberal Oasis, Max
Sawicky, Eric Alterman, MWO, Joshua Micah Marshall, Ted Barlow, and
then I got tired of trawling down blogrolls.
--Z
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
*
* Make your vote count. Get your vote counted.
Trinker
Joel Rosenberg wrote:
> Kris Hasson-Jones <sni...@pacifier.com> writes:
[...]
>>Yeah, but. Really, that's ambiguous enough to pass for anti-Israel
>>rather than anti-Jew, considering the Israeli flag.
>
>
> Sure. Ambiguity, and the ability to pass off being antisemitic as
> anti-Israel, is the careful antisemite's friend -- there's still folks
> who will make that defense of Pat Buchanan, for example, and that was
> a component of Buchanan's heartfelt defense of Moran the other day.
Maybe I'm just dense.
Would you mind rephrasing that, or clarifying, or something?
Because I keep parsing that as "anti-Israel == antisemitic".
--Trinker