The Obama administration's flirtation and probable decision to prosecute Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in a military tribunal -- which even the military thinks is a bad idea -- has been one of the many issues that has Guyer on the edge of wanting to break up with Obama

Steve,
A couple of posts ago I said I heard you on ATC on NPR and agreed with your view. This is the worst kind of cave-in to the mouth frothers. I do not think our justice system is so weak it would fall apart if it prosecuted KSM.

Is this government for dummies?

thank you Obamaton.

'''change''' as sick joke... it isn't funny to most folks though... it is the death of hope, the exact opposite of what he sold himself as...

Jackie, The administration doesn't have a choice about "caving in". Holder made a dog's breakfast of the affair. Holder didn't consult with the stakeholders, didn't anticipate the most predicable opposition, and didn't even think through his own legal reasoning for how he wanted apportion prisoners to civilian trials vs. military tribunals.

The Mayor of New York got the barest warning that this was coming, and the Police Commissioner wasn't even consulted. All the national security hawks are screaming. Most of the country thinks that trying KSM in civilian court is a stupid idea (check the polls). Now Congress is threatening to cut off funding.

The policy has become untenable. The administration has no choice but to back down. They haven't yet admitted that KSM's tribunal will be held at Gitmo, but 5'll get you 10 that will happen too. It's just the course of least resistance at this point -- the cheapest, most secure, and least politically fraught alternative.

Obama likes to say "Change is hard" but he doesn't seem to understand that because it's hard, you better do your homework before you try it.

If we can't even try routine thugs like KSM in the American court system anymore, we might as well turn our whole governing system over to the military, and satisfy the unfulfilled longings of our right wing brethren. We can have Mitt Romney-style military-run diplomacy, along with a separate kangaroo court system run by leg-breaking soldiers in fatigues and the shadowy vermin who run our extralegal security and intelligence services.

Maybe we should just acclaim David Petraeus Supreme Consul and Lord High Protector and be done with it.

Where's the Darth Vader mask in this cartoon? Don't tell me Lucas threatened to sue you...

KSM trial should be done on a TV series, with Fred Thompson prosecuting?

The constitutional antiquity is done for!

Imagine Americans being subject to tribunals overseas! We're lowering the bar!

Wonder which of Obama's lectures covered this topic?

It’s the “leg-breaking soldiers in fatigues” that are indefatigably and with great sacrifices defending liberal values and the democratic and entrepreneurial mores of Western societies from the mortal danger that rises from the barbaric atavism of fanatical Islam. But it is not surprising that the ideologues of the serially bankrupt left, like Kervick, would lambast great Americans, like General Petraeus, with their vitriolic sarcasm. It’s obvious that Kervick as a hubristic member of the gang of General “Betraeus” is divinely allocating from his Olympian abode his moral legless strictures upon great successful Americans who stand on, and leap with, strong legs. And it’s clear that Kervick with his intellectually and morally rickety feet cannot stand and ‘fight’ on the superb motto of Virgil, “Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito”.

"...defending liberal values and the democratic and entrepreneurial mores of Western societies from the mortal danger that rises from the barbaric atavism of fanatical Islam."

Mortal danger ... right. You might as well say that the English language faces a mortal danger from Portuguese. Your sense of proportion and connection with the real world are seriously impaired.

From my own seat here in America, I don't see many fanatical Muslims about. What I do see is a danger to liberal values rising from the diseased fears of the neurotically terrified. My concern is not with David Petraeus, who is just doing a job the civilian government gave to him, but with the poisonous weakness of the cowardly right, who seem ready to hand over their most valuable possessions to soldiers like Petraeus, if the latter promise to protect the relatively insignificant hides of the former.

Whatever Obama does or doesn't do, it doesn't mean the death of hope. Many progressives and others voted for Obama because we believed that he would represent and bring about the implementation of more democratic values. If he isn't doing that -- whatever the actual reason may be -- it's terribly disappointing. It means primarily, however, that his role as a leader in this regard has died. It definitely doesn't mean that either we or our hope have died. True change arrives only through acts of courage, persistence, work, and patience.

the Bolsheviks were always haters, and they remain haters to this
day.

they were born hating and continnue to hate to this day, just look
at all they stand for.

and dont deny your pedigree, you know where you have spawned
from.

Glenn Greenwald speaketh

"The right kind of bigotry
BY GLENN GREENWALD
From the long-time Editor-in-Chief and owner of The New
Republic, this morning:

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/0
3/06/peretz/index.html

There were moments--long moments--during the Iraq war
when I had my doubts. Even deep doubts. Frankly, I couldn’t
quite imagine any venture requiring trust with Arabs turning out
especially well. This is, you will say, my prejudice. But some
prejudices are built on real facts, and history generally proves
me right. Go ahead, prove me wrong.

The point here is so obvious that it makes itself. In the bolded
sentence, replace the word "Arabs" with "Jews" and ask yourself:
how much time would elapse before the author of such a
sentence would be vehemently scorned and shunned by all
decent people, formally condemned by a litany of organizations,
and have his livelihood placed in jeopardy? Or replace the word
"Arabs" in that sentence with "Jews" or "blacks" or "Latinos" or
even "whites" or virtually any other identifiable demographic
group and ask yourself this: how many people would treat a
magazine edited and owned by such a person as a remotely
respectable or mainstream publication (notwithstanding the
several decent journalists employed there)? Yet Marty Peretz
spits out the most bigoted sentiments of this type -- and he's
been doing this for years, as is well known -- and very little
happens, because, for multiple reasons, this specific type of
hate-mongering remains basically permitted in American
political discourse. "

SB: "...how many people would treat a
magazine edited and owned by such a person as a remotely respectable or mainstream publication..."

Good point! OTOH, Carroll DOES say these sorts of things about Jews--worse, I'd say--and Samuel Burke doesn't seem to mind. Nor do many others here on this respectable, semi-mainstream blog.

Dan...yes to you...and yes re: Kotz

quote from glenn greenwald in samuelburkes post

"and very little
happens, because, for multiple reasons, this specific type of
hate-mongering remains basically permitted in American
political discourse."

challenging the kotzabasis's of the world is an ongoing task made more difficult by the likes of such people having some power in the usa (and the world) politically...

Once again, linking to Glenn Greenwald, he makes several points on why reversing the KSM venue decision is a disaster:

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/03/05/obama/index.html

And he sees a bigger problem for dems in general:

"For years, Democrats have failed to grasp the fact that they are perceived as "weak" not because of any specific policies, but because they are perceived -- rightly -- to believe in nothing (or at least nothing that they claim to believe). It is hard to imagine any act that could more strongly bolster that perception than to watch Barack Obama -- yet again -- scamper away from his own claimed principles all because the GOP is saying some mean things about him.

I'm not sure I buy all of that but it's hard to argue in this instance.

"Good point! OTOH, Carroll DOES say these sorts of things about Jews--worse, I'd say--and Samuel Burke doesn't seem to mind"

You exaggerate. No suprise there.

Having trolled this blog for years now, looking for a legitimate excuse to soil the comment section with your cowardly finger pointing and diversionary whining about anti-semitism, the best you can come up with is a concerted attack on Carroll for her ASTUTE opinions about the corrosive effect Israeli influence is having on our own nation's body politik, policies, and security.

Tough shit. You think targeting Carroll belies the over-riding sentiment here, (expressed by the majority, justified by the facts), that is strongly opposed to current Israeli policies and influence upon our own governmental body?

The truth is, even if you could quiet Carroll's opinions and historical citations, you would STILL be blubbering forth with the ONLY defense you jackasses seem to be able to launch for current Israeli policies. And of course, that is the timeworn falsehood you direct at ALL criticism of Israel, that the critic is simply anti-semitic. In Carroll's absence, you would simply target someone else, whomever was, at the time, the most staunch critic of Iraeli policy.

Carroll is simply a diversionary pathway for you assholes. We now see you shifting the focus to Carroll everytime Israel arises in the debate. Frankly, I'm sick to death of your fuckin' horseshit, and that of your ilk, such as this lying bigoted hasbarist Nadine, who has poisoned the narrative here with her incessant hasbarist propaganda, lies, and disdainful disregard for the value of Palestinian lifes and welfare.

You want to see "anti-semitism"??? Then just advocate for Israel to continue down its current path. Our media and the sacks of shit in Washington DC have lost their stranglehold on the truth, and more and more people are awakening to what Israel has become, and how cowardly subservient these bribed and blackmailed "representatives" in DC have become towards AIPAC and its many poisonous tentacles.

And the best you can come up with today is the same as the best you could come up with yeasterday. You point your finger, and whine about anti-semitism. Keep it up. In the end, if Israel goes down, it won't be because of anti-semites, it will be because of the Nadines and the Alan Dershowitzes among you.

"The truth is, even if you could quiet Carroll's opinions and
historical citations, you would STILL be blubbering forth with the
ONLY defense you jackasses seem to be able to launch for
current Israeli policies. And of course, that is the timeworn
falsehood you direct at ALL criticism of Israel, that the critic is
simply anti-semitic."

POA, I have no idea how you came to that conclusion. There is a
wide gap between Sweetness" position on Israel, and the opinions
of Nadine or WigWag, just like there is a wide gap on the "pro-
Palestine" side between, say, Dan Kervick and OutragedAmerican
or samuelburke. More nuance, please!

"There is a wide gap between Sweetness" position on Israel, and the opinions of Nadine or WigWag"

Yes, through guile and covert pretension. But not through motive.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in "Sweetness's" original personna presented to us, she was far more rabidly zionist. And way back then, wasn't it "Sweetness" that called Carroll a "c*nt" before taking a somewhat lengthy hiatus from this comment section? Or was that "Questions" that threw that invective in Carroll's direction? I am almost positive it was Sweetness.

And tell me, what does Carroll's alleged "anti-semitism" have to do with the flow and content of the conversation up to the point where Sweetness made the accusation? It is blatantly diversionary, and the only logical reason for Sweetness to have made the comment is to deflect from the content of Greenwald's essay.

With vague inuendo, Sweetness indicts the entire body of commenters here.....

"Carroll DOES say these sorts of things about Jews--worse, I'd say--and Samuel Burke doesn't seem to mind. Nor do many others here on this respectable, semi-mainstream blog"

You do not see the lightly veiled accusation of anti-semitism contained in that sentence, directed at this vague premise of "many others".

No, Paul, the only difference between Sweetness and Nadine is one of presentation. Nadine is quite open and direct with her hasbarist bullshit and bigoted bias. Sweetness is simply more covert, but sans the pretension, just another Nadine.

for the israel apologists out there...here is the issue that is the diadem of israel support here in the u.s, you lose this group and you lose.

http://mondoweiss.net/2010/03/the-israel-lobby-campus-edition-cal-state-northridge.html

"I’ve been waiting for this, for heartland America to take its power, for the intelligent and balanced folk out there to insist on fairness. The Denver Post has a great piece by John Kane calling on Christians to decry the injustice in Israel/Palestine. Kane is a professor of religious studies at Regis University in Colorado, and he is joined by other religious figures in this op-ed, including Rob Prince of Progressive Jewish News:

American Christians for too long have been largely silent about the most dangerous conflict threatening peace in our world: the decades-old crisis in Israel and Palestine.

…Such "Christian silence" is rooted to a great extent in ignorance of what is actually happening in the Holy Land, and it is also rooted in a legitimate fear of offending Jewish neighbors and fellow citizens.

Yet those who seek true peace in the Holy Land and who want to stop the spread of ethnic and religious hatreds throughout the Middle East must challenge the sacred pieties and the raw political power that so far have stymied President Obama’s efforts for Middle East peace…

In responding to the call of the Christian leaders in Israel and Palestine, Christians in this country will also be joining with newly powerful voices in American Judaism, such as the Jewish lobby J Street and the activist group Jewish Voice for Peace. They, too, see this as a new moment, no matter that the headlines remain filled with cycles of terror, of occupation and response, of injustice and violence on both sides in the Holy Land."

"No, Paul, the only difference between Sweetness and Nadine is
one of presentation."

Read his posts, POA, and you'll see that his positions on the
Gaza invasion, blockade, settlements, treatment of Palestinians
etc. are oceans apart from Nadine. To me it looks like Sweetness
highly regret and openly disagrees with the current
developments in Israel. In a polarized climate like TWN, he may
not make these arguments in exchanges with you, but if you
study his recent discussions with Nadine, you have to be
colorblind not to see the differences.

"Correct me if I'm wrong, but in "Sweetness's" original personna
presented to us, she was far more rabidly zionist."

Can't remember exactly. I remember being annoyed a couple of
times in the past by what I regarded as his overeagerness to
address anti-Semitism, just like I would assume that you get a
bit annoyed when I address it - as if I am falling into a trap set
up by the Zionists. (I am not), and just like I regret it when you
tend to excuse some ugly remarks made by people who you
agree with on a lot of other things (like Carroll and Arthur).

Perhaps Sweetness was different in the past. Recently he
admitted that he've learned things from opponents and
modified his positions. Among those he openly said he has
learned stuff from was, if I remember correctly, a certain
PissedOffAmerican.

BTW: Both people like you and DanK frequently use harsh
language against Israel, but I can't remember once that
Sweetness has accused you or him of anti-Semitism. Correct me
if I'm wrong.

This racism stuff often gets too emotional. But I sincerely
believe that once in a while - and especially with regular posters
- we should clearly state that they have crossed a line. It's quite
simple. And whether their bigotry is directed against Jews or
Arabs is highly irrelevant.

And if they mix racist tropes with legitimate critique - it's THEY
who screw up and distract us, and not the ones who address
their racism.

Isn't Sweetness a she also, along with Nadine and Wigwag?

I agree there's a huge gap between them.
For God's sake, Wigwag thinks the Jews ought to firebomb Gaza---that's probably a more extreme position than Nadine takes.

I think there's no question that Carroll has strayed over the line into making anti-semitic comments.. but so what? People say rough stuff on this blog. I don't want thought police here.
There's a lot of racism coming from Nadine's crowd too.
Now, the guy who thinks Jews are running Obama's administration, starting with Krugman???
THAT's a brownshirt.

"Isn't Sweetness a she also, along with Nadine and Wigwag?"

Well, there is a lot of gender confusion here: Sweetness seems to
think that Wigwag is a male, while you and POA seem to believe
that Sweetness is a female.

What a mess! I have it from the highest authority (Sun Ra) that
Wig is a female, and Sweetness a male. Hope this clears up this
issue once and for all.

Paul, thanks
Wigwag is obviously a female, otherwise she wouldn't dish such catty stuff about Van den Heuvel (background which I really enjoyed reading, btw).

Guys, the Arabs are not monolithic and they're not a race. I have never said a single "racist" thing about them. What most of you automatically call "racist" has nothing to do with racism -- it has to do with violation of PC rules that insist you regard every Arab and Persian as moderate or potential moderates, if only the true fault, which MUST reside in Israel, is removed.

I just take Hamas, Hizbullah and Fatah seriously in their own words, and I look at their internal politics. You ignore them entirely. That is not being anti-racist. That is being anti-common-sense.

Here's another quote which I bet you'll call "racist", from Mosab Hassan Yousef, the "son of Hamas". I hope he's not correctly describing every type of Islam. But I believe he's quite correctly describing the sort of Islam he was raised in:

"As the son of a Muslim cleric, he says he had reached the conclusion that terrorism can't be defeated without a new understanding of Islam. Here he echoes other defectors from Islam such as the former Dutch parliamentarian and writer Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

Do you consider your father a fanatic? "He's not a fanatic," says Mr. Yousef. "He's a very moderate, logical person. What matters is not whether my father is a fanatic or not, he's doing the will of a fanatic God. It doesn't matter if he's a terrorist or a traditional Muslim. At the end of the day a traditional Muslim is doing the will of a fanatic, fundamentalist, terrorist God. I know this is harsh to say. Most governments avoid this subject. They don't want to admit this is an ideological war.

"The problem is not in Muslims," he continues. "The problem is with their God. They need to be liberated from their God. He is their biggest enemy. It has been 1,400 years they have been lied to."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703915204575103481069258868.html

Gender is a continuum. We are all at times male and at times female. It's a complicated issue that will require a lot of words.

(end of satire)

Thanks, Paul, for noting the miles of difference between Sweetness and WigWag and Nadine. Even WigWag and Nadine have significant differences.

Sweetness seems to think that Israel needs to change its behavior in some as yet undetermined ways. Nadine thinks everything Israel does is properly defensive and the Palestinians are badly used by their leaders. WigWag has provoked by saying that defeat should be accepted, but I think there's a core of decency in WigWag that would like a reasonable settlement but refuses any risk to Israel and so accepts Israeli action despite its unpleasance.

None of these positions could be called the same, no guile, no lying or cheating....

Nadine, ever talk to a reformed smoker? An ex-Mormon? Anyone who has ever left anything?

The process of leaving is an alienation from the familiar, from the self, that must be defended by repudiation in fairly violent terms.

On the other hand, I don't deny the existence of radical instigators for all sorts of causes. Radicalism is a potent motivator, and instigators need motivated joiners and followers. So the rhetoric and the action spiral upwards in a game of escalation dominance.

It's not in the gods, it's in the instigators. It's not in the religion. It's in the instigators. It's not in the things the instigators blame, it's in the instigators.

People can be pushed to do stupid shit like crash their planes into IRS buildings over legal disputes that have nothing to do with the IRS and everything to do with tax law set by Congress and all that goes into congressional procedure. One doesn't simply blame the gods for the plane crash.

Posted by PissedOffAmerican, Mar 07 2010, 1:09PM - Link >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Wow..all this attention, I'm flattered anything I say is that important!

Yep, POA sweetness has a old problem, with "me" not Israel. And it's personal, not political. I don't feel the 'personal guilt' over the jews and the holocaust that he wants me to feel, tries to force me to feel. I don't think the whole world was responsible and that the whole world should pay for it forever, just the people who did it. That is some kind of blow to sweetie's personal identity as Jew and the deference and non questioning he thinks the Jews, and he by extention, are entitled to. And of course his idea is that I am one of those superior stuck up southern gentiles, an air head debutante, like the gentiles who wouldn't give his father a job back in the olds days...before I was even born.
Sweetness actually knows nothing about my relationships with the jews who are part of my personal life or how I think of them.

And yea he did call me a 'fucking bitch, a 'cunt' hoped I would 'die' and a few slur Hebrew terms referring to gentiles' I didn't understand and so forth....like nadine's "A goy blebt a goy as the old saying goes".. a few post ago...whatever that means.

Because I said a terrible anti semitic thing!....that Israel was treating the Palestines like the nazis treated the Jews in the ghettos.

Too bad...it's true. OTOH you will never see me using slurs to attack an individual or to define jews, blacks, muslims or anyone else because of their race or creed. When I attack zionist, and that's the 'group' of Jews I do attack, I attack their mentality and reasoning and myths used politically to further their agenda.

But the worst of the worst!...I question! I challenge the idea that the holocaust or the victimhood history justifies what Israel and any of the jews or zionist or any other supporters are doing and have done to the Palestines and others.

Aside from sweeties personal reasons that's what motivates the smear gang the most..Hasbara's No. 2 below:

2.Challenging the portrayal of an alternative narrative, and attempting to keep the zionist narrative as the dominant one

And to do that they have to use No 1.:

1.Smearing/defaming critics of Israel, aka, attacking the messenger.

I 'm sticking to Walt's advice about grabbing the third rail...keeping your sense of humor.
Onward dragon slayers!

OK, Mark and Sweetness,

re. the extremely important gender issue, here is the document
suggesting that Wig is a female - a quote from a thread about
the two state solution from 1. February this year:

WigWag said:

"As a good leftist, JohnH, you know that power is never given,
it's always taken. That's as true in the world of gender politics
as in every other aspect of human affairs. Women in the West
have our rights because those rights were fought for."

"Our rights"?

She wouldn't say that if she were a male, would she? So, if you
heathens don't have confidence in the divine words of Sun Ra,
who, among so many wonderful things, also whispered this
eternal truth into my ears in a recent dream, you may perhaps
trust WigWag's own words on the issue.

For the atheists and sceptics on this blog, here is the link:

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/2010/02/leading_
israeli/

As for Sweetness being a male, I still trust in Sun Ra, and you
should too. But when she introduced herself as Sweetness years
back, there was a little dialogue between Questions and
Sweetness - from memory:

"Sweetness"... the American Boxer?

Yes.

Mensh or Womensch?

Mensh.

--------

Outraged is more familiar with the Yiddish vocabulary than I
am, but I assume that even heathens can guess the meaning of
those words?

Is this all clear now, so we can go back discussing less
important stuff - geopolitics, the Obama admin. , Iran, etc?

What a stupid typo:

"...when she introduced herself as Sweetness years
back, there was a little dialogue..."

Correction: "when HE introduced HIMself as Sweetness..."

Kervick

The reason that you don’t see the great danger “to liberal values,” and indeed to civilization as we know it, issuing from the few “fanatical Muslims” that you see is due to your lack of imagination. This is an asymmetrical conflict or war in the context of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and nuclear ones and one doesn’t have to see a myriad of fanatical Muslims to perceive the mortal danger to these values.

And do you consider within this context, that the professionals of HUMINT, not amateurs and dilettantes like you, who warn that in the near future there is a high probability that these few fanatical Muslims will be armed with WMD and nuclear ones are disconnected from the “real world” and “are seriously impaired” from “the diseased fears of the neurotically terrified?” Who in this case is “seriously impaired” in one’s sense of reality? And in your continued inveterate sickly sarcasm you degrade and make a vaudevillian mockery of this stupendous danger by turning it into a protection of the “hides” of the rich.

"On the other hand, I don't deny the existence of radical
instigators for all sorts of causes."

Why state the obvious, Questions? The essence of Nadine's post
just above yours, is that despite here frequent insisting that she
distinguishes between Muslims and Islamists, she doesn't do
that for real, because she obviously approves the Ayaan Hirsi Ali
quote she provided:

"Do you consider your father a fanatic? "He's not a fanatic," says
Mr. Yousef. "He's a very moderate, logical person. What matters
is not whether my father is a fanatic or not, he's doing the will
of a fanatic God. It doesn't matter if he's a terrorist or a
traditional Muslim. At the end of the day a traditional Muslim is
doing the will of a fanatic, fundamentalist, terrorist God."

This view distorts ALL Muslims into potential terrorists who
want to exterminate the Jews. The more they believe in their
God, the more dangerous they are. Nadine's claim that the
Palestinian leaders are to blame is of course only 1 % true,
because here real belief is that even so called moderate Muslims
are potential terrorists due to their faith - as documented in her
post above, and on several other posts.

If anyone had accused the Jews of such actions and intentions
as Nadine has tirelessly and systematically accused the
Palestinians/Arabs/Muslims of during the last year - on an
almost hourly basis - and this on a foreign policy blog
frequently addressing one of the main hot spots in the world;
then I believe that even our liberal and generous host Steve
Clemons would have asked that person to be more constructive,
or "move one".

This is actually 100 times as bad as any foolish remarks Carroll
may have uttered at TWN during the years.

Seriously, Nadine's anti-Semitism and bigotry actually have
DIRECT implications in the current conflicts - much more than
Carroll's provocations - not only in the Middle East, but also in
the perpetual GWOT context. That's currently immensely more
relevant and potentially damaging than Carroll's private
emotions.

We all know that Hamas and others frequently have used
terrorism as a tactic. But admitting this to Nadine of all people
is absurd, since her insane point is, and was from her very first
day here, that ALL Muslims, are under suspicion of terrorist
motives, due to their faith. Thus her mockery of the starving
Palestinians in Gaza (no big bellies, in contrast to the Ethiopians
on TV in 1985); thus her attack on "UN pro-natal subsidies of
the Arab population" etc. etc.

Make no mistake, Questions and Sweetness: Carroll at her worst
is almost harmless compared to Nadine, if you judge by their
opinions. Jahve is a good and reasonable fellow, but Allah is a
violent anti-Semite... Nadine's insane bigotry happens to imply
1.3-1.5 billon potential suicide bombers and Jew-haters
walking on the planet - and with an alarmingly high birth rate.

No wonder she is paranoid.

"But the worst of the worst!...I question! I challenge the idea that
the holocaust or the victimhood history justifies what Israel and
any of the jews or zionist or any other supporters are doing and
have done to the Palestines and others." (Carroll)

That's unfortunately too good to be true.

If that was the most outrageous thing you actually do, Carroll,
then tell me why Sweetness NEVER accuses Kervick, POA, DonS,
JohnH, or myself of being anti-Semites? Do you think that POA
or Kervick are somewhat mild in their criticism of Israel?

That they don't pose the essential questions?

Nope. The difference is that you can't resist providing good old
anti-Semitic quotes (with approving glee) and "dangerous"
questions regarding whether the Jews are especially to blame
for the special treatment they have received through history.

Keep posing questions and criticism, and no one will blame you
for anti-Semitism. When you deliberately use those old tropes,
you undermine your own (often excellent, informed, and sound)
arguments regarding the current conflict.

tiptoeing through the tulips.

I hope that Pres Obama has a successful remaining three years.

"If anyone had accused the Jews of such actions and intentions as Nadine has tirelessly and systematically accused the Palestinians/Arabs/Muslims of during the last year - on an
almost hourly basis - and this on a foreign policy blog frequently addressing one of the main hot spots in the world;then I believe that even our liberal and generous host Steve Clemons would have asked that person to be more constructive,or "move one"." (Paul orheim)

I was having that same thought this afternoon, but was trying to be generous in that Nadine pays lip service to the distinction between Muslim and Islamist, though she note correctly that some Muslims refer to themselves as Islamists.

So there is a semantic trap in her utterances. It's both a description and an epithet, depending who uses it and under what circumstances. Whereas one get's skewered simply for using the word Zionist, interrogated and lectured as to its 'true' historical and entomological significance. Truly, God help us if one slips and uses the word Jew. Actually, try to be quite rigorous about not confounding Jew with Zionist since conflating the two is exactly the aim of those who wish to set up the perrenial 'anti-Semite' trap.

ha ha, that's me at 7:37.

. . . and it's " [I] try to be quite rigorous . . ." (not prescribing for anyone else.)

Truth is, as a part Jew, I am particularly offended when I see other Jews attempting to prescribe for others, usually from the fundamentalist vantage. A part of me wants to scream "You know, my family wasn't gassed and burned (either) so the zealot-sanctioned interpretation of all things related to the holocaust would support the apartheid regime in Israel." Not to mention undermine the foreign policy of the United States. But I restrict such outbursts to every couple of years.

Walter Russell Mead Eviscerates Steve Clemons and the Rest of his Realist Ilk.

In a major takedown of Steve Clemons and his fellow travelers who adhere to the realist school of international relations, Walter Russell Mead asks the provocative question, “Middle East ‘Realists’: Anti Semites or Just dumb? Mead (unless I’m mistaken) is a former President of the New America Foundation and he has announced more than once that he is a big fan of the Washington Note. Surely Mead knows that Clemons isn’t even close to being an anti-Semite so one can only assume that the label he intends to apply to Clemons is “dumb.” Presumably its realist bigots like Steve Walt for whom Mead reserves the label “anti Semite.”

For those who might be interested, here’s the link to Mead’s blog entry on the subject

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/

Mead cites two Gallup polls; one published on February 24, 2010 demonstrates that 63 percent of those asked say that they sympathize more with the Israelis in the conflict in the Middle East, 23 percent sympathize more with neither the Israelis nor Palestinians and just 15 percent say that they sympathize more with the Palestinians.

In the second poll, published February 19, 2010, Gallup found Israel had the fifth highest ‘favorable’ rating among Americans, trailing only Canada, Britain, Germany and Japan; Israel was viewed favorably by 67 percent of those polled and unfavorably by 25 percent. The Palestinian Authority was viewed favorably by ten percent of those polled, while 70 percent viewed it unfavorably. Yemen and Pakistan both enjoyed higher standing with those polled than the PA. Only Afghanistan, North Korea and Iran had poorer ratings. Had the pollsters asked about Hamas, does anyone doubt where on the list they would have appeared?

Mead points out that while the polls have been moving in a slightly more pro-Israel direction in the past few years (despite the war in Lebanon and Israel’s attack on Gaza) for decades Americans have favored Israel over any of its Arab adversaries by 2 to 1 or more.

Only two percent of the American population (6 million out of 300 million) is Jewish and at any one time a significant proportion of Jews in the United States is relatively indifferent to the fate of Israel. The reality is that Christian supporters of Israel outnumber Jewish supporters of Israel by at least 20 to 1 and Mead points out that since polling on the Middle East conflict first began, the overwhelming majority of the Americans who support Israel against its enemies haven’t been Jewish. He also points out that American Christians are far more hawkish on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict than American Jews are.

Mead than asks the $64 thousand question to Clemons and his ilk,

“Why do so many people, especially self-described ‘realists’ when it comes to Middle East policy, find it mysterious that American foreign policy supports Israel? Surely in a democratic republic, when policy over a long period of time tracks with public sentiment, there is very little to explain. American politicians vote for pro-Israel policies because that is what voters want them to do. Case closed, I would think. Late breaking news flash: water runs downhill.”

Mead goes on to answer his own question. He suggests that realists have become obsessed with the putative Israel Lobby and he goes on to say that it is pointless to attempt to determine whether those who harbor this obsession are anti-Semitic. After all, that requires special insight into a person’s motivation and rarely do the public statements of those who are obsessed with Israel provide a lot of insight into any one person’s personal motivations.

Better, Mead says, to ascribe the realist obsession with Israel to a new psychological disorder that he coins, “Israel Lobby Syndrome.”

Mead than tackles one of the central premises of “Israel Lobby Syndrome,” Jewish media power. Many realists believe “the insidious, overwhelming power of those sneaky Jews in the mainstream media feeds a steady stream of pro-Israel propaganda disguised as news to the idiot gentiles out in the boondocks and the dumb hicks and yokels swallow the propaganda hook, line and sinker.”

Mead provides a devastating critique of the assertion that Jewish control of the main stream media is what the “Lobby” uses to promote its nefarious cause by discussing the example of Sarah Palin. Mead says,

“Let us take, for example, Sarah Palin, who formerly kept an Israeli flag in her office while serving as governor of Alaska. How much influence does the mainstream media have on her thinking about abortion? About global warming? About US relations with Cuba?

The answer, of course, is that whatever the sources of Ms Palin’s opinions on a very wide range of subjects, the mainstream media has not played a major role in her intellectual formation; what is true for her is true for a great many other Americans who disagree with the mainstream media virtually across the board. They are more likely to disagree with the mainstream media than to mindlessly parrot its views — so why does it seem even remotely credible to assert that Palin and so much of the rest of the country is pro-Israel because of Jewish media power?”

Those who are interested should read Mead’s entire post at his blog at the “American Interest.” After reading his post one thing becomes clear; there is really very little reason to take seriously anything that “realists” have to say about the Israel-Palestine conflict.

Oh wait, I forgot; there isn’t anyone left who takes what the realists have to say about the Middle East or anything else seriously anymore.

Never mind.

Posted by Paul Norheim, Mar 07 2010, 6:11PM - Link>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I just interrupted a post I was going to make on Iran in order to answer you and I am going to be blunt so listen up.
I'm not going to repeat myself.

First, I actually have more respect for sweetness and nadine in many ways than I do you because they are least are commenting from some profound personal belief and emotional level regardless of how crazy I think it is.

You PN, are a poseur who fancies himself the moral authority of the board.
You have tried to position yourself as the grand arbitrator by calling out each poster on their transgressions.
First one then another, measuring their degree of offence.
You think this illustrates what you hope will be admired by posters as your superior reasonableness.
You also fancy that by criticizing and praising and parsing us all you will be listened by all cliques or sides on any issue.
Where you fell down with me and exposed your motives is in using the same misrepresentation of my words that they use and the same dishonesty in order to assume your position.

Now your questions.

Sweetness and others have never called POA and others anti semitic?
You need a tour of the TNW achieves and I'm not going do it for you, do it on your own time
Why do I think some call me anti Semitic?
Because I usually make a point about Israel and the zionist theories with a fact or example.
Because when I accuse some jewish politicians of being more influenced by their loyalty to the Jewish state than to the US I give official
examples in their own words and actions straight out of the congressional record.
Because I do not consider the Jews any more special or worthy humans than Arabs or anyone else.
Because I do not believe that Jews are the only people on earth incapable of having provoked some of the dislike they got from others.
Because if I want to criticize a particular group of Jews for certain actions I do that, just like I can do that to any other 'group' I disagree with, birthers, moonies, whacko evangelicals, communist, socialist, anyone.
Because I do not give jews, zionist or Israel or it's defenders any extra moral leeway on Palestine regardless of the holocaust, victimhood or any other claim.
I can have compassion and outrage over the jewish victims of Hitler and still question present day historical revisions and agendas in using it for political advantage.
The Pope and the janitor get the same respect and criticism from me.
That's my particular value system and it's not going to change.

You have gotten all you can get I think out of the quotes about Jews that I posted as a response to nadines racist quotes about Arabs.
Now you have to admit that you are too stupid and obtuse not to have gotten that that was the point of posting them or admit you are using it to promote yourself.

Further, running thru your recent posts it is interesting how often, even though totally off the subject, you insert my name as a bridge to some kind of criticism you can posture on. Also interesting in looking thru your post is the 3 to 1 ratio of post about other posters as compared to comments about the actual subject at hand.

The Carroll habit is something you share in common with sweetness and nadine. Looking thru sweetness's most recent post was the perfect illustration, this comment on a thread I wasn't even involved in or party to:........I'd call this an irrational obsession with another poster that they want to discredit because some reader might find some common sense in one of my comments.

Posted by Sweetness, Mar 07 2010, 12:40PM - Link
Q: Sweetness, I've been challenged by Paul Norheim to read the
book-length version of the W and M show. So I am. Chapter 2 at
this point.

SN: Great.

Q: I was thinking of posting at the end of every chapter, but I'm
not sure I have the energy.

SN: I know, but what you've done here is good.

Q: Thus far I have learned that they do not want to suggest any
kind of "cabal" thinking. They really like Israel and think its
continued existence is worthwhile. They are sort of pushing the
citizen-lobbying thing is ok. The intro really backs off some of
the stronger claims that one sees made in their names.

SN: The "counter argument" is that WM pulled their punches even
in the book for fear of you know who. I think Carroll has private
emails from them where they go much further.

Q: They bring up the Carter "apartheid" thing and use it to show
the m.o. of THELOBBY. They sadly fail to note that Carter knew
what he was doing when he chose the title! Carter isn't an idiot.
He knew it would be inflammatory, as of course it would be for
anyone to be accused of apartheid. He chose it anyway. And his
provocation, well, provoked. I don't know how much evidence
this is of anything, but W and M see it as very very telling.

SN: Good point. But...the question is...is apartheid an accurate
term whether it's inflammatory or not. Carroll posts anti-
Semitic material and appears (strongly) to agree with it.
Inflammatory? Yes. True. Yes.

Q: Ch. 1 provides an account of money issues. How much we
send to Israel directly and indirectly. The variety of sweetheart-
style deals (they get their money at the start of the year instead
of quarterly, so they can earn interest on the unused portion by
buying US Treas. bonds and then we pay them extra via interest),
they don't have to spend 100% of the money in the US, only 75%
near as I can tell (that is, if we give them a hundred dollars, they
spend ONLY 75 in the US and the rest is theirs...)

SN: No question they get sweetheart deals.

Q: There's no context for the dollar amounts they give, they note
that Turkey and Egypt get or got some sweetheart deals after a
fashion. They think they are being shocking somehow, but with
no real context for the size of the US budget, for what the
budget is all about, for the extent to which any and all policy in
a participatory political system is more about domestic issues
than not... it gets hard to evaluate.

SN: Yes. Very hard.

Q: Their point seems to be that if Israel is treated any differently
from any other country that definitionally means something very
significant about how Israel is treated.

SN: Yes, but as you've pointed out, a lot of parties get treated
"differently"--on an individual basis, not according to some
standard.

Q: Now, there's a NYT headline today that notes that companies
that have violated US law have gotten 100 BILLION in US
contracts. Without context for what happens regarding Israel,
it's just hard to read the numbers. If Israel is getting even 6 or 7
billion a year, and these US companies have sucked down 100
billion in recent years... clearly we have no relationship between
money given and work done. And that would seem to be US
policy all around. Israel, then, is not exceptional, it's the rule.

SN: Yes, but you see, those companies are OUR crooks. And
good American citizens are benefiting from this crookedness.
Mind you, we don't like them any better--and WE SAY SO LOUD
AND CLEAR--but still they're OUR crooks. And that's different.
When Jews do it, it's sort of hard to put affix that possessive
pronoun to it, if you see what I mean. Drill down and these are
the emotions being triggered.

Q: They seem to make a number of assumptions that I
screamingly disagree with. First is that there's a correct foreign
policy we've distorted through THELOBBY which is:

SN: Oh yes, Carroll is a BIG proponent of this idea. THE correct
foreign policy is as obvious as the nose on a Jew's face, pardon
my Yiddish. It's ridiculous. I'd be more sympathetic if they'd at
least say that THE correct foreign policy changes over time.

Q: "a loose coalition of individuals and organizations that
actively works to move U.S. foreign policy in a pro-israel
direction. As we will describe in detail, it is not a single, unified
movement with a central leadership, and it is certainly not a
cabal or conspiracy that 'controls' U.S. foreign policy. It is simply
a powerful interest group, made up of both Jews and gentiles...."

So this loose coalition that is most certainly not a cabal or
single-minded still manages to distort what would be a more
natural foreign policy. With no THELOBBY, clearly no other group
also not single-minded, also just a loose coalition would clearly
not step in and push for some other policy positions? Of course
not.

SN: First there is a lobby then there is no lobby then there is. I
DO think, however, that US foreign policy doesn't take the
validity of Palestinian claims and their plight seriously enough.
However, it gets to this position, it is biased against Palestinians,
as far as I can see. So more balance is needed.

Q: This one fundamental assumption, that there is a correct
foreign policy rather than a muddles mess of pressures in one or
another direction is, well, not really a properly descriptive view.
As I noted in a comment under Walt's post a while ago, they
would seem to be Platonists in an Aristotelian world.

SN: I'm in your "amen corner." However, as I say, this muddled
mess has resulted in insufficient attention to the Palestinian
cause, IMO.

Q: Another fundamental error is the idea that somehow foreign
policy is not supposed to be citizen-led. This error is related to
the first, but differs in emphasis. Within a participatory system,
presumably the main pressure is from citizens and is felt most
deeply at the polling booth and in anticipation of polling results.
It is entirely proper for citizen groups to pressure our
representatives to do stuff we want and to vote the bums out
when they don't serve our purposes. Foreign policy is one of our
purposes. So lobbying based on foreign policy issues is entirely
acceptable and is really the proper source of foreign policy
input. Whose interests are being served? And even more, how
are those interests determined? Are W and M claiming to be
Platonic philosophers who have discerned the Form of foreign
policy?

SN: I think the prescriptive non-relationship between domestic
politics and foreign policy is one of the cornerstones of the
"realist" school of foreign policy. But it is ironic in the context of
these garrulous comments, because it would it seem that
realists would favor foreign policy being run by an elite corp of
professionals without regard to what "the people" think.

Q: A final fundamental assumption for the day is that there is
something "US interests" that can be defined, supported through
policy, and served by one and all. I have posted about this one
before. "US interests" is an ill-defined phrase that can be
attached to just about anything. And near as I can tell, they don't
really define the phrase except to say that Israel ain't really it.
But since I've been over this many times, I won't bother again.

SN: No, the best they can say is, "And Israel doesn't even have
any oil to give us!" And by default, they end up singing the
praises of all those retrograde Arab or Islamic regimes who,
because of size or resources or their role in spawning people
who attack America with airplanes, are supposedly more natural
US allies and who would be our allies if it weren't for an Israel-
controlled US that manages to KEEP them retrograde. Ah, to be
a Jew with SO much power in my little pinky. Delusional.

Q: They engage in a certain amount of "concern trolling" as in
Oh, we really think this is bad for Israel too. An interesting
strategy. I will grant them sincerity on this point, but I will note
that it does seem to be more on the troll side of things.

SN: Okay. I don't know. I do think that sometimes American
Jews, the establishment, is more hawkish than many Israelis and
influences them in an unproductive direction. They might be
better off if Americans backed off. As Max said to Leo: "Stop
helping!"

Q: Ch. 2 focuses on the strategic liability that Israel has become.
During the Cold War, maybe it was ok, and by the way when
Israel was founded we had limited support for them. But it grew
over time.

SN: Yes, but it doesn't have to be. And no mention of Ike's and
Allen's assassination of Mossadeq? They kind of messed things
up with Iran for a long time. Maybe still!

Q: I'm not done with this chapter yet, so I'll wait to say more, if I
get around to it.

SN: You've done yeoman's work.

Q: Thus far, my reading hasn't made me love the book suddenly,
but it has made me see that the champions of the book around
here might be drawing a little too much from a mythical text
and not from the real one.

SN: Yes, basically my point. They're not very good readers.
Probably didn't take Mr. Stino's class. Carroll's education was
separate, but definitely not equal.

Q: On the other hand, they note that the US has occasionally
threatened to pull back support and has gotten what it wanted
out of Israel -- symbolic pull backs more than real ones, so of
limited impact all in all.

SN: You need to have a friendly and close relationship to have
an impact. I call this The Sweetness Doctrine. This is the idea
behind my support for engagement with Iran. Carroll TALKS this
game, but really she's all about spanking. Comes from her
Scots-Irish approach to politics as she noted in a very insightful
piece a while back.

****
Q: In running through the footnotes and chapter titles very
quickly, I do not see any engagement with the vote tally quant
readers of Congress and this flaw is a huge one. They push a
little of the interest group lit, but they don't really tackle the
numbers issue regarding lobbying and causation and
correlation. They put in a few of those idiotic juicy "OOOOHHHH,
what a strong lobby" quotations that drive me utterly crazy.
Quotations like that are no evidence at all and should not ever
be cited unless one is doing a study of things MCs say. Maybe
they will one day partner with Nate Silver, a few congressional
scholars whose work focuses on vote tallies and dollars and
phone calls and districts and the like and they'll produce a
similar book, but one that is faithful to how Congress is more
properly studied.

SN: It would be an excellent corrective. So far, their ability to
sink the careers of Congresspeople is pretty limited, overall.

Q: For now, they are IR guys stepping out of their field and in
my view at any rate, it shows. They also don't seem to grapple
with their own underlying conceptual framework, and this point,
too, weakens the text.

So that's the intro, ch. 1 and a few pages of ch. 2!

SN: Wow! Great work. I know you'll never do this, but I think
you should change your name to Answers. Failing that, how
about Hypotheses? Or Theories? Or Strong Hypotheses?"""

I have to say PN, you and your clique are really rank amateurs at character sabotage and propaganda, you have to be taught by the Jesuit intelligentsia like I was for 14 years to understand the finer points.

I can even anticipate your come backs to this post:

"Because I do not consider the Jews any more special or worthy humans than Arabs or anyone else."

Twist...That's because you are a bigot and don't like Jews so you use I/P as an excuse to vilify them.

"Because I do not believe that Jews are the only people on earth incapable of having provoked some dislike from others."

Twist...So you're saying the Jews deserved the holocaust.

"Because I do not give jews, zionist or Israel or it's supporters any extra moral leeway on Palestine regardless of the holocaust, victimhood or any other claim."

Twist....You're denying 'all' the jewish victimhood history and legitmacy for Israel just because it's a jewish state and that's anti semitic.

Ad nausea.

Next time you want to engage me or provoke a reply come loaded for bear with an 'exact' quote of mine that the meaning of can be debated openly. Instead of your little girlie nattering and insinuations or you will be as before, ignored.
I will be delighted to hand your ass back to you anytime you want to have a legitimate debate.

Now, on to the important issue of the time, Iran.

This is a good article by Geo Freidman to study about a grand bargin with Iran. I don't think Obama actually wants to attack Iran,not now or later. And if it is true as most experts say, that sanctions aren't really going to work, then this is as good as it gets for the US.

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20100301_thinking_about_unthinkable_usiranian_deal?utm_source=GWeekly&utm_medium=email&utm_campai

Thinking About the Unthinkable: A U.S.-Iranian Deal

"In any event, the choices now are a nuclear Iran, extended airstrikes with all their attendant consequences, or something else. This is what something else might look like and how it would fit in with American strategic tradition."

Frankly I don't think 99% of congress could find their way around geo-policital strategy with both hands. They are mostly concerned with their own re elections. I hope Obama has some advisors like this who can outthink the dimwits and prevent being bullied into a war with Iran

Wow. That 9:44 had to have been satisfying. Good for you, Carroll.

And Paul........

"Both people like you and DanK frequently use harsh language against Israel, but I can't remember once that Sweetness has accused you or him of anti-Semitism. Correct me if I'm wrong"

From Sweetness....

"Carroll DOES say these sorts of things about Jews--worse, I'd say--and Samuel Burke doesn't seem to mind. Nor do many others here on this respectable, semi-mainstream blog"

Paul, consider yourself "corrected".

Wigwag, your decimation of the realists, with supporting backup, is none too surprising. But your reliance on polls to support the Israel admiration society is weak. Polls do not reflect morality. And it does nothing to disprove the influence of AIPAC et al. I don't know what the stats are for the rest of the world, but it sure isn't Israel first. Sadly, the US and Israel do share many of the same values, and much of the same paranoia. But who begot whom?

Oh yeah, and Mead's "example" and reference to Sarah Palin is totally fucking incoherent.

Posted by PissedOffAmerican, Mar 07 2010, 10:17PM - Link >>>>>

ROTFLMAO...Yes...now I can put him back on my ignore button.

Okay, here is what Carroll said. If she, or anyone can defend this, please have at it. If anyone doesn't think this is anti-Semitism, make the case. Samuel Burke didn't object; nor did many others. That's simply a fact. Nor is this the first time Carroll has pulled the "a great man said, so it must be true nonsense."

But it was THIS that provoked my charge:

Posted by Carroll, Feb 02 2010, 12:58AM - Link

You really think everyone is stupid enough to believe the zionistas totally innocent jewish victim shick..LOL

CICERO (Marcus Tullius Cicero). First century B.C. Roman stateman, writer. "The Jews belong to a dark and repulsive force. One knows how numerous this clique is, how they stick together
and what power they exercise through their unions. They are a nation of rascals and deceivers."

POPE CLEMENT VIII
"All the world suffers from the usury of the Jews, their monopolies and deceit. They have brought many unfortunate people into a state of poverty, especially the farmers, working class people and the very poor.

Then as now Jews have to be reminded intermittently anew that they were enjoying rights in any country since they left Palestine
and the Arabian desert, and subsequently their ethical and moral doctrines as well as their deeds rightly deserve to be exposed to
criticism in whatever country they happen to live."

MARIA THERESA, Queen of Hungary and Bohemia (1771 - 1789) "Henceforth no Jew, no matter under what name, will be allowed to remain here without my written permission. I know of no other troublesome pest within the state than this race, which impoverished the people by their fraud, usury and money-lending and commits all deeds which an honorable man despises. Subsequently they have to be removed and excluded from here as much as possible."

WASHINGTON, GEORGE, in Maxims of George Washington by A.A. Appleton & Co.
"They (the Jews) work more effectively against us, than the enemy's armies. They are a hundred times more dangerous to our liberties and the great cause we are engaged in... It is much
to be lamented that each state, long ago, has not hunted them down as pest to society and the greatest enemies we have to the happiness of America."

CHURCHILL, WINSTON.
"In violent opposition to all this sphere of Jewish efforts rise the schemes of the International Jews. The adherents of this sinister
confederacy are mostly men reared up among the unhappy populations of countries where Jews are persecuted on account of their race. Most, if not all, of them have forsaken the faith of their forefathers, and divorced from their minds all spiritual hopes of the next world.

This movement among the Jews is not new. From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxemburg (Germany), and
Emma Goldman (United States), this world-wide revolutionary conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development,
of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing.

...

There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creating of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution by these international and for the most part atheistic
Jews. It is certainly the very great one; it probably outweighs all others. With the notable exception of Lenin, the majority of the leading figures are Jews. Moreover, the principal inspiration and driving power comes from the Jewish leaders... In the Soviet institutions the predominance of Jews is even more astounding.
And the prominent if not the principal part in the system of terrorism applied by the extraordinary Commissions for combating Counter Revolution has been take by Jews, and in
some notable cases by Jewesses. The same evil prominence was obtained by Jews in the brief period of terror during which Bela Kun ruled in Hungary. The same phenomenon has been
presented in Germany (especially Bavaria), so far as this madness has been allowed to prey upon the temporary prostration of the German people.

Although in all these countries there are many nonJews every whit as bad as the worst of the Jewish revolutionaries, the part played by the latter in proportion to their numbers in the
population is astonishing. ("Zionism versus Bolshevism: A Struggle for the Soul of the Jewish People." ILLUSTRATED SUNDAY HERALD, London, February 8, 1920.)

WILHELM II. German Kaiser."A Jew cannot be a true patriot. He is something different, like a
bad insect. He must be kept apart, out of a place where he can do mischief - even by pogroms, if necessary.

The Jews are responsible for Bolshevism in Russia, and Germany
too. I was far too indulgent with them during my reign, and I
bitterly regret the favors I showed the prominent Jewish
bankers." (CHICAGO TRIBUNE, July 2, 1922)

TWAIN, MARK (S. L. Clemens)
"In the U.S. cotton states, after the war... the Jew came down in
force, set up shop on the plantation, supplied all the Negroes'
wants on credit, and at the end of the season was the proprietor
of the Negro's share of the present crop and part of the next
one. Before long, the whites detested the Jew.

MENCKEN, H. L. 20th century American writer.

"The Jews could be put down very plausibly as the most
unpleasant race ever heard of. As commonly encountered they
lack any of the qualities that mark the civilized man: courage,
dignity, incorruptibility, ease, confidence. They have vanity
without pride, voluptuousness without taste, and learning
without wisdom. Their fortitude, such as it is, is wasted upon
puerile objects, and their charity is mainly a form of display."
(Treatise on the Gods)

BONAPARTE, NAPOLEON.
"The Jews provided troops for my campaign in Poland, but they
ought to reimburse me: I soon found that they are no good for
anything but selling old clothes..."

"Legislating must be put in effect everywhere that the general
well-being is in danger. The government cannot look with
indifference on the way a despicable nation takes possession of
all the provinces of France. The Jews are the master robbers of
the modern age; they are the carrion birds of humanity... "They
must be treated with political justice, not with civil justice. They
are surely not real citizens..."

You really think everyone is stupid enough to believe the
zionistas totally innocent jewish victim shick..LOL

Carroll writes: "You have gotten all you can get I think out of the quotes about Jews that I posted as a response to nadines racist quotes about Arabs.
Now you have to admit that you are too stupid and obtuse not to have gotten that that was the point of posting them or admit you are using it to promote yourself."

But what you can't explain is why a series of anti-Semitic quotes is a legitimate or effective riposte to Nadine's anti-Arab racist remarks.

It's a non-sequitur at best. At worst it's saying, "If you're going to be racist, I'll post a bunch of racist stuff, too."

But you still don't get it: Jews have heard this garbage for eons; you're only repeating junk we've already heard forever. So what's your point? That there are a bunch of anti-Semites out there?

Guess what? Nadine already believes that.

So when you add, "You really think everyone is stupid enough to believe the zionistas totally innocent jewish victim shick..LOL" you pretty much give it away that you think these quotes have validity...are true.

You think you're sticking it to Nadine, but you're only showing your true colors.

Here's the deal: An understanding of anti-Semitism through the ages does NOT require a person to believe that Jews have been this sort of perfect people who have never done anything wrong. This is YOUR fantasy. No one here is arguing this absurd position that you've made up.

And, as I answered you before, anti-Semitism does NOT justify everything a Jew might do or anything Israel does. That's my position.

From POA: Wow. That 9:44 had to have been satisfying. Good for you, Carroll.

And Paul........

"Both people like you and DanK frequently use harsh language against Israel, but I can't remember once that Sweetness has accused you or him of anti-Semitism. Correct me if I'm wrong"

From Sweetness....

"Carroll DOES say these sorts of things about Jews--worse, I'd say--and Samuel Burke doesn't seem to mind. Nor do many others here on this respectable, semi-mainstream blog"

Paul, consider yourself "corrected".

Actually, POA, the discussion was about Marty Peretz and his anti-Arab slurs. SM was saying that he couldn't imagine a mainstream magazine publishing something similar about Jews and not causing a shit storm.

I was saying that Carroll has said these things about Jews and most of the people on the comments in this "mainstream" blog didn't seem to mind. And that's a fact. You can read into that fact what you want, but I think it's clear.

Carroll gives it to Paul on occasion because he refuses to be "one of the team." He's not a Jew. He's not an American. He stays pretty independent and has, in fact, called me and Questions to task. He stays calm. He uses logic. He cites facts. But she can't stand that he holds to a middle road; somehow that's illegitimate in her eyes and so she engages in this nasty ad hominem (breaking one of Walt's cardinal rules!).

Carroll feels I'm obsessed with her. It's more that I've read her for a long time and watched her devolve in a nasty way. So when I stopped by the comments section after a long time away, I read a few of the people I knew: You, Wig, Questions, Paul, and Carroll--and saw the nasty brew she had posted and commented.

The whole thing went on forever, because she refuses to admit to the obvious. She makes up these ridiculous arguments about Jews claiming to be pure as the driven snow because they've been persecuted, and on and on.

But if attacking or challenging fellow posters --or referring to them or their positions in various posts is a crime--I suggest you get a lawyer. You are, for sure, a past master at it. No one hounds other posters for infractions real, imagined and anticipated more often than you.

Posted by Sweetness, Mar 07 2010, 11:11PM - Link
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Of course you know what the real point to the quotes and comment were.

They were a good counter example to the racist quotes nadine made about "all" Arabs and Muslims.

Doesn't make any difference whether the remarks abot Jews are true or nazi propaganda or not.

Because the fact they exist illustrate perfectly what happens when you go from individuals or "some" of a group to "All" of a group.

It all comes down to impressions people form from interactions with individuals from any group becoming 'the' group.

Like you and your group right here for example.
Lucky for me, I am also experienced enough to know your attitude doesn't represent your entire group.

Now, this is the last time I am 'plaining it to you Buckwheat. Cause it's quite clear you are as obsessed with me as you were years ago and don't really care as much about the Israel or ME issue as you do about some battle of personal power and wills on an internet board and you can't let go of it.

Surely it must tell you something that until nadine and you showed backed up we weren't having all these mud slinging fights over anti semitism.
And no it's not because you wern't here to call people on it. It's because "Jews as evil people" weren't part of the issue around I/P until you and nadine put it back in like you always did to try and ratchet up the old carnard accusations to make people defend themselves from the slur.

You want to be hurt on being a Jew, you try to like some others to provoke it so you can attack it. That's not my thing.

Off you go...thank heaven I have one of those Staples easy ignore buttons.

questions, if someone had been, say, a Scientologist, and then broke from them and became a Baptist, and he said you, "here's what Scientologists believe, you won't believe it", would you automatically think he was making it all up and disbelieve everything he had to say?

It's one thing to have to justify the break -- and in Mosab Yousef's case, he doesn't have to justify just apostasy from Islam (in itself a capital crime), but collaboration with Israel as well. It's another to make it all up from scratch.

Yousef describes Islam as a ladder, with prayer and alms and ordinary observances of good people at the base of the ladder, and jihad at the top of it. As absolutely nobody here noticed, I said that I hoped this didn't describe Islam in general but I believed it described the Islam Mosab Yousef was raised in -- he is, after all a "son of Hamas".

As far as I can judge from reading The Looming Tower, there is nothing at all at variance in this description of Islam with the sort of Salafi Islam that Sayyid Qutb described, or that the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt believes in, or that Hamas or Al Qaeda believes in.

You guys are committed to the idea that Hamas et. al. cannot be true religious fanatics. So every Arab who says they are (and it's hardly just converts who say so), must be ignored. Every American who says so, must be called a "racist".

But if Hamas et. al. are really religious fanatics, then it IS the God and it IS the religion and it IS the ideology, not just the "instigators". And if it IS the religion, then you are being willfully blind to a very large part of the picture. So you always draw the wrong conclusions. But you will never consider why, because YOUR ideology denies that "instigators" could actually be driven by THEIR ideology.

Ironic, really.

Nadine, as a predictor of radicalism, violence, and Neiwert's notion of eliminationism, Islam does no better a job than does, say, Christianity, Judaism, or atheism.

There's been a whole helluva lot of terrorism since the dawn of time. There's been a whole helluva lot of state violence since the dawn of time.

Islam predicts only a small part of it.

The guy who flew his plane into the IRS building in Austin, the guys who shot doctors who provide abortions, the guys who blew up bars in Ireland, the guys who.... They weren't Islamic.

So, no, there isn't something especially awful about Islam. There probably isn't even something especially awful about "guys" since women are quite capable of terrorism as well.

Give David Laitin's book Nation, State, and Ethnic Violence a read. It gives a far clearer picture of A)the general rarity of ethnic violence B)the structures that push choices in one direction or another C)the hope that people's choices can be guided enough to cut down on ethnic violence D)the way instigators, false narratives and poor understandings of violence cause us to misread what's going on. It's a hopeful and smart book by a smart guy.

And please note that what's going on in Gaza isn't merely a radicalized reading of the Koran. Gaza is under siege. People are immiserated. The leadership is failing. Weak states that do not protect their citizens are ripe for splinter groups, instigators, radicalization, and general failure.

If you want to target anything, as Laitin notes, target weak states. That seems to be far more the source of problems than is any particular religion or ideology. (He runs through irridentism, sons-of-the-soil, secession movements, and notes that weak states are far more the problem than any of these.)

You should note that suggesting that there's something about Islam that makes people violent is so totally contradicted by the number of utterly devout Muslims who don't blow things up as to make your suggestion ridiculous. Also, note that plenty of people who do blow things up aren't Islamic. Also note that blowing things up takes a certain personality type that goes well beyond any regular attachment to life, survival, and empathy. Most of us are stuck with a pretty deep empathy for human suffering (and some of us for sentient beings in general). That empathy keeps us from exploding one another for the most part. Overcoming the empathy is enormously difficult. It causes PTSD in returning soldiers, it keeps us from killing one another over routine interactions.

I think in general, you are so identified with Israel and so totally not living in Israel that you misread the threat level. You take on personally the most fearful reading of the Palestinians and that leads you to a policy position that isn't strongly empathetic.

And you don't give significant credence to the possibility that at least some percentage of Gazan radicalism can be laid at the feet of the Israeli crackdown. Believe me, if there were a small Christian non-state next to and blockaded by a large non-Christian state, the Christians would, some of them, radicalize. It's not in the ancient texts one reads, it's not even in the daily struggle to survive. Rather, radicalization is a dialectic between an instigator, peer pressure, a desire to DO something when one feels there isn't much else to do.

Texts can be selectively read to justify a whole bunch of crazy shit, and indeed, human history is littered with textual readings.

It's not the texts. It's the readers and the situation.

"You guys are committed to the idea that Hamas et. al. cannot be true religious fanatics. So every Arab who says they are (and it's hardly just converts who say so), must be ignored. Every American who says so, must be called a "racist"."

*****No, not that there aren't religious fanatics. Rather, that the religion does not cause the fanaticism. It's inherent in situations, people and the dialectics between them, NOT in the texts they read. Good lord, you can read the US Constitution to justify flying a plane into the IRS building or to justify carrying an open gun into Starbucks....

"But if Hamas et. al. are really religious fanatics, then it IS the God and it IS the religion and it IS the ideology, not just the "instigators". And if it IS the religion, then you are being willfully blind to a very large part of the picture. So you always draw the wrong conclusions. But you will never consider why, because YOUR ideology denies that "instigators" could actually be driven by THEIR ideology."

****No, it's the situation and the instigators. Situations and instigators can be found in all sorts of places and times. Plenty of those places and times have nothing to do with Islam. There's no significant correlation, then, between Islam and violence. Without a strong correlation, you don't have much of a case for causation.

If Islam were nearly perfectly correlated with violence AND if the other world religions were poorly correlated, then maybe you'd have a case. But it ain't so. So you don't have a case.

Fanaticism is there. The texts are an ex post facto justification for action that has already been chosen.

What seems to be far better correlated is the weak state, psychotic personality disorders of one sort or another, instigators. Though the US isn't entirely a weak state, the demonization of the IRS and Congress and the presidency by political opponents encourages a sense of illegitimacy and that sense of illegitimacy gives rise to a seeming weakness and allows for the plane crashes and doctor shootings. The state is seen as ineffectual, lower than the higher power and so is deserving of attack.

Nadine, try redoing all you do with a theory of weak states and see where it gets you.

If Carroll wants to call me a stupid, superficial, dishonest poseur
- which she does from time to time - then let her do so. Her ad
hominem attacks may lower herself and the quality of the debates
here, but as the superficial character I am, they don't have any
effect on me personally.

And although I naturally wish that I were born in the USA or as a
Jew, slowly developing the honest convictions, roots, and
sufficient emotional depth to form valid opinions on foreign
policy issues, I'm afraid I have no choice but to continue
expressing my shallow, cosmopolitan views - humbly accepting
the occasional ad hominem attacks from Carroll, when my lack of
loyalties and biographical connections to a particular group in
America or in the region that is being discussed hurts her
delicate patriotic feelings.

3/7/10 POA commenting on name calling -- like pot calling coke an illegal drug?

****

Paul,
""On the other hand, I don't deny the existence of radical
instigators for all sorts of causes."

Why state the obvious, Questions? The essence of Nadine's post
just above yours, is that despite here frequent insisting that she
distinguishes between Muslims and Islamists, she doesn't do
that for real, because she obviously approves the Ayaan Hirsi Ali
quote she provided:"

I state the obvious because she conflates categories I want to keep separate. So I separate them in obvious fashion.

*****

And Sweetness, I'm not sure if you caught this one already or not (I kind of think you did, but I'm not up for rereading all the posts to track it down) -- but it occurs to me that the very notion of THELOBBY utterly undermines the foundations of realism. If THELOBBY actually has any influence over policy, then of course realism is not at all properly descriptive.

Perhaps they wish to be prescriptive and suggest we need to move to a realist model but for now we're trapped in a pressure-system or a multi-polar system or, ummm, a participatory political system.... But we should move to the more dictatorial version of things? It's an odd position to be in.

I dunno.

"If Carroll wants to call me a stupid, superficial, dishonest poseur - which she does from time to time - then let her do so."

I'd leave out the "stupid" but otherwise I think the description fits you to a "T", Pol.

...I leave the site for months and months only to return to the same nattering, uninteresting, ineffectual whiners and twisters of truth lined up against the same clear-eyed, fact-based defenders of of truth.

Ahhhh....plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.

Carroll, you GO, gurl! POA - I missed your sense of style.

"It's one thing to have to justify the break -- and in Mosab Yousef's case, he doesn't have to justify just apostasy from Islam (in itself a capital crime), but collaboration with Israel as well. It's another to make it all up from scratch.

Yousef describes Islam as a ladder, with prayer and alms and ordinary observances of good people at the base of the ladder, and jihad at the top of it. As absolutely nobody here noticed, I said that I hoped this didn't describe Islam in general but I believed it described the Islam Mosab Yousef was raised in -- he is, after all a "son of Hamas". "

*** Here's the problem with all of the (yes, I have some free time today!) --

Islam is a ladder -- umm, what makes people climb from the goodpeople base up to the jihadtop? What radicalizes people? EVERYthing is a ladder actually, and it's the instigators and the dialectic between the individual and the environment that makes a comparatively few people rise up that ladder.

Note that bad behavior, anti-social shit, cruelty, self-certainty, destructiveness, a refusal to confront evidence in a rational/scientific manner, vindictiveness, stupidity and the like can be applied to, say, the Texas Board of Ed for banning Chicka Chicka Boom Boom even as it can be applied to the guys who blew up the planes (in Austin, too).

Nadine, your apostate has all the problems apostates always have. As for Scientology to Baptism, in my view that's like going from the frying pan into the fire! It's all the same to me. But that aside, leaving means dissing. It means forgetting what drew you into the belief system in the first place, what it provided, how it helped you get through the day, how you were vulnerable to it. Removing all of that from a psyche is akin to getting Norton Anti-virus our of your hard drive -- you need a removal tool.

Anything you leave starts to feel like it was cultish. Even Islam.

And though I think many views people feel pretty deeply are on the bizarre side, I don't think Scientology's computerized readings of emotional states and the concomitant selling of texts and services to fix it, as well as the aliens who came down and entered human souls or whatever (I learned all of this from South Park!) is that different from sacred texts handed down by whatever deity and interpreted by self-designated interpreters. So, for me, all the text-based anxiety is problematic and none of it captures what radicalism is about.

Texts are excuses and after the fact justifications, not causes.

Michael Moore to President Obama: Replace Rahm With M

http://reae.dersupportednews.org/opinion/32-war/1180-president-obama-replace-rahm-with-me

Now THAT'S change one can believe in.

Sorry for the double posting. But.....

I get a dead link by clicking on what is the correct URL. Why????? Anyone else?

Michael Moore to President Obama: Replace Rahm With Me

http://bit.ly/9nyh62+

Now THAT'S change one can believe in.

A four part (of an eventual six) well documented, on the class war on the American people abetted by President Obama (willingly or unwillingly) is here:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=17742

with links to first three parts.

"Wigwag, your decimation of the realists, with supporting backup, is none too surprising..." (DonS)

It's not me who decimated the realists, DonS, it was Walter Russell Mead. And there's no question that he was speaking directly to Steve Clemons and all the other people in the world who share Steve's perspective. I know that Mead has tremendous respect for Steve; unless I'm mistaken he was once Steve's boss at the New America Foundation (at least his titular boss).

Nevertheless, Mead could not be clearer; he thinks that the realist perspective on American support for Israel is either "dumb" or "anti-Semitic."

Mead suggests that lobbing allegations of anti-Semitism is a waste of time so he develops a more cogent theory of the strange delusions that afflict realists; he says that they suffer from "Israel Lobby Syndrome." This is Mead's polite way of suggesting that the realists are deranged and delusional.

Even though Mead's analysis is spot on, I wonder why he wastes his breath. The realist school of international relations has been so thoroughly repudiated and so marginalized that its influence in negligible at best. Is there anyone with any power who buys what the realists are selling?

I noticed that even Dennis Blair (the man who wanted to hire Chas Freeman) one of the few realists in the Obama Administration has joined his fellow realists Bob Gates and Jim Jones in suggesting that Iran does indeed want to develop nuclear weapons. If news reports are to be believed, his department is about to issue a new NIE asserting that Iran does want to get nuclear weapons. Ironic, don’t you think, in light of the fact that under George W. Bush the intelligence community issued an NIE playing down fears that Iran wanted nuclear weapons?

Obama's realists are jumping ship and joining the neocon camp as fast as they can. Can realists in the world of academe or the punditocracy be far behind?

How long will it be before even Steve Clemons is begging the Obama Administration to attack Iran? The only question is whether the realists can "take the cure" for their “Israel Lobby” obsession first.

So far, I haven't seen any responses to Mead's takedown; is it because in their heart of hearts, the realists know that Mead is right?

ps: DonS, Mead's comments about Sarah Palin are both lucid and correct. If you missed his point my suggestion is that you read his remarks again.

"No, not that there aren't religious fanatics. Rather, that the religion does not cause the fanaticism. It's inherent in situations, people and the dialectics between them, NOT in the texts they read."

questions, spoken like a true Marxist believer in economic determinism. Marx didn't believe in ideology either, other than his own. Religion is merely the opiate of the masses, their political opinions are inherent in their position in the class struggle. Are you one, btw?

"Good lord, you can read the US Constitution to justify flying a plane into the IRS building or to justify carrying an open gun into Starbucks...."

What on earth does that have to do with anything? And in an example where the Joseph Stark was plainly not radicalized by anything "inherent" in the American situation, but by his own mental derangement.

People are not vending machines -- put a situation in, get a pre-programmed response out. Even within the Palestinians, there have been multiple responses to "the situation" over the years. Hamas' happens to be driven by their reading of the Koran, which is far more attuned to what that document says than Stark was to the Constitution.

Paul, you didn't read very carefully. The quote was not from Ayaan Hirsi Ali, but from Mosab Hassan Yousef, the "son of Hamas."

Wigwag, Obama certainly took the realists seriously when he thought that a "change the tone" speech in Cairo and personal appeals to Egypt and Saudi Arabia, with demands on Israel coupled with polite requests on Palestinians, would result in Mideast Peace. Do you think he still does? Because he seems to have lost his old Mideast policy without gaining a new one. Now he stands like a deer in the headlights as Iran and Syria snigger at us.

Its actually hilarious noting that Mead's latest internet rumination deals with "common sense"...

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/

...just a few essays past his essay that Wig-wag lauds, which is completely and ironically devoid of common sense.

To deny the power that the Israelis have over our foreign policy in the ME is disingenuous to a fault. And to deny the power of AIPAC, and its various tentacles over our body politik is beyond disingenuous, and falls under the category of blatant propaganda. Who knows what Mead's motives are, but he is totally and irreversably rendered less than credible by his attempt to convince us to cast our common sense to the wind, only to turn right around and portray common sense as a foundational trait of the American ideal. If "common sense" is such an asset to the American ideal, then why does he ask us to cast all common sense aside when pondering the corrosive effect Israel and its poisonous lobbies have on our own security and national interests?

No, Nadine, not a Marxist, nor a "put-an-idea-in-someone's-head and get a preprogrammed response-ist" either.

My whole point is that many many texts can be pretexts for radical responses. Even the US Constitution can be used (rather badly) for justification for violence. The birthers are joined by the tenthers who have some kind of seeming-originalism that is a textualism that they use to justify radicalization. Originalism itself is profoundly problematic.

There's nothing more or less helpful about any particular text. My guess is that a very enterprising instigator could make use of "The Cat in the Hat" to get children to do something or other nefarious. The point is that it's not The Cat in the Hat that's the issue any more than it's the Koran.

Plenty of people find Islam to be peaceful, to find beauty in the Koran. A small number of people have used it to do violence. It's all in the hands of the interpreters. And you really have to do some serious numbers work here -- how many readers of the Koran vs. terrorists, how many readers of the Bible vs. terrorists, how many readers of the Constitution vs. terrorists, how many listeners to one or another speech and how many terrorists....

Far from being any kind of determinist at all, I think that people make po-mo use of what's at hand for goals that they formulate with a lot less careful thinking than one might wish for. There's a whole lot more ad hoc-kery out there than realism can deal with. There's a whole lot more pastiche than originalism is comfortable with. We make do, we see what works and fails, we get a hankering for fame and/or fortune, we get pissed, we exaggerate and overinterpret to get people to tag along. We indulge in biased thinking, we don't realize we're missing information.... In short, all of the categories of errors that the market critics make in econ can be adjusted to fit IR, cultural criticism, and strategic thinking. We're limited in what we know and those limitations must be grappled with.

So where I see your reductionism of Islam to a simple ideology of destruction, I want to say "no no Nadine," and where I see your overworry about terror and suicide bombings in I/P, I want to say that maybe it's not quite what you think, and where you quote the nuttier Palestinian/Arab rhetoric, I want to note that political rhetoric is not often genuine, and when you go crazy about how the Pals could just accept one or another bargain and be done with it, I want to say that it's not quite so simple, that neither side has much of a reason to trust the other and the failure of trust is part of what keeps the Pals from accepting. There's much else on the Pal side of things that needs to be contended with, and I think you generally reduce that side so that your side comes out better.

I don't completely dismiss the Israeli case, but I do implicate Israel in the situation as well. It's that muddled middle thing so well characterized by

http://xkcd.com/690/

which is a brilliant commentary on the tendency to muddled middleness and compromise in views.

And I think that any attempt at textual interpretation is fraught with peril and ought not to be used the way you seem to me to be using Islamic texts.

Sarah Palin's display of an Israeli flag in her office only reinforces the premise of undo Israeli influence upon our politicians. Even this ignorant fuckin' bimbo Palin knows who she must cater to in order to advance in the United States' political scene.

the last time the zionist paraded a guy across the christian zionist network of john hagee and pat robertson he turned out to be a fraud.

http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/tag/walid-shoebat-fraud/

Walid Shoebat: Ex-PLO Terrorist, Muslim Apostate, Evangelical Convert, Arab Zionist…and Now, Charlatan
Thursday, April 10th, 2008
Thanks to Jerry Haber for bringing this article to my attention. Whenever I read such a story it brings to mind Robert Duvall’s gung ho U.S. cavalry officer in Apocalypse Now: “Oh how I love the smell of napalm in the morning.” Except in this case, the “napalm” is the smell of Walid Shoebat’s lies going up in smoke.

Shoebat is the darling of the neo-con, Israel First, Christian Zionist set who has claimed for years that he was a “PLO terrorist,” who converted from Islam to evangelical Christianity, and travels the world singing the praise of Israel’s maximalist claims to Judea and Samaria. He also denounces the Palestinians as terror-mad and Islam as a religion of violence and vengeance. He speaks to campus Hillels and any Jewish audience that will have him.

Now, the Jerusalem Post (yes, really the Jpost!) has blown the lid off Walid Shoebat or whoever he is."

questions on the horror of guns: "Good lord, you can read the
US Constitution to justify flying a plane into the IRS building or
to justify carrying an open gun into Starbucks...."

I prefer to assemble my guns prior to carrying them, openly or
otherwise. You're probably referring to "open carry", which
means to openly display a firearm instead of concealing it (under
permit). Anyway, Starbucks could ask the gun advocates not to
bring their weapons inside, and enforce by law that exclusion,
but they've chosen not to do so. I don't know why. Perhaps they
think it's good business.

Probably the thing to do, if the second amendment has outlived
its usefulness, is repeal it. I'm sure that would be easy, because
everybody knows only kooks, crazies, and the unwashed,
uneducated and disenfranchised, own guns. Especially now that
it's been upheld by the SCOTUS. Everybody knows that
repealing it would make the country safer, as state officialdom
and criminals would then be the only people granted the right to
a gun, and obviously that would strengthen the state and
enhance civil society. (Also, it would make us more like Europe,
which is overdue.) Obviously, in its zeal to defend citizens from
the potential depredations of the state, or from the malicious
elements that the state does not control, the second
amendment did not anticipate the present age. Our president,
federal legislators, and the permanent government of the civil
service are visionary, highly educated people, altruistic and pure,
unlike any the world has ever known. They know what is best
for us. We should grant them their requested monopoly control
over the use of force. It is not true, incidentally, that there is a
demonstrated inverse relationship between gun crime and
liberal concealed carry laws in the USA.

Caution: Typical Domestic Terrorist (note anti-planet vehicle, as
well):

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?
pid=30380451&op=1&o=global&view=global&subj=22115021
87&id=209200826

Wigwag, because Mead is a famous guy doesn't mean that reinforces his argument. Because he cites polls doesn't mean his polls are any better than any other poll, or that there isn't an interrelationship between polling number and information dissemination. Because he denies media impact (or selectively denies it) doesn't mean that 'the media' isn't a fog and miasma controlled by corporate interest. And citing Sarah Palin to exemplify anything is desperately ridiculous.

If your assertion that "Obama's realists are jumping ship and joining the neocon camp as fast as they can" is correct that is no reason to take comfort. The neocon mentality has a disastrous record of being wrong and precipitating destruction and increased conflict. Instead of going out of his way to find evidence to support how wonderfully 'people' are disposed towards Israel, Mead ought to be turning his glance to what is good for the United States. His status doesn't mean he is any less caught up in Israel promotion industry.

Thanks for the correction drew. I wouldn't know one end of a gun from the other and I'd likely shoot myself w/o meaning to. Open carry is certainly what I meant by "open gun" -- they still sound the same to me.

And note that the actual meaning of the 2nd Amendment is one of those kooky text things that is really unclear. Funny how many pages are devoted to trying to figure out what a well regulated militia is and what that comma is all about....

Textual interpretation is a thing to behold in all its glory.

On the point of ethnic violence:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/08/AR2010030800836.html?hpid=moreheadlines

Horrific Christian/Muslim violence in Nigeria that clearly has a whole lot to do with a weak state and economic uncertainty and not much at all to do with texts.

Of course you know what the real point to the quotes and
comment were.

SN: I'm sorry. I do not.

They were a good counter example to the racist quotes nadine
made about "all" Arabs and Muslims.

SN: Counter example of what? That anti-Semitism has been
alive and well down through the ages? Ah, we know that.

Doesn't make any difference whether the remarks abot Jews are
true or nazi propaganda or not.

SN: Actually, truth does matter.

Because the fact they exist illustrate perfectly what happens
when you go from individuals or "some" of a group to "All" of a
group.

SN: Yes, so why post them?

It all comes down to impressions people form from interactions
with individuals from any group becoming 'the' group.

SN: Yes, so why post them? And why your approving final
sentence?

Like you and your group right here for example.
Lucky for me, I am also experienced enough to know your
attitude doesn't represent your entire group.

SN: I think most of my group don't appreciate being called
"insects" and the like. Maybe some Jews do.

Now, this is the last time I am 'plaining it to you Buckwheat.

SN: Okay, Miss Carroll, eyes all ears.

Cause it's quite clear you are as obsessed with me as you were
years ago and don't really care as much about the Israel or ME
issue as you do about some battle of personal power and wills
on an internet board and you can't let go of it.

SN: What's personal to me is the spreading of lies that were
responsible, in part, for the killing of a lot of my family. But, as
you can see, I talk to a lot of other people here. And if you're
worried about people being obsessed with others, check out the
way POA hound dogs any number of folks here.

Surely it must tell you something that until nadine and you
showed backed up we weren't having all these mud slinging
fights over anti semitism.

SN: I wouldn't know. I wasn't here to witness that. The first day
I got back, I ran across your screed. Are you obsessed with
Nadine? Do you feel the need to counter her bigotry with anti-
Semitic bigotry?

And no it's not because you wern't here to call people on it. It's
because "Jews as evil people" weren't part of the issue around
I/P until you and nadine put it back in like you always did to try
and ratchet up the old carnard accusations to make people
defend themselves from the slur.

SN: Sorry, I can't speak for Nadine. Seems to me the appropriate
response to Nadine's bigotry is to say, "Nadine, you're spouting
bigotry." That's what I did to Marcus actually, sort of, on your
behalf. But I wouldn't make sense for me to post a bunch of
anti-Semitic garbage from Mencken to Napoleon--that simply
REINFORCES what Marcus already thinks and throws no light
onto what Marcus is saying.

You want to be hurt on being a Jew, you try to like some others
to provoke it so you can attack it. That's not my thing.

SN: I did nothing to provoke your screed, Carroll. But you've
been at this a long time going way back. If want to assert that
the Jews "earned" a bunch of their hard knocks, prove it.

BTW, your assertion that most of the carpetbaggers were Jewish?
Couldn't find support for it except on Stormfront and a little bit
on rense.com. Most seem to have been Union soldiers.

So I don't know if that's why, as you claim, Jews were disliked in
the South following the war, by blacks or whites.

Apparently, a higher percentage of southern Jews fought for the
Confederacy than northern Jews fought for the Union. That was
interesting. And of course, you had Judah Benjamin, one of
Davis's cabinet members.

You might be familiar with "the Jew store," a great southern
tradition. Closer to your time. They were one of the few places
in the South where blacks could try on clothes without first
having to buy them.

Erichwwk, thanks for the link to the David DeGraw piece. It should be required reading. A while back I stumbled onto Karl Denninger's site, who is a tireless warrior against the masters of the universe and their financial coups:

http://market-ticker.denninger.net/

I was/am a little uncertain about his sometimes libertarin-seeming slant, only because I am turned off by the Ayn Rand variety libertarianism. But overall he provides compelling analysis and information. And above he linked to an article at Huffpo, so how far out could he be? BTW, the Huffpo article notes that traders now trade default swaps in Euros,and are pushing to make gold the medium of payment guarantee. Are we in scary territory, or what?

With college students heckling and booing Israeli apologists off the stage, in campuses nationwide, perhaps these "polls" that Mead invokes are not telling the true story.

The hasbarist agenda may be working, still, with middle america, but not for much longer.

The "polls" Mead cites are a testament to the wisdom of a strong propaganda machine.

Post-structuralist mortgage contract analysis:

questions, I get it with all the text and pretext stuff and I think a
major contribution that is available for someone to make in our
hidebound society, charmingly compelled to assert that plain and
simple document actually means what it says, is this. Take your
mortgage contract (or lease agreement) into your lender (landlord)
and say,

"Texts are kooky things. My obligations, as Derrida would say,
under this agreement ..."

And by the way, on textualism and the concomitant tendency to opt for censorship, no one handles this better than Plato in the Republic.

He discusses Homer in a fair amount of detail and finds that Homer simply will not do in a civilized society run by philosophers. Homer says unsupportable things about the gods, and wild lamentations and other truly horrific things, and so Homer, along with the rest of the poets are all gone, thank you very much.

And even without Homer and even without the stories of the gods and even without poets, the whole edifice comes crashing down round about Book VIII. Kinda funny that. Best laid plans and all... ganging aft aglee (or however it's spelled.)

So get rid of all your Koranic temptations and get rid of whatever else you think is wicked -- anyone arguing to get rid of anything, this point applies equally. Purify purify purify. Clean clean clean. Bleach bleach bleach. Burn the fucking place to the ground. Eliminate it all (thanks Neiwert for this concept that I have been reluctant to call my own, but I'm warming to lately) -- sterilize everything and start again.

And what will you get?

Book VIII of the Republic, Book IX of the Republic. And then we die in Book X and we try to figure out if we have lived well, learned anything, or fucked up again and dined on another round of our own children.

Eliminationism and purification are not the right direction to go. Triumphalism is not the right emotional attitude on anyone's part. Tempting as it is to give into, it's to be avoided.

But my oh my is that tendency strong. After all, there are 7 books of the Republic where Socrates tries his hand at jettisoning all the bad influences, bad ideas, bad desires, stupid people...all gone. Til Book VIII!

And you know what's funny, this same wise book that I find vast brilliance and careful thinking and careful crafting in is used by the neocons to justify some of the dumbest social structures and stupid policies imaginable.

Texts are a funny thing.

Oh, but drew, the fact is that there is real complexity in the Constitution. Trying to carve out the bounds of the text, the changes in social meaning, the precise authorial intention, that damned comma, the status of the militia, "interstate commerce" -- not so easy to do.

Hobbes is a contractarian and you know what he does for a huge number of pages of the Leviathan -- he defines terms.

Now if the founders had given us, I dunno, a dictionary of "militia" and "well organized" and the like, maybe we could be clear on whether or not it's ok to, say, ban guns from kindergartners, or from sex offenders or psychiatric patients or require bullets to be separated from guns, or require locks on guns, or keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of citizens or whatever.....

Do you accept any boundaries at all on the right to keep and bear arms? Are there any limits to things like RPGs or nuclear and chemical weapons? What are these arms? Remember, none of these terms is in the Constitution, so any regulation might be contrary to the 2nd Amendment. How radical are you on the issue? And how do you even begin to draw your lines, IF you draw any lines at all?

Does the state ever have any interest in regulating arms?

And just as a side point on the mortgage contract, at this point it seems that the banks don't have clear handle on the ownership behind those contracts -- the buying and selling and slicing of contracts into derivatives seems to have clouded the what may once have been something like clarity.

And note the dissimilarity between a 2 party mortgage contract which has my actual signature on it and, say, the Constitution -- maybe you don't want to go this direction??

Maybe you want to pick some other form of clarity of meaning so that you can enjoy your laughter more properly?

And, in fact, the meaning of various terms and provisions in
apparently clear contracts are argued about all the time. Sued
over. Broken over. Revised over. Everyone knows that.

"Plenty of people find Islam to be peaceful, to find beauty in the Koran. A small number of people have used it to do violence. It's all in the hands of the interpreters. And you really have to do some serious numbers work here -- how many readers of the Koran vs. terrorists, how many readers of the Bible vs. terrorists, how many readers of the Constitution vs. terrorists, how many listeners to one or another speech and how many terrorists." (questions)

No questions, it's not "all in the hands of the interpreters". To say that is to say that texts have NO MEANING whatsoever, that it makes no difference what they say because they are all a bunch of blank pages in the hands of their interpreters, who can invent new meanings from scratch every day. This makes a nonsense of every human belief and communication in history.

The Koran is not same text as the New Testament. Holy war - jihad in its plainest and most violent interpretation - as one of the highest doctrines of Islam is not a fringe interpretation, but a mainstream one, one of several available. All you are trying to do with your post-modern musing is obfuscate these facts.

Nadine writes: "No questions, it's not "all in the hands of the
interpreters". To say that is to say that texts have NO MEANING
whatsoever, that it makes no difference what they say because
they are all a bunch of blank pages in the hands of their
interpreters, who can invent new meanings from scratch every
day. This makes a nonsense of every human belief and
communication in history.

"The Koran is not same text as the New Testament. Holy war -
jihad in its plainest and most violent interpretation - as one of
the highest doctrines of Islam is not a fringe interpretation, but
a mainstream one, one of several available. All you are trying to
do with your post-modern musing is obfuscate these facts."

This is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Pardon my
tribalism here, but what JEW would ever say that a religious text
means "one thing" and doesn't require, nor is susceptible to,
interpretation!!! An ignorant one. There are any number of
distasteful things in the Torah that have been interpreted "out"
by the rabbis. And there are also distasteful things in the
Talmud that have been interpreted out.

(True, personal story: I was studying in NY with this well known
rabbi who was a daf yomi which meant, basically, he read one
page of Talmud a day, every day. Anyway, we got to one page,
and he screwed up his face like he'd just bitten into a lemon and
said, "This page should be torn out and thrown away." I wish I
could remember the page. But his disgust and utterance were
so startling, they completely supplanted the content in my
memory. This was a guy who kissed each volume before he
opened it and before he put it away.)

There are at least four interpretative methods for every posuk--
peshat, remez, drash, and sod--that doesn't include the more
informal midrash. And then there's the interpretations--layers
of them--on the interpretations.

And there are any number of things that get interpreted IN to
religious texts like, ah, the Inquisition. Turns out, believe it or
not, the Inquisition only came to an end in the early part of the
20th century and Benedict came out of the office that is the
descendant of the office of the Inquisition. All of which was, to
their minds, supported, no doubt commanded, by scripture.

Muslims have a similar, though not the same, tradition of
interpretation. Ijtihad is just one. All the religions do. No
sooner does a religious text pop up than there are 10
commentaries telling you what it really means. No question
there are nasty things in the Koran. But there are, what?, 1.3
billion Muslims. How many do you HONESTLY think are takfiri?

This is laughable.

Enough with the ignorance, Nadine!

Otherwise, you'll be forced to sit with Carroll.

I'm amused observing a Jew insisting that the texts have priority
over their interpretation, and are to blame for the crimes
committed in their name.

To blame the old texts isn't very helpful, because you'll usually
find plenty of statements supporting your opinion, but also the
opposite opinion. Sure, here and here it's said clearly that you
should punish the infidels, but what about this and that
statement, claiming that you should show patience and mercy,
regardless of whom you meet? So yes, interpretation is crucial.

And frankly, the crimes committed in the name of Allah are
peanuts compared to the crimes committed in the name of
Jesus Christ. Does that imply that the Bible is worse than the
Koran? No. It only means that these sacred texts can be used to
legitimate practically anything, due to the combination of two
main factors: The inherent contradictions in these texts, and our
ability to find exactly what we are searching for in these texts.

The Christian perpetrators in the Rwandan genocide claimed
divine inspiration for the genocide, while the perpetrated tried
to hide in their local churches. Similar scenes on a smaller scale
are seen in mosques and markets in Muslim countries today.

And in Nigeria right now, you have fanatical extremists and
horrified moderates, killers and victims, both on the Muslim and
the Christian side.

I have argued before that competence in religious matters is
important in foreign affairs, because these texts and the
language of religions are not only important in themselves, but
also a filter through which more mundane interests like
territorial claims and the fight for resources are expressed
through.

Before WW2, learning French was a requirement if you wanted
to become a diplomat. In the last decades, English became the
shibboleth. Now it's time to study not only Arab and other
languages, but also the religious language and sacred texts of
the host country.

And furthermore...

It's not that the text makes NO difference -- that's in the spirit of drew's anti-Derridean parody of a mortgage contract.

My guess is that a mortgage contract probably wouldn't do a great job as, say, a kitchen rehab contract. And it probably wouldn't work well as the 4th grade curriculum that Baby Rubin has to follow.

So yes, text is there at some level. But the level it operates at is really subject to, umm, interpretation.

Derrida was familiar with Talmudic scholarship, he knew several languages and read in the original, he was a really smart guy, and funny this, a SUPER careful reader.

When you're a super careful reader, you realize that reading is not easy. That plain meaning is not so plain.

Now, you can caricature this kind of thing, and Derrida was certainly caricatured, but I'm guessing that all those people who make fun of the labor of reading are likely to be those who have a reading strategy of their own.

Originalism is a strategy. It draws unjustified boundaries and reifies those boundaries and acts based on the boundaries it has drawn. And then, in a sleight of hand, it denies that it has drawn any boundaries at all, for original intent is supposed to be transparent and obvious. And yet, one wonders just what the boundaries are -- what the men thought? What they said? What was written? Which set of texts may we refer to? These questions come up all the time in Supreme Court decisions -- Scalia has a set of things he's willing to look at, and so do the other justices. Do you look at the law alone? The congressional debate? What was said on the floor, or just what's in the Record? Do you think about congressional intent? Do you go ahead and ask Congress what it was thinking? boundaries have to be set and they are set quite arbitrarily.

Right to bear arms -- well, they didn't have automatic weapons back then, so clearly machine guns and semi-automatic machine guns and all sorts of armaments were not present to them and so could be banned???

If the Founders did not have the thought, then the law is silent? Right to speech -- did they have rap music in mind, or can Congress ban rap?

Again, how do you draw the boundaries? Why, through interpretation and agonistics. Kind of what we do all the time around here.

It's not the parody of "everything goes" and "texts can mean anything" and it's not the equally parodic "clear meaning". There's much debate to figure out what a text is in any circumstance.

****
By the way, Sweetness, I can't find your mention of your aunt's coming bypass surgery, but I did mean to send a wish for the best.

Ah thanks.

She just emerged from the OR in great condition.

Turns out they put in a pig valve.

So, naturally, that got me to thinking whether or not it was okay
for a...

BTW, there's a great book on the phenomenology of reading the
Talmud. It's called The Burning Book. By a French guy. The idea, I
THINK, is that the text is "burned away" in the process of
interpretation.

I meant, also, to comment on Lev Shestov. When I was very young,
I came across a book of his and was taken with his name and
bought it on that basis alone. Must dig it out!

Just don't have your aunt for dinner! And I think there are provisions for life over rules.... There are always such things to be found.

My mother got several good years out of bypass surgery, but the cancer got her in the end as cancer seems to do. But they were good years for the most part. Heart surgery is brutal but people report feeling better than they ever did afterwards because they get better oxygen flow. Oxygen is good stuff.

A French guy -- I've heard of him!

Lev Shestov -- have something by him floating around. Can't remember what-- Athens and Jerusalem?? Should look at it, but I'm concurrently reading Cassidy, W and M, still working on Steve Coll, Laitin....

here is a cool interview with schlomo ben ami and norman
finkelstein.

“What happens when a former Israeli Foreign Minister debates a
scholar known as one of the world’s foremost critics of Israeli
policy? The answer is not what you may expect… We discussed
the origins of the Israel-Palestinian conflict, to the Oslo Peace
Process, right up to the present.”

http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/democracy-now-debate-
with-finkelstein-shlomo-ben-ami/

"The idea, I THINK, is that the text is "burned away" in the process of interpretation." (sweetness)

. . . as in the Hindu, perhaps, wherein the imperfections of the soul are burned away and purified in the flame of awareness, 'agni'.

e.g., http://www.dreddyclinic.com/online_recources/articles/ayurvedic/agni.htm

"but what JEW would ever say that a religious text
means "one thing" and doesn't require, nor is susceptible to, interpretation!!! " (sweetness)

No Jew would say that a text means "one thing" and cannot be interpreted -- and I didn't say that. You are having serious reading comprehension problems.

On the other hand, no Jew would say that a text means nothing at all, and that if you took away the Jewish texts and swapped in Hindu or Muslim texts, interpretation would proceed just the same without alternation.

Jewish interpretation of texts is devoted to the idea that interpretation pulls deep meanings out of texts, meanings that were already in there. It never operated on the idea that the text was a blank page and for which you could invent any meaning you pleased.

"On the other hand, no Jew would say that a text means nothing at all, and that if you took away the Jewish texts and swapped in Hindu or Muslim texts, interpretation would proceed just the same without alternation.

Jewish interpretation of texts is devoted to the idea that interpretation pulls deep meanings out of texts, meanings that were already in there. It never operated on the idea that the text was a blank page and for which you could invent any meaning you pleased."

Nadine, you, and a few rightwing culture critics who can't make themselves read Derrida and perhaps a few Yale-school leftwingers out in lala land, are the only ones who say anything about "blank pages" or "means nothing at all."

It's a non-argument, and it's not at all what anyone has said on this thread you excepted. It's an overplayed caricature that is totally 1980s and it was as silly then as it is now.

There's a thing that Hume and Barthes (and others, likely) bring up called blind and dumb criticism. Basically this kind of criticism says something along the lines of "I don't get it so there's nothing there to get." Derrida got tons of this shit thrown at his work and it was an easy and fun kind of criticism that relieved the critics of the need to learn Greek, Latin, Heidegger, Plato, the pre-Socratics, tons of history...all the stuff Derrida bounced off. What a relief! Don't learn, just bash.

Out of this "cultural" climate came the whole "Whaddya mean a text has no meaning" crap.

Setting the boundaries of textual meaning is a positive act, a political act, a set of decisions. "Author's intention," "original meaning," and the like are far less obvious than you would seem to admit. And what your position really is is a decision, a positive decision, to set the parameters and deny that you are setting the parameters.

Good textual work notes that it sets parameters, that there are other readings. "Other" does not mean "no meaning at all."

Note that if you watch some film or comic book or whatever, and the good guy beats the bad guy, you can read it as a triumph, as we typically do, or you can identify with the bad guy and see it as a tragedy that the bad guy always loses. The text can support both, contradictory, meanings. Really. Does it mean the text has no meaning? No, it means the text has multiple meanings.

So please drop the caricature stuff. It's really passe (with an acute accent I can't type.)

And if you can't drop it, maybe you should run for the Texas State Board of Education so that you can ban "The Cat in the Hat" for suggesting that children keep secrets. They already nailed Chicka Chicka Boom Boom!! (as I've noted a few times because it's so fucking ignorant!)

Nadine writes: "Jewish interpretation of texts is devoted to the
idea that interpretation pulls deep meanings out of texts,
meanings that were already in there. It never operated on the
idea that the text was a blank page and for which you could
invent any meaning you pleased."

Without getting into the weeds about interpretation, we need to
remind ourselves that Jewish interpretation and practice has
interpreted out things that were plainly written in the Torah and
Gemarrah that are no longer considered to be appropriate.

This was the main point...

The same goes for all the religions. Sometimes, it goes in the
other direction. I think Islam DOES have a problem with salafist
interpretations, takfir, and the like (though I'm no expert).

But I believe the man who killed Rabin also gave religious
justifications for his actions. That was a problem, IMO, and may
still be. Religious justifications for Greater Israel are also a
problem, IMO. The intersection between religion and politics is a
big source of problems in all religions.