Re: Mindless and Heartless
- Original Message - From: "Matt Grimaldi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2005 7:45 PM Subject: Re: Mindless and Heartless > > > Matt G wrote: > >> Perhaps someone wants to argue that GWB > >> should *not* have to endure a half-hour > >> with her, and maybe even that he's not > >> accountable to her (or even the public). > > > Dan Minette wrote: > > Why, because of her views, is half an hour > > with her more important than half an hour > > with her other son, or his father (both of > > whom seem to think his death is a nobel > > sacrifice). How about all the others within > > a first degree of kinship (parent, child, > > sibling)? Don't they have an equal right > > to half an hour? That would be more than a > > full time job for a year. > > *Her* views drove her to camp out in TX, > which I don't recall anyone else doing. > That has to have earned her something. Maybe, but why more than a meeting with the national security advisor (Rice's old job)? When I look at these things, I try to generalize the principal. Do anti-abortion protesters against Democrats who are that vocal get the same consideration as she does? If they don't, I would argue that one cannot use the view that they are wrong and she is right gives her a privledge that they don't have; because that's a subject that is debated within our societywith significant fractions of the population taking different sides. I'm trying to think of precidents where an individual citizen with a complaint was able to force a meeting with the president in modern times. If there was a precident, it would be useful to use it for comparison purposes. If not, then the setting of such a precident is a fairly important act...one with significant repurcussions. > There definitely should be some minimal show of > resolve by those without the power to force > an audience. Automatically assigning > limited time to all comers is oviously not > a practical solution. Do you really > want to argue that since GWB doesn't have the > time to see everybody, then he should see > nobody? That is not my arguement.The arguement that I have seen was that the loss of her son meant that GWB had a moral obligation to meet with her privately, after meeting her earlier as part of a group. Since I think I've established that there are roughly 4k-6k people who are in that position, we see that he can't meet all of them. Your arguement is that many of the rest of them are not dedicated enough with him to camp out at his door. I think that it is reasonable to assume, in politics, that people don't camp out at a leader's door (insisting that they must see him) to tell them how wonderful he is doing. I think it is reasonable to see this as happening mostly when someone strongly disapproves of the action. I'm trying to think of a good way to define the precident. The best I can define is: "people who feel that the improper action by the government (led by this president) has resulted in the death of a loved one have the right to see the president if they show strong committement by camping near where he is until he sees them. > > So are you saying that the only time and > place that a politician should be held > accountable for his decisions is in the > voting booth? Come on, you can do better > than that. USA politics already don't > work that way. So, you are arguing that a politician will change his mind based on pressure from someone who will not change the chance of his being re-elected, or having people in his party re-elected? > Also, while we're at it, he won by what, > 2% of the popular vote, at most? Isn't > that a pretty good statement that total > public support is tepid? It's certainly > not a 65%+ carte blanche "mandate" to do > whatever he wants. I think the influence of having or not having a mandate is a bit over-rated, with regard to getting what you want. Lincoln won with only 39.8% of the vote. The Democrats won significantly more votes (47.6%), but they split between a Northern Democratic (29.5%) and a Southern Democratic (12.6%). He governed very strongly, redefining the power of the federal government. Nixon and Johnson had mandates, and it did them little good. Once a president is re-elected, he doesn't worry about personally being rejected by the government. The contraint on his actions are in Congress (and to a lesser extent the Supreme Court). If the opposition controls one or both houses of Congress, then he needs to compromise. If his party has a clear majority in the house and at least 60 seats in the Senate, the minority party cannot directly slow down or stop legislation. So, w
Re: Mindless and Heartless
On Aug 24, 2005, at 5:45 PM, Matt Grimaldi wrote: Do you really want to argue that since GWB doesn't have the time to see everybody, then he should see nobody? There's a precedent: He can't understand everything, so… -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror" http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
Matt G wrote: >> Perhaps someone wants to argue that GWB >> should *not* have to endure a half-hour >> with her, and maybe even that he's not >> accountable to her (or even the public). Dan Minette wrote: > Why, because of her views, is half an hour > with her more important than half an hour > with her other son, or his father (both of > whom seem to think his death is a nobel > sacrifice). How about all the others within > a first degree of kinship (parent, child, > sibling)? Don't they have an equal right > to half an hour? That would be more than a > full time job for a year. *Her* views drove her to camp out in TX, which I don't recall anyone else doing. That has to have earned her something. There definitely should be some minimal show of resolve by those without the power to force an audience. Automatically assigning limited time to all comers is oviously not a practical solution. Do you really want to argue that since GWB doesn't have the time to see everybody, then he should see nobody? > He certainly seems to be acting that way. > He is accountable to the public; that's > what elections are for. He clearly won > the last one. So are you saying that the only time and place that a politician should be held accountable for his decisions is in the voting booth? Come on, you can do better than that. USA politics already don't work that way. Also, while we're at it, he won by what, 2% of the popular vote, at most? Isn't that a pretty good statement that total public support is tepid? It's certainly not a 65%+ carte blanche "mandate" to do whatever he wants. > Republicans also gained > seats in the House and Senate in 2004; > which indicates that the voting public > had a preference for the Republicans. > If that is changing, the 2006 elections > are only a little more than a year away, > and intelligent Republican congressmen > and senators should have a feel for which > way the wind is blowing. You would think that a sitting president would also be able to gague those same winds. GWB should have done something more than just avoid her, if simply to keep from geting his image tarnished too badly. He didn't have to be on the hook for anything, All he had to do was let her meet with him and then pretend to listen to and understand her grievances. Early enough and it could have defused her emotionally, he could have spun himself as being a compassionate politician, and deflated the political football we have today. -- Matt ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
On Aug 23, 2005, at 6:50 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 8/22/2005 11:59:46 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: And in this instance, again what we're talking about is a judgment call. I can be so sure of that because there is simply no objective evidence to support *anyone's* claims here. That strongly suggests we're dealing in the realm of opinion alone. I have tried to point out that there is in fact a structure to certain anti-semitic remarks that are historically verifiable. No argument there. I don't believe it requires judgement to say some remarks are anti-semitic. That's also true in some cases -- some remarks are clearly -ismic. I think we're getting into one of those grey areas, though, when we try to talk about *this* specific issue. 1. Neo-cons would have to be indisputably Jewish, either initially or now; 2. The label would have to be applied in a way that hinted at a broader Jewish conspiracy; 3. The label would have to be applied by someone who might reasonably be charged with an ism. Problem is that point (1) seems to be in dispute. Point (2) is not verifiably attached to Sheehan. And point (3) requires a knowledge of a person's motivations that can only come with rigorous checking of background, declarations of position made historically, and so on. The point is not whether neo-cons are all jewish it is that anti-semites identify them as jews and use the term neocon as a suragate for "jew". 2) Such hints are out there. 3) Pat Bucchanan comes to mind. Even if this is true, the equation of someone like Cindy Sheehan with a known bigot is a fairly big leap. So would you concede that it's your background in Judaic culture which helps you be more sensitive to oppression in other groups? And would you further concede the *possibility* that someone in a different oppressed group might be just as sensitive to Jewish plight? Finally, would you consider it plausible that what we're actually having here is a difference of *judgment* in an issue which, like a "strike zone", is vaguely defined at the edges, and which therefore disallows the probability of an objective decision being made? I would of course concede that Cindy insensitive to the plight of jews. First, you missed my point; second, what "plight of Jews" do you believe Ms. Sheehan doesn't appreciate? That is the crux of the issue. Her insenstivity to issues of antisemitism becomes antisemitism when she makes remarks that are anti-semitic. I don't believe you or anyone else have managed to prove she's made any anti-semitic comments at all. Even the quote attributed to her is not verifiably hers. Also, it seems to me that you're a bit too willing to apply a suggestion of deliberate wrongdoing to someone who (assuming the remarks are authentic) didn't provably intend bigotry. The conclusion is chilling: Ignorance alone of a subtle issue is sufficient to brand a person with a label of bigotry. That doesn't seem like a very healthy response. There is no judgement about whether the remarks are anti-semitic in my opinion. I simply disagree. So, I believe, do many others. That doesn't necessarily mean you're in error here, but it does suggest that an argument a bit more in-depth than "I say it's anti-semitic, therefore it is" is called for. Nick says she is not explicitly anti-semitic and I accept that but she clearly blames what neocons for our tilt (in her opinion) towards Israel and once again I cannot stress enough that this line of reasoning is used by explicit anti-semites …And therefore Ms. Sheehan is an unwitting anti-semitic propagandist. That's just too easy. It's too monochromatic for my tastes. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror" http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
In a message dated 8/22/2005 11:59:46 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > However, the issue I have with your contentions (to the extent they > refer to me) is that you seem to be suggesting I have insensitivity to > subtle bigotries as suffered by a particular group, which (to me) > translates to a suggestion that I'm insensitive to bigotry and > oppression in general. I don't believe that's the case. I'd have to be > a member of an unoppressed majority for that to be a feasible charge, > at least to my mind, and as I've stated, I am not such a fortunate > person. I am not suggesting generral insensitivity since I do not know your opinon on other issues but only to anti-semitic remarks. By the way being oppressed does not immunize one against prejudice. You would think that Jews and blacks would understand each other and be tolerant of each other but while this may be true in general there are of course many racists jews and anti-semitic blacks. > > And in this instance, again what we're talking about is a judgment > call. I can be so sure of that because there is simply no objective > evidence to support *anyone's* claims here. That strongly suggests > we're dealing in the realm of opinion alone. I have tried to point out that there is in fact a structure to certain anti-semitic remarks that are historically verifiable. I don't believe it requires judgement to say some remarks are anti-semitic. This does not mean that the person making the remarks is explcitly anti-semitic and if pointing out the nature of a statement is anti-semitic makes a person reconsider it then there would be good evidence that the person did not understand the implications of their remarks. > > If there were objective reality to the claim that the "neo-con" > movement was originally comprised largely or exclusively of Jewish > people, then a case *could be* made that the label, used in certain > situations, would be evidence of an ism. But there'd have to be a few > things in place for this to be a valid charge, in my estimation: > > 1. Neo-cons would have to be indisputably Jewish, either initially or > now; > 2. The label would have to be applied in a way that hinted at a broader > Jewish conspiracy; > 3. The label would have to be applied by someone who might reasonably > be charged with an ism. > > Problem is that point (1) seems to be in dispute. Point (2) is not > verifiably attached to Sheehan. And point (3) requires a knowledge of a > person's motivations that can only come with rigorous checking of > background, declarations of position made historically, and so on. The point is not whether neo-cons are all jewish it is that anti-semites identify them as jews and use the term neocon as a suragate for "jew". 2) Such hints are out there. 3) Pat Bucchanan comes to mind. > > Were the source of the allegations someone like Pat Robertson -- who's > absolutely a bigot -- then I would have little doubt that the intent > was to do harm to Jewish people. But Sheehan doesn't have a public > record of making bigoted statements, so it's harder to convince me that > she had harmful intentions in the things she might or might not have > said. Whether she has harmful intentions or not the issue is whether her remarks however naive or uninformed are anti-semitic; I (and others on the list) contend they are and have pointed out the specific ways in which they are anti-semitic. > > So would you concede that it's your background in Judaic culture which > helps you be more sensitive to oppression in other groups? And would > you further concede the *possibility* that someone in a different > oppressed group might be just as sensitive to Jewish plight? Finally, > would you consider it plausible that what we're actually having here is > a difference of *judgment* in an issue which, like a "strike zone", is > vaguely defined at the edges, and which therefore disallows the > probability of an objective decision being made? I would of course concede that Cindy insensitive to the plight of jews. That is the crux of the issue. Her insenstivity to issues of antisemitism becomes antisemitism when she makes remarks that are anti-semitic. There is no judgement about whether the remarks are anti-semitic in my opinion. Nick says she is not explicitly anti-semitic and I accept that but she clearly blames what neocons for our tilt (in her opinion) towards Israel and once again I cannot stress enough that this line of reasoning is used by explicit anti-semites > > > -- > ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
On Aug 21, 2005, at 7:16 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 8/20/2005 10:30:18 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Then this is a big difference between you and me. While you've been going on and on about subtle anti-semitism, you probably haven't felt its effects, yet you've been suggesting that I don't understand oppression. I never implied that you do not know about oppression. Well, perhaps; it depends, I suppose, on how one looks at things. Over the years I've come across some truly bizarre claims from GLBT people about -ismic thinking. Probably one of the strangest was the allegation that the Disney movie _The Lion King_ was homophobic. I found the charge baffling then and still do; as near as I can tell, it was because the character "Scar" was somewhat effete, and there were gays who believed this cast homosexuality in a negative light -- completely overlooking the relationship between "Timon" and "Pumbaa" (the meerkat/warthog buddies) and most especially how willing they were to adopt an orphan runaway. (But even THAT would be a stretch … I mean casting T & P as being gay. It's like the Bert/Ernie thing from "Sesame Street". No deliberate allusion to a sexualized relationship has ever been made, so really the whole premise is just silly. Of course, in the former instance, it's obvious that Timon would be the top, just as Bert is likely an S/M queen. ;) This has made me believe that it's possible for any group to interpret various things in various ways (which is hardly a revelation), and even to have variety within members of that group in terms of how they perceive possible slights. There are, of course, always cases wherein bigoted thinking is obvious, and there are plenty of cases wherein bigotry does not exist -- but there's also a vast nebulous area that doesn't lend itself to easy interpretation. It's really a question, in such cases, of individual judgment calls. A little like the part of baseball that makes the game so contentious: The "strike zone" is nebulously defined, and a close call will *always* spark controversy and is nearly *never* capable of being objectively determined. However, the issue I have with your contentions (to the extent they refer to me) is that you seem to be suggesting I have insensitivity to subtle bigotries as suffered by a particular group, which (to me) translates to a suggestion that I'm insensitive to bigotry and oppression in general. I don't believe that's the case. I'd have to be a member of an unoppressed majority for that to be a feasible charge, at least to my mind, and as I've stated, I am not such a fortunate person. And in this instance, again what we're talking about is a judgment call. I can be so sure of that because there is simply no objective evidence to support *anyone's* claims here. That strongly suggests we're dealing in the realm of opinion alone. If there were objective reality to the claim that the "neo-con" movement was originally comprised largely or exclusively of Jewish people, then a case *could be* made that the label, used in certain situations, would be evidence of an ism. But there'd have to be a few things in place for this to be a valid charge, in my estimation: 1. Neo-cons would have to be indisputably Jewish, either initially or now; 2. The label would have to be applied in a way that hinted at a broader Jewish conspiracy; 3. The label would have to be applied by someone who might reasonably be charged with an ism. Problem is that point (1) seems to be in dispute. Point (2) is not verifiably attached to Sheehan. And point (3) requires a knowledge of a person's motivations that can only come with rigorous checking of background, declarations of position made historically, and so on. Were the source of the allegations someone like Pat Robertson -- who's absolutely a bigot -- then I would have little doubt that the intent was to do harm to Jewish people. But Sheehan doesn't have a public record of making bigoted statements, so it's harder to convince me that she had harmful intentions in the things she might or might not have said. I don't believe I'm being insensitive to isms by suggesting the above; I believe I'm following a train of thought that requires some evidence standards to be met before I'm willing to attach a label of bigotry to someone. Experience has shown me this is the preferable tack to choose. I submit that it is you who don't understand oppression. You haven't, by your admission, experienced it; I've lived with it every day of my life. I have seen people like me die from it. People I have known have killed themselves because of it. I live in a nation trying to make it impossible and illegal for my people to marry. And you? Here is where we part company. I think I do understrand oppression. Even though I haven't experienced my people have in the past and may again. I feel fear and anger because
Re: Mindless and Heartless
On 8/22/05, Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > - Original Message - > From: "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Killer Bs Discussion" > Sent: Monday, August 22, 2005 6:23 PM > Subject: Re: Mindless and Heartless > > > > On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 17:39:30 -0500, Dan Minette wrote > > > > Perhaps someone wants to argue that GWB > > > > should *not* have to endure a half-hour > > > > with her, and maybe even that he's not > > > > accountable to her (or even the public). > > > > > > Why, because of her views, is half an hour with her more important than > > > half an hour with her other son, or his father (both of whom seem to > > > think his death is a nobel sacrifice). > > > > Cite, please. > > Sure, no problem Nick. > > > Others in the family bitterly opposed Cindy's stance. In a statement, her > sister-in-law - Casey's aunt - said that "the rest of the Sheehan family > supports the troops, our country and our president." Cindy's surviving son > begged her to come home. It was revealed that her husband had filed for > divorce. Their son's death, as in so many families, had strained their > marriage rather than, as in others, making it stronger. > > > http://tinyurl.com/cdlee > > http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20050819/cm_usatoday/cindysheehandecampsleavingverymixedmessages;_ylt=AqYNJoNff80.ib6rG5dFNmys0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3YWFzYnA2BHNlYwM3NDI- > > Dan M. Tsk, tsk, tsk, Dan. Did you check the source? The Drudge Report. http://www.drudgereport.com/flashcs.htm Let's count the weak links: first, an item on Matt Drudge's website, who is a known (and I believe self-avowed) hard-core rightwinger. A weak link, but not decisive. Ad hominem and all that. I'll simply confine myself to mentioning that Drudge has made up stuff in the past; does anyone remember how Drudge broke the news that John Kerry commited adultery? The item claims that they received an e-mail (a form of communication easily faked, both on the sending and receiving ends, as spammers demonstrate to everyone's daily dismay), which itself is said to say: "Our family has been so distressed by the recent activities of Cindy we are breaking our silence and we have collectively written a statement for release. Feel free to distribute it as you wish. Thanks, Cherie In response to questions regarding the Cindy Sheehan/Crawford Texas issue: Sheehan Family Statement: The Sheehan Family lost our beloved Casey in the Iraq War and we have been silently, respectfully grieving. We do not agree with the political motivations and publicity tactics of Cindy Sheehan. She now appears to be promoting her own personal agenda and notoriety at the the expense of her son's good name and reputation. The rest of the Sheehan Family supports the troops, our country, and our President, silently, with prayer and respect. Sincerely, Casey Sheehan's grandparents, aunts, uncles and numerous cousins. " How much editing the DR did is unknown. Furthermore, it is unclear just who is signing it: a "Cherie" certainly signed it, who is apparently an aunt on the paternal side of the dead son, but who else is unclear. Which grandparents (are Sheehan's grand-parents even alive? I do not know.), unspecified (even unenumerated!) "aunts, uncles and numerous cousins". None of which have publicly stated that they support the e-mail, or even that the e-mail is genuine. Cindy Sheehan has stated that her aunt's politics and that of several other family members are opposite hers, but sheer probability dictates that, which helps the probability of validity only a little. So the most likely scenario? It's a plausible fake, or the aunt going it alone. It is unfortunate that the MSM chooses to elide discussion of the source. ~Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
Robert Seeberger wrote: Dan Minette wrote: Finally, remember I didn't vote for him for president (I did pick him over a yellow dog for governor in '98). What, Ann Richards? Why didn't you like that wonderful woman? W. defeated Richards in 1994. Sheesh! I voted for Richards at every available opportunity. :) I like her a lot. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
Dan Minette wrote: Finally, remember I didn't vote for him for president (I did pick him over a yellow dog for governor in '98). Who was running against him then, again? (Does anyone remember the name?) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
- Original Message - From: "Robert Seeberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Monday, August 22, 2005 8:43 PM Subject: Re: Mindless and Heartless > Dan Minette wrote: > > > > Finally, remember I didn't vote for him for president (I did pick > > him > > over a yellow dog for governor in '98). > > > > What, Ann Richards? > Why didn't you like that wonderful woman? She wasn't running then. IIRC, I voted for her losing cause in '94. Bush ran for re-election in '98, and no one of any prominence wanted to run against him. They ran a yellow dog. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
Dan Minette wrote: > > Finally, remember I didn't vote for him for president (I did pick > him > over a yellow dog for governor in '98). > What, Ann Richards? Why didn't you like that wonderful woman? xponent Rove Lies Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 18:56:45 -0500, Dan Minette wrote > > Others in the family bitterly opposed Cindy's stance. In a statement, > her sister-in-law - Casey's aunt - said that "the rest of the > Sheehan family supports the troops, our country and our president." > Cindy's surviving son begged her to come home. It was revealed that > her husband had filed for divorce. Their son's death, as in so many > families, had strained their marriage rather than, as in others, > making it stronger. And you got "her other son, or his father (both of whom seem to think his death is a nobel sacrifice)" from that? Her sister-in-law was not speaking for Pat or their surviving son. What pat has said is that they wanted his wife home, not that they endorse this war. I recall reading that their other son was going to join her at Camp Casey, but I don't know if that happened yet -- hardly the action of someone who disagrees. I know Pat Sheehan's attitudes about this war quite well. We've dined and raised a few beers together and been on the same panels at peace events. We communicate by e-mail and phone periodically. I can tell you that he is no Bush supporter. His frustration is that he feels as though he has lost a son and a wife. I'm not betraying any confidences by telling you that -- he's said as much to the press. The split between Cindy and Pat is not about political differences. Although a split like this is never about one thing, in the end it was about priorities -- family v. politics. Cindy has thrown herself completely into political action. If there's "another man" in this sad story, it is the peace movement. Within GSFP, people have said that Cindy deserves extra support now that Pat has filed for divorce. I quickly added that we need to support Pat, too... and found that as I was writing that e-mail, somebody else had already written the same thing -- Cindy. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voicemail: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
- Original Message - From: "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Monday, August 22, 2005 6:23 PM Subject: Re: Mindless and Heartless > On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 17:39:30 -0500, Dan Minette wrote > > > Perhaps someone wants to argue that GWB > > > should *not* have to endure a half-hour > > > with her, and maybe even that he's not > > > accountable to her (or even the public). > > > > Why, because of her views, is half an hour with her more important than > > half an hour with her other son, or his father (both of whom seem to > > think his death is a nobel sacrifice). > > Cite, please. Sure, no problem Nick. Others in the family bitterly opposed Cindy's stance. In a statement, her sister-in-law - Casey's aunt - said that "the rest of the Sheehan family supports the troops, our country and our president." Cindy's surviving son begged her to come home. It was revealed that her husband had filed for divorce. Their son's death, as in so many families, had strained their marriage rather than, as in others, making it stronger. http://tinyurl.com/cdlee http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20050819/cm_usatoday/cindysheehandecampsleavingverymixedmessages;_ylt=AqYNJoNff80.ib6rG5dFNmys0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3YWFzYnA2BHNlYwM3NDI- Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 17:39:30 -0500, Dan Minette wrote > > Perhaps someone wants to argue that GWB > > should *not* have to endure a half-hour > > with her, and maybe even that he's not > > accountable to her (or even the public). > > Why, because of her views, is half an hour with her more important than > half an hour with her other son, or his father (both of whom seem to > think his death is a nobel sacrifice). Cite, please. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voicemail: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
- Original Message - From: "Dan Minette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Monday, August 22, 2005 5:39 PM Subject: Re: Mindless and Heartless > > > Perhaps someone wants to argue that GWB > > should *not* have to endure a half-hour > > with her, and maybe even that he's not > > accountable to her (or even the public). > > Why, because of her views, is half an hour with her more important than > half an hour with her other son, or his father (both of whom seem to think > his death is a nobel sacrifice)? How about all the others within a first > degree of kinship (parent, child, sibling)? ^^ of someone who has died in Iraq or Afganistan. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
> Perhaps someone wants to argue that GWB > should *not* have to endure a half-hour > with her, and maybe even that he's not > accountable to her (or even the public). Why, because of her views, is half an hour with her more important than half an hour with her other son, or his father (both of whom seem to think his death is a nobel sacrifice). How about all the others within a first degree of kinship (parent, child, sibling)? Don't they have an equal right to half an hour? That would be more than a full time job for a year. > He certainly seems to be acting that way. He is accountable to the public; that's what elections are for. He clearly won the last one. Republicans also gained seats in the House and Senate in 2004; which indicates that the voting public had a preference for the Republicans. If that is changing, the 2006 elections are only a little more than a year away, and intelligent Republican congressmen and senators should have a feel for which way the wind is blowing. Finally, remember I didn't vote for him for president (I did pick him over a yellow dog for governor in '98). Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
Is anyone interested in discussing GWB's accountability issue here? I'm getting more and more convinced that the powers that be want do defend him from interacting with anyone from the benighted masses in any situation that is not totally favorable to him. I think he deserves to spend a half-an-hour getting an earfull from an angry mother whose son died doing something at his urging. Instead, the first thing that comes to the conservative's lips are accusations that she's being used by liberals, then they go as far as calling her racist (at least here they have). Regardless, even if those accusations are true, they don't actually negate accountability for a lost son. Perhaps someone wants to argue that GWB should *not* have to endure a half-hour with her, and maybe even that he's not accountable to her (or even the public). He certainly seems to be acting that way. -- Matt ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
In a message dated 8/20/2005 10:30:18 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > Then this is a big difference between you and me. While you've been > going on and on about subtle anti-semitism, you probably haven't felt > its effects, yet you've been suggesting that I don't understand > oppression. > I never implied that you do not know about oppression. > You haven't seen your people dragged to death in chains behind pickup > trucks in Texas, nor beaten and left to die on wire fences in Wyoming, > and yet you have the gall to suggest I don't understand something like > anti-semitism, which is as old as homophobia (even Jews are homophobic) > and very present, very active in US society today. So much so that > there's talk about codifying homophobia, making it a national law. > > In many parts of this "free" nation, my people can't adopt children > because there's an irrational, baseless fear that children will somehow > be "corrupted" by being loved, unconditionally and totally, by a > same-gender couple of parents. While Jews all across the US are free to > have children, I and my kind can't even have that right. > I am completely sympathetic to you with regard to this. I think it terrible that people are discriminated against because of their sexuality. I think gays deserve the rigths as anyone else. The right to marry adopt kids, to live freely in our society. > Howe dare you? How dare you suggest I have no understanding of lethal, > pervasive oppression? I am saying you are insensitive to a certain type of anti-semitism. Nothing more. > > I submit that it is you who don't understand oppression. You haven't, > by your admission, experienced it; I've lived with it every day of my > life. I have seen people like me die from it. People I have known have > killed themselves because of it. I live in a nation trying to make it > impossible and illegal for my people to marry. And you? Here is where we part company. I think I do understrand oppression. Even though I haven't experienced my people have in the past and may again. I feel fear and anger because of this and by the way I think it makes me more empathic with individuals who are suffering from active oppression now. Jews are not immune to criticism because they have been oppressed. Individuals and groups who act poorly need to be critcized regardless of their place in society,. Not blamed; criticized. > > Don't ever presume to lecture me again about my ignorance of prejudice. I have talked to you about what I see as your ignorance of the history of anti-semitism not oppression. > > > ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
In a message dated 8/20/2005 10:17:09 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > It came from Eric Clapton. :-) > I have to talk to him about that ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
In a message dated 8/20/2005 9:41:49 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > I believe that self-deceit enables this kind of behavior. The provost of > my > college was a spy during WWII and interviewed Nazi scientists during the > Nuremburg war trials. He challenged each incoming class' sense of ethics by > telling them that virtually none of the scientists who carried out > atrocities > did so in the name of Germany, etc. They did them in the name of science, > to > advance our knowledge. > This is my point exactly and thank you for saying it better I could. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
In a message dated 8/20/2005 9:30:33 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > No, it's not... quantum mechanics is a reasonable, scientific theory. The > Jews-run-the-world idea is a paranoid goofball conspiracy theory. That > makes > all the difference. I believe the latter is untrue because, despite a good > education, I hardly know anything about it *and* it is ridiculous. My point was that the main rebuttal to the assertions in my often overheated posts was a simple assertion that they were not true because the poster did not believe ithen t to be true. My point was that since my arguements are based on history not so much on current events (yet) that to argue from current experience in particular here in the US is not valid just as it not valid to argue against quantum physicis because one does not experience it in real life without reading about it. > > In other words, I'm prejudiced *against* such conspiracy theories. I choose > to believe that reasonable people who blame neo-cons and Israel for trouble > are not doing so in support of such theories. > ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
- Original Message - From: "Ritu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Killer Bs Discussion'" Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2005 4:24 PM Subject: RE: Mindless and Heartless > > Dan Minette wrote: > > > > I am still trying to figure out the line between criticising > > > Israel/Jews in politics/Jewish politics and anti-semitism. > > So I have a > > > question: When Christopher Hitchens claims that "The Democrat party > > > truly is what some people crudely say: a wholly-owned subsidiary of > > > the Israeli lobby", is he being critical of the Democrats or is he > > > being anti-semitic? > > > > He is being critical of the Democratic party. One way to > > note this is his support of the neocons (who are Jewish) in > > the next breath. > > Okay, so if you support the neocons, you are not anti-semitic? No. The great lie is that "Jews can't be trusted becasue they will betray their countrymen for their own agenda." I read a number of things by Hitchens and while I disagree with him on some points; I agree with him on others. He has written in such a way that he specifically disentangles himself from the "Great Lie" and points his finger in another direction. In a real sense, he provides a real counter-example to Warren's contention: here is a man who criticizes Israel strongly, as well as the actions of some of the Jews in the US. Yet, he does it in a manner that does not evoke one of the great historical anti-Semetic lies. So, I think that seeing the difference between what he writes and what Zimmy, Gautam and I all call anti-Semetic is key to seeing the point. Let me quote from other writings of his: The United States is free to say at any time that it can and will guarantee the 1947/8 frontiers of Israel, and will make this defense perimeter part of the western alliance, but that it will not provide one cent for annexation and colonisation, let alone for fanatical religious proselytisation. General Sharon would have to reject this offer of perpetual "security", because of the thuggish ideology of his own party. But the evidence is that a majority of Israeli Jews and Jewish Americans would support it, on principle. Why does this not happen, and why do we gamble the whole future of regime-change in the region on the wishes of a handful of demented zealots? At least partly because of the influence of the Christian lobby, which completes my point about the poisonous effect of the three monotheisms The war upon which we are engaged is a war for Enlightenment values, in which all religious fundamentalists are actual or potential traitors. It's well beyond time that we recognised this elementary fact, and began to act upon it. > > If you read other things by him he comes > > out with a fairly well nuanced view. > > In the last two days, I have read some 6 articles by Hitchens. And I > have not come across any well nuanced view. Hmmm...since your a reasonable person, its likely that the nuances are against a background of long standing arguements. Hitchens is an athiestic socialist. His natural political advasaries are the conservatives, his natural allies are the leftists. Yet, he praises the neo-cons as being superior to the Israeli lobby, even though that lobby is more liberal. Further, the neo-cons are usually considered apostates by socialists who are well trained in Maxist analysis. They are former Trotskyites, who became conservativesthus neocon (new conservative). So, by doing so, he breaks the usual pattern. For those of us familiar with Western political discord and political philosophy, we could usually finish the writings of someone who attacks the actions of the Israeli government as he starts to. I can't with Hitchens, because he breaks the pattern. There are other places where he breaks the mold. He says it is clear that Viet Nam was an impearlistic war fought first by the French and then the US. He says it's also clear that the Iraq war was the correct war to fight. There are very few people who hold both of theses views so strongly. I hope this helps illuminate the differences in the two statements. I see some of Hitchen's statements as mistaken, but none as anti-Semitic. Clearly, when he criticizes the statement attributed to Cindy as anti-Semitic, he puts himself in a position of seeing a similar difference. I think understanding that difference is extremely helpful if we are to fight anti-Semitism while retaining the right to criticize Israel as well as criticize the actions of our fellow citizens who happen to be Jewish. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Mindless and Heartless
Gautam Mukunda wrote: > > > They are known because they prominent members of > > the neoncon > > > movement. The > > > current administration (Bush and Channey) accepted > > at least > > > some of their ideas > > > and wolfie and perle were given prominent > > positions in the > > > adminstration. They > > > did not get these positions because they were > > jews. > > > > Thank you. > > > > Ritu > > This is, you do know, indistinguishable from the point > I was making, right? Let's see Gautam, Zimmy says that Wolfie and Perle were given prominent positions in the administration because Bush and Cheney accepted some of their ideas. And that they didn't get these positions because they were jews. You said ' Without going into the history of that particular word, the most important neocon in the Administration (was) Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defense. The only reason anyone has heard of him is because he is Jewish.' Then, to support the last sentence in the bit I have quoted, you spent a lot of time stating that the positions occupied by Perle and Wolfie were not all that prominent. So, while I can appreciate the wiggle room between your position and Zimmy's, I can't really see how you can claim that the two are indistinguishable. Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Mindless and Heartless
--- Ritu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > They are known because they prominent members of > the neoncon > > movement. The > > current administration (Bush and Channey) accepted > at least > > some of their ideas > > and wolfie and perle were given prominent > positions in the > > adminstration. They > > did not get these positions because they were > jews. > > Thank you. > > Ritu This is, you do know, indistinguishable from the point I was making, right? Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
On Aug 19, 2005, at 7:08 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There is a big difference between saying that I have been persecuted for being a jew ( I have not) and that jews have not been persecuted.. I am fortunate to live in the one country where anti-semitism has never been as big a problem as elsewhere. The US is one of the few countries that has not as part of its official governmental policy discrimated against jews. (in other words jews have not been kicked out of the us,. had their property confiscated, denied the right to have property, denied the right to vote etc). I do not consider myself to be part of an oppressed minority. Then this is a big difference between you and me. While you've been going on and on about subtle anti-semitism, you probably haven't felt its effects, yet you've been suggesting that I don't understand oppression. You haven't seen your people dragged to death in chains behind pickup trucks in Texas, nor beaten and left to die on wire fences in Wyoming, and yet you have the gall to suggest I don't understand something like anti-semitism, which is as old as homophobia (even Jews are homophobic) and very present, very active in US society today. So much so that there's talk about codifying homophobia, making it a national law. In many parts of this "free" nation, my people can't adopt children because there's an irrational, baseless fear that children will somehow be "corrupted" by being loved, unconditionally and totally, by a same-gender couple of parents. While Jews all across the US are free to have children, I and my kind can't even have that right. Howe dare you? How dare you suggest I have no understanding of lethal, pervasive oppression? I submit that it is you who don't understand oppression. You haven't, by your admission, experienced it; I've lived with it every day of my life. I have seen people like me die from it. People I have known have killed themselves because of it. I live in a nation trying to make it impossible and illegal for my people to marry. And you? Don't ever presume to lecture me again about my ignorance of prejudice. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror" http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
- Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Friday, August 19, 2005 8:53 PM Subject: Re: Mindless and Heartless > In a message dated 8/18/2005 11:54:01 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > BTW, Bob Z. can't spell or type very well, but he is incredibly > > intelligent in a number of areas that haven't come up on-list lately. > > I'm sorry that this was the first topic that really stirred him up since > > you became really active; I think your perception of him has been > > unfairly distorted as a result of *that*. > > I don't know where the Zimmy came from either. I think Dan used it and I > don't mind. It came from Eric Clapton. :-) Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 21:44:17 EDT, Bemmzim wrote > In a message dated 8/18/2005 3:20:29 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > For you protestants in the audience; ever take a look at what Luther > said about the jews? I'm not just Protestant, I'm Lutheran... and his attitude was reprehensible. Although he was fighting against corruption in the Vatican, he was also a defender of the church's ideas about authority. His ideas about submitting to authority was used by many German Lutherans to justify obeying the Nazis. But in the Lutheran church, we don't worship Luther, thank goodness. > Do not get me wrong. I am not claiming that protestant groups and > the catholic church are anti-semitic. They certainly are not. I am > not saying that christians today are anti-semitic in the way that > people were in the past. I am saying that to deny history is to > repeat it. My father is best know as Santayana's biographer, so this is a well-loved idea in our family. It seems very hard for Americans to face the reality of the brutality that our country has employed against various ethnic groups. We love our noble principles so much that we seem to focus on them to the exclusion of the actual effects of our policies. The highest principles evaporate when we demonizing any individual or group. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voicemail: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 21:03:06 EDT, Bemmzim wrote > What I meant to say is that arab hatred of jews may have played a > roll in 911 but that hatred is not a reason to begin to think that > the terrorists are correct. Maybe I am too sensitive but I see this > as a slippery slope. I am not a big fan of these sorts of arguements > in general but historical precedent tells me tha this a slope that > we have slid down before and I would like to see people be careful > about the implications of this arguement. What you say resonates strongly for me. The Holocaust was in my parents' generation and as I grow older I realize how very recent that was. Last night, my dad was telling me about flying missions over Germany in WWII, a cousin who was killed, seeing a fellow airman after VE Day, who was captured and spent the rest of the war as a POW. For all that has changed since then, human nature surely hasn't changed much at all. Sadly, I have no doubt that things like that continue to take place. Our friend David Brin writes so much about otherness... and I think most of our troubles arise when we blame others, use others to advance our own wealth and power, focusing on differences rather than what we have in common. I believe that self-deceit enables this kind of behavior. The provost of my college was a spy during WWII and interviewed Nazi scientists during the Nuremburg war trials. He challenged each incoming class' sense of ethics by telling them that virtually none of the scientists who carried out atrocities did so in the name of Germany, etc. They did them in the name of science, to advance our knowledge. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voicemail: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 20:58:36 EDT, Bemmzim wrote > You may have heard of jews but if you do not know that the current > remarks fit into a standard anti-semitic story line that has over > and ovver again led to horrible treatment. Your statement is akin to > saying you have heard of quantum mechanics but you don't think it is > true because it is outside your experience. No, it's not... quantum mechanics is a reasonable, scientific theory. The Jews-run-the-world idea is a paranoid goofball conspiracy theory. That makes all the difference. I believe the latter is untrue because, despite a good education, I hardly know anything about it *and* it is ridiculous. In other words, I'm prejudiced *against* such conspiracy theories. I choose to believe that reasonable people who blame neo-cons and Israel for trouble are not doing so in support of such theories. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voicemail: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Mindless and Heartless
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > I am sure that the nudge nudge wink wink reaction is true > for a lot of > > people. But that wasn't my question, was it? What I'd like > to know is > > if you think that the only reason Perle and Wolfie are > known to people > > is because they are jews. Or if you, like me, are open to > the notion > > that the attention given to Perle and Wolfie might have > other reasons? > > > > They are known because they prominent members of the neoncon > movement. The > current administration (Bush and Channey) accepted at least > some of their ideas > and wolfie and perle were given prominent positions in the > adminstration. They > did not get these positions because they were jews. Thank you. Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
On Aug 19, 2005, at 7:35 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As to the neocon issue. It is not an organization it is a political and philosophical movement. I still maintain that it has its roots in jewish intellectual movement. Of coruse movements do not arise whole cloth so these thinkers were influenced by others who were not jews. The thing that made this movement noteworthy and shocking to some is that it was made up of jews. But you haven't provided evidence to support this belief, and there appears to be evidence that your belief is inaccurate. Or did you not see the post from Gary Denton beginning with: A long Wiki on Neocons here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism_in_the_United_States The one thing they are not is a Jewish movement except for those who allege that their critics are anti-Semitics. This would seem to challenge your assertion. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror" http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
In a message dated 8/19/2005 10:16:56 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > And you have failed to provide documentary evidence to support your > claims against Cindy Sheehan I made no attempt to offer evidence because the arguement moved from her to the statement. In this context it does not matter whether she was correctly quoted. Nick says that the quote was inaccurate but that Cindy has blamed Israel (and others). As to the neocon issue. It is not an organization it is a political and philosophical movement. I still maintain that it has its roots in jewish intellectual movement. Of coruse movements do not arise whole cloth so these thinkers were influenced by others who were not jews. The thing that made this movement noteworthy and shocking to some is that it was made up of jews. *or* that the "neo-cons" are or ever were > > ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
On Aug 19, 2005, at 7:29 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 8/19/2005 10:10:35 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I had asked what the source of the criticism was, because to me it is abundantly clear that we can a priori assume a Klansman would have a completely different intention than (for instance) an atheist. For some reason you seem to think my question is irrelevant, or unworthy of serious consideration or response. I believe to the contrary; I believe the source of criticism is anything *except* irrelevant. When I said any source I meant in a general population of western europe or the us was one more likely to here anti-semitic statements than anti-christian statements. I was trying to get at the prevelence of "backround" anti-semitism. But coming from whom? Statements criticizing Jews, blacks, Asians or what have you originate either with individuals or with groups through a spokesman. Positing a vague "criticism" from a nameless, faceless "source" is not something that can usefully be responded to. You've got to have some concrete examples of statements and sources before *any* serious judgment can be made about whether the statements are intended to be anti-semitic or not. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror" http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
In a message dated 8/19/2005 10:10:35 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > I had asked what the source of the criticism was, because to me it is > abundantly clear that we can a priori assume a Klansman would have a > completely different intention than (for instance) an atheist. For some > reason you seem to think my question is irrelevant, or unworthy of > serious consideration or response. I believe to the contrary; I believe > the source of criticism is anything *except* irrelevant. > When I said any source I meant in a general population of western europe or the us was one more likely to here anti-semitic statements than anti-christian statements. I was trying to get at the prevelence of "backround" anti-semitism. > > ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
On Aug 19, 2005, at 7:08 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have pointed numerous episodes of anti-semitic actions. I haven't seen any. I have seen a lot of incoherence and an unwillingness to respond meaningfully to direct and reasonable questions. You have failed to respond to any of these examples. I'm not sure what you believe is a meaningful "response" to "episodes of anti-semitic actions" you think you've pointed out. Do you expect something like: "Jews were persecuted in many nations" "Oh, that's tragic!"? Because if so, you're going to be disappointed; I'm not sure why I'd have to respond to such statements, since obviously such persecution is tragic, and therefore don't usually do so. And you have failed to provide documentary evidence to support your claims against Cindy Sheehan *or* that the "neo-cons" are or ever were a primarily Jewish organization. That was your initial claim and, rather than produce the evidence needed to support your allegations, you have continued to deflect the discussion. Now please, produce your evidence or retract your allegations. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror" http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
On Aug 19, 2005, at 7:02 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 8/19/2005 7:58:33 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Since you completely missed the point of my arguement and then brought up something irrelevent about atheists I see no point. I didn't miss any point. I have been lucid and direct, and did not bring up any irrelevancies. If you are incapable of comprehending a simple question as well as the *fact* that different motivations produce different rationales for superficially similar results, that is your problem, not mine. Don't blame me for your inability to understand a clear, direct question, and don't try to hide your unwillingness to answer it. Your arguement was I believe that since atheists are by definitiion critical of the jewish religion they are anti-semitic. That most certainly was *not* my argument. I was using, in one tangential exchange with WTG, a reductio ad absurdum to demonstrate that it's possible, if one wishes to, to accuse virtually *anyone* of being anti-semitic on *some* grounds or other. On another, completely unrelated topic, you had asked: "Do you think that criticisms leveled at Jews are more or lessl likely to reflect prejudice than those leveled against christians." I had asked what the source of the criticism was, because to me it is abundantly clear that we can a priori assume a Klansman would have a completely different intention than (for instance) an atheist. For some reason you seem to think my question is irrelevant, or unworthy of serious consideration or response. I believe to the contrary; I believe the source of criticism is anything *except* irrelevant. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror" http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
In a message dated 8/19/2005 7:59:39 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > >I never claimed minority status. > > By pointing out your alignment with Judaism, you did precisely that. Or > are you going to say that you're not Jewish now? There is a big difference between saying that I have been persecuted for being a jew ( I have not) and that jews have not been persecuted.. I am fortunate to live in the one country where anti-semitism has never been as big a problem as elsewhere. The US is one of the few countries that has not as part of its official governmental policy discrimated against jews. (in other words jews have not been kicked out of the us,. had their property confiscated, denied the right to have property, denied the right to vote etc). I do not consider myself to be part of an oppressed minority. > > >>There is no way to win in this discussion. Even a slight questioning > >>of such a perspective is being insensitive; nothing short of total > >>disavowal of massive swaths of Western culture is acceptable; nothing > >>short of repudiation of a person's entire weltanschauung is to be > >>tolerated if there's even the merest hint of -- totally > >>unsubstantiated -- anti-semitism. > > > >Again - do some reading before you talk about unsubstantiated claims. > > Actually you're the one putting forth the assertions of anti-semitism; > it us up to you to provide documentary evidence to support the claims > you've made. It's not sufficient for you to simply assert that > something is true and expect it to be accepted, particularly since > there *now* seems to be evidence that the neo-con movement is *not*, as > you have claimed, a Jewish organization, either originally or now. I have pointed numerous episodes of anti-semitic actions. You have failed to respond to any of these examples. > > ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
In a message dated 8/19/2005 7:58:33 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Since you completely missed the point of my arguement and then brought > >up something irrelevent about atheists I see no point. > > I didn't miss any point. I have been lucid and direct, and did not > bring up any irrelevancies. If you are incapable of comprehending a > simple question as well as the *fact* that different motivations > produce different rationales for superficially similar results, that is > your problem, not mine. > > Don't blame me for your inability to understand a clear, direct > question, and don't try to hide your unwillingness to answer it. > > Your arguement was I believe that since atheists are by definitiion critical of the jewish religion they are anti-semitic. But of course I was not talking about religious beliefs. It is irrelevent whether an atheist thinks the religous tennets of judiasm are wrong as long as he or she does not think that Jews are wrong. (Judiasm sucks but jews do not). ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
In a message dated 8/18/2005 11:54:01 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > BTW, Bob Z. can't spell or type very well, but he is incredibly > intelligent in a number of areas that haven't come up on-list lately. > I'm sorry that this was the first topic that really stirred him up since > you became really active; I think your perception of him has been > unfairly distorted as a result of *that*. I don't know where the Zimmy came from either. I think Dan used it and I don't mind. At work everyone calls me "Doctor Z". I think it makes me sound old but hey that is accurate. And it is true that I can't spell. I could use speeel cheek but that would ruin the fun. Thanks for the compliment. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
In a message dated 8/18/2005 8:25:16 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > On a serious note, I can see zimmys viewpoint. And why it would be > troubling. It's just that you need to be careful about carrying your own > cultural baggage into other peoples conversations. I had no idea these > guys were Jews, nor that neo-cons was a jewish thing, nor that anyone > would think that those statements were anti-semitic. Thus my perplexed > look. > > But zimmy, peace, I was not and would not disrespect your feelings, or > make light of the seriousness of anti-semitism. It is an issue. Along > with lots of other antis. > That is all that I would ask. Don't make light of seemingless innocuous statements. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
In a message dated 8/18/2005 3:20:29 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > I think you do not understand the thrust of Zimmy's argument, which > seems to be that for hundreds or thousands of years, various forms of > overt and covert evils have been leveled against Jews by various groups > (Amelekites, Egyptians, Germans, American Klansmen, and so forth), to > the point that virtually all thought is now irretrievably poisoned by > the meme of anti-semitism. No my arguement is that anti-semitism is deeply embedded in the west. You may be glib about it but it is there. I have offered many specific historical examples of anti-semitism. No one has denied that these things occurred. They just say that it is untrue. So for the catholics in the audience here is another. In approximately 1850 a catholic woman secretly baptised a jewish baby. The baby was kidnapped. The pope refused to return the child to his parents. Had paintings of the child made with him. For you protestants in the audience; ever take a look at what Luther said about the jews? Do not get me wrong. I am not claiming that protestant groups and the catholic church are anti-semitic. They certainly are not. I am not saying that christians today are anti-semitic in the way that people were in the past. I am saying that to deny history is to repeat it. You can't avoid it, you can't deny it, it is > > in your cultural DNA. If you spent your entire life defending the rights > of Jewish people everywhere, you would still be poisoned by > anti-semitism and subject to criticism on that front. but of course you can avoid it. If you do not deny that subtle anti-semitism isn pervasive you can look at what you say or think and ask yourself if it is reasonable. Kind like "you know your a redneck if" . For instance you know your an anti-semite if you think the noble prize should be taken away from the jewish leader but not Arafat (note - you may think it should be taken away from both without being an anti-semite). Quite obviously everyone thinks this way. The problem is that good and reasonable people think this way. At least some people on this list don't think my sensitivity to this issue is out of place. > > You can't deny it because you can't escape it. It is in you. > You can't deny it but you can certainly escape it. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
In a message dated 8/18/2005 3:06:06 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > It kind of cracks me up that our leading defender of Judaism can't > spell "Wailing > Wall." It's about lamentation, not cetacean-hunting. > > for any one who knows me they will no theat sppeeeling is knot my strong sute ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
In a message dated 8/18/2005 1:15:29 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > hope that nothing I've written sounds as though I endorse blaming Israel or > anybody else. What matters to me is who is responsible and how we grieve > and > heal together. > I have had no quarrel with you at all. Nothing you have said that I object to. I hope that my remarks can get to her. Not because I am important buy because I think my reactions will be relatively typical for many jews. I know that she is dealing with more important family things now and I hope things go well. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
In a message dated 8/18/2005 1:06:17 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Israel has no influence on U.S. policy except through American Jews? Are > you > kidding? That's ludicrous. > > Israel has influence on U.S. policy because of where it is, because it is a > democracy in the Middle East, because there are many Americans in Israel, > because a great deal of critical technology is developed in Israel (every > one > of Intel's microprocessors through the 80386 was designed there). Our > economies are quite intertwined. There are all sorts of reasons that Israel > *should* influence U.S. policy that have little or nothing to do directly > with > ethnicity or religion. > I overstated my arguement and I stand corrected. But of course american jews have been the most dominent supporters. And if one wanted to one could the connection between US policy american jews and israel > > > -- > ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
In a message dated 8/18/2005 11:57:31 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Maybe when *some* people talk about them. And only if they know > that history. And only if they know that Wolfowitz and Pearle are > jewish. Which, prior to this thread, I didn't. Perhaps I should > have from the names but I try not to judge people by their names... > I am not claiming that everyone knows these facts. But the explicit anti-semites (people who hate jews or see them as evil) certainly do. And when they put their ideas out they don't identify then as anti-semitic. They play the Israel not Jew game and people who do not know better get sucked in. The idea gets out; someone then notices that wolfie and perle are jewish and the connection is remade. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
In a message dated 8/18/2005 9:53:23 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Zimmy and I have argued tooth and nail on a few points. But I've > >liked him and respected him for about 5 years. I'm certainly not > >Jewish, but I try to listen to people with other vantage points and > >have a little empathy for them. So, I see his views as totally reasonable. When I have been active on the list I have always liked discussing and arguing with Dan. Often I don't comment because I agree with him and he says it better. > > > "Just because he´s paranoid don´t mean they´re not after him"? If they are after you then it is not paraonia unless you think the they is little green men from Mars . > :-) > ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
In a message dated 8/18/2005 4:56:25 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Now this is what confuses me: How is Andrew being an anti-semitist for > raising the possibility that the Arab anger towards the US might be, in > part, responsible for 9/11? And why are you not an anti-semitist when > you acknowledge the same possibility? What I meant to say is that arab hatred of jews may have played a roll in 911 but that hatred is not a reason to begin to think that the terrorists are correct. Maybe I am too sensitive but I see this as a slippery slope. I am not a big fan of these sorts of arguements in general but historical precedent tells me tha this a slope that we have slid down before and I would like to see people be careful about the implications of this arguement. > > ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
In a message dated 8/18/2005 2:03:11 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > I don't see this as a statement necessarily directed against Jews, > and I > >>think people are reading a lot of stuff between the lines that may > not > >>be there. But it is an emotive subject, so that is to be expected I > >>guess. I don't agree with it necessarily, but until someone can put > >>forward a cogent argument as to why Iraq was invaded, it is not > >>surprising that people who suffered directly try to find some reason > for > >>their sons dying. > >> > >For the kazilioinst time, if you want to understand why this remark is > >hurtful read some fing history. James Carrol's Sword of Constantine, > Philp > >Johnson's > >History of the Jews. > > > > Look, I am not a history scholar, but I have heard of Jews. And I > understand that if one wants to wilfully take her words as some kind of > veiled reference to a dark underlying desire to exterminate the Jewish > people, then one can do so. I didn't, and I have no idea what she > secretly might have meant. I will let her put her own words in her > mouth. > You may have heard of jews but if you do not know that the current remarks fit into a standard anti-semitic story line that has over and ovver again led to horrible treatment. Your statement is akin to saying you have heard of quantum mechanics but you don't think it is true because it is outside your experience. > > > > > >>And does she have a point about hatred of US Mid-East policy being > >>behind 9/11? Be that anti-Semitic or otherwise, is there any truth > in > >>it? > >> > >So you are blaming the jews for 911? Yes indeed you are. Why not go > all > >the > >way. The Israelis did it which is why all the jews stayed home that > day. > > I asked a serious question. You are drawing a very long bow there, and > well, it's a little insulting. Sure, there are anti-Semites out there, > plenty of them.. Give us the benefit of the doubt would you and stop > tarring us with some brush we don't deserve. I am trying to make you see that the danger is not from overt anti-semitism it is from the inclination to blame jews for problems. That this inclination is part of the DNA of our culture. > > > > > Is there truth to the notion that many arabs hate us because we > support > >Israel. Well maybe. After all they have blaming all of their problems > >since world > >war II on the jews. They have refused to solve the problem of the > >palastinians > >for over 50 years. They turned down an offer that would have given > them > >95% > >of what they wanted in 2000. The nations of the mideast have funded > >palastinian > >terrorism/resistance but have not funded schools hosptials etc. We > have > >supported a democratic country in a region where democracy othewise > does > >not exist. > > > > > > > >> > >>And is she entitled to have that opinion, and to express it? > > > > > >Of course she is entitled. And I am enttiled to denounce her > statements as > >the worst kind of anti-semitism. > > > > Umm, perhaps you best read up on your Jewish history. Several worse > kinds of anti-semitism spring to mind actually, but then perhaps I am > missing something. > Trust me I have read my history and I believe that these statements are the most dangerous because they lead to other things. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
In a message dated 8/18/2005 1:40:44 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Geez hang on a cotton picking minute, who was the one going on about > Jewish conspiracy theories being a lot of crap... and now you are saying > there is one sorry, I am at a loss here. > The neocon movement is not a conspiracy it is a school of thought. The neocons did not plot to gain power. They wrote articles. Taught in colleges etc. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
In a message dated 8/18/2005 12:51:32 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > But that seems rather unfair to me. If, going by what you say, the fact > of Jewish oppression for two millennia on certain continents gives the > Jews the right to suspect any statement of carrying the seeds of > anti-semitism, then surely, the fact of peaceful co-existence for two > millennia on other continents confers an obligation to suspend that > suspicion. Surely the stand/the standards have to be internally > consistent at least. > > Jews were better tolerated by muslims than by christians. To muslims chrisitians and jews were both inferior but they did not see the need to persecute jews with the same vigors as chriistians. Jews were allowed more freedom but whenever it was convenient the muslims would take the jews property and money. There were so few jews in the far east that there could be no real problem. As I said in a post earlier today. Criticism of things jews do is completely reaonable but blaming jews (and Israel) is at the heart of anti-semitism. I know I have come across as a bit over the top on this. I have not been discriminated against in any substantive way in my life but this is not about me it is about the current climate in the world. More in Europe but in the US as well. As tensions have risin there has been more critiicsm of Israel and a shift away from a balanced view of the Israel palistiine problem. There has been an increase attacks on temples in France. A member of the Noble Prize Committee said he was sorry that the Israeli leader (forget which one) had receieved a Noble Peace Prize (for the Olso accords) when things went bad. But he did not say that he was sorry that Arafat got the prize. How can this be? Arafat had the opportunity for peace in 2000 and he turned his back on this. But he deserved to keep his prize while the Israeli leader did not. Most people simply say that atrocities could not happen again but the last attempt to wipe the jews from the face of the earth was less than 70 years ago. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
In a message dated 8/18/2005 12:39:25 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > I am sure that the nudge nudge wink wink reaction is true for a lot of > people. But that wasn't my question, was it? What I'd like to know is if > you think that the only reason Perle and Wolfie are known to people is > because they are jews. Or if you, like me, are open to the notion that > the attention given to Perle and Wolfie might have other reasons? > They are known because they prominent members of the neoncon movement. The current administration (Bush and Channey) accepted at least some of their ideas and wolfie and perle were given prominent positions in the adminstration. They did not get these positions because they were jews. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
On Aug 19, 2005, at 1:37 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That's entirely possible, but I don't think I'd describe what's been spewing forth recently as "argument". It's a lot more like "Oy vey schmeer, poor me, poor us, no one has any clue whatsoever and because of my minority status I am free to both be as overbearing as I want to *and* accuse anyone who doesn't agree with me totally of ignorance or worse." Now you insult me. Well, it's probably no worse an insult than accusing others of ignorance and anti-semitism, now is it? I never claimed minority status. By pointing out your alignment with Judaism, you did precisely that. Or are you going to say that you're not Jewish now? There is no way to win in this discussion. Even a slight questioning of such a perspective is being insensitive; nothing short of total disavowal of massive swaths of Western culture is acceptable; nothing short of repudiation of a person's entire weltanschauung is to be tolerated if there's even the merest hint of -- totally unsubstantiated -- anti-semitism. Again - do some reading before you talk about unsubstantiated claims. Actually you're the one putting forth the assertions of anti-semitism; it us up to you to provide documentary evidence to support the claims you've made. It's not sufficient for you to simply assert that something is true and expect it to be accepted, particularly since there *now* seems to be evidence that the neo-con movement is *not*, as you have claimed, a Jewish organization, either originally or now. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror" http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
On Aug 19, 2005, at 1:40 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Aug 17, 2005, at 9:13 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 8/17/2005 11:02:04 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What's the source of criticism? Comments from an atheist I would analyze differently than comments originating in a Klan rally Any source Not good enough. Reread my question and my rationale, and try again. Since you completely missed the point of my arguement and then brought up something irrelevent about atheists I see no point. I didn't miss any point. I have been lucid and direct, and did not bring up any irrelevancies. If you are incapable of comprehending a simple question as well as the *fact* that different motivations produce different rationales for superficially similar results, that is your problem, not mine. Don't blame me for your inability to understand a clear, direct question, and don't try to hide your unwillingness to answer it. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror" http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
- Original Message - From: "Doug Pensinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2005 11:51 PM Subject: Re: Mindless and Heartless > Robert wrote: > >>> You might want to ask a black person if they think that the >>> southern >>> strategy is racist. >> >> I have. >> > And they do? > The ones who are aware of The Southern Strategy and the Voting Rights Act of 64 certainly seem to. But at the same time I would imagine that most (but not all) Republicans would deny this. I can't say that I blame them. It would be quite difficult to reconcile the very public claim to being the party of Lincoln with the acceptance of former Democrat racists into their party. xponent An Interesting Era Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
-Original Message- From: Warren Ockrassa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Killer Bs Discussion Sent: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 21:25:56 -0700 Subject: Re: Mindless and Heartless On Aug 17, 2005, at 9:13 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > In a message dated 8/17/2005 11:02:04 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > >> What's the source of criticism? Comments from an atheist I would >> analyze differently than comments originating in a Klan rally >> > Any source Not good enough. Reread my question and my rationale, and try again. Since you completely missed the point of my arguement and then brought up something irrelevent about atheists I see no point. This is not a discussion about the jewish religion. I am an atheist. This about blaming jews; -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror" http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
-Original Message- From: Warren Ockrassa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Killer Bs Discussion Sent: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 21:22:25 -0700 Subject: Re: Mindless and Heartless On Aug 17, 2005, at 9:10 PM, Julia Thompson wrote: > Warren Ockrassa wrote: >> On Aug 17, 2005, at 8:49 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >>> It is obvious to me that you don't know shit about anti-semitism >> It's obvious to me that you're a self-righteous, arrogant whiner with >> >> delusions of persecution. >> I imagine by now that Dan is wishing to hell he hadn't thrown in his >> lot >> so readily with yours. You're no more sane on this subject than >> those who >> bear prejudice against Jewish people. > > I may be wrong, but -- > > I think that Dan and Zimmy know each other a lot better than you know > > either of them, and that Dan was well aware of Zimmy's feelings on the > > subject before he said anything, and also familiar with Zimmy's style > of > argument. That's entirely possible, but I don't think I'd describe what's been spewing forth recently as "argument". It's a lot more like "Oy vey schmeer, poor me, poor us, no one has any clue whatsoever and because of my minority status I am free to both be as overbearing as I want to *and* accuse anyone who doesn't agree with me totally of ignorance or worse." Now you insult me. I never claimed minority status. I never said I was "poor". And quite frankly many non-jews have documented and been horrified by the pervasive antisemitism of the west. The books by Johnson and Carroll were written by non-jews after all. It is ironic that you fail to understand that what I am saying is quite the opposite of no one has a clue who is not jewish. You can have a clue by just reading a little history. It is actually quite easy to see the nature of antisemitic arguements after reading these books because these arguements never change. There is no way to win in this discussion. Even a slight questioning of such a perspective is being insensitive; nothing short of total disavowal of massive swaths of Western culture is acceptable; nothing short of repudiation of a person's entire weltanschauung is to be tolerated if there's even the merest hint of -- totally unsubstantiated -- anti-semitism. Again - do some reading before you talk about unsubstantiated claims. By the way for those who seem to believe that I am arguing that Jews and Israel cannot be criticized wihtout that criticsm being anti-semitic I offer the this rebuttal. Crticism is fine. Blaming is not. Criticism is specifc. I am critical of jewish setttlement of occuppied lands. I am critical of Sharon and very critical of the jewish right wing. But I do not blame Israel for what is happening in the Middle East. That is the crux of the arguement. To state that the war is the result of US tilting to much towards Israel is to blame Israel and the supporters of Israel in the US. To say that our policy towards is Israel in the mideast was at least a partial cause of 911 is to blame Israel and its supporters. This ignores the fact that US policy in the mideast is complex. Why not blame our own oil men or our auto industry. In fact why not blame US car buyers who insist on buying fuel inefficient SUVs thus continuing our dependence on arab oil and enriching the people who turn ar ound and use this money to support terrrorists. (Bemmzim, before you reply to the above, please bear in mind that just because you say something is anti-semitic DOES NOT MEAN THAT IT IS. And I'll thank you to stop making assumptions about how well I know history.) I would humbly submit that the arguement fits into the classic anti-semitic formula. I would ask you to tell us what you have read of the history of western anti-semitism that rebuts my assertions. As to seeing evil around me. You have got me there. I am actually concerned that there will be a backlash against jews if not here at least in Europe. Remember that the grand parents of adult europeans were all adults when the Holocast occurred. Remember that Pope Pious refused to lift a finger to help Italian jews (they were marched past the vatican on their way to concentration camps). Remember that the grandparents of the average French person in his/her 50-60 was an adult when the Dryfus affair occurred and that the French army actively and again actively refused to exonerate Dryfus until recently(and then only half hartedly). So we are no more than 2 or 3 generations from a period when anit-semitism was the default view of a majority of European christians. Two generations is not enough to erase subtle pervasive attitudes. I see anti-semitism as a latent virus that can lurk around for a long while only to reactiv
Re: Mindless and Heartless
While I don't agree with the Wiki entirely - people are all the time editing and revising it - it has a lot of useful information. One thing that ties neocons together is their support for the hard right in Jewish politics. Perhaps instead of neocons we could refer to the "Vulcans" or the "wackos" for many - these were terms given by others in the Reagan and Bush 1 administrations for what they felt were extreme hawks then but who now run our foreign policy. The problem with these terms versus "neocons" is that ignores people like Kristof and Kagan outside of government. On 8/19/05, Warren Ockrassa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Aug 18, 2005, at 11:35 PM, Gary Denton wrote: > > > A long Wiki on Neocons here: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism_in_the_United_States > > > > The one thing they are not is a Jewish movement except for those who > > allege that their critics are anti-Semitics. > > Huh. If the article is accurate, then it would seem that some of the > greatest proponents of the "Jewish conspiracy" claims regarding neocons > are themselves Jewish. > > > -- > Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books > http://books.nightwares.com/ > Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror" > http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf > > ___ > http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l > -- Gary Denton http://www.apollocon.org June 23-25, 2006 Most Libertarians don't realize the loss of liberty that occurs from concentrations of power except when that power is government. Easter Lemming Blogs http://elemming.blogspot.com http://elemming2.blogspot.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
On Aug 18, 2005, at 11:35 PM, Gary Denton wrote: A long Wiki on Neocons here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism_in_the_United_States The one thing they are not is a Jewish movement except for those who allege that their critics are anti-Semitics. Huh. If the article is accurate, then it would seem that some of the greatest proponents of the "Jewish conspiracy" claims regarding neocons are themselves Jewish. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror" http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
A long Wiki on Neocons here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism_in_the_United_States The one thing they are not is a Jewish movement except for those who allege that their critics are anti-Semitics. Neoconservatism as a "Jewish" movement One of the most controversial issues surrounding neoconservatism is its alleged relation to specifically Jewish intellectual traditions; in the most extreme form of this view, neoconservatism has been regarded by some as primarily a movement to advance Jewish interests. Classic anti-Semitic tropes have often been used when elaborating this view, such as the idea that Jews achieve influence through the intellectual domination of national leaders. David Brooks in his January 6, 2004 New York Times column wrote, "To hear these people describe it, PNAC is sort of a Yiddish Trilateral Commission, the nexus of the sprawling neocon tentacles." The controversial evolutionary psychologist Kevin B. MacDonald alleges that neoconservatism "is an excellent illustration of the key traits behind the success of Jewish activism: ethnocentrism, intelligence and wealth, psychological intensity, and aggressiveness"[14], that neoconservatism fits into a general pattern of twentieth-century Jewish intellectual and political activism, and that Leo Strauss is a central figure in the neoconservative movement and "the quintessential rabbinical guru with devoted disciples". [15] Further, he contends that like Freudian psychoanalysis and Marxism, neoconservatism uses arguments that appeal to non-Jews, rather than appealing explicitly to Jewish interests, and that non-Jewish neoconservatives like Jeanne Kirkpatrick and Donald Rumsfeld represent recruitment to an ideology with a Jewish core and an intense commitment to Jewish interests. Of this recruitment, he writes, "it makes excellent psychological sense to have the spokespeople for any movement resemble the people they are trying to convince."[16] MacDonald's views of neoconservatism are not widely accepted in the United States, though similar theories have found a more receptive audience in some Arab media, such as Al Jazeera. His views have been characterized as anti-Semitic and have been condemned as "nauseating" by some, including the writer Judith Shulevitz. (For wider discussion, see Kevin B. MacDonald) Michael Lind, a self-described former neoconservative, wrote in 2004, "It is true, and unfortunate, that some journalists tend to use 'neoconservative' to refer only to Jewish neoconservatives, a practice that forces them to invent categories like 'nationalist conservative' or 'Western conservative' for Rumsfeld and Cheney. But neoconservatism is an ideology, like paleoconservatism and libertarianism, and Rumsfeld and Dick and Lynne Cheney are full-fledged neocons, as distinct from paleocons or libertarians, even though they are not Jewish and were never liberals or leftists." [17] Lind argues that, while "there were, and are, very few Northeastern WASP mandarins in the neoconservative movement", its origins are not specifically Jewish. "...[N]eoconservatism recruited from diverse 'farm teams,' including liberal Catholics (William Bennett and Michael Novak..) and populists, socialists and New Deal liberals in the South and Southwest (the pool from which Jeane Kirkpatrick, James Woolsey and I [that is, Lind himself] were drawn)." [18] [edit] Anti-semitic charges against neoconservatism One of the most controversial issues surrounding neoconservatism is its alleged relation to specifically Jewish intellectual traditions; in the most extreme form of this view, neoconservatism has been regarded by some as primarily a movement to advance Jewish interests. Classic anti-Semitic tropes have often been used when elaborating this view, such as the idea that Jews achieve influence through the intellectual domination of national leaders. David Brooks in his January 6, 2004 New York Times column wrote, "To hear these people describe it, PNAC is sort of a Yiddish Trilateral Commission, the nexus of the sprawling neocon tentacles." Lind wrote in 2004, "It is true, and unfortunate, that some journalists tend to use 'neoconservative' to refer only to Jewish neoconservatives, a practice that forces them to invent categories like 'nationalist conservative' or 'Western conservative' for Rumsfeld and Cheney. But neoconservatism is an ideology, like paleoconservatism and libertarianism, and Rumsfeld and Dick and Lynne Cheney are full-fledged neocons, as distinct from paleocons or libertarians, even though they are not Jewish and were never liberals or leftists." [19] Lind argues that, while "there were, and are, very few Northeastern WASP mandarins in the neoconservative movement", its origins are not specifically Jewish. "...[N]eoconservatism recruited from diverse 'farm teams,' including liberal Catholics (William Bennett and Michael Novak..) and populists, socialists and New Deal liberals in the South and Southwest (the pool from which J
Re: Mindless and Heartless
On Aug 18, 2005, at 8:53 PM, Julia Thompson wrote: He's basing his opinions of people on his *entire* history with them. He's had a much longer history with Zimmy than with you. And I'm not sure he's trying to make himself look good so much as to try to point out something in his history *with you* that affects his judgement of you as much as his many years of history with Zimmy affects his judgement of Zimmy. He's got a maddening tendency to return to that ONE event over every other. It would be nice if the bulldogging horsesh*t would stop. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror" http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
Warren Ockrassa wrote: On Aug 18, 2005, at 1:06 PM, Dan Minette wrote: I've gone from disappointed in this discussion to disgusted -- so much so that I'm bordering on willingness to do what I've done about five times in my decade-plus history online: Employ a filter. (That averages, FTR, to about one person every two years added to my "do not bother to read at all" list.) This from a person who feels the right to kill anyone who expresses what he considers homophobic statements? From a person who brags about his empathy :-) Whatever. You're obviously the undisputed master of retaining information (with much distortion) about others that you can use any time to make yourself look good. And it's abundantly clear that you're incapable of letting the past rest in the past, that you have no ability to simply, as Bush has it, "move on". For someone with a rich background in the hard sciences, this apparent streak of illogic is pretty disappointing. He's basing his opinions of people on his *entire* history with them. He's had a much longer history with Zimmy than with you. And I'm not sure he's trying to make himself look good so much as to try to point out something in his history *with you* that affects his judgement of you as much as his many years of history with Zimmy affects his judgement of Zimmy. (BTW, when the heck did I start referring to Bob Z. as "Zimmy" rather than "Bob"? And why? I guess the "why" is the more nagging question to me than the "when".) BTW, Bob Z. can't spell or type very well, but he is incredibly intelligent in a number of areas that haven't come up on-list lately. I'm sorry that this was the first topic that really stirred him up since you became really active; I think your perception of him has been unfairly distorted as a result of *that*. (And Dan, feel free to jump on anything I said regarding your statements and the motivation behind them if I'm wrong. And in regards to another related post, I always preferred "correct as usual, King Friday" to "correct as always." :) Because I can be wrong, and I know it. UNLIKE a certain puppet I could name) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Mindless and Heartless
> Behalf Of Dave Land > Sent: Friday, 19 August 2005 5:20 AM > > On Aug 17, 2005, at 11:06 PM, Andrew Paul wrote: > > I asked a serious question. You are drawing a very long bow there, and > > well, it's a little insulting. Sure, there are anti-Semites out there, > > plenty of them.. Give us the benefit of the doubt would you and stop > > tarring us with some brush we don't deserve. > > I think you do not understand the thrust of Zimmy's argument, which > seems to be that for hundreds or thousands of years, various forms of > overt and covert evils have been leveled against Jews by various groups > (Amelekites, Egyptians, Germans, American Klansmen, and so forth), to > the point that virtually all thought is now irretrievably poisoned by > the meme of anti-semitism. You can't avoid it, you can't deny it, it is > in your cultural DNA. If you spent your entire life defending the rights > of Jewish people everywhere, you would still be poisoned by > anti-semitism and subject to criticism on that front. > > You can't deny it because you can't escape it. It is in you. > Ahh, yes. I see it now. Thanks Dave.. I think therefore I am an .. Actually, that's a pretty good argument, for a whole lot of causes, And explains a lot. God, what a bastard I have been ! On a serious note, I can see zimmys viewpoint. And why it would be troubling. It's just that you need to be careful about carrying your own cultural baggage into other peoples conversations. I had no idea these guys were Jews, nor that neo-cons was a jewish thing, nor that anyone would think that those statements were anti-semitic. Thus my perplexed look. But zimmy, peace, I was not and would not disrespect your feelings, or make light of the seriousness of anti-semitism. It is an issue. Along with lots of other antis. Andrew ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Mindless and Heartless
> Behalf Of Warren Ockrassa > Sent: Friday, 19 August 2005 6:14 AM > > On Aug 18, 2005, at 1:06 PM, Dan Minette wrote: > > >> I've gone from disappointed in this discussion to disgusted -- so much > >> so that I'm bordering on willingness to do what I've done about five > >> times in my decade-plus history online: Employ a filter. (That > >> averages, FTR, to about one person every two years added to my "do not > >> bother to read at all" list.) > > > > This from a person who feels the right to kill anyone who expresses > > what he > > considers homophobic statements? From a person who brags about his > > empathy > > :-) > > Whatever. You're obviously the undisputed master of retaining > information (with much distortion) about others that you can use any > time to make yourself look good. And it's abundantly clear that you're > incapable of letting the past rest in the past, that you have no > ability to simply, as Bush has it, "move on". > > For someone with a rich background in the hard sciences, this apparent > streak of illogic is pretty disappointing. > > Gentleman, perhaps you should take this outside, it does little credit to either of you. And nor does filtering. You have both shown a admirable belief in free speech, don't lose sight of that. Andrew "Mea Culpa" Paul ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Mindless and Heartless
Dan Minette wrote: > > I am still trying to figure out the line between criticising > > Israel/Jews in politics/Jewish politics and anti-semitism. > So I have a > > question: When Christopher Hitchens claims that "The Democrat party > > truly is what some people crudely say: a wholly-owned subsidiary of > > the Israeli lobby", is he being critical of the Democrats or is he > > being anti-semitic? > > He is being critical of the Democratic party. One way to > note this is his support of the neocons (who are Jewish) in > the next breath. Okay, so if you support the neocons, you are not anti-semitic? And that means you can easily go around claiming that a political party is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Israeli lobby without attracting any criticism? Maybe I am being dense, but I really do not see the difference between what Hitchens said above and what Zimmy was protesting against - the notion that Jews control the world/the country/the politics of a country. If the war had been launched by a Democratic President, would this still not be anti-semitic? > If you read other things by him he comes > out with a fairly well nuanced view. In the last two days, I have read some 6 articles by Hitchens. And I have not come across any well nuanced view. > Out of curiosity, are > there no code phrases in Indian politics. Words that sound > innocuous on the surface, but conveys very specific meaning, > which is often not so innocuous? That is a very good question, Dan. And, offhand, I can think of only one phrase which fits the criteria. Coined by Advani, the term is 'pseudo-secularist'. The Hindutvavadis used it against anyone and everyone who opposed their political agenda. It was a short hand for 'muslim-loving, hindu-hating treacherous hindu', or, more accurately, 'annoying people who wouldn't let us do what we want'. Didn't really work too well as most secularists just took to calling themselves 'pseudo-secularists' with pride. And then we came a full circle sometime in 2003 - after a few years in the govt., Advani was forced to admit that India could never be a Hindu Rashtra and was promptly dubbed a pseudo-secularist by the RSS and the VHP. At which point the term fell out of favour with the secularists. :) Now that may not seem too subtle, but given the names/tags/labels used in Indian politics, that exhibited a deft touch. Some less delicate/innocuous examples would be: When people object against the distorted history textbooks in Gujarat, the are Macauly ki aulaad [Macauly's children]. When people don't see any harm in supporting Sonia Gandhi, they are 'boot licking sycophants who just want to be colonialised once again'. When people don't think that today's muslims ought to be blamed/hurt for something a muslim invader did more than 500 years ago, they are Babar ki santaan [Babar's children]. Stuff like that. The emphasis here is on hard hitting phrases, not on political correctness or snide attacks. Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
> Dave Land <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Dave "Starting to feel sick of the whole damned > topic, but still glad > that there are dozens and dozens of messages > that I entitled > "Mindless and Heartless" circulating on the > Internet" Land Just for that, think on this: He ain't heavy, he's my brother- You don't bring me flowers- Brother Love's Travellin' Salvation Show- And if _those_ aren't enough, I've got dozens more! Debbi MmwwWAhaahahahha! Maru ;} Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
On Aug 18, 2005, at 1:06 PM, Dan Minette wrote: I've gone from disappointed in this discussion to disgusted -- so much so that I'm bordering on willingness to do what I've done about five times in my decade-plus history online: Employ a filter. (That averages, FTR, to about one person every two years added to my "do not bother to read at all" list.) This from a person who feels the right to kill anyone who expresses what he considers homophobic statements? From a person who brags about his empathy :-) Whatever. You're obviously the undisputed master of retaining information (with much distortion) about others that you can use any time to make yourself look good. And it's abundantly clear that you're incapable of letting the past rest in the past, that you have no ability to simply, as Bush has it, "move on". For someone with a rich background in the hard sciences, this apparent streak of illogic is pretty disappointing. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror" http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
- Original Message - From: "Ritu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Killer Bs Discussion'" Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2005 7:12 AM Subject: RE: Mindless and Heartless > > Dan Minette wrote: > > > > Whether one agrees with Sheehan or not is beside the point here. > > > Anti-semitism is the dislike/hatred of Jews, not necessarily the > > > criticism of of any group of Jews politics. Would even the lightest > > > criticism of the NAACP be racist? > > > > No. There are plenty of criticisms that would not be > > anti-Semitic. But, accusing Jews of not being loyal to the > > country and controlling the country for their own ends has a > > long and nasty history. It's like calling blacks lazy and > > shiftiness and then protesting that one is not a racist. > > I am still trying to figure out the line between criticising Israel/Jews > in politics/Jewish politics and anti-semitism. So I have a question: > When Christopher Hitchens claims that "The Democrat party truly is what > some people crudely say: a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Israeli > lobby", is he being critical of the Democrats or is he being > anti-semitic? He is being critical of the Democratic party. One way to note this is his support of the neocons (who are Jewish) in the next breath. If you read other things by him he comes out with a fairly well nuanced view. Out of curiosity, are there no code phrases in Indian politics. Words that sound innocuous on the surface, but conveys very specific meaning, which is often not so innocuous? Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
- Original Message - From: "Warren Ockrassa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2005 11:49 AM Subject: Re: Mindless and Heartless > On Aug 18, 2005, at 6:14 AM, Dan Minette wrote: > > > From: "Julia Thompson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >> I may be wrong, but -- > >> > >> I think that Dan and Zimmy know each other a lot better than you know > >> either of them, and that Dan was well aware of Zimmy's feelings on the > >> subject before he said anything, and also familiar with Zimmy's style > >> of > >> argument. > >> > >> So I don't think Dan is going to confirm what you said above. > >> > >> As I said, I may be wrong, but I might not be. > > > > Right as always, King Friday, > > > > Zimmy and I have argued tooth and nail on a few points. But I've liked > > him > > and respected him for about 5 years. I'm certainly not Jewish, but I > > try > > to listen to people with other vantage points and have a little > > empathy for > > them. So, I see his views as totally reasonable. > > Wow. "Totally reasonable"? > > Dan, my respect for you has just fallen tremendously. I haven't seen > much in the recent spate of posts that's *marginally* reasonable. > Totally so? Far, far from it. > > I've gone from disappointed in this discussion to disgusted -- so much > so that I'm bordering on willingness to do what I've done about five > times in my decade-plus history online: Employ a filter. (That > averages, FTR, to about one person every two years added to my "do not > bother to read at all" list.) This from a person who feels the right to kill anyone who expresses what he considers homophobic statements? From a person who brags about his empathy :-) Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > I just read all of Zimmy's posts in this thread > and couldn't find any > > statement which could be construed to mean that > the only reason Perle > > and Wolfie get attention/are known to people is > because they are Jews. > > So, yes, I would like if you could point out the > relevant portions of his mails. > My point is that the neocon movement began and is > still identified as a > jewish movement. Historically it was explicitly > Jewish; a reaction to jewish > liberals. So when people talk about Wolfowitz and > Pearle there is this wink wink > nudge nudge don't you know subtext that they are > jews Just a point: _I_ had no idea that neocons were/are/were started by jews. I didn't know those two were jews until it was pointed out on this list. As others have said, in my mind Bush and Cheney were neocons, so 'neocon' in my mind = bad/wrong-headed/arrogant/etc.. I only pay attention to someone's religion if they bring it up (frex I refuse to see movies with Tom Cruise or John Travolta b/c I *really* disagree with scientology's agenda, and they tout it as a panacea so highly) . And I'm still kinda peeved at being called by implication (being a WAS-not-quite-but-OK-at-least-born-a-P) an anti-semite goy. Debbi who probably still has her 'Eretz Ysrael' T-shirt, from her college days, in a box somewhere Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
On Aug 18, 2005, at 8:56 AM, Horn, John wrote: Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] My point is that the neocon movement began and is still identified as a jewish movement. Historically it was explicitly Jewish; a reaction to jewish liberals. So when people talk about Wolfowitz and Pearle there is this wink wink nudge nudge don't you know subtext that they are jews Maybe when *some* people talk about them. And only if they know that history. And only if they know that Wolfowitz and Pearle are jewish. Which, prior to this thread, I didn't. Perhaps I should have from the names but I try not to judge people by their names... I would have guessed that Wolfowitz is of German ancestry, and not much more. Pearle: English, maybe? There are a few names, such as "Goldstein" or "Cohen" that I might take for Jewish, but it wouldn't have even the slightest effect on how I thought about them. Of course, Zimmy might say that I'm just denying the fact that in my inmost parts, unbeknownst even to me, I secretly want to oppress them because of their names. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
On Aug 17, 2005, at 11:06 PM, Andrew Paul wrote: I asked a serious question. You are drawing a very long bow there, and well, it's a little insulting. Sure, there are anti-Semites out there, plenty of them.. Give us the benefit of the doubt would you and stop tarring us with some brush we don't deserve. I think you do not understand the thrust of Zimmy's argument, which seems to be that for hundreds or thousands of years, various forms of overt and covert evils have been leveled against Jews by various groups (Amelekites, Egyptians, Germans, American Klansmen, and so forth), to the point that virtually all thought is now irretrievably poisoned by the meme of anti-semitism. You can't avoid it, you can't deny it, it is in your cultural DNA. If you spent your entire life defending the rights of Jewish people everywhere, you would still be poisoned by anti-semitism and subject to criticism on that front. You can't deny it because you can't escape it. It is in you. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
On Aug 17, 2005, at 9:11 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey everyone has to give up something. Of note; the Israelis never denied access to sacred islamacic sites to muslims but when the arabs were in control of Jeruselum they denied access to Jews to the Whaling Wall and have been known to throw rocks on Jews worshipping. It kind of cracks me up that our leading defender of Judaism can't spell "Wailing Wall." It's about lamentation, not cetacean-hunting. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
On Aug 17, 2005, at 9:01 PM, Warren Ockrassa wrote: It's always helpful to know your johnsons. I certainly know mine... heh, heh. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
On Aug 17, 2005, at 8:56 PM, Julia Thompson wrote: who has read part of something else by Paul M. Johnson, but not, to the best of her knowledge, anything by Philip Johnson Not that the writings of a Pritzker prize-winning architect who became involved with Fascism in the 1930s wouldn't be germane. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 23:37:16 EDT, Bemmzim wrote > My point is that the neocon movement began and is still identified > as a jewish movement. Historically it was explicitly Jewish; a > reaction to jewish liberals. So when people talk about Wolfowitz and > Pearle there is this wink wink nudge nudge don't you know subtext > that they are jews Not in my case. I had no idea of any connection between the term "neocon" and being Jewish until it came up here. The main things that I see them having in common is conservative, empire-building ideology, a Y chromosome, a lot of power and so forth. Having worked in intelligence, I've known who Perle is for a very long time (if anybody without the highest clearances knows who he is). I never had any idea that he was Jewish, even though I once interviewed his son who was interested in working for me. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voicemail: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 23:25:06 EDT, Bemmzim wrote > > Then why bring Israel into this at all? She's a mother looking for someone to blame -- Israel is just one of the perpetrators, far from the only one. I don't support that. I believe that blame is the path to violence, not peace. As I said, I was uncomfortable with her blaming the war in part on the U.S. alliance with Israel, not because I heard it as anti-Semitic, but because it seeks blame, not peace. And I really must say at this point that I can certainly empathize, though not fully understand by any means, with the sensitivity of any Jewish person to Israel being blamed for *anything*, since Jews have been blamed for all sorts of things through the centuries, at a cost far greater than the number of troops we've lost in Iraq or any other war. I hope that nothing I've written sounds as though I endorse blaming Israel or anybody else. What matters to me is who is responsible and how we grieve and heal together. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voicemail: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 22:29:45 EDT, Bemmzim wrote > In a message dated 8/16/2005 11:29:02 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > *Sigh*. No, SHE DID NOT. Nowhere does Sheehan make that claim. Get off > > your high horse and argue from a perspective of reason. > > > > > > The implication is clear. Perhaps you can't see your own prejudice in that "clarity," but it seems obvious to me. Perhaps you can see my prejudices more clearly than I can, but I'm doing my best to separate the political from the ethnic and religious issues, which you seem to be refusing to do. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voicemail: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 21:59:09 EDT, Bemmzim wrote > Much as you would like to deny this the Jewish people and Israel are > inexorably linked. Please. I would not like to deny that there is a *link*. We are political allies, at the very least. Israel receives more of our foreign aid than any other country, IIRC. A link, or a connection, as you say, does not justify conflating the two. > And it > is important to note that if Israel has influence on US policy it is > through american jews. Israel has no influence on U.S. policy except through American Jews? Are you kidding? That's ludicrous. Israel has influence on U.S. policy because of where it is, because it is a democracy in the Middle East, because there are many Americans in Israel, because a great deal of critical technology is developed in Israel (every one of Intel's microprocessors through the 80386 was designed there). Our economies are quite intertwined. There are all sorts of reasons that Israel *should* influence U.S. policy that have little or nothing to do directly with ethnicity or religion. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voicemail: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
On Aug 18, 2005, at 6:14 AM, Dan Minette wrote: From: "Julia Thompson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I may be wrong, but -- I think that Dan and Zimmy know each other a lot better than you know either of them, and that Dan was well aware of Zimmy's feelings on the subject before he said anything, and also familiar with Zimmy's style of argument. So I don't think Dan is going to confirm what you said above. As I said, I may be wrong, but I might not be. Right as always, King Friday, Zimmy and I have argued tooth and nail on a few points. But I've liked him and respected him for about 5 years. I'm certainly not Jewish, but I try to listen to people with other vantage points and have a little empathy for them. So, I see his views as totally reasonable. Wow. "Totally reasonable"? Dan, my respect for you has just fallen tremendously. I haven't seen much in the recent spate of posts that's *marginally* reasonable. Totally so? Far, far from it. I've gone from disappointed in this discussion to disgusted -- so much so that I'm bordering on willingness to do what I've done about five times in my decade-plus history online: Employ a filter. (That averages, FTR, to about one person every two years added to my "do not bother to read at all" list.) -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror" http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
On Aug 18, 2005, at 8:51 AM, Horn, John wrote: Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] In a message dated 8/16/2005 11:32:27 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: An honest question: had Sheehan not used the words "to benefit Israel" in the first sentence or "not Israel" in the second, would this still be anti-semitic? The still flows without those words, I believe. You are correct. if she just blamed the neocons it would not have been anti-semitic but she brought Israal and the neoncons into this. By the way quick name one christian neo-con intellectual. Prior to this thread I would have said "George Bush, Dick Chenney and Donald Rumsfeld". But that would be because I had no idea what the *official* definition of "neo-con" actually was. I wonder if Cindy Sheehan thought the same... You still don't, actually -- you have only the word of one person, who clearly isn't capable of balanced discourse on the topic. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror" http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Mindless and Heartless
> Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > My point is that the neocon movement began and is still > identified as a > jewish movement. Historically it was explicitly Jewish; a > reaction to jewish > liberals. So when people talk about Wolfowitz and Pearle > there is this wink wink > nudge nudge don't you know subtext that they are jews Maybe when *some* people talk about them. And only if they know that history. And only if they know that Wolfowitz and Pearle are jewish. Which, prior to this thread, I didn't. Perhaps I should have from the names but I try not to judge people by their names... - jmh Why Am I Getting Into This Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Mindless and Heartless
> Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > In a message dated 8/16/2005 11:32:27 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > An honest question: had Sheehan not used the words "to benefit > > Israel" in the first sentence or "not Israel" in the second, would > > this still be anti-semitic? The still flows without those words, I > > believe. > > You are correct. if she just blamed the neocons it would not > have been > anti-semitic but she brought Israal and the neoncons into > this. By the way quick > name one christian neo-con intellectual. Prior to this thread I would have said "George Bush, Dick Chenney and Donald Rumsfeld". But that would be because I had no idea what the *official* definition of "neo-con" actually was. I wonder if Cindy Sheehan thought the same... > > > > Also, someone asked how the war in Iraq benefited Israel. I > > believe it was our own John Giorgis who stated as one of the > > justifications for the war the fact that Saddam was financing the > > Intifadah. I'm not saying I agree with that but there you go... > > > But he did not do this. He didn't give a crap about Isreal Didn't he pay something to the families of the suicide bombers? I believe that was mentioned onlist in the past. I don't recall if I ever saw a cite or anyone denying this... - jmh ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
Dan Minette wrote: > > Zimmy and I have argued tooth and nail on a few points. But I've > liked him and respected him for about 5 years. I'm certainly not > Jewish, but I try to listen to people with other vantage points and > have a little empathy for them. So, I see his views as totally reasonable. > "Just because he´s paranoid don´t mean they´re not after him"? :-) Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
- Original Message - From: "Julia Thompson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2005 11:10 PM Subject: Re: Mindless and Heartless > Warren Ockrassa wrote: > > On Aug 17, 2005, at 8:49 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > >> It is obvious to me that you don't know shit about anti-semitism > > > > > > It's obvious to me that you're a self-righteous, arrogant whiner with > > delusions of persecution. > > > > I imagine by now that Dan is wishing to hell he hadn't thrown in his lot > > so readily with yours. You're no more sane on this subject than those > > who bear prejudice against Jewish people. > > I may be wrong, but -- > > I think that Dan and Zimmy know each other a lot better than you know > either of them, and that Dan was well aware of Zimmy's feelings on the > subject before he said anything, and also familiar with Zimmy's style of > argument. > > So I don't think Dan is going to confirm what you said above. > > As I said, I may be wrong, but I might not be. Right as always, King Friday, Zimmy and I have argued tooth and nail on a few points. But I've liked him and respected him for about 5 years. I'm certainly not Jewish, but I try to listen to people with other vantage points and have a little empathy for them. So, I see his views as totally reasonable. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Mindless and Heartless
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > And does she have a point about hatred of US Mid-East policy being > > behind 9/11? Be that anti-Semitic or otherwise, is there > any truth in > > it? > > > So you are blaming the jews for 911? Yes indeed you are. Why > not go all the > way. Then a sentence later, you say: > Is there truth to the notion that many arabs hate us because > we support > Israel. Well maybe. Now this is what confuses me: How is Andrew being an anti-semitist for raising the possibility that the Arab anger towards the US might be, in part, responsible for 9/11? And why are you not an anti-semitist when you acknowledge the same possibility? Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Mindless and Heartless
Dan Minette wrote: > > I just read all of Zimmy's posts in this thread and > couldn't find any > > statement which could be construed to mean that the only > reason Perle > > and Wolfie get attention/are known to people is because > they are Jews. > > So, yes, I would like if you could point out the relevant > portions of > > his mails. > > It wasn't that exactly, it was the neo-con/Jewish link. Well, I was asking for that exact statement, for that is the one Nick responded to. > That is the core of the argument: the neocon caused us to go > to war for the sake of Israel is a anti-Semitic argument. > Gautam, Zimmy, and I are in full agreement on this. Yes, I gathered as much from the mails in this thread. But that argument is not the same as saying that the only reason people have heard of Perle and Wolfie is because they are both Jews. > Turning back to where you got your information, the question > is not so much why someone who gives an interview in Vanity > Fair is well known, its why an undersecretary of defense > would be in a position where Vanity Fair would think he's > newsworthy. His profile was originally raised by his > opponents, with anti-Semitic innuendo. Wolfie was the Deputy Secretary of Defense when he gave that interview to Vanity Fair. Which made him the second highest-ranking official in the US Department of Defense. I submit the [probably shocking] proposal that there is nothing strange or inexplicable about wanting to interview the second highest ranking official in the DoD when a magazine or a newspaper wants a piece on a recently concluded invasion. I also think you are doing Wolfowitz a great disservice here. He has been active in US politics for the last 33 years [except for a period of 4 years in the 1990s, or so Wikipedia informs me]. I'd assume that his profile was raised by his own hard work and ideas. Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Mindless and Heartless
> Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] > In a message dated 8/16/2005 10:36:40 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > I don't see this as a statement necessarily directed against Jews, and I > > think people are reading a lot of stuff between the lines that may not > > be there. But it is an emotive subject, so that is to be expected I > > guess. I don't agree with it necessarily, but until someone can put > > forward a cogent argument as to why Iraq was invaded, it is not > > surprising that people who suffered directly try to find some reason for > > their sons dying. > > > For the kazilioinst time, if you want to understand why this remark is > hurtful read some fing history. James Carrol's Sword of Constantine, Philp > Johnson's > History of the Jews. > Look, I am not a history scholar, but I have heard of Jews. And I understand that if one wants to wilfully take her words as some kind of veiled reference to a dark underlying desire to exterminate the Jewish people, then one can do so. I didn't, and I have no idea what she secretly might have meant. I will let her put her own words in her mouth. > > > > And does she have a point about hatred of US Mid-East policy being > > behind 9/11? Be that anti-Semitic or otherwise, is there any truth in > > it? > > > So you are blaming the jews for 911? Yes indeed you are. Why not go all > the > way. The Israelis did it which is why all the jews stayed home that day. I asked a serious question. You are drawing a very long bow there, and well, it's a little insulting. Sure, there are anti-Semites out there, plenty of them.. Give us the benefit of the doubt would you and stop tarring us with some brush we don't deserve. > > Is there truth to the notion that many arabs hate us because we support > Israel. Well maybe. After all they have blaming all of their problems > since world > war II on the jews. They have refused to solve the problem of the > palastinians > for over 50 years. They turned down an offer that would have given them > 95% > of what they wanted in 2000. The nations of the mideast have funded > palastinian > terrorism/resistance but have not funded schools hosptials etc. We have > supported a democratic country in a region where democracy othewise does > not exist. > > > > > > > And is she entitled to have that opinion, and to express it? > > > Of course she is entitled. And I am enttiled to denounce her statements as > the worst kind of anti-semitism. > Umm, perhaps you best read up on your Jewish history. Several worse kinds of anti-semitism spring to mind actually, but then perhaps I am missing something. Andrew ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Mindless and Heartless
> > > I just read all of Zimmy's posts in this thread and couldn't find any > > statement which could be construed to mean that the only reason Perle > > and Wolfie get attention/are known to people is because they are Jews. > > So, yes, I would like if you could point out the relevant portions of > > his mails. > > > > > > My point is that the neocon movement began and is still identified as a > jewish movement. Historically it was explicitly Jewish; a reaction to > jewish > liberals. So when people talk about Wolfowitz and Pearle there is this > wink wink > nudge nudge don't you know subtext that they are jews Geez hang on a cotton picking minute, who was the one going on about Jewish conspiracy theories being a lot of crap... and now you are saying there is one sorry, I am at a loss here. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
Robert wrote: You might want to ask a black person if they think that the southern strategy is racist. I have. And they do? -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Mindless and Heartless
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > What's the source of criticism? Comments from an atheist I would > > analyze differently than comments originating in a Klan rally > > > Any source But that seems rather unfair to me. If, going by what you say, the fact of Jewish oppression for two millennia on certain continents gives the Jews the right to suspect any statement of carrying the seeds of anti-semitism, then surely, the fact of peaceful co-existence for two millennia on other continents confers an obligation to suspend that suspicion. Surely the stand/the standards have to be internally consistent at least. Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > In a message dated 8/17/2005 11:43:54 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > >> My problem with this line of reasoning is that one could easily >> assume that because of The Southern Strategy, the Republican Party >> is a racist institution. (Or perhaps *was* would be better) Just >> using the kinds of reasoning you have used in this thread Dan, it >> would be an inescapable conclusion. >> > You might want to ask a black person if they think that the southern > strategy is racist. I have. xponent Lives In The South And Works With Black People All Day Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Mindless and Heartless
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > I just read all of Zimmy's posts in this thread and > couldn't find any > > statement which could be construed to mean that the only > reason Perle > > and Wolfie get attention/are known to people is because > they are Jews. > > So, yes, I would like if you could point out the relevant > portions of > > his mails. > > > > > > My point is that the neocon movement began and is still > identified as a > jewish movement. Historically it was explicitly Jewish; a > reaction to jewish > liberals. Yes, I got that point. > So when people talk about Wolfowitz and Pearle > there is this wink wink > nudge nudge don't you know subtext that they are jews I am sure that the nudge nudge wink wink reaction is true for a lot of people. But that wasn't my question, was it? What I'd like to know is if you think that the only reason Perle and Wolfie are known to people is because they are jews. Or if you, like me, are open to the notion that the attention given to Perle and Wolfie might have other reasons? Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > In a message dated 8/17/2005 12:22:26 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > >> So let's see... You're not in favor of racially-motivated >> stereotyping when it persecutes "your people," but when it comes to >> me, it's perfectly OK to paint me with the European-descended >> Christian Jew-hater brush. >> > I am using dramatic licence for a purpose. I am trying to point out > to you > that subtle anti-semitism colors the views of many good poeple. It > is > subte because it is part of western culture. and has been since the > early days of christianity. Maybe it is different where you live, but here, Jews are just another ethnic group and people tend not to pay much attention. > > >> What the hell do you know about me? What anti-semitic statements >> have >> you ever heard me make? THAT's what I mean when I say "Yes, I have >> stopped beating my wife." You accuse me along with every other >> non-Jew on the planet without so much as a second's thought. >> > I believe that your inital responses to Gautam contained subtle > anti-semitism. Not overt not conscious but there just the same. > > >> It reminds me of the character in a Woody Allen movie: "JEW eat >> lunch? JEW eat lunch? What does that mean, JEW eat lunch?" >> >> Not every criticism leveled against a Jewish person, idea or >> country >> is anti-semitism. > > Of course not but let me ask you something. Do you think that > criticisms leveled at Jews are more or lessl likely to reflect > prejudice than those leveled against christians. I am just asking > that you examine your responsed and to see how they might reflect > culturral prejudices. Until we all do this we are > doomed to fail. There is xenophobia and then there is prejudice. Even in matters of racism things are not completely black and white. xponent A Great Love Of My Life Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
On Aug 17, 2005, at 9:13 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 8/17/2005 11:02:04 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What's the source of criticism? Comments from an atheist I would analyze differently than comments originating in a Klan rally Any source Not good enough. Reread my question and my rationale, and try again. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror" http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
At 11:06 PM Wednesday 8/17/2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 8/17/2005 9:46:01 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > So you are blaming the jews for 911? Yes indeed you are. Why not go > >all the > >way. The Israelis did it which is why all the jews stayed home that > >day. > > Do you have any idea how irrational this appears? > Do you know that many people think that if not for Israel we would not have these problems in the middle east. Yes. They also criticize those who dare to speak out in support of Israel or opine that the Arabs/Palestinians are the problem for insisting that they will not be satisfied until they have a Palestinian state with its capital in Jerusalem. If those pesky Israelis (all of whom are jews) would just go away everything would be ok. That is the subtext of the notion that US support of Israel is source of all evil. Many people indeed believe that. Many others do not. -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
On Aug 17, 2005, at 9:10 PM, Julia Thompson wrote: Warren Ockrassa wrote: On Aug 17, 2005, at 8:49 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It is obvious to me that you don't know shit about anti-semitism It's obvious to me that you're a self-righteous, arrogant whiner with delusions of persecution. I imagine by now that Dan is wishing to hell he hadn't thrown in his lot so readily with yours. You're no more sane on this subject than those who bear prejudice against Jewish people. I may be wrong, but -- I think that Dan and Zimmy know each other a lot better than you know either of them, and that Dan was well aware of Zimmy's feelings on the subject before he said anything, and also familiar with Zimmy's style of argument. That's entirely possible, but I don't think I'd describe what's been spewing forth recently as "argument". It's a lot more like "Oy vey schmeer, poor me, poor us, no one has any clue whatsoever and because of my minority status I am free to both be as overbearing as I want to *and* accuse anyone who doesn't agree with me totally of ignorance or worse." There is no way to win in this discussion. Even a slight questioning of such a perspective is being insensitive; nothing short of total disavowal of massive swaths of Western culture is acceptable; nothing short of repudiation of a person's entire weltanschauung is to be tolerated if there's even the merest hint of -- totally unsubstantiated -- anti-semitism. (Bemmzim, before you reply to the above, please bear in mind that just because you say something is anti-semitic DOES NOT MEAN THAT IT IS. And I'll thank you to stop making assumptions about how well I know history.) So I don't think Dan is going to confirm what you said above. That's also possible, and I think it's rather sad. I would not personally wish to align with anyone so committed to seeing evil all around him. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror" http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
In a message dated 8/17/2005 11:56:46 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > >For the kazilioinst time, if you want to understand why this remark > >is hurtful read some fing history. James Carrol's Sword of > >Constantine, Philp Johnson's History of the Jews. > > > > Actually it's Paul M. Johnson who wrote _The History of the Jews_. > (This info may make it a little easier to find.) > > Thanks; I always get names wrong. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
In a message dated 8/17/2005 11:43:54 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > My problem with this line of reasoning is that one could easily assume > that because of The Southern Strategy, the Republican Party is a > racist institution. (Or perhaps *was* would be better) Just using the > kinds of reasoning you have used in this thread Dan, it would be an > inescapable conclusion. > You might want to ask a black person if they think that the southern strategy is racist. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
In a message dated 8/17/2005 11:38:48 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Right; *your* simplistic notion is that she's somehow anti-semitic, as > is anyone who supports her. My notion is that she made a anti-semitic remark of a particularly virulent type. People who support her but do not repudiate her remark are at the very least condoning anti-semitism ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
In a message dated 8/17/2005 11:18:43 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Hmm, so one person that uses a given argument is *not* something, but > another person that uses a given argument *is* something? > Neocon refers to a specific politcal philosophy. One can use arguements of a group without being a member of the group ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
