[lace-chat] Re: Bush's visit to UK and beyond

[Tamara P. Duvall]

On Tuesday, Nov 18, 2003, at 02:25 US/Eastern, Annette Gill wrote:

[...] And yet it's perfectly possible to be opposed to the war, but 
also opposed to Saddam, to be opposed to Bush's policies, but a 
supporter of America.
Myself in a nutshell :)

That's the nub of it.  It's very difficult for any of us to judge 
things
objectively.  But if something is perceived by both sides as being
anti-them, it's probably got it more or less right.
That's my conclusion also, which is why I continue reading both papers. 
If it makes both sides squirm and bitch a bit, then it's likely just 
middle-of-the road objective... It also gives me a  "bead" on *people*; 
if someone thinks those papers are too liberal/too conservative, I know 
what to think of the people who read them 

-
Tamara P Duvall
Lexington, Virginia,  USA
Formerly of Warsaw, Poland
http://lorien.emufarm.org/~tpd/
To unsubscribe send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] containing the line:
unsubscribe lace-chat [EMAIL PROTECTED] For help, write to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

[lace-chat] Re: Bush's visit to UK and beyond

[Annette Gill]

> Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 23:51:20 -0500
> From: "Tamara P. Duvall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> Because being "anti" (again, anti *anything*) is restricted

It's often used as an accusation here.  For example, people who are
anti-Bush are being labelled by some as being anti-American. People who are
anti-Iraq war are often accused of being pro-Saddam.  And yet it's perfectly
possible to be opposed to the war, but also opposed to Saddam, to be opposed
to Bush's policies, but a supporter of America.  A poll published in the
Guardian today shows that 62% of Britons think America is generally a force
for good in the world, whereas only 43% are in favour of Bush's visit (36%
oppose it).

It's this sloppy, invalid either/or in public discussion that really annoys
me.

> Both NYTimes and the Wash.Post *report the facts*... Because of our
> *personal* bias, my DH takes *the same reports* as being anti-Palestine
> (and sides with Palestine, as a result), and I take them to be
> anti-Israel

That's the nub of it.  It's very difficult for any of us to judge things
objectively.  But if something is perceived by both sides as being
anti-them, it's probably got it more or less right.

> But, *Argentina* for Jews to settle in?!?!?!? Have you lost your
> cotton-picking mind

My statement was merely a rueful comment that things would have been simpler
now if the Zionists had chosen Argentina.  I didn't mean that that was the
most appropriate place for them to go.  I was surprised that they even
considered a homeland anywhere other than Palestine.  The fact that, with
hindsight, it would have been less trouble if they had settled in Argentina
doesn't mean that's where they *should* have gone. I would support the state
of Israel within the boundaries they were originally given, though like you,
I disapprove of their occupation of other land.  (But then, who am I, a
child of the British Empire, to disapprove of anyone else's expansionism?
)

Regards,
Annette, London

To unsubscribe send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] containing the line:
unsubscribe lace-chat [EMAIL PROTECTED] For help, write to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

[lace-chat] Re: Bush's visit to UK and beyond

[Tamara P. Duvall]

On Monday, Nov 17, 2003, at 13:19 US/Eastern, Annette Gill wrote:

one minute the BBC is being accused of left-wing bias, and the next of 
right-wing bias.
That's true of our "global" media too, including the newspapers (I'm 
more familiar with those, as I don't watch TV/listen to the radio 
much);  NY Times, Washington Post and other big papers get labelled as 
"right-wing" or "left-wing", depending strictly on the *reader's own* 
bias... Only the people who read/listen/view stuff that's already 
biased in their direction (and nothing else) have no complaints :)

The BBC is a British institution and will naturally reflect the 
prevailing
world view of mainstream Britain.  That will inevitably include a less
favourable opinion of Israel than the USA has.  The USA is perceived by
many outside North America of being heavily pro-Israel, so any view 
less
pro-Israel may be perceived as pro-Palestinian by America.
Many Americans are anti-foreigner (irrespective of race, origin, etc). 
So are many other countries, including UK. When it's OK to voice one's 
prejudices, you hear hear them all the time, but they're "watered 
down", because there are so many *conflicting* ones. With the "PC rule" 
in place, only the *acceptable* "bigot-ism" (I know it's not a word, 
but can't think of a better one) is "aired" without reprimand... 
Because being "anti" (again, anti *anything*) is restricted, it 
acquires a much sharper and more vicious focus when a "valve" *does* 
open. I'm much more "anti" now than I was a year ago, or would have 
been, had I been able to "vent", openly, on *every* subject I consider 
ridiculous ( Jews, Arabs, Chinese, blacks, French, Poles, Brits, 
Ozzies, Americans, South Africans, etc, *in addition to* the 
everlasting, but *bland* "blondes").

If the BBC is peddling a Foreign Office-inspired pro-Palestianian bias,
then it's passed me by.
Both NYTimes and the Wash.Post *report the facts*... Because of our 
*personal* bias, my DH takes *the same reports* as being anti-Palestine 
(and sides with Palestine, as a result), and I take them to be 
anti-Israel (and interpret accordingly; we're *both* "root for the 
underdog" people ). At least, I'm *aware* of *my* bias... :)

If I remember correctly, the Zionists of the 19th century had two 
possible
places in mind for a Jewish homeland - Palestine and some land in
Argentina.  If only they'd chosen Argentina...
OK; until now, I agreed some, disagreed some, but I could "live with 
it", even where I disagreed with your arguments... All very 
civilised... :)

But, *Argentina* for Jews to settle in?!?!?!? Have you lost your 
cotton-picking mind (as we *used* to say, pre-PC, Down-South- Heah)??? 
There was some land available in South America at that point, and 
buying it and resettling there might have looked like the lesser evil 
to European Jews, who were being "pogrommed" into extinction (as a 
matter of fact, *Madagascar* was another land option, right up to WWII 
-- I can still sing the song that ridiculed the idea ("chessboard" 
children were mentioned ), but it would have *never* been a 
"homeland"; just another, possibly more torelable, place of exile...

Jews had been in what's now Israel for as long as Arabs (longer, if you 
believe your Bible and the story of Hagar in the desert )... "Next 
year in Jerusalem" -- the hope of all those dispersed -- is part of 
their *religious ritual*... And you think that *Buenos Aires* would 
have done *as well*??? How about moving all of Britain to Argentina and 
all the Jews to Britain (a nice, isolated island), for *absurd*?

I do not approve of Israel's post 1948 expansionism, but that's a 
different story altogether. IMO, the original borders, while "pinching" 
on both sides were, at least, fair and sensible. OTOH, the idea having 
Jews "somewhe else", just because it's inconvenient/a nuisance to have 
them where they belong... I'll bite my tongue (belatedly ), but it 
really is less than what I expected of you...

Yours, reluctantly half-Jewish, and drawing the border lines,
-
Tamara P Duvall
Lexington, Virginia,  USA
Formerly of Warsaw, Poland
http://lorien.emufarm.org/~tpd/
To unsubscribe send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] containing the line:
unsubscribe lace-chat [EMAIL PROTECTED] For help, write to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]