That's what MSNBC is saying.
That's what MSNBC is saying.
Nobody knows nothing yet, so no overreaction or underreaction or even ordinary reaction here. Let's wait and see who it was who did this first.
I suppose what them Jews should do is ignore Rev. Wright. But I can't help myself:
Asked if he had spoken to the President, Wright said:"Them Jews aren't going to let him talk to me. I told my baby daughter, that he'll talk to me in five years when he's a lame duck, or in eight years when he's out of office. ...
A couple of dozen Goldblog readers have asked me to condemn Max Blumenthal for his video of young drunk Jews saying terrible things about Barack Obama. I can't quite bring myself to issue such a condemnation. Yes, I've studied young Blumenthal's videos, and yes, he wields his camera as a weapon against Jews he doesn't like, but here's the thing: He didn't force these young adults (not "kids," as a couple of letter-writers would have it) in Jerusalem to say the things they said. They did that all by themselves. Several e-mailers complained that the subjects of Blumenthal's film were drunk, and therefore not accountable for the ugliness that came out of their mouths.
Sorry, no dice. No one I know believes that Mel Gibson is anti-Semitic only when drunk. The fools in Jerusalem had these thoughts in their heads; alcohol cannot plant ideas that aren't there. And yes, they are not represenative of anything much, and yes, Blumenthal would be a journalist, rather than a propagandist, if he had noted that American Jews voted for Barack Obama in overwhelming numbers. I understand all the arguments, and I of course understand the argument, as I'm sure Blumenthal does too, that anti-Semitism in the Arab world is expressed by religious leaders while sober.
It is true: Max Blumenthal gets famous by highlighting the behavior of idiotic Jews. It's not a profession I would choose, but it's hard to blame him for the racism of other people.
Terrible news out of Peshawar -- the Pearl Continental has been attacked by the Taliban. As of this writing, eleven people are dead, including two foreigners. The Pearl in Peshawar was really a lovely hotel, with an excellent Chinese buffet and quiet spaces in a tumultuous city. It was civilized, which is why the Taliban hates it.
Nextbook's new on-line magazine, Tablet, is now up and running. It is edited by Alana Newhouse, who is very smart, and it has all sorts of very smart writers contributing to it, and looks to be all around very smart, and a great alternative to the general mediocrity of Jewish publications, print and on-line. I haven't yet combed through it, but will later, but in the meantime, you should. By the way, I'm supposed to contribute to it as well. I don't know if that's an advertisement for or against, but there you go.
If I'm not mistaken, that's what Frank Gaffney is kinda, sorta saying:
After his five months in office, and most especially after his just-concluded visit to Saudi Arabia and Egypt, however, a stunning conclusion seems increasingly plausible: The man now happy to have his Islamic-rooted middle name featured prominently has engaged in the most consequential bait-and-switch since Adolf Hitler duped Neville Chamberlain over Czechoslovakia at Munich.
I swear by Allah this is crazy.
From the Kansas City Star:
Pete Wehner has a simultaneously amusing and disturbing post up about a strange exchange between Newsweek's Evan Thomas and Chris Matthews on Matthews' show last Friday:
"Thomas, commenting on Obama's Cairo speech, said, 'I mean in a way Obama's standing above the country, above -- above the world, he's sort of God.' And when Thomas was asked by Matthews, "Reagan and World War II and the sense of us as the good guys in the world, how are we doing?" Thomas replied, "Well, we were the good guys in 1984, it felt that way. It hasn't felt that way in recent years."
On the matter of whether Obama is "sort of God," I would only say that this kind of thinking is one reason it's useful to believe in the One God, as a way of checking human hubris. On the other question, of whether Thomas was correct in saying that "we were the good guys in 1984, it felt that way," Nexis tells a slightly different story about whether Thomas himself felt "that way" in the mid-1980s. Then with Time Magazine, he wrote the following in January, 1985:
"Viewed broadly, Reagan's agenda seems hamstrung by internal contradictions. It is difficult to imagine, for example, how he can spend more for defense, refuse to raise taxes or cut Social Security, and still chop the annual deficit in half. He almost certainly cannot expect the Soviets to reduce their arsenal of heavy land-based missiles while the U.S. plunges ahead with the Strategic Defense Initiative (Star Wars). Reagan seems so dreamily unconcerned with these realities that even some of his own backers fear he may lose control of future policy struggles. Incredibly, only two months after Reagan won back the White House by a landslide, and before he had even been sworn in for a second term, many in Washington regard him as little more than a lame duck...."
Then there's this story, from October, 1984, concerning reports that Reagan's CIA was secretly teaching the contras how to torture their enemies:
"The 89-page booklet entitled Psychological Operations in Guerrilla Warfare is a primer on insurgency, a how-to book in the struggle for hearts and minds. Some of the "techniques of persuasion" are benign: helping the peasants harvest crops, learn to read, improve hygiene. Others are decidedly brutal: assassination, kidnapping, blackmail, mob violence. It could be a manual for the Viet Cong or the Cuban-backed rebels in El Salvador. If it were, the Administration would likely be waving it as proof of its thesis about the sources of insidious world terrorism. In fact, however, it is a publication of the CIA, written for Nicaraguan contras seeking to overthrow the Sandinista regime. Its disclosure last week came as a political embarrassment to the Administration and a major moral one for the U.S. It stirred memories of CIA abuses that were supposedly outlawed a decade ago and gave Democrats a potentially hot new campaign issue."
And this, from September, 1985, about negotiations with the Soviets:
"The Administration's hold-fast position may be a sound negotiating tactic, but it gives the Soviets an edge in the war of words. The rhetoric level will increase this week as both Shevardnadze and Shultz give major speeches to the U.N. General Assembly at the opening of its 40th session. The Soviets continue to build up the summit as a "window of opportunity" for a major breakthrough in arms control that may not arise again "for a very, very long time." The U.S. just as resolutely tries to play down such talk as "wishful thinking." At his press conference, Reagan said the summit should be viewed as "a beginning point for better relations, a starting point for progress." A critical question is how public opinion will respond in Western Europe. If the U.S. is ultimately viewed as an obstacle to nuclear sanity, the result could be disarray in the alliance and strong pressure to make concessions. The Administration is trying to keep the Allies in line by dangling lucrative defense contracts for SDI research. Last week the U.S. appeared to be close to signing agreements with the British and West Germans to clear the way for such research."
Memories grow hazy, of course, but it's worth noting that most of the mainstream press in the 1980s thought that Reagan was a dimwit and a lunatic, and that the Soviet Union was immortal.
Goldblog reader Mike Schilling writes, in reference to the Liberian warlord Charles Taylor's apparent embrace of Judaism:
If you read the Foreign Policy article to the end, it's OK:
"Q. Does that mean he has rejected Christianity then? Because that's quite a radical departure.
A. No, no, no he hasn't rejected Christianity. He has always been a Christian. He just decided to become a Jew. He wants to follow the two religions."
So he's actually a Jew for Jesus. They can have him.
On the subject of Philip Roth. Cohen writes:
But don't get me started on the academy, whose prejudice against the United States and failure to recognize Philip Roth is beyond scandalous. "American Pastoral" alone merits the Nobel several times over. A further prize, for proving the creative fecundity of late life, should be accorded Roth.
His anger is entirely justifiable -- I mean, Pearl Buck gets a Nobel, and not Roth? The whole thing is nuts. On another level, I'm not sure Cohen is reading deeply the later Roth. The young Roth treated his Judaism as comedy; the older Roth has explored, seriously and at length, the marginal nature of Jewish existence. Not something that seems to preoccupy Cohen.
For the duration of their next term in power, Prime Minister Fuad Siniora's cabinet and majority leader Saad Hariri's coalition will be dependent on Hezbollah's goodwill. With last summer's violent showdown, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah made absolutely clear who is in charge.
The Goldblog inbox is regularly visited by correspondents eager to make the case that the world economy is controlled by the Jews. Most of them make the case, at best, in semi-literate fashion (when anti-Semites write properly, or even use spell-check, I'm going to start worrying), and a surprising number of them make their arguments through the use of lists, which is to say, they provide me lists of prominent Jews as proof that.... there are a lot of prominent Jews. Where it gets highly amusing is when these lists contain the names of people who are quite obviously not Jewish. These days, the lists are dominated by one name: Tim Geithner. I've received dozens of e-mails claiming that Geithner is Jewish, and in the sway of nefarious Wall Street Talmudists. Here is an excerpt from one such letter:
"The jew Summers and the jew Geitner are giving our goverment to the Isrealis locks stocks and barrels. This is the plan from the beginning with the jew bernanke and obama who is suported by the jew emanel. obama gets all his money from jews and they are using the american tax money to push the arab out of palestine forever."
I always thought it was "lox, stock and barrel," but never mind that. Here's another: "Geithner is the zionist who is controlling the taxes and is under the complet control fo the mossad the zionist murder agency. this zionist is only one. the zionists are everywhere in the government of america."
It is true that Larry Summer and Ben Shalom Bernanke (anti-Semitic letter writers are always sure to mention his actual middle name, which is a beautiful middle name) and I suppose the Jewishness of Summer and Bernanke alone is enough to send anti-Semitic fevers spiking. But I'm sorry to report that Timothy Franz Geithner is extremely not Jewish. This is not to say that some of his best friends aren't Jewish, but the man quite obviously doesn't show up on my Jewdar for any number of reasons, including that crucial "Franz." In fact, Geithner is, as best as anyone can tell, a member of the United Church of Christ.
Personally, I'd be happy to claim Geithner for the tribe (I'm happy to claim nearly everyone, except Charles Taylor), but I think the secretary is quite permanently seated on the Christian side of the aisle. In other words, please stop writing, anti-Semites e-mailers. Or at least come up with someone new.
It's Friday: No Buchenwald commentary today, just the Marx Brothers: