-
My Rahm Reunion
May 16, 2013 | 16 comments
-
The Left Hates Us
May 9, 2013 | 143 comments
-
Such a Dynamic Duo
May 2, 2013 | 49 comments
-
The Continuing Crisis
May 1, 2013 | 0 comments
-
Calvin Coolidge: His Times Are Our Times
April 26, 2013 | 22 comments
The Current Crisis
The Absurdity Meter Blow Up
Which of these stories is the most absurd, I shall leave for you to judge.
WASHINGTON — My absurdity meter has blown up. The current news has been simply too much for this frail device, which I attach to my television set to give me a daily reading of the news’ absurdity content. First, two wholesome young people conduct a sting operation in the offices of ACORN presenting themselves as dealers in the sex business and receiving practical advice as to how to successfully conduct business and launder money. Then, former president Jimmy Carter claims a congressman’s terse, albeit ill-tempered, declamation is “based on racism.” Finally, a United Nations “fact-finding” mission reports that Israel is morally equivalent to the terrorists who have lobbed 8,000 rockets and mortars into southern Israel since 2001. It was all too much for my little absurdity meter. Its dial spun madly. Its buzzer began to scream. Then it simply went pop and expired. I shall have to return it to Andrew Breitbart for repairs.
Which of the above stories is the most absurd, I shall leave for you to judge. Jimmy Carter’s has a whiff of the ominous to it. We have a mixed-race president, and undoubtedly there will be bigots who will make racially invidious judgments against him. Yet such primitives are off on the fringes of American life. At the center of American life it is unlikely that anyone will consider President Barack Obama in racial terms. For Carter to charge this is as reprehensible as it is reckless. He was alleging that when Representative Joe Wilson intemperately shouted “You lie!” during the President’s healthcare address to Congress, the South Carolinian’s eruption was “based on racism.”
“There is an inherent feeling among many in this country that an African-American should not be president,” said this smug little malcontent. Actually that is a fiction. “Hardly anyone thinks that,” says the polling expert Karlyn Bowman, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, and she cites a 2008 Gallup finding that 94% of the country was willing to vote “for a well-qualified person for president who happened to be black.” Moreover, Jimmy is no paragon on the question of race baiting. At least two of his biographers — Betty Glad, three decades ago, and Steven F. Hayward, four years ago — record that Jimmy played the race card in his early days in Georgia politics. His 1970 campaign for governor went so far as to distribute racially charged literature to the Ku Klux Klan. One could argue that Jimmy is playing the race card again, this time playing to the sense of black grievance. In both instances, he has encouraged ugly passions.
The other absurd story that encourages ugly passions is the United Nations report that Israel was somehow morally equivalent with Hamas last winter when it sent its forces into Gaza to relieve its citizenry from Hamas’s rocket and mortar assaults. In fact the report is harsher on Israel than on Hamas, for Israel’s allegedly “deliberately disproportionate attack designed to punish, humiliate and terrorize a civilian population….” Hamas’s standard operating procedure is to launch attacks from civilian centers. It regularly uses civilians as shields. Moreover, its aerial attacks against civilian concentrations in Israel are unconscionable. They themselves constitute war crimes, but now this absurd UN report could expose the Israeli military to war crime proceedings. That is an ominous development.
Yet not all the recent absurdities have a grim aspect. One was utterly delightful. For years, law enforcement agencies and journalists have been trying to expose the felonious activities of left-wing ACORN, particularly with regard to vote fraud and misuse of government money. Last week two winsome conservative practitioners of guerrilla theater revealed that they had tapes of stings that they had perpetrated in ACORN offices all over the country. Posing as a pimp with his numero uno prostitute, the two sought advice from ACORN counselors as to how to gain a home loan for a brothel that would employ underage Central American girls.
Very professionally ACORN employees advised them on how to camouflage their purposes, cheat the IRS, and launder the money. Bury it in the backyard was one bit of advice. Call yourself not a prostitute but a “freelancing performance artist,” came from another. ACORN’s employees are urban sophisticates and apparently very experienced with government. One told the “pimp” how to collect child tax credit for the Central American girls. Another boasted of her close connections with Senator Barbara Boxer and Congressman Joe Baca. This woman, obviously a Californian, also spoke of the good old days when she herself was an “escort.” And she bragged of something even more exciting. She, Miss Tresa Kaelke, claimed to have killed her husband.
Perhaps now ACORN stands exposed for the criminal racket that it is. Yet there is something else to expose it for, a collection of knuckleheads. The two very young and very middle-class provocateurs were not very convincing — that is to their credit.
About the Author
R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. is the founder and editor in chief of The American Spectator. He is the author of The Death of Liberalism, published by Thomas Nelson Inc. His previous books include the New York Times bestseller Boy Clinton: the Political Biography; The Impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton; The Liberal Crack-Up; The Conservative Crack-Up; Public Nuisances; The Future that Doesn’t Work: Social Democracy’s Failure in Britain; Madame Hillary: The Dark Road to the White House; The Clinton Crack-Up; and After the Hangover: The Conservatives’ Road to Recovery.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (110) | Leave a comment
More Articles by R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.
More Articles From The Current Crisis
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/09/17/the-absurdity-meter-blow-up
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- The Demise of Money and Credit
- The End of the Castros?
- Downton’s Class System — and Ours
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Paul Kotik | 9.17.09 @ 6:36AM
Ow, my absurdity meter! Great one, Mr. T.
SC Mike| 9.17.09 @ 6:36AM
Smug little malcontent Carter would have been dead-on correct had he said "There is an inherent feeling among many in this country that this African-American, Barack Obama, should not be president, and that’s the Clinton crowd." Of course that has nothing to do with race, all to do with entitlement, the good of the nation, and such.
drudge ette obama| 9.17.09 @ 6:46AM
It is no wonder that Miss Lillian stated once that,"When I look at my four children sometimes I say to myself, Lillian, you should have stayed a virgin."
Jimmy Carter is an egoist and just plain 'ole mad that he has so little respect from the world . He craves the limelight and has an innate ability to put his Plains face in situations solely to exacerbate the problem.
As a Georgian when he was the gov'nah and as pres'dent, I can tell you that we wish he would go away, like Cynthia McKinney and now, Hank Johnson. His Carter Center is simply a retirement program for his erstwhile daughter and Habitat for Humanity is probably cringing from the repercussions of Jimmy's hurling racist comments.
The best thing out of the Carter White House was the recipe for Roslyn's Cheese Ball: grate one pound cheddar, add i/2 cup chopped Vidalia onion, 1 T Miracle Whip or mayo, chopped pecans, mix and mold into ball, chill a bit, and serve with strawberry jam or red pepper jelly on crackers.
Karibou Kid| 9.17.09 @ 6:57AM
So is Jimmah Cahtah really this vile or is he just plain stupid?
Hey Jimmah - the way things are going you won't be remembered by most living Americans as the worst president in their lifetimes for too much longer. Lighten up!
frostbyte| 9.19.09 @ 5:12PM
Sorry. Jimmy lost the title of worst president when Hussein O'Bama was inaugurated.
Appleby| 9.17.09 @ 7:12AM
Mr. Carter is clearly suffering from a mental disorder exacerbated by his own racism.
I lived and worked in Atlanta for 17 years, part of that for an Education Board, and one of the things I learned was that the truth of the old adage *The more he talked of his honour, the faster we counted the spoons.* That is, people who yell RACIST at other people are generally trying to deflect attention.
I spent the entire Carter Presidency apologizing to my international friends for him, and assuring them I did not vote for him either in Georgia or for President. The man needs to be in a home.
Lawler Nicoteri| 9.17.09 @ 7:13AM
Perhaps sometine home builder Mr. Carter suffered a hammer blow to his head while on a construction outing. Or, perhaps he just sat down on hammer causing the same damage to his head.
S.L. Toddard| 9.17.09 @ 7:21AM
"If I were an Arab leader , I would never sign an agreement with Israel. It is normal, we have taken their country. It is true God promised it to us, but how could that interest them? Our God is not theirs. There has been anti-Semitism, Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?"
- David Ben-Gurion
1st Prime Minister of Israel
Melvin| 9.17.09 @ 7:28AM
The scary thing is, that Jimmy Carter fervently believes his madness with every fiber of his being.
This man's failed Presidency still haunts us and our allies to this very day with his capitulation to the radical clerics in Iran.
His naiveté is the main reason I entered the military service in 79 due to the Iranians invading our embassy.
To this very day Iran grows closer and closer to developing an atomic bomb. And all that doddering old schlemiel had to do is support the Shah and we wouldn't have the problems we have today.
The Democrats utter carelessness with this Country's foreign policy is evident in why we are in the wars that we are.
Carter gave us an atomic Iran, Clinton gave us radical global jihadists, and what will Obama give us, that will come back to haunt us with the death of an untold amount of Americans and our allies?
bluecollarbytes| 9.17.09 @ 7:37AM
It's Obama the Leftist Ideologue that people oppose, not the fact he's 'half-white'.
The absurdities taken together are greater than any individual absurdity, cloaked by media through its continued refusal to 'analyze' and question the actions and ultimate goals of the ObamaShow. Originally I thought Obama would "move to the center" (wherever That is these days) in time for 2012. Now I believe Obama will only mouth the words, but rely on his Media to fill in the gaps, accounting for Obama's missing American-substance.....Obama business as usual.
Great mention of Andrew Breitbart who must surely be on Obama's high-value target list by now.
Howard| 9.17.09 @ 7:45AM
If Jimmy Carter is all alone in the woods and he says something, is he still wrong?
The Bishop| 9.17.09 @ 7:56AM
At some time in the past, did Carter fall off a Habit for Humanity ladder and land on his head? One-term Jimmah would be entertaining if he weren't so disgustingly self-focused. He's a prime example of the devaluation of the Nobel prize. I'm thinking now of a prime location for the placement of Alfred Nobel's most significant invention (and, Jimmah, the sun doesn't shine there).
JamesJ| 9.17.09 @ 7:56AM
"So is Jimmah Cahtah really this vile or is he just plain stupid? "
Ans: Yes, and Yes
Tim Billings| 9.17.09 @ 8:01AM
To paraphrase Tom Wolfe (said during the serial scandals involving televangelists).. Reality has ruined it for fiction writers. A novelist could never put the things happening in real life in a novel, no one would believe it.
tim b
viagra-test-123| 9.18.09 @ 2:13AM
test
Pingback| 9.17.09 @ 8:50AM
ABC CBS NBC – Kamikaze Media, Ignored Hurricane ACORN; not Your Grandfather’s Main St links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Richard Baker| 9.17.09 @ 9:04AM
Regarding Carter. Would someone please get this senile old man a fruit cup?
Robert Rosencrans| 9.17.09 @ 9:28AM
Jimmy Carter is not the nice guy portrayed in the American media. His chumminess with dictators and terrorists is downplayed in the American press while he goes around the globe helping dictators get elected. Then he comes home and gets royal treatment in the American press even though he's a clever scoundrel.
http://www.counterpunch.org/petras07082004.html
Carter is a quiet master in mixing democratic rhetoric with manipulation of susceptible democrats who think he shares their democratic politics. The international mass media feature his self-promoted overseas trips to conflictual countries and above all his phony "human rights" record. The mass media provide Carter with the appearance of democratic credentials.
In fact, his frequent political interventions have been dedicated to sustaining dictators, legitimizing fraudulent elections and pressuring popular democratic candidates to capitulate before US-backed opponents. Carter has deliberately and systematically worked over the past quarter of a century to undermine progressive regimes and candidates and promote their pro-imperialist opponents.
owyheewine| 9.17.09 @ 9:33AM
Anyone remember the Peter Principle? Guess we need a corollary that reads,"Only politicians and community organizers can truly surpass their level of competence".
Cris Worth| 9.17.09 @ 9:37AM
Let's not discount the influence of Jimmy Carter. In reality he was an inept destructive President but in his mind he was a great moral leader and when the American people denied him a second term he sought retribution against this country. Criticism just bounces off this man in fact his ego welcomes it soaking up the limelight. The best way to deal with Carter is to ignore him. This alone would drive the failed peanut farmer and president nuts.
Kurt| 9.17.09 @ 9:43AM
Absurd goes to Carter. Sickening to ACORN. Most dangerous to life and liberty goes to anything the UN says or does.
Michael L. Hauschild| 9.17.09 @ 9:46AM
Only from "Peanuts" could you be dealt a race card and end up with a winning hand.
Tired Toddard| 9.17.09 @ 9:58AM
"If I were Steve Jobs, I would never sign an agreement with Microsoft. It is normal, we have taken their market share. It is true that I bought DOS for pennies on the dollar, but how could that interest Apple? Our OS is not theirs. There have been bugs innumerable, poor customer service, and the disastrous "Windows Millennium Edition," but was that Apple's fault? They see but one thing: we continue to stand in their way with an arguably inferior, but immensely popular, product. Why would Steve Jobs accept that?"
- Bill Gates
Founder, Microsoft Corporation
Yosemeti Sam| 9.17.09 @ 10:00AM
"The absurdity Meter Blow Up"
Nice indirect pun on the Media blowup.
As I posited before:
Was it not Gore who claimed 'invention' of the internet? LOL.
Regarding Brokow and Co.:
Messrs Peacock et al cooing about the internet
and New Media - remedy, out of the caves and
into the New Age sunlight. LOL.
Bud| 9.17.09 @ 10:04AM
Clearly, Billy was the better of the Carter brothers.
2Anglico| 9.17.09 @ 10:09AM
What if Obama was 100% white? Maybe he still gets 88% of the "black" vote but who would the guilty whites have voted for?
I say without being 50% "black" you never would have heard his name. Who puts race first?
Pingback| 9.17.09 @ 10:10AM
Racist Daily Kos tells Black Politician to Shove It « VotingFemale Speaks! links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Faffnir| 9.17.09 @ 10:20AM
In response to Howard at 7:45 I would modify your query to "If Jimmy Carter was alone in the woods, and he said something, would he still be a freakin' idiot?" And, would it not be a very good idea to leave him there? Perhaps that killer rabbit is still at large.
tonypal| 9.17.09 @ 10:31AM
Here's a question I'm sure someone like Chris Matthews will soon ask Jimmy Carter: Mr. President, during the democrat primaries, former President Clinton took great offense to then Senator Obama's accusation that he and his wife were acting in a racist manner, thus indicating that they are racists. Do you believe Bill and Hillary Clinton are racists, or was candidate Obama simply making an inflammatory accusation in order to further his political goals? In other words, was he playing the race card?
The next question that our intrepid reporter might ask would center around the actions of Maryland democrats during Michael Steele's candidacy for the Senate in 2006. Perhaps he can ask whether it is racist for democrats to call Mr. Steele and orea and to throw oreo cookies at him, in reference to him being "black on the outside and white in the middle." A follow up would be to ask why he did not speak up at the time, since he is one of the great champions of minority rights of the past quarter century.
After that, our interviewer could get into a whole series of questions involving Clarence Thomas. I can't wait for that interview.
L. Banks| 9.17.09 @ 10:56AM
Mr. Carter is again acting as he always has...a mouth piece for the mob - the Obama mob. Before that it was for Clinton and before that for himself. Jimmy Carter does not want to miss out on the bashing party and to add "weight" to this racism thing. When he was President my family would cringe at his statements on TV and what he did for this country was to increase the volatility of the mid-east and to increase the probability of an attack on America. He also paved the wave for the destruction of our mortgage and financial system through the passage of a law requiring banks to lend to minorities and Clinton put teeth into that bill through a penalty if they did not lend money they would not received funding from the Fed. These are people who work for someone else or something else. As for this racism name calling and the other wonderful names attributed to those who oppose the Obama administration...nazi, fascist and other equally stellar names is ridiculous. Children and bullies call each other names. Adults are supposed to discuss their differences. Personally I think they all need to be told "grow up" and stick to what this is really about...an attack they cannot handle.
Melvin| 9.17.09 @ 11:43AM
Does anyone know the phone number to the mayor of Plaines Ga so that someone can call him or her to retrieve their village idiot aka Jimmy Carter?
philhoey| 9.17.09 @ 11:45AM
My vote is for Mr. Carter. There is no fool like an old fool.
Adheeb| 9.17.09 @ 12:45PM
Former President Carter is a man in search of a suitable legacy. Unfortunately, he has found that difficult and is now willing to accept anything.
Kerry Marvin| 9.17.09 @ 12:49PM
Sir's, and Mam's of course,
My Advice Is to Get the Book By Miles Copland:
The Game of Nations. It Covers the Mideast Conflict from the inception of Israel in 1947 through the 1967 Six day War.
The Cover Page States, for the Title of Chapters,
1. If you can Not Change the Player's, Change the rules.
2. If you can Not Change the Rules, Change the Players.
Now I'm Not Saying that the Smoke and Mirror's Concept doesn't Alway's, Work.
It has Been Blowing Up in the Face of Most of the MidEast for Generations now.
To Date, The Same Families, Fighting The Same Battle over the Same Piece of Ground,
For Over 4000 years since, Abraham Gave the Birthright Blessing to "The Wrong?" Son?
Therefore, Why, would Anyone Expect This to Be Different in this Contest?
When Good Men Do Nothing, The Evil that Men do, Proliferates, with Abandon.
IE: ACORN, The ACLU and the Rights of the Individual are Stepped on,
and Ground underfoot by the Elite and Effite Members that have Usurped, By PC Etiquit? Or Their “OWN” Bigotry?
The Rights of "WE THE PEOPLE" not Only To Voice our GOD Given Right to Free Speech, But The Expressing of that Right,
And OUR FREE CHOICE TO OPPOSE THEIR AGENDA in: " OUR", HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES" ??
And That THAT HOUSE:
So Gentlemen and Gentle Ladies, I Suggest,
"The Constitution", as A Second Reading assignment, Along with THE BILL OF RIGHTS.
For My Part, I will Protest, Write, and Picket OUTSIDE THE CONGRESS,
< MEDIA OUTLETS and ANYWHERE, ELSE I CAN>
For: The Constitution, and First Amendment, Second Amendment, 10th Amendment, Etc, Ect..
UNTILL THIS ADMINISTRATION:
< HEARS U.S. and LISTENS TO U.S.>
And REPRESENTS THE U.S. !!!!!!
Marc Jeric| 9.17.09 @ 1:02PM
ACORN thugs are not simple criminals: they are Obama's local soviets (community organizations in the defunct USSR were called soviets). ACORN Housing subsidiary "sold" about 500,000 homes to "underserved minorities" based of their "qualifying" income of welfare and unemployment payments. These toxic assets were then passed to Fannie May and Freddie Mac - which went bankrupt and nationalized. ACORN performed planned voter fraud in all 50 states, but were caught in only 14. They will be reinstated to receive $8.5 billion in the stimulus bill; they will also be reinstated for census work after this small glitch is forgotten and buried.
Ray| 9.17.09 @ 1:16PM
“We must expel the Arabs and take their places.”
- David Ben-Gurion
1st Prime Minister of Israel
Isn't it funny what partial quotes can say?
S.L. Toddard| 9.17.09 @ 1:19PM
"Isn't it funny what partial quotes can say?"
Whatever point you're trying to make, you failed. That quote perfectly represents Ben Gurion's position, as did my own. What did I leave out of my quote that would reverse its meaning?
Ray| 9.17.09 @ 1:20PM
"Suffering makes a people greater, and we have suffered much. We had a message to give the world, but we were overwhelmed, and the message was cut off in the middle. In time there will be millions of us - becoming stronger and stronger - and we will complete the message. "
Now THAT"S a memorable quote from David Ben-Gurion. The Jews have suffered more injustice than any other people in history. They deserve our respect, and our gratitude for showing us all that no matter the opposition, faith in oneself, one's family, ones, society, and ones religion will allow us all to survive the worst humanity can throw at us. Thank you, Jews, for showing us that we can, and will, survive no matter how difficult our survival may seem.
Doorgunner| 9.17.09 @ 1:24PM
S.L. Toddard| 9.17.09 @ 7:21AM
The rest of the quote is missing, ReToddard:
"They may perhaps forget in one or two generations' time, but for the moment there is no chance. So, it's simple: we have to stay strong and maintain a powerful army. Our whole policy is there. Otherwise the Arabs will wipe us out."
Which was what the Arabs were trying to do at that time, and have been ever since. The Arabs and Palestinians see it as theft, but it was they forced the violence. That the Jews formed a state out of the the conflict -a state in which resident Arabs enjoy the only participatory democratic rights to be had in the region- is what, evil? The cycle: Arabs start it, Israeli's finish it. Unfortunately, that seems to be coming to an end.
Frankly, if I had my way, the Gaza strip would be an amusement park. Don't ask what I'd do with the current residents.
Ray| 9.17.09 @ 1:25PM
"Whatever point you're trying to make, you failed." No, you've failed. You see, no matter how badly you want to portray the Jews as the aggressors, history has taught us that the Jews are the victims, as they have been for thousands of years. History also taught us that the Jews are survivors, as they have been for thousands of years. What makes you think they won't continue to survive and will do so in the land of their ancestors? Don't forget, the Jews created an oasis out of the desert. Today, we call that oasis Israel.
Doorgunner| 9.17.09 @ 1:28PM
Wait! The Iraqi's now have democratic rights. Let's see how did that happen... Here's your cue; repost that "Bush Lied" crap again for the nineteenth time, you ass.
Angel| 9.17.09 @ 1:39PM
Classic case of projection on the part of the leftist, Jimmuh Carter.
If you want to see true despair, look no further than the democrat run inner cities. We've been waging the "War on poverty" for decades and things are worse than ever. Millions of lives have been wasted and trillions of dollars have gone down the drain.
Now, that's racism.
Ray| 9.17.09 @ 1:43PM
Toddard, here's something else you've seems to have missed:
"We will make a great and awful mistake if we fail to settle Hebron, neighbor and predecessor of Jerusalem, with a large Jewish settlement, constantly growing and expanding, very soon. This will also be a blessing to the Arab neighbors. We will make a great and awful mistake if we fail to settle Hebron, neighbor and predecessor of Jerusalem, with a large Jewish settlement, constantly growing and expanding, very soon. This will also be a blessing to the Arab neighbors. Hebron is worthy to be Jerusalem's sister. "
Hummm. it looks like David Ben-Gurion was in favor of expansion, was he not? I wonder why Toddard fails to mention that important little fact?
Anthony| 9.17.09 @ 2:07PM
Elitism and liberalism are different sides of the same coin of psychological dislocation that allows people like Carter and Maureen Dowd to live their lives blissfully unconcerned about how insane they appear to rational folks.
Both Carter and Dowd want to believe the fevered lunacy that comes from their warped minds; yet they also know it's all a lie, offered up to prop up their leftist hegemony.
I sometimes think this "sickness" satisfies a 3rd element that most leftists harbor, the desire to destroy and create havoc.
I firmly believe Carter, Dowd and their ilk, would love nothing better than for us to be at each others throats. The ensuing chao would fulfill their superiorist notions that they were right all along, above the frey. Everything is bad, nothing is sacred, tear it down.
Hubert Horatio Hornblower| 9.17.09 @ 2:22PM
He called Wilson what????
S.L. Toddard| 9.17.09 @ 2:45PM
"The Arabs and Palestinians see it as theft"
And so did David Ben Gurion, the first Prime Minister of Israel - because it was. The entire prospect of eventual peace and stability requires recognition of two inarguable facts:
1. Arab lands were stolen - Arabs were forcibly removed from their homes, and their land taken - their grievance is entirely legitmate.
2. Israel is now a nation, Israelis are now a people - a people with a nuclear arsenal - and they are going nowhere. Regardless of whether the land was stolen, it is the Israelis land now, just as the land stolen by Americans is American land now, not Indian land.
Until both sides acknowledge and accept these *facts* then there will be nothing resembling peace. And since neither will, it behooves America to pull out and leave both sides to their own devices.
John II| 9.17.09 @ 2:46PM
Toddard! Long time no rant! Well, it's my fault for dropping the ball earlier this summer. I had to cultivate my vegetable garden and tutor my grandchildren--and, you know, tempus fugit and all that.
Anyhow, I must dispute your claim that your quote of Ben-Gurion "perfectly represents" his position. In the first place, we only have the quote, with0ut larger context, lifted from a conversation (in 1956, I believe) with Ben-Gurion's on-again, off-again political ally Nahum Goldmann, at the time president of the World Jewish Congress. Goldmann himself was a courageous and great-hearted man, but somewhat to the left of Ben-Gurion on the Arab question, and bitterly opposed to what he considered Ben-Gurion's over-reliance on military might to insure Israeli security against what has proved to be an implacable foe (i.e., the so-called Palestinian leadership, which has never abandoned the goal of destroying Israel: we're not privy to what the Palestinians in general think because any ordinary Palestinian would be taking his life in his hands if he chanced a public comment contrary to whatever the current position of the "leadership" might be).
My own take on Ben-Gurion's famous remark is that he was being deliberately blunt and provocative in the presence of an old comrade whose political judgment he mistrusted. In fact, during the first 15 or so years of the Jewish state's existence, the rapid development overseen by Ben-Gurion was concentrated heavily in the sparsely inhabited Negev desert precisely in an effort to avoid conflict with the Arabs.
You left nothing out of the quote that would "reverse its meaning" because the entire quote, such as it was vouchsafed to us by Goldmann, can be interpreted in numerous ways, including an expression of exasperated sympathy for the Arabs. When you suggest the possibility of a reversal of meaning, you are claiming that the quote allows only one interpretation.
A closer reading of Aristotle's treatise on Interpretation would make all this clearer to you. And now back to my string beans.
S.L. Toddard| 9.17.09 @ 2:47PM
"Hummm. it looks like David Ben-Gurion was in favor of expansion, was he not? I wonder why Toddard fails to mention that important little fact?"
Because it is irrelevant as to whether the land was stolen. It *was* stolen, period. David Ben Gurion acknowledges that it was stolen, was in favor of the theft and wanted to steal more. I don't deny any of that.
crookedwren| 9.17.09 @ 2:53PM
Melvin, your post about the Dems and Iran are terrifyingly accurate.
Just take a look at the 33 Minutes spot from Heritage Foundation.
At every turn, I see how the fourth estate has been complicit with our left-leaning, special interest loving government in tromping upon our Constitution.
May Poland and the Czech Republic forgive us. It's Obama who doesn't want to do the right thing, protecting us (and them) from real nuclear threats. It's Obama who calls Chavez his "amigo," not those of us who cherish Freedom over "redistribution of wealth." (See Cass Sunstein and Joe the Plumber for varying views on THAT one.)
-- And
May God have mercy on us.
Anybody remember that "to provide for the common defense" thing?
S.L. Toddard| 9.17.09 @ 2:58PM
"Anyhow, I must dispute your claim that your quote of Ben-Gurion "perfectly represents" his position."
Of course you do, otherwise you would deviate from standard establishment Fox News Right orthodoxy, and that would not do at all. BTW, I agree entirely with you that through sophistry one can distort the meaning of anything. For instance, I could say that "my own take" on your take is that, as a rigid ideologue, you cannot accept what any rational person would conclude is the meaning of a sentence like "we have taken their country", so you fabricate a scenario out of thin air and then - perhaps not remarkably - base your conclusion on that fiction.
Nonetheless, we are left with this:
"If I were an Arab leader , I would never sign an agreement with Israel. It is normal, we have taken their country. It is true God promised it to us, but how could that interest them? Our God is not theirs. There has been anti-Semitism, Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?"
cmorz| 9.17.09 @ 3:22PM
I think you misinterpreted your meter on the ACORN story. My meter pinned the neddle when the story broke, but it was the threats from Maryland's govenment on prosecuting the whistleblowers that cause the meter to expode into tiny pieces of spings and wire.
John II| 9.17.09 @ 3:41PM
Ah Toddard, I have indeed missed your rants. I like the part about my being a "rigid ideologue" best. Very rigidly expressed, I might add.
Anyhow, what indeed are we left with? Allow me to fabricate even more rigidly:
"If I were an Arab leader, I would never sign an agreement with Israel. It is normal, we have taken their country."
What country? The Jews started resettling in the land the Romans had called "Palestine" when that wasted part of the Mediterranean basin was under Ottoman control, in the 1880s. The Ottomans didn't care, and the Arabs scarcely noticed. The trouble started after WWI, when the Brits took over and the Jews had a cultural leg up on the Arabs for more favorable treatment. Let's agree that the Balfour Declaration was a mistake. Love that 20-20 hindsight!
"It is true God promised it to us, but how could that interest them? Our God is not theirs."
Boy, he can say THAT again. Let's agree with Ben-Gurion on that.
"There has been anti-Semitism, Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault?"
Let's agree to scratch our heads over that one. It's hard to believe that Ben-Gurion knew nothing of the extent of Arab collusion (i.e., the Arab leadership's collusion) with the Nazis during WWII, so I can only guess that, in his casual conversation, he's drifting languidly between reference to leaders and reference to ordinary Arabs--or perhaps, as a democratic leader, Ben-Gurion himself suffered intermittently under the illusion that the two are the same.
"They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?"
There he goes with "country" again--but if I were a rigid lefty crank instead of a rigid Fox ideologue, I would detect racism in Ben-Gurion's comment: how dare he refer to the Arabs as monomaniacs!
You see, Toddard, if you were perhaps a tad less rigid yourself, you might possibly admit that neither one of us knows what the hell we're "left with" in that stale old quote.
And by the way, I never watch Fox News. It would interfere with the little time I have available to watch the old movies I rent from Netflix. Just now I'm recapitulating Abbot and Costello, from the early 1940's to the mid 1950's, between bouts with the string beans.
Pamela| 9.21.09 @ 11:59AM
John II...I LOVE you!
Dai Alanye | 9.17.09 @ 4:50PM
Perhaps someone can post the number of modern peoples who were the original settlers of the lands they now inhabit.
Extremely few will be found, because the universal human rule has been that territory belongs to him who can hold it. Even the "Native Americans" might have pushed aside a prior Polynesian-related people. And among themselves, the Indians invaded the Americas in wave after wave, always displacing the prior arrivees.
If we were to return the Holy Lands to the original settlers, Homo Erectus might have a case against the Neanderthals, but the later Semites would have no claim at all, whether Arab or Jew.
But for now the Jews control the area, and more power to them.
Doorgunner| 9.17.09 @ 5:05PM
S.L. Toddard| 9.17.09 @ 2:45PM
"And so did David Ben Gurion, the first Prime Minister of Israel - because it was. The entire prospect of eventual peace and stability requires recognition of two inarguable facts:
1. Arab lands were stolen - Arabs were forcibly removed from their homes, and their land taken - their grievance is entirely legitmate.
2. Israel is now a nation, Israelis are now a people - a people with a nuclear arsenal - and they are going nowhere. "
Complete Bulls**t
You are utterly, willfully, despicably, misinterpreting Ben-Gurion. The Israeli's fought a war of survival that necessitated the taking of territory to ensure that survival. The Palestinian grievances are s**t. I mean, seriously, I'm supposed to respect and support a Mexican illegal who makesit into this country and manages to support his family -wait, I think I can repect that- but I'm supposed to give the same view to 'men' who subject their families to three or more generations in a refugee camp? Yeah, right. I'd wager that if we didn't subsidize the existence of those camps peace would just break out all over Gaza.
As for Israeli's "going nowhere", well, I'm sure that's your aim. May you someday rot in hell with Edward Said.
Oh, and the "stole the land from the indians"? Boo-freaking-hoo. Territorial expansion by peoples, vilent or otherwise, is the history of the world, pal. Because you're an effete apologist for the what is typical behavior of men through the ages doesn't mean I have to apologize for being an American.
Really, are you suggesting that ancestral misdeeds proscribe moral judgement in the present? It would seem that way: we say Obama, you say Bush; we say Isarael, you say "indian". It's pretty weak.
William Tucker | 9.17.09 @ 5:08PM
I'm starting a pool on how many weeks it will be before Time magazine runs its cover headline over a solemn picture of Barack Obama: "Is It Racism?"
William Tucker | 9.17.09 @ 5:09PM
P.S. Joe Klein will write the story.
John II| 9.17.09 @ 5:42PM
Tucker: Okay! I'll put down five bucks on two weeks. But forget about the Klein part--sensible gamblers don't bet either way on sure things.
HD| 9.17.09 @ 5:50PM
The doddering old fraud should keep his mouth shut and stick to building crappy houses.
Simon Templar| 9.17.09 @ 5:54PM
Toddard, since your giving history lessons now and also now an expert on the middleast..why d0 you and many of your other left wingers consistently fail to mention that the "palestinians" (the terrorist groups representing the group of non-Jews in 1948 fighting the British occupiers)were offered a two state solution with seperate territory in 1948 but flat out rejected it because they refused to see a Jewish state and wanted all jews removed and anniliated. Please, lets talk about claims to land. Toddard...where did the word "Palestine" originate..who coined this term for this geographic area? I see your up to your usual fraudulence and deception...
S.L. Toddard| 9.17.09 @ 5:57PM
"What country?"
The country that the Palestinian Arabs lived on, that they were forced to leave, that Israelis took and live on now.
"It's hard to believe that Ben-Gurion knew nothing of the extent of Arab collusion (i.e., the Arab leadership's collusion) with the Nazis during WWII"
I'm sure he knew about it. I should think he simply recognized that the hundreds of thousands of Arabs forced from their homes and land, whose land now makes up much if Israel, were not the Nazi-collaborating "Arab leaders" to whom you refer, and so he quite reasonably did not hold them responsible for Nazi atrocities.
"You are utterly, willfully, despicably, misinterpreting Ben-Gurion"
Interpret it yourself, then. That's the whole quote. Let me know another way to interpret "we have stolen their country".
"The Israeli's fought a war of survival that necessitated the taking of territory to ensure that survival."
Well, whatever motives you construct for them, it was still theft. I mean what are we arguing about here? They forced people off their land and took it for themselves. That's *not* stealing why?
"The Palestinian grievances are s**t."
Their land was stolen. I don't know how that's an illegitimate grievance.
" I think I can repect that- but I'm supposed to give the same view to 'men' who subject their families to three or more generations in a refugee camp?"
What about men who subject *other* people's families to generations in a refugee camp? What sort of freedom of movement do you think Palestinians have?
"As for Israeli's "going nowhere", well, I'm sure that's your aim."
Not at all. I only care about Israel's treatment of the Palestinians so far as we are forced to have a hand in it. If we cut off aid to the Middle East, including Israel, entirely then I would not utter another word. I do not care that Israelis bloody their hands, only that they bloody mine.
"Oh, and the "stole the land from the indians"?"
Sheese. I was using that comparison to demonstrate the *legitimacy* of Israeli claims to the land that is now Israel. Yes, people conquer land, and by living on it make it theirs. It was not Israel before it was stolen from Arabs. It is now.
"Because you're an effete apologist for the what is typical behavior of men through the ages doesn't mean I have to apologize for being an American."
Well, if someday someone asks you to then you may certainly decline.
"Really, are you suggesting that ancestral misdeeds proscribe moral judgement in the present?"
Ancestral? This was sixty years ago, not 60 BC. And I think Israel's actions now define their moral character. But I mention the fact that they stole the bulk of their land from Arabs merely to note that that it's not surprising that after being driven from their homes at gunpoint, having their land occupied, being confined to an open-air prison, being denied freedom of movement or access to medical supplies and living under humiliating conditions imposed by a foreign enemy for half a century, perhaps there might be some legitimacy to their grievances.
Hey I know it's a big party-pooper when some annoying so-and-so offers inconvenient information that somewhat humanizes the demonic caricature of a Bad Guy we've all grown to love to hate, but there it is.
That being said, I do not - and I shouldn't really have to say this again - but I do not think that Israel should give back the land its founders stole from the Arabs. I only think the actual history of the region - and Arabs being forced from their homes at gunpoint only to have that land occupied and never given back *is* the history of it - should inform our position on the conflict.
In my opinion, as I have said before, Israel has only one course of action available vis a vis self-preservation (with regards to the demographic threat) and reacquiring some square footage of moral high ground: it must 1) pull back to something resembling its 1967 borders, 2) remove itself from all colonized lands outside its 1967 borders (that includes renouncing control of the Palestinian ghetto and leaving them to self-determination), and 3) expel all Arabs from Israel. Step 3 would require some sort of humanitarian assistance for the emigrants, which perhaps the U.S. could help provide as some sort of grand-finale to the U.S. aid deal, after which they would have to learn to stand on their own two feet as a nation. Once Israel has taken these four steps, and stopped receiving aid from the U.S., it should be free to meet any attacks against it with whatever force it deems necessary.
Kerry Marvin| 9.17.09 @ 6:12PM
September 17, 2009
The Honorable Phil Roe
House of Representatives
419 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-4201
Dear Representative Roe:
I urge you to oppose any and all attempts at a repeal of the Defense of
Marriage Act (DOMA) which provides absolutely critical protections for the
institution of natural marriage, as well as protecting the right of
individual states under the Tenth Amendment to define marriage as they see
fit without being dictated to by the federal government.
In all 30 states where citizens have been given the chance to vote on
whether one-man, one-woman marriage should be protected in their state
constitutions, marriage has won convincingly. Another 15 states or so have
state laws that define marriage exclusively as the union of one man and
one woman. When Good Men Do Nothing, The Evil that Men do, proliferates,
with Abandon.
IE: ACORN, The ACLU?
NOW, CONGRESS TELLING THE U.S TO SHUT UP OR WE ARE RACIST?
And CONTINUE? AGAIN, the Rights of the Individual are Stepped on,
and Ground underfoot by the Elite and Effite Members that have Usurped,
By PC Etiquit? Or Their "OWN" Bigotry?
NOT TO MENTION, THE MISSING DOCUMENTATION FOR THE "BIRTH CERTIFICATE?"
THIS ALONE QUESTIONS THEM, AND THEIR MOTIVES THAT, STILL ABOUND!
SO, The Rights of "WE THE PEOPLE" not Only To Voice our GOD Given Right to
Free Speech,
But The Expressing of that Right,
And, OUR "FREE CHOICE" TO OPPOSE THEIR AGENDA:
in " OUR" HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES" ??
And That "THAT HOUSE", IS, " NOT" Their House!
IT IS THE PEOPLE'S HOUSE!
They Are, Supposed to Represent US!
AND, SO IS THE GAO!!!
So Gentlemen and Gentle Ladies, I Suggest,
"The Constitution", as A FIRST READING ASSIGNMENT, AND A Second Reading
assignment, with THE BILL OF RIGHTS.
For My Part,
I will Protest, Write, and Picket OUTSIDE THE CONGRESS,
< MEDIA OUTLETS and ANYWHERE, ELSE I CAN>
TO OPPOSE THIS TYRANNY UNDER ANY SHEEP CLOTHING THEY DRESS IT IN!
For: The Constitution, and First Amendment, Second Amendment, 10th
Amendment, Etc, Ect..
UNTIL THIS ADMINISTRATION: < HEARS U.S. and LISTENS TO U.S.> And
REPRESENTS THE U.S. !!!!!! THERFORE:
TO REP OF (STATE) BOTH HOUSE AND SENATE:
I WISH TO HAVE YOU PRESENT THIS AS A LETTER FROM A CONCERNED CITIZEN, FOR
REFORM OF THIS GOVERNMENT TO: BARNY FRANK AND THE REST OF THIS
ADMINISTRATION! IF, THEY THOUGHT "TEA PARTY" WAS A MOVEMENT? WELL, THEIR
TERM LIMIT IS UP IN 2010! SOONER " IF" , OF THEIR PROSECUTION AND
INDICTMENT BRING CONVICTIONS FOR THIS CONGRESS AND ADMINISTRATION
OFFICIALS.
TIME TO SEND A CLEAR MESSAGE TO WASHINGTON!
"WHERE THEIR COLLUSION AND CONSPIRACY", WITH THE ACORN AND THE SEIU UNION
ORGANIZATION'S,
ARE CONCERNED, WITH THE TACIT APPROVAL OF, THE OBAMA CAMPAIGN AND
DEMOCRATIC PARTY?
THAT IS WHAT, IS ACTIONABLE IN OVER 14 STATES NOW THAT ARE PROSECUTING
THEM.
A VOTER RIGHTS AMENDMENT IS NEEDED.
NOT "JUST" FOR THE ABSENTEE BALLOTS OF WHICH 1/4 OF WHICH WE ARE NOW
AWARE WERE NOT COUNTED.
AND NOT JUST FOR THE MILITARY! FOR EVERY "AMERICAN".
TIME TO END THE FUNDING FOR VOTER FRAUD!
SEND A BILL TO THE CONGRESS AND THE SENATE FOR VOTER REFORM NOW!
HOLD ALL THESE "SERVANTS OF THEMSELVES" ACCOUNTABLE!
MORE STATES ARE COMING TO THEIR SENSES, AND REAFFIRMING THE TENTH
AMENDMENT!
REMIND PALOSIE AND OBAMA, THAT "THE AMERICAN PEOPLE", THEY DO NOT WORK
FOR THE FEDERAL GOV'T!
IT IS TIME TO CALL FOR THE RESIGNATION AND IMPEACHMENT OF THESE
INDIVIDUALS IN OFFICE.
"IF" THEY HAVE ANY WRONGDOING, IE: "MALFEASANCE" IN OFFICE, THEY ARE
ACCOUNTABLE!
THE FEDERAL GOV'T WORKS, FOR THE STATES! AND THE PEOPLE!
AND THAT THEY, ARE ACCOUNTABLE TO THE "PEOPLE!"
"NOT" THE OTHER WAY AROUND!
"WE THE PEOPLE" NEED TO TAKE BACK THE AUTHORITY, WE DELEGATE.
THERE WILL BE AN ACCOUNTING,AND THAT DAY WILL BE ELECTIONS, IN 2010, THEN
AGAIN IN 2012.
TAKE HEART AND REMEMBER, YOUR VOTE, COUNTS, NO MATER WHAT ACORN, AND SEIU
TRY TO DO. THEY WILL "NOT" PREVAIL.
"WE THE PEOPLE" WILL HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE.
WRITE AND PROTEST, AND PICKET OUTSIDE THEIR OFFICES, IN YOUR HOME STATE.
JUST LIKE THE TEA PARTIES, YOUR VOICE DOES MAKE A DIFFERENCE.
I THINK THEY HEAR U.S. LOUD AND CLEAR!
NOW GET OUT THERE AND MAKE "YOU" YOUR VOICE LOUD AND PROUD TO BE AN
"AMERICAN" WITH "AMERICAN VALUES"
AND KEEP YOUR INDIVIDUAL, RIGHTS AND DIGNITY INTACT!
ACT! NOW!
LIKE YOU KNOW IN YOUR HEART, IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO!
WHAT WOULD YOU HAVE TO TELL YOUR CHILDREN, IF YOU WON'T STAND UP FOR
THEM? YOU ARE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE UN?
"HE11, NO! WE WON'T" GO! AND WE ARE STAYING THE COURSE!
IMPEACH THEM NOW!
THEN, PROSECUTE THEM TO THE FULLEST EXTENT OF THE LAW, IN ALL FIFTY
STATES!
TIME FOR "ALL" OF U.S. - TO TAKE A STAND!
CONTACT YOUR CONGRESSMAN, AND STATES REPRESENTATIVE.
IF YOU ARE A CONGRESSMAN, OR SENATOR, "LISTEN TO YOUR CONSTITUANTS. 9/12
MARCH ON WASHINGTON, DID HAPPEN, AND IT WILL MAKE A DIFFERANCE. SO WILL
YOUR VOTE! OR YOU WILL BE VOTED OUT!
THEN, MAKE THE CASE FOR STATES RIGHTS AND VOTER REFORM, FOR THE SAKE OF
THIS NATION!
TELL THE WANT TO CONTROL, GOV'T, "WE THE PEOPLE" HAVE CONTROL! AND IMPEACH
THOSE;
WHO DO NOT FOLLOW THE LETTER AS WELL AS THE SPIRIT OF THE CONSTITUTION,
AND OATH THEY SWORE TO UPHOLD!
THEN IMPEACH THOSE THAT PLAY FAST AND SHADY WITH THE "LETTER" OF THE LAW,
AND ENFORCE THE LAWS WE DO HAVE FOR:
ANTI-CORRUPTION, MALFEASANCE AND WRONGDOING OF OUR PUBLIC OFFICIALS!
THEN PROSECUTE THEM "ALL" IN "ALL" FIFTY STATE JURISDICTIONS!
AND LET THEM KNOW THAT "WE THE PEOPLE" ARE THE GOV'T THEY SHOULD FEAR!
NOT THE LAWYERS FOR ACLU!
AND BOUNCE OBAMA AND FRANK, PALOSIE, RIED, DODD, RANGEL AND THE REST OUT
ON THEIR EAR AND REAR!
2010! NEVER AGAIN! 2012! WITH RESOLVE!
OUR, PROBLEM?
SOLVED!
MAY GOD BLESS AMERICA and MAY GOD BLESS OUR TROOPS in HARMS WAY!
KERRY MARVIN
Ken (Old Texican)| 9.18.09 @ 11:55AM
Kerry
Keep your letters SHORT! when writing congress critters.
They have short attention spans.
ie:
Dear sir
You are fired!
Health takeover...NO
Energy rationing.....NO
re-electing you.....NO!
Card-check.....NO!
ANY bill passed by you creeps.....NO!
Best regards
Doorgunner| 9.17.09 @ 6:25PM
You're unbelievable. Again with just a piece of the wording. It's "They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. " I.E. their perception is ' we have stolen their country'. It's not an admisson; it's a relating of another's perception.
"Well, whatever motives you construct for them, it was still theft. I mean what are we arguing about here? They forced people off their land and took it for themselves. That's *not* stealing why?"
It's not stealing because the Arabs were trying to kill them. If you live next door to me and continually try to kill me, and no one else is going to do anything about it, well, I will. You say "sixty years ago", that too is a B.S. move and you know it. Zionism isn't a result of WWII; it had been going on since before 1900. So it's not like the remaining living Jews just showed up one day on a boat in'48 and said "stick'em up", as you would have us believe.
And really, who is it that's confining the Palestinians?
And finally,
"and 3) expel all Arabs from Israel. Step 3 would require some sort of humanitarian assistance for the emigrants, which perhaps the U.S. could help provide as some sort of grand-finale to the U.S. aid deal, after which they would have to learn to stand on their own two feet as a nation"
Bwaaaaahahahahahahahah! Sniff. Wipe tear. Snort. Chortle. Sigh.... good stuff. Didn't know you had that wicked a sense of humor.
John Navratil| 9.17.09 @ 6:33PM
It's amazing that history, for the purpose of argument, always seems to begin with end of the last war.
Why not look back to the destruction of the Ottoman empire which dissolved its holding of the area called Trans-Jordan; an area without a state. We have a sparsly populated area with limited economic development. Sure, people lived there and were displaced and what a personal tragedy that must have been.
One doesn't need to be dismissive of personal tragedy to recognize that the world of sovereign nations doesn't operate at that level. One might actually ask the Jews of the Diaspora for enlightenment on this topic. For all the failings of the Balfour Declaration, it seems that the world powers thought it a practical solution, with religious overtones, to turn over the sovereignty of a region under British protection to the Jews. Couldn't those displaced Arabs have moved into Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, or Syria? NO!! Why not? Those nations would not have them for the express purpose of keeping an army of the dispossessed with a permanent grudge.
Toddard, in classic Orwellian style, calls this (by quoting of Ben-Gurion, if not directly himself) a "theft" of land. The appropriate word is "conquer". This is the word which correctly associates the actions with sovereigns and not with individuals and avoids the cheap rhetoric designed to equate the State of Israel with a band of thieves.
The Reduction ad Absurdum is to turn act on the irredentist ideas and return this area to the Arabs, although it seems only in this region is it considered a necessity to return land conquered in war. But go back a couple of milennia and -presto- we are returning it to the Jews. Along the way, we are returning Europe to the Celts and the Western Hemisphere to the indigenous people who populated it. Silly, of course!
Perhaps that is why history always seems to begin with the end of last war. It would appear that a new history may be about to emerge.
nick| 9.17.09 @ 6:38PM
Doorgunner - it was worth having to read Toddard's fantasy just to have your last paragraph - too good! Also, I didn't know that Toddard was all for racial/religious segregation on such a total scale (this has a smell of something that is familiar).
John II| 9.17.09 @ 6:57PM
Yo Toddard. I'm happy to see you too trying to guess at Ben-Gurion's meaning in at least one snippet of his remark.
I do think, however, that you're continuing to be selectively indignant with such yummy asides as "Arabs being forced from their homes at gunpoint." The equivalent would be to tut-tut over Jews being forced from their homes at gunpoint by their own IDF every time some new shift occurs in the Israeli leadership's conduct of negotiations with the Arabs.
And, broadly speaking, what concrete way would be available to the Israelis to follow your advice that they "expel" all Arabs from Israel? Should they pass out report cards flunking the Arabs in civics and demanding that the Arabs leave the school of hard knocks forthwith?
You're a hard man, Toddard. I can only say you should unwind a bit and watch more Abbot and Costello. Otherwise, I'm glad to see you applying yourself to the interpretation of the obvious. And now back to the string beans.
Louis Jenkins| 9.17.09 @ 7:29PM
...94% of the country was willing to vote "for a well-qualified person for president who happened to be black."
94% of the country voted for Obama? And a well qualified person for president? Man, I must of spent too long in the toilet. That's electorial college figures I assume.
SoCon| 9.17.09 @ 7:34PM
Toddard sounds like a constipated man; I think he could use some of those string beans right about now.
John M, Danville, CA| 9.17.09 @ 7:38PM
Jimmy was clearly, hands down the worst President in our history, until Obama. Hopefully when Obama has "served" his 4 years, he will not follow Carter's lead. I am not sure what is worse, 4 years of Carter as President or 30 years of him trying to convince us that he wasn't an absolute failure.
John M, Danville, CA| 9.17.09 @ 8:04PM
Toddard,
The holy land has changed hands with regularity since long before Moses. In 1948, when the Arab States declared war on Israel, Palestinians fled Israel assuming that they would be back shortly to clean up some dead Israelis and move back into their homes. Unfortunately for the Palestinians, the Israelis won and their homes had been taken over by Jews that had been forced out of neighboring Arab nations. The Jews did not kick the Palestinians out, but refused to let them back in when they tried to return. What would you have done? The Palestinians were banking on the massacre of Jews in Israel and clearly haven't changed their tune since.
Nick| 9.17.09 @ 8:22PM
*If you support Israel, you are a Neo-con. If you don't think the targeting and killing of Jewish civilians by radical Moslems is O.K., you are a Neo-con. If you think randomly launching lethal rockets into Jewish neighborhoods is evil, you are a Neo-con. If you don't agree that Hamas and Hezzbollah are freedom fighters, not terrorists, you are a Neo-con. If you think an Israeli Apache taking out a Hamas leader with a Hellfire missle is self-defense, you are a Neo-con.*
-S.L. Toddard
The Most Conservative Person in the World
and Grand Arbiter of Who Is and Is Not Conservative
DaveS| 9.17.09 @ 8:56PM
Carter: tried politics (failed), tried house-building (eventually failed on quality issues), and is now a wise man. Absurd is too kind a word, but I chalk it up to age and being marginalized.
Scott| 9.17.09 @ 9:11PM
Yes, the absurdity meter has gone off the charts, and the breaking of the ACORN story by a website that didn't even exist two weeks ago adds a whole new dimension to Democrat concerns, I think.
In the wake of the incredible series of ACORN reports, I've been thinking a lot about whether Al Gore might now actually regret ever having invented the Internet. Seriously, between this and Drudge Report, it's hard to imagine Al not working right this second on finishing up that time machine so he can go back and "fix" this whole Internet thing.
There's a poll asking, "What does Al Gore regret most about inventing the Internet" along with the story "ANOTHER REASON AL GORE REGRETS INVENTING THE INTERNET" at http://firebreathingchristian......-internet/ , if you're interested.
John II| 9.17.09 @ 9:11PM
Damn. Toddard? Toddard! Wherever you are, ignore everything I've said. I'm just a dried-up old academic. Read Nick's 8:22 posting and hang your head in shame.
And then start with their best, "Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein." The movie was made almost exactly midway in their career, and it is indisputably their best. It was released in 1948, the year Israel came into existence. A lot of good things happened in 1948, Toddard, and you traduce the tradition if you think otherwise.
Traduce the tradition: boy, I wish I'd said that.
S.L. Toddard| 9.18.09 @ 8:42AM
Hey - check out the new function! I like it.
SoCon| 9.17.09 @ 9:41PM
An academic--most assuredly; dried up--definitely not. :)
Cracker| 9.17.09 @ 9:49PM
Jimmy Carter is no mere idiot.
He is a perfect idiot.
Alan B rooks| 9.17.09 @ 11:41PM
No, the worst thing, far worse, is:
Carter means well.
At least everything is coming out into the open-- the road to Hell is in fact paved with good intentions.
Sex? now we see that sex industries are venues to dump the anger its operators and employees feel; Yes not just contempt or the fun of shocking others (not that any young person is truly shocked) but also to dump anger.
the pornocrats for instance want to unload their anger by advertizing their wares-- 'products' as appealing as autopsy photos.
TxGat| 9.18.09 @ 11:50AM
While the ACORN story is revealing, it is hardly surprising. These guys are and will continue to be crooks. The fish rots from the head down, doesn't it?
But Jimmy Carter takes the prize again IMO. Can you believe This country elected him President?! Makes electing a Socialist with no background information being vetted by the press not so surprising. And yes, I guess as far as the Democrats are concerned if you disagree with their policies you are a racist. When you're not standing on firm ground, reach down for the mud at your feet to sling. :)
TxGat| 9.18.09 @ 12:07PM
Question for S.L. Toddard:
Do you believe in God? The Jewish people do and they believe God gave them this land, and not only this land but the surrounding land they do not currently possess. Scary huh?
But here's something even more scary..... the Palistineans are Muslims and Muslims believe in God also. They believe God gave them the Entire Planet and Every Person it in. That's why during the lifetime of their prophet they waged war against in every direction to take territory and within 30 years of his death were invading Sicily. That is why they cannot live peacefully with Any other religion, and indeed they Do Not. Islam is fighting the Jews for their beliefs in God, fighting Christians for their beliefs in God, fighting Hindus for their beliefs in God, as well as Buddists, Zorasterians, athiests, etc. Islam is a religion that physically fights other beliefs, always has, always will.
S.L. Toddard| 9.18.09 @ 12:48PM
I don't find any of that "scary" really, but I think even were one to hold your view of the conflict it's simply another good reason why we should stay out of the whole affair. Coming between two irrational peoples, both who believe their ownership of a particular piece of real estate is ordained by God? Forget it.
As I have said before, if Israel is earnest and chooses to strike out on her own – to, say, attack Iran against the express wishes of the United States - then I say let her spread her wings and fly from the nest, unencumbered by the many strings attached to the billions and billions of dollars Americans earn but Israel spends. Let Israel shut off that pipeline of largess that flows ceaselessly into its coffers, shed the ragged mantle of the beggar, stand on her own two feet at last and make her own way in the world without American economic or political intervention.
Free Israel, I say!
Or, if Israel wishes to continue to bury her snout in the trough of American largess, then she should learn her place and in act accordance with the wishes of that benefactor nation whose charity Israel has for so long taken for granted.
John II| 9.18.09 @ 2:36PM
Toddard: You're right, this new function of directed reply is, as one of the younger of my many chilluns would say, "totally cool." (I like the "cancel reply" option too--love those second thoughts!)
I like your second paragraph, by the way, in your response to TxGat. The rhetorical elegance cannot be gainsaid. And the point is well taken. I have always required my children to work their way through college, so that they are beholden to none unnecessarily. The dole is degrading, and I don't expect my neighbor to pay for the choices my family makes. You wouldn't have Welsh blood in you, would you?
On the other hand, the symmetry you detect between Judaism and Islam is misconceived. Islam is best understood, I think, not as a distinct religion (as it's conceived to be by secular utilitarian types, starting big-time with Gibbon in the 18th century), but rather as a Christian heresy. That's certainly the way the Roman Catholic Church has understood Islam historically--indeed, in the early days of the Protestant Reformation, the Reformers were denounced by the RCs as virtual Islamists.
The secular utilitarian believes that Islam is false, and therefore has trouble taking Islam seriously--oblivious, for example, to the ferocious behavior of Moslems toward women and homosexuals, behavior one would ordinarily expect to tweak the moral compass of the secularist.
The historically grounded Christian (unlike, for example, our last President and his perhaps politically motivated reference to Islam as a "religion of peace") understands Islam primarily as being not so much false as selectively true. And selective truth is always far more dangerous than mere falsehood.
It is not at all clear to me that modern secular utilitarianism is any match for a resurgent Islam. It is totally clear to me that, as religions go, Judaism is not to be compared with Islam.
If I am once again not making my clarity clear to you, try the following thought experiment. Which of the following expressions would you check off as preposterous:
Israeli philosopher
Israeli scientist
Israeli inventor
Palestinian philharmonic
Palestinian land development
Palestinian governance
Get the drift? Now let's see how this new function works.
S.L. Toddard| 9.18.09 @ 8:30PM
""Toddard: You're right, this new function of directed reply is, as one of the younger of my many chilluns would say, "totally cool." (I like the "cancel reply" option too--love those second thoughts!"
Word!
"I like your second paragraph, by the way, in your response to TxGat. The rhetorical elegance cannot be gainsaid."
I know you're too well read to actually think that.
"On the other hand, the symmetry you detect between Judaism and Islam is misconceived."
No it's not. I don't detect any symmetry in the way you mean. I said "even were one to hold your view", because I don't hold that view. I don't believe Israel's motivation in this struggle is as much religious as it is ethnic. I detect similarities between the three religions, yes. I don't think the problem is Islam itself, but it's as though that these peoples never had a sixteenth, seventeenth and eighteenth century in which to unlearn the importance of unlearning the practicing of certain practices in their holy scriptures. I mean, I can easily picture anyone who's an orthordox muslim live in a stable society where they can earn their living gradually modernizing and secularizing at least to the point where they abandon the most barbaric religious customs because they are - at least - ridiculously inconvenient, and generally turn people off, what with the head-chopping and stoning and so forth. In other words, Islam the religion, when in the context of a healthy social and cultural environment, tends away from barbarism in the same way that Christianity and Judaism did. Muslims, given the level stability and prosperousness *we* have and for as long as we've had it, would secularize and grow more sophisticated, and then eventually lose all religion entirely and become self-obsessed, secular materialists, exactly as we
Islam is best understood, I think, not as a distinct religion (as it's conceived to be by secular utilitarian types, starting big-time with Gibbon in the 18th century), but rather as a Christian heresy. Yhat's certainly the way the Roman Catholic Church has understood Islam historically--indeed, in the early days of the Protestant Reformation, the Reformers were denounced by the RCs as virtual Islamists."
No they did not. Islam was an apostasy, not a heresy.
It's always struck me as more Old Testament then New. A sort of Arab tribal religion that incorporated a smattering of the two. Maybe I am wrong, but I was under the impression that he spent more time around Jews, or that there were more Jews, around (I think) Medina. Honestly I'm not at all sure. What an interesting time though.
"The secular utilitarian believes that Islam is false, and therefore has trouble taking Islam seriously"
So does the Christian. Mohammad is considered a False Prophet.
"oblivious, for example, to the ferocious behavior of Moslems toward women and homosexuals, behavior one would ordinarily expect to tweak the moral compass of the secularist."
That's absurd. No one who has an actual opinion about the situation is unaware of Muslim attitude toward womena and homosexuals. It's just a part of the record that people in general are aware of.
"The historically grounded Christian (unlike, for example, our last President and his perhaps politically motivated reference to Islam as a "religion of peace") understands Islam primarily as being not so much false as selectively true. And selective truth is always far more dangerous than mere falsehood.
I don't agree with any of this. The historically grounded Christian does not understand Islam as being selectively true. It is a false religion, an apostasy.
As for selective truths and falsehoods, you can't really say one is "far more" dangerous than the other, categorically. Obviously there are some selective truths that are worse than some falsehoods. It's a meaningless statement.
"It is not at all clear to me that modern secular utilitarianism is any match for a resurgent Islam. It is totally clear to me that, as religions go, Judaism is not to be compared with Islam."
You mean as far as adherents go. Believe me, Muslims in the West eventually have kids that like video games and movies, they get on facebook, they watch television and they abandon the ways of their parents. They will eventually end the barbarism, and it won't take as long as you think, but the Muslim world will (unlike us) not have the good fortune of centuries afterward, in which to enjoy their religion as a thing almost entirely independent of violence. They will go right from the 15th century to the 21st, and miss all the good stuff.
"If I am once again not making my clarity clear to you, try the following thought experiment. Which of the following expressions would you check off as preposterous:
Israeli philosopher
Israeli scientist
Israeli inventor
Palestinian philharmonic
Palestinian land development
Palestinian governance
Get the drift? Now let's see how this new function works"
God what an ugly thought. Are you serious? I don't think either sounds remotely "preposterous". I find it literally incredible that you cannot imagine Arab high culture. There is just no way you missed that large of a chunk of history.
It's only preposterous to imagine a Palestinian philharmonic orchestra because prisons don't have philharmoinc orchestras. And if you do not recognize that the secularization of the Middle East is strictly a matter of 'when' and not 'if' then you don't grasp the omnipresence and omnipotence of global corporate-produced culture. They have no idea what's going to hit them.
Coincidentally, I was thinking about this subject, or something like it, yesterday. I was thinking about how excellent it would be if Iran's fundamentalists ceased to exist. How long did the various Persian Empires stand? Such an ancient land. I would like to see what remains of their cities and monuments. The Persian Empire. I always take it for granted that I can go and see the ruins of Greece and Egypt, but it is such a shame that we cannot go to Persia.
PS
You know, here's what you say to the Ben Gurion thing: "The Holocaust had just ended. They believed strongly that they needed a homeland, so they conquered one, and exiled its residents. It's a tiny strip of land, the Arabs have the whole middle east, they've got it and that's it." No one, not even you, can argue against the truth of that. And if you can accept that, then you can except that the land was stolen, because that's what conquest is. And since the generation that was exiled is still on this earth, with their children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren, it's not surprising that they are still greif-stricken, especially considering that if they weren't confined behind walls, many of these people could get to the homes they owned sixty, or thirty, or whatever years ago in an hour or two's drive. I mean don't you ever wonder how you would feel if that was you? If your village was attacked, and members of your family and friends were killed, you were chased off your land and exiled to a compound where you and your children were confined? I always think of that when the super-tough American Patriots here talk tall about Fightin' Fer Freedom. What - if Arabs came storming over the border, killed their loved ones, pulled down Old Glory and ran up the Star and Crecent, and herded them and what remained of their family into an open air prison camp these Supermen would what? Give up the land of their fathers meekly? Forget about it in a generation? I have, since I was a kid, thought that if that ever happened, all good Americans would make like Jed Eckertt in Red Dawn.
Anyhow, I think the problem with the situation in the Middle East is not so frustrating because it is so sensless, it's so frustrating because it makes so much sense. How could any self-repecting person from either side every put aside their anger?
John II| 9.18.09 @ 10:43PM
Surprised to see a response, Toddard. I enjoyed your gracious (and mercifully short) response to the Windels in memoriam, but your response to me is, I hope, willfully off the mark. It's as if you are determined by some kind of obsession to misunderstand me. The only alternative is to suppose that you're stupid, which I'm disinclined to believe.
One example will have to suffice. My thought experiment, if you had been following the principal drift of my responses to you so far, was intended to illustrate the historical fact that the Palestinians have been frozen into a kind of permanent cultural atavism by the vicious thugs who constitute the past three generations of their "leadership." To blame the atavism on the Jews is beyond the pale.
And here's another example, now that I'm warming to the topic. Apostasy is not heresy, and Dante clearly regarded Mohammed as a heresiarch, not an apostate. A man of deeper religious faith would know the difference. You must brush up on your Greek, Toddard.
No, another example will perhaps help even more. How on earth can you compare the establishment of the Jewish state, followed instantly by a war started by the Arabs . . . how on earth can you compare that with John Milius' fantasy of a communist takeover of America? THERE WAS NO STATE OF PALESTINE TAKEN OVER BY THE JEWS, Toddard. Must I yell to get my obvious points across to you???!!!
I demand an immediate apology for your flagrantly false analogy. AND STOP YELLING AT ME!
"Red Dawn" was a terrific movie, though, I have to admit. But so was "Exodus," filmed 24 years earlier.
Anyhow, I hope you have the heart to enjoy "Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein." You're beginning to strike me as a secular liberal. To repeat: you're a hard man, Toddard.
SoCon| 9.19.09 @ 12:04AM
John II: "Toddard.....You're beginning to strike me as a secular liberal." Ya think?
S.L. Toddard| 9.19.09 @ 11:02AM
"Surprised to see a response, Toddard."
Really? Why?
"but your response to me is, I hope, willfully off the mark."
Why bother saying that? You know I'm not "willfully" being "off the mark". You don't actually "hope" I'm doing it on purpose. Quit farting around.
"It's as if you are determined by some kind of obsession to misunderstand me. The only alternative is to suppose that you're stupid, which I'm disinclined to believe."
You actually *know* I'm not stupid. More farting around.
"One example will have to suffice. My thought experiment, if you had been following the principal drift of my responses to you so far, was intended to illustrate the historical fact that the Palestinians have been frozen into a kind of permanent cultural atavism by the vicious thugs who constitute the past three generations of their "leadership.""
Look, I'm in a good mood. I like you, I try to show you respect. I'm not pretending to misunderstand you. That's something *you* do, though I have no idea why. You do the lion's share of the obfuscating and hair-splitting, and semantic-exploiting. If your aim was to impugn the poor quality of the Palestinian *leadership* and not illustrate the inherent inferiority of the Palestinian Arabs or Arabs generally then you did a poor job, in my opinion, of making yourself clear. I thought it seemed a base, crude point for you to make, and thought it was out of character, and said so. Honestly - reread what you wrote. If you think it's unreasonable to interpret it the way I did then I apologize.
"To blame the atavism on the Jews is beyond the pale."
You're going to have to be more concise in your speech. I do not blame anything on "the Jews". I do not even hold the Israelis solely "responsible".
"And here's another example, now that I'm warming to the topic. Apostasy is not heresy, and Dante clearly regarded Mohammed as a heresiarch, not an apostate."
Dante was an poet, not a Pope. He did not speak ex cathedra.
"A man of deeper religious faith would know the difference."
Indeed, he would. To whit:
'Apostasy a fide, or perfidiæ: Perfidiæ is the complete and voluntary abandonment of the Christian religion, whether the apostate embraces another religion such as Paganism, Judaism, Mohammedanism, etc., or merely makes profession of Naturalism, Rationalism, etc. The heretic differs from the apostate in that he only denies one or more of the doctrines of revealed religion, whereas the apostate denies the religion itself'
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01624b.htm
I'm sorry, but you are simply wrong. You said "the way the Roman Catholic Church has understood Islam historically" was as "a Christian heresy". That is categorically false - it is not up for debate. Islam was considered an apostasy by the RCC, not a heresy. You were correct that a man of deeper religious faith would know the difference between heresy and apostasy, you were just incorrect in thinking that man was you. Sorry.
"You must brush up on your Greek, Toddard."
Yawn. This thing with my lack of intimacy with the Classics - I get it already. If that's a weakness of mine you intend to exploit then don't do it every post, man. Use that poison sparingly, else I build immunity to it. And you might also not want to use while you're arguing in error as you have here, because that really takes the teeth out of it.
"How on earth can you compare the establishment of the Jewish state, followed instantly by a war started by the Arabs . . . how on earth can you compare that with John Milius' fantasy of a communist takeover of America? THERE WAS NO STATE OF PALESTINE TAKEN OVER BY THE JEWS, Toddard. Must I yell to get my obvious points across to you???!!!"
I don't see any points there. I see Straw Men. I was not comparing the political statuses of the vanquished. I was comparing the plights of the dispossessed. Whatever Palestine's political status at the time, the land its inhabitants lived on was still their own. Both the Eckertts and the Palestinians were forced from their homes at gunpoint, losing their land. That's the entire point, and the source of the initial grievance.
Look - if you find the analogy problematic then make it more accurate in your head. Make it exactly like what happened to the Palestinians, but substitute yourself, your children and your parents for them, and Arabs for the Israelis. Say your ancestral home, your house, yard, neighborhood etc was on politically contested land. The political status of it was fuzzy, but you and your family and friends had lived on it for generations. Then one day Arabs came storming over the border, killed your loved ones - maybe your children, wife or mother - ran up the Star and Crescent, and herded you and what remained of your family into an open air prison camp, where you and yours languished for decades in the most humiliating circumstances, under the control of the enemy who dispossessed you. This hostile foreign army controls your airspace, borders and internal affairs for 40 years, and continues to shrink the land you live on more and more. They blockade your land so that you're barred from leaving, prevented from acquiring basic nutritional and medical needs for your children.
I don't even know why I'm bothering. If you've never honestly tried to put yourself in the position of the Palestinians to try to imagine what motivates them then either you haven't thought seriously about the subject, or you haven't really familiarized yourself with their history.
John II| 9.19.09 @ 11:53AM
" I don't even know why I'm bothering. If you've never honestly tried to put yourself in the position of the Palestinians to try to imagine what motivates them then either you haven't thought seriously about the subject, or you haven't really familiarized yourself with their history."
I did, and I have, and I remain sympathetic to the Palestinians. It infuriates me that they've been under the serial thumbs of thugs, political opportunists, and religious fanatics for a period of time that stretches almost to the length of my own life thus far. If you've studied the history of it ALL, Toddard, then you know as well as I do what the story of those camps is about. I too don't know why I'm bothering with your predictably selective indignation. It may be the teacher in me.
More likely, it's the fool in me. And now back to Abbott and Costello.
Nick| 9.19.09 @ 12:18AM
"And since the generation that was exiled is still on this earth, with their children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren, it's not surprising that they are still greif-stricken, especially considering that if they weren't confined behind walls, many of these people could get to the homes they owned sixty, or thirty, or whatever years ago in an hour or two's drive."
Uh-oh...I...think...I'm going....to cry! Boo-Hoo!
(Sob)...There could be peace in the Middle East, (sniff) if only Israelis would open some toll roads so Arabs could go visit grandpa's old outhouse! Waaahhhh!
S.L. Toddard| 9.19.09 @ 11:08AM
" Uh-oh...I...think...I'm going....to cry! Boo-Hoo!
(Sob)...There could be peace in the Middle East, (sniff) if only Israelis would open some toll roads so Arabs could go visit grandpa's old outhouse! Waaahhhh!"
Nick, I saw you wrote in another thread that you were born in 67 or 68. That makes you 42, 43 or so years old.
Now re-read this last post if yours. Does that read like the post of a 43 year old adult? Does that look like the writing of a man, or of a boy?
John II| 9.19.09 @ 12:19PM
Well, Nick will have to speak for himself, but it's occurred to me that we may have reached a rhetorical point where the only response available is mockery. I'm reminded of Erasmus's famous remark: "The devil, the proud spirit, cannot endure to be mocked."
And I'm not demonizing you, Toddard. I merely ask that you consider the possibility that all these threads and exchanges are, at root, rather boyish in character. When my wife catches me doing this sort of thing, she just rolls her eyes. As Ronald Reagan said in 1981 when he was awakened to be informed that the Israelis had taken out the Iraqi nuclear installation at Osirak,
"Oh well--boys will be boys."
And thank God for that.
S.L. Toddard| 9.19.09 @ 3:39PM
"but it's occurred to me that we may have reached a rhetorical point where the only response available is mockery."
I don't think so.
"And I'm not demonizing you, Toddard. I merely ask that you consider the possibility that all these threads and exchanges are, at root, rather boyish in character. When my wife catches me doing this sort of thing, she just rolls her eyes."
Haha. Mine too.
Pamela| 9.21.09 @ 12:08PM
John II, the intellectual elegance, good humor and patience exemplified in your thoughtful, informed postings has made my day. SLT? DOA. You definitely rock. Thank you.
Nick| 9.19.09 @ 6:54PM
I knew I could get you to respond again!
Just make fun of those poor, wronged "Palestinians".
You are so easy, Mr. Toddard. Like playing an un-tuned piano.
It's nice to know you hang on my every word so much that you can calculate my age! Almost 42, by the way.
"[...] or of a boy?" Pot calling kettle.
Did you forget what you wrote again? In the "Criticism is Racism" thread just below this one?
Finally, at least when I use derision, it's humerous not lame. I declare that my post is the writing of a extremely funny man! Does that help?
SoCon| 9.19.09 @ 6:06PM
If it's true you have a wife, Toddard (and that's highly suspect); I truly pity the woman. You are an arse.
Richard Baker| 9.20.09 @ 9:43AM
My one praise for Jimmy Carter is that when he was an officer in the Navy, he left it all to return to Plains to run the peanut farm after his Father died. This was the correct course of action even though, as an Academy grad, he wanted a Navy career, as I understand. Regardless of my sentiments on his public career, that choice was the manly thing to do. Give credit where credit is due.
Pamela| 9.21.09 @ 12:11PM
My father was a year behind Carter at USNA, and also in the submarine service, Dad used to say Carter was a disaster as a president for many reasons, only one of which was that he ran the Administration with the mindset of a submariner...he had to know everything about everything and involve himself in managing excruciating details...like who was meant to play at what time on the White House tennis courts. It may work on a sub or a peanut farm, but you can't run a country like that.
Richard Baker| 9.20.09 @ 12:55PM
Addendum:
I understand his decision as I broke my leg in a parachute jump in the Army and, reluctantly, had to give up my Army career because the orthopedic surgeon told me if I ever broke it again, they'd have to take the leg. Hard choice, to be sure, and that's why I understand how hard Carter's decision was. Not quite the same but we both had to give up the thing we loved.
Missy| 9.20.09 @ 7:48PM
I've read that Saddam Hussein was a good father, too; doesn't mean he was a decent human being.
Carter should just shut up.