Posts
President Obama gave his second State of the Union Address to the nation tonight. After 65 minutes, the sum and substance of all that needs to be noted is that we've sunk from "Hope is on the way" to "Dare to Dream."
.
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Sunday, January 23, 2011
UK Guardian Puts the Lie to the Lies
The Palestinian Papers have been published. For those into diplomatic porn, the accounts of Israeli thrusts into ever more craven PLO deep butt will prove an irresistable read. But is any of this really news?
Did anyone think that a U.S. leashed to AIPAC was a "fair broker" in the peace process? Did any one think that Israel entertained any intent to use the process as anything but war by other means? Did anyone remotely imagine that the PLO was anything but a bunch of sorry assed Quislings who -- as Quislings always do -- were selling their people out (and turning them in) for retirement cushions deposited in Swiss bank accounts? If anyone did, he was living on a moon.
Does anyone doubt the news-to-come? The "oh-shit" looks on the faces of Mubarak and the King of Jordan? The outrage among ordinary Palestinians? The now absolutely unimpeachable credibility of Hezbollah and Hamas? And does anyone doubt that the United States has absolutely none?
Did anyone think that a U.S. leashed to AIPAC was a "fair broker" in the peace process? Did any one think that Israel entertained any intent to use the process as anything but war by other means? Did anyone remotely imagine that the PLO was anything but a bunch of sorry assed Quislings who -- as Quislings always do -- were selling their people out (and turning them in) for retirement cushions deposited in Swiss bank accounts? If anyone did, he was living on a moon.
Does anyone doubt the news-to-come? The "oh-shit" looks on the faces of Mubarak and the King of Jordan? The outrage among ordinary Palestinians? The now absolutely unimpeachable credibility of Hezbollah and Hamas? And does anyone doubt that the United States has absolutely none?
The duck and weasel mavens at the Ministry of Hasbara will be spinning sophistries in high gear overtime, but the plain truth is out and perhaps ... only perhaps... this truth will make the Palestinians free.
.
Saturday, January 22, 2011
Blame the Goy
In our posted news-link, Mya Guarnieri, an Israeli journalist notes the rise of xenophic violence and ethno-religious discrimination in Israel. She concludes by writing that "that Israel offers the Western world a reflection of itself."
Absolutely not. Israel is a reflection of Israel, and it is an old game to blame the goy.
Guarnieri goes on to write that the Israeli reflection " is a picture of nationalism gone wrong. It is a picture of what can happen when a state believes that its very survival depends on maintaining a certain demographic balance." Indeed; but that is the very essence of Zionism, which is precisely why Zionism is criticised.
The premise of Zionism -- aptly and correctly embodied by Israel's present government -- is that Jews needed living room for a Jewish state; and by "jewish" they meant a 'people', a demos. They wanted a state where the demographic balance was 100% jewish and 0% anything else. And every Zionist, revisionist or otherwise, has -- when being candid -- confessed that fact. It was precisely for the sake of this "demographic" raison d'etre that the Zionists fought tooth and nail to have the Allies list Jews as a separate and distinct category of victim of Nazi genocide.
Of course, the "returning" Jews were not able to get a whole loaf in 1947 and so they had to compromise and accomodate their summum bonum. But these strategic adjustments have nothing to do with the essential nature and ultimate purpose of the creed.
One ought not to minimize the "existential dilemma" posed to by Nazism nor the existential catastrophe that resulted to European Jews. But imitating the very same principle of racial exclusivity was not the answer. Blaming the "Western world" for a choice Jews made is not the solution.
.
Absolutely not. Israel is a reflection of Israel, and it is an old game to blame the goy.
Guarnieri goes on to write that the Israeli reflection " is a picture of nationalism gone wrong. It is a picture of what can happen when a state believes that its very survival depends on maintaining a certain demographic balance." Indeed; but that is the very essence of Zionism, which is precisely why Zionism is criticised.
The premise of Zionism -- aptly and correctly embodied by Israel's present government -- is that Jews needed living room for a Jewish state; and by "jewish" they meant a 'people', a demos. They wanted a state where the demographic balance was 100% jewish and 0% anything else. And every Zionist, revisionist or otherwise, has -- when being candid -- confessed that fact. It was precisely for the sake of this "demographic" raison d'etre that the Zionists fought tooth and nail to have the Allies list Jews as a separate and distinct category of victim of Nazi genocide.
Of course, the "returning" Jews were not able to get a whole loaf in 1947 and so they had to compromise and accomodate their summum bonum. But these strategic adjustments have nothing to do with the essential nature and ultimate purpose of the creed.
One ought not to minimize the "existential dilemma" posed to by Nazism nor the existential catastrophe that resulted to European Jews. But imitating the very same principle of racial exclusivity was not the answer. Blaming the "Western world" for a choice Jews made is not the solution.
.
Friday, January 21, 2011
Health Care for the Entre Nous
Congresswoman Gifford's Medical TransportWe wish the congresswoman a speedy recovery. But the notion that she needs UltraMax Security at this point is hysterical. Once again we are left to behold the wealth that is poured out for the HinWis and the EntreNous while the nation as a whole seeks deeper and deeper into poverty and desperation.
.
Who's Who Entre Nous
Under cover of New Year’s and minutes before he left office, Governor Arnold (“Terminator”) Schwarzenegger, commuted the sentence of Estaban Nuñez, son of State Assembly Speaker, Fabian Nuñez.
Nuñez fis, 21, was sentenced to 16 years prison for the manslaughter stabbing Luis Dos Santos during a frat-spat at San Diego State University in 2008. In commuting the sentence to seven years (not including good-time behavior credits), Schwarzenneger said that “given Nuñez’s limited role in Santos’ death and considering ...[he]..had no criminal record..., I belive Nuñez’s sentence is excessive.”
Awwwww. Surely it must warm the cockles of all our hearts. We all know that Arnie takes a stack of sentence reports to bed at night and pours over them looking for “excessive” sentences. Our Arnie, the same Pump King that vetoed the People’s initiative that corrected the Three Strikes Law so it would not wreak such outrages as life sentences for pizza stealing.
So, some wrecked, over-the-hill ex-con, is found passed out at 5 a.m., in a parking lot. Because he has some meth and a syringe, a felony, he is sentenced to 25 years to life, at a warehousing cost to the taxpayer of $35,000 per year. (People v. Lee A085239.) In contrast, young Nuñez participates in the homicide of just-as-young Dos Santos, and Arnie feels that 16 years (excluding half time credits) is too much.
In commuting the sentence, Arnie noted that Nuñez was not the actual stabber of Dos Santos. No...no... He only stabbed another guy who managed not to die. But according to Terminator, Nuñez only played a “limited” role in the actual homicide.
To those familiar with California’s aiding and abetting laws, the excuse is nauseating. Virtually all states punish aiders and abettors as if they themselves actually did the shooting, stabbing, robbing or whatever. The issue hangs on the aider’s knowledge and intent. Under California’s extremely sloppy application of the rule, if you were present when the crime was done, you can kiss your sweet self goodbye. Nuñez pled guilty to a reduced crime of manslaughter because, his well paid, high powered attorneys knew that there was no way he could avoid conviction as a principal.
Nuñez had not just been present. He and his cohorts, pissed at being turned away from a party, went out, got knives and came back looking to settle scores. They then came upon an unarmed group that included Santos.
The only “mitigating” factor in this case is that Nuñez pere now works with Adam Mendelsohn, Governor Schwarzenegger’s former communications director. It’s an entre-nous kinda thingie.
As entre-nous as Blue Cross Girlie Boy's veto of California's single payer bill, so that he and his dearests could enjoy all-expenses taxpayer paid health care while the actual people of the State groan under unsustainable premiums or are given to choose between bankruptcy or death.
As entre-nous as Lloyd Blankfein’s grinning attendance at the swankie pankie for Premier Hu at the White House.
If there is a surveyor’s target for disastrous Great Recession and for a culture of callous anti-social corruption that makes Attila look like a social worker, Blankfein and the Goldman Sachs he heads is it. Worse than a common criminal, Blankfein is the primum mobile behind the destruction of entire sectors of the global economy. But Obama doesn’t just begrudge him is ill-gotten billions. No! No! Obama works with him on destroying social security; and to betoken their collaboration invites him to a dinner designed to show off Who’s Who Entre Nous.
Jaded cynics will smirk that “entre nous” is harly news; and that is indeed a fact. But the acceptability of corrupt back-scratching is assessed in relation to the welfare of the rest of us slobs.
Let it be premised that all human government is more or less corrupt. When the corrupt government provides well for the people corruption can be passed off as the “price” of doing business. But when corruption becomes the business and when government at the same time fails to provide for the common welfare, then, as in pre revolutionary aristocratic France, it is time for a cleaning out of the Augean Pig Sty.
.
Sunday, December 19, 2010
Limp Duck Lames Its Way to the Finish Line
It was something of a Lame Duck surprise but, after two centuries of bigotry, Congress finally ended official discrimination by the military against homosexuals. Gays were, of course, ecstatic. Progressives rejoiced. Senator Barbara Boxer, ear to ear smiles, bowled over and bear-hugged a supporter. We did it babe! Some commentators went so far as to suggest that Obambi had "restored" his crediblity with the "left". And at this point, one might very well say: Get a grip, babe.
A few Bah Humbugs, are in order.
1. Gays were never prevented from serving in the military. Sexual orientation may in fact be genetically determined but, whether it is or not, being homosexual is a matter of conduct. Unlike blacks or women who cannot change their physical appearance, gays were always able and always did serve in the military. They were able to do so precisely because the military is highly "mission-focused". Conduct that is not relevant to the mission is not relevant. As long as gays kept their sexual behavior private (not a bad rule for anyone) no one much cared. Dynamic Duos like McCain/Thurmond tried to make gayness relevant by yapping up Ewnit Kaheszhun. As to which no one can do better than (gay) aviator Lt. Tracy Thorne who remarked with deadpan sarcasm that, from listening to the likes of Congress, "one would think everyone in the Navy did nothing but take showers."
2. Military discrimination against gays was less a question of keeping gays out than of embarrassing their military careers once they were in. The 14,000 gays discharged since the enactment of DADT (Don't Ask Dont Tell), is ample evidence that gays had little difficulty getting enlisting. Nor, for the greater part, was their discharge due to inadequate military performance -- i.e. not keeping eyes on the mission. Their discharge was due to a switcheroo by the military itself which, taking its eyes off the mission, suddenly decided to make an issue of what was not relevant. There were subtler forms of hypocricy and discrimination as well, particularly in the ranks of career officers whose advancement was made dependent on a plethora of heterosexist expectations such as having a wife (of the right gender), 1.3 kids and a dog. There is no question (at least on this pile of chips) that it was long time to end what boiled down to a culture of inequality that was not justifiable except by recourse to self-serving excuses.
3. But "progressives" ought not (in our opinion) loose sight of the fact that what we are talking about is the right to participate in blowing away villages in Af-Pakistan. The military is the Machine of Empire. It is the force that the United States is using, not to defend itself, but to impose its will on others. It was not always that way. The War of Independence, the Civil War, the Great War and the World War may all be considered episodes of honorable soldiering. Not so Indian Removal, Central America, the Philipines, Vietnam and now the so-called War "against" Terror. Today, the U.S. military is the agency of civilian slaughter, devastation and plunder. One might wish the Cause of Equity were whored to a better john.
4. Nor should the "left" let itself be taken in by claims that Obambi has "delivered" on at least some of his promises. Administration apologists are at work coupling the repeal of DADT with Obama's other "success" -- health care reform. It needs to be said unequivocally that so called health care reform was a health care sell out and that, at the end of the day, repeal of DADT is small beer. To say that ending discrimination against homosexuals is right is not to say that it is the summum bonum of all things. There are many other issues which affect many more people, in more critical ways and which are simply more important: affordable education, employment, housing, income-equity, fair taxation, health care, retirement security and, above all, saving our stunning, beautiful, beautiful Mother Earth from a devastation that will in the end devour us.
On these more critical issues, the Democratic Duck failed to deliver even when it had its two feet. Senator Boxer is head of the Senate Environmental Committee; and on this score, the Babe ain't done nuthin.
A few Bah Humbugs, are in order.
1. Gays were never prevented from serving in the military. Sexual orientation may in fact be genetically determined but, whether it is or not, being homosexual is a matter of conduct. Unlike blacks or women who cannot change their physical appearance, gays were always able and always did serve in the military. They were able to do so precisely because the military is highly "mission-focused". Conduct that is not relevant to the mission is not relevant. As long as gays kept their sexual behavior private (not a bad rule for anyone) no one much cared. Dynamic Duos like McCain/Thurmond tried to make gayness relevant by yapping up Ewnit Kaheszhun. As to which no one can do better than (gay) aviator Lt. Tracy Thorne who remarked with deadpan sarcasm that, from listening to the likes of Congress, "one would think everyone in the Navy did nothing but take showers."
2. Military discrimination against gays was less a question of keeping gays out than of embarrassing their military careers once they were in. The 14,000 gays discharged since the enactment of DADT (Don't Ask Dont Tell), is ample evidence that gays had little difficulty getting enlisting. Nor, for the greater part, was their discharge due to inadequate military performance -- i.e. not keeping eyes on the mission. Their discharge was due to a switcheroo by the military itself which, taking its eyes off the mission, suddenly decided to make an issue of what was not relevant. There were subtler forms of hypocricy and discrimination as well, particularly in the ranks of career officers whose advancement was made dependent on a plethora of heterosexist expectations such as having a wife (of the right gender), 1.3 kids and a dog. There is no question (at least on this pile of chips) that it was long time to end what boiled down to a culture of inequality that was not justifiable except by recourse to self-serving excuses.
3. But "progressives" ought not (in our opinion) loose sight of the fact that what we are talking about is the right to participate in blowing away villages in Af-Pakistan. The military is the Machine of Empire. It is the force that the United States is using, not to defend itself, but to impose its will on others. It was not always that way. The War of Independence, the Civil War, the Great War and the World War may all be considered episodes of honorable soldiering. Not so Indian Removal, Central America, the Philipines, Vietnam and now the so-called War "against" Terror. Today, the U.S. military is the agency of civilian slaughter, devastation and plunder. One might wish the Cause of Equity were whored to a better john.
4. Nor should the "left" let itself be taken in by claims that Obambi has "delivered" on at least some of his promises. Administration apologists are at work coupling the repeal of DADT with Obama's other "success" -- health care reform. It needs to be said unequivocally that so called health care reform was a health care sell out and that, at the end of the day, repeal of DADT is small beer. To say that ending discrimination against homosexuals is right is not to say that it is the summum bonum of all things. There are many other issues which affect many more people, in more critical ways and which are simply more important: affordable education, employment, housing, income-equity, fair taxation, health care, retirement security and, above all, saving our stunning, beautiful, beautiful Mother Earth from a devastation that will in the end devour us.
On these more critical issues, the Democratic Duck failed to deliver even when it had its two feet. Senator Boxer is head of the Senate Environmental Committee; and on this score, the Babe ain't done nuthin.
.
Thursday, December 16, 2010
WAPO OPED 4 KILLOPS
The Washingto Post (WAPO) has a new Bloghead. Her name is Jennifer Rubin. Rubin makes no bones about what she believes in:
The Washington Post is one of America's two national papers. It, along with the New York Times, is the voice of what used to be called the Establishment. For better or worse they speak to and for the perceived interests of this Republic. Who gets to blather what from their pages is an editorial policy decision.
And the policy decision apparently has been to find someone who can fill Abe Rosenthal's passing void with fresh Pro Israel / Anti Pal-Iranian invective.
Does Ms. Rubin also believe in a secure and thriving England (the dear cousin of our Special Relationship)? Perhaps she believes in a secure and thriving France (our oldest ally without whom we would not exist)? Maybe she believes in a secure and thriving India (our newest, best friends and partner)? No? Why not? And if not, then what's so special about the "Jewish State" as she puts it?
A member on the OpBlog board of one of our national papers should have a broad and encompassing purview. That ought not translate however into a double focus.
But more shameful than a certain confusion, is the pure thuggery of Ms. Rubin's "ideology".
We Chipsters will content ourselves with the observation that Rubin positively leaves ol' Thrasymachus ( "justice is the advantage of the stronger") in the dust, panting (if not yet blushing) as he brings up the thuggery's rear. No doubt Rubin has never heard of Thrasymachus, seeing as Bibi Netanyahoo does just as well.
Since when does a supposedly sober, establishmentarian, national -- indeed "cosmopolitan" -- paper publicly allow its pages to be used to incite the murder of foreign scientists and the sabotage of the infrastructure of sovereign nations with whom we are not at war?
That's a good question.
"For starters: American exceptionalism, limited government, free markets, a secure and thriving Jewish state, defense of freedom and human rights around , enforced borders with a generous immigation policy..."She also believes in terminal car accidents.
"We should continue and enhance espionage and sabotage of the Iranian nuclear program. Every nuclear scientist who has a "car accident".... buys us time... , while exacting a price for those who cooperate with the nuclear program. Think of it as the ultimate targeted sanction." [ yes she really did say it ]We suppose that one more agro-psychotic voice added to the lunatic cacophany emanating from the bogs of Potomac can't really matter any more, but several points may be noted for the record.
The Washington Post is one of America's two national papers. It, along with the New York Times, is the voice of what used to be called the Establishment. For better or worse they speak to and for the perceived interests of this Republic. Who gets to blather what from their pages is an editorial policy decision.
And the policy decision apparently has been to find someone who can fill Abe Rosenthal's passing void with fresh Pro Israel / Anti Pal-Iranian invective.
Does Ms. Rubin also believe in a secure and thriving England (the dear cousin of our Special Relationship)? Perhaps she believes in a secure and thriving France (our oldest ally without whom we would not exist)? Maybe she believes in a secure and thriving India (our newest, best friends and partner)? No? Why not? And if not, then what's so special about the "Jewish State" as she puts it?
A member on the OpBlog board of one of our national papers should have a broad and encompassing purview. That ought not translate however into a double focus.
But more shameful than a certain confusion, is the pure thuggery of Ms. Rubin's "ideology".
"Nearly all wisdom is found in the Godfather movies (no, not Part 3!) and the Torah."We note with passing contempt that "no not Part3!" is Rubin-code for "I hate Catholicism" - a not unheard of vice from the usual suspects. We will leave it to any sincerely religious rabbi (or for that matter any observant Jew) to protest the desecrating coupling of God's widom with the Godfather's.
We Chipsters will content ourselves with the observation that Rubin positively leaves ol' Thrasymachus ( "justice is the advantage of the stronger") in the dust, panting (if not yet blushing) as he brings up the thuggery's rear. No doubt Rubin has never heard of Thrasymachus, seeing as Bibi Netanyahoo does just as well.
Since when does a supposedly sober, establishmentarian, national -- indeed "cosmopolitan" -- paper publicly allow its pages to be used to incite the murder of foreign scientists and the sabotage of the infrastructure of sovereign nations with whom we are not at war?
That's a good question.
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
