WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 2023
Nor of the West Bank: With apologies for the repetition, you might remember the very first things Barack Obama said.
We refer to the first things Obama said on a certain videotape. His comments produced a wave of reaction from observers on the Fox News Channel and the Fox Business Channel—observers who may perhaps have been swept away by their "passionate intensity."
What were the first things Obama said on the videotape? Once again, the presentation started like this:
OBAMA: If there’s any chance of us being able to act constructively to do something, it will require an admission of complexity and maintaining what on the surface may seem contradictory ideas:
That what Hamas did was horrific, and there’s no justification for it.
And what is also true is that the occupation, and what’s happening to Palestinians, is unbearable.
And what is also true is that there is a history of the Jewish people that may be dismissed unless your grandparents, or your great-grandparents, or your uncle or your aunt, tell you stories about the madness of antisemitism.
And what is true is that there are people right now who are dying, who have nothing to do with what Hamas did.
For the text of Obama's full statement, you can just click here.
At any rate, that's the way the taped statement began. Rather quickly, these remarks seemed to trigger "passionate intensity" on the part of several observers.
First, Newsweek editor Batya Ungar-Sargon told viewers of Fox & Friends Weekend that Obama's remarks were "absolutely disgusting."
He had engaged in "moral equivalency," the Berkeley Ph.D. said. Also, she seemed to say that Barack Obama needed a sign—a new sign out in his yard, a yard sign which said, "Kill the Jews."
It's astonishing that someone can say that on a major "news" show without a single word of comment from this nation's major news orgs. Soon, though, along came Professor Dershowitz, and he was passionate too.
He was especially passionate about Obama's use of a certain key word. As we noted yesterday, his interview on the Fox Business Channel started exactly like this:
BARTIROMO: (11/10/23): I want to get you to tell me more about what exactly Obama said that was—he did have moral equivalency between, you know, the terrorists of Hamas and Israel!
DERSHOWITZ: Well first, he said that the occupation is unbearable. He just lied through his teeth.
There is no occupation of Gaza. In 2005, and if life is unbearable in Gaza, it's because Hamas has been in control—the kleptocracy. People have stolen billions of dollars that were intended for humanitarian aid for their own bank accts in Qatar.
As far as the occupation of the West Bank, he's been to Ramallah. He knows Ramallah—there's no occupation. It's a beautiful city, as nice as Jerusalem, except a lot safer, because there's no terrorism.
And to compare those disputed claims with the rapes, beheadings, burnings, kidnappings, it's just obscene and despicable. And what it does is it lends support to those students, basically, who are saying, "Well, what Hamas really did was not so bad. It was in response to the occupation."
Although he said that the attacks by Hamas are not justifiable, he made them justifiable, because if life really is unbearable, as it's not, then you can do anything you want to make it bearable.
The professor spoke with the routinely hapless Maria Bartiromo. She quickly played the "equivalency" card, possibly not knowing what else to say.
As for the outraged professor, he started with a key word.
Obama had used the word "occupation," he noted. The use of that word showed that Obama had been "lying through his teeth."
The professor went on to draw some key conclusions. To his credit, he didn't say that Obama heeds a sign—a yard sign which says, "Kill the Jews."
Authoring a minor bit of grace, the professor didn't say that!
He did go on to draw some conclusions on the basis of what Obama had said. Obama had been "lying through his teeth," the professor hotly said. Also, Obama had finally revealed an ugly fact:
Obama had finally revealed the fact that he has always had "a deep hatred of Israel in his heart."
Obama had always hidden this hatred, the passionate professor now said, but now it had been revealed. "He should be ashamed of himself," the professor said. "He should apologize, but he won't."
The Berkeley Ph.D. had said that Obama's remarks were "absolutely disgusting." The Harvard professor may have topped her:
"Obscene and despicable," the professor aggressively said.
In our view, the transparent lunacy of these presentations can't be dwelled on often enough. For today, though, we want to focus on the first thing the passionate professor said:
We want to direct you to the way he started out with that one key word.
Obama had used the word "occupation," the acerbic academic said. But there is no occupation, the professor now said. The fact that Obama had used that word revealed his long-standing "deep hatred."
As a minor point of fairness, let us say this. As the professor spouted and fumed, it wasn't entirely clear what he had actually said.
Rather clearly, he started by saying that there is no occupation of Gaza. But as you can see if you watch the tape, the emphasis he placed on that last word may have seemed to suggest the possibility that there may be an occupation somewhere else.
He then almost seemed to say that there actually is an occupation of the West Bank—but then, he rather quickly seemed to say that there actually isn't. Obama has been to Ramallah, he said—and there's no occupation there.
(For the record, Ramallah is a city in the West Bank. The professor didn't explain this fact, and most viewers didn't know that.)
In the passage we have posted, the professor went on to fashion a form of the "equivalency" framework. Indeed, as the professor spouted and fumed, he managed to produce a remarkable change in the weather:
In fact, Obama had said the killings and kidnappings by Hamas had been "horrific." But by the time the professor's fuming was done, it turned out that Obama had actually said that the killings really "weren't so bad."
According to major experts, this is the way we humans are inclined to behave at times of war and great upheaval, at times of group conflict and stress.
At such times, we may be strongly inclined to be swept away by our passions. We may end up saying that Barack Obama needs a new sign. Within a matter of moments, we may be able to turn "horrific" into "not so bad."
A bit like Hawthorne's Rappaccini, Bartiromo's guest let us see that even the most exalted professors can sometimes have limited judgment. In this case, even the most exalted professors can perhaps be swept away by their passions at moments of high intensity.
Having said that, what's in a word? What's in that key word—"occupation"—the word which triggered Professor Dershowitz, sent him off on his rant?
"Horrific" turned into "not so bad." But also, there was that key word!
Did Obama's use of the word "occupation" show us that he was lying through his teeth? Tomorrow, we'll take a quick walk through existing uses of that word within the context of these recent horrific events.
Does an "occupation" exist in Gaza? How about in the West Bank? Also, how about a "blockade?" What about that word?
What lies behind the use of such locutions? Also, is it possible that the Professor Dershowitz, swept up in the intensity of his passion, might himself be eligible for some sort of a sign?
Tomorrow: Occupation / blockade
Full disclosure: When people start talking about who needs a sign, we always think about our old semi-pal, the very well-liked Bill Engvall
I see the problem from here. It's that someone thinks Dershowitz's opinions should matter to thinking people.
ReplyDeleteIt's almost as ridiculous as the media reporting Newt Gingrich's statements.
The media should refrain from doing so, unless these clowns make a good faith statement, in which case the media should report that, because that would be news.
Arguing semantics about this war strikes me as a profound misunderstanding of what is important.
DeleteThe professor just wants a positive climax to the issue at hand.
DeleteActually, President Obama ,it has everything to do with what Hamas did. No Hamas attack, and Palestinians would not be dying today. Release the hostages and Israel's military action can end and then engage in serious negotiiations for a permanent peace.
ReplyDeleteBy the same token: no Zionist settler-colonialists in Palestine, no ethnic cleansing of the indigenous population of Palestine, and - voila! - no Hamas, no attack, no hostages, no nothing. Just a bunch of peaceful olive tree farmers.
DeleteThey had that but messed it up by attacking Israel over and over.
DeleteIt’s certainly reasonable to some that when attacked you attack back in kind, except that you do it ten times worse. For many people, that makes perfect sense.
Delete@2:28
DeleteYou imply that Israel's goal has been to kill Palestinians in Gaza. The goal is to wipe out Hamas in order to stop future attacks, not to kill people. That is why Israel told Gazans to leave the area they were planning to bomb -- the area where Hamas is running its military operations and holding hostages. Hamas could stop all military activities by Israel and save those lives simply by surrendering and releasing its hostages.
2:53 to some you sound perfectly reasonable, others see your views as sounding psychotic.
DeleteAnything is possible.
Many of us view what Hamas did as psychotic. How about that?
DeleteWhat Hamas did was psychotic. Suggesting you fight fire with fire is morally untenable. What Israel is doing now is more psychotic than what Hamas did, demonstrably so.
Delete"In our view, the transparent lunacy of these presentations can't be dwelled on often enough. "
ReplyDeleteThis is obvious, because Somerby has been talking about almost nothing else since he found that former graduate of Berkeley on Fox News. He has to tell us how awful she is, over and over and over again. And then he added Dershowitz, who no one considers any kind of expert on Israel vs Gaza, and not on anything else either, not even defending heinous criminals.
Why is Somerby fixated on these people? One could argue that it is because they both dissed Obama, but Obama himself is irrelevant to this conflict and has nothing helpful to say about it.
Who is president these days? Wait, wait, I know...it is Joe Biden. And Biden is doing a good job dealing with this difficult crisis. But you'd never know that from Somerby's work. Instead, Somerby is in an uproar over what has been said about Obama, who is an uninvolved former president who has not been engaging in any foreign diplomacy and whose ideas have no impact on this current situation. Who cares what Obama thinks about any of this when his thoughts mean nothing in the context of this crisis?
Hillary made comments too. They received no attention from Somerby, even though she argued against a ceasefire because it would give Hamas time to regroup. No one called her a Jew hater, that's why perhaps Somerby has no interest in her thoughts (experienced though they are). It is harder to call Hillary silly or misguided because she didn't go to Berkeley and she didn't write a dissertation on something Somerby considers silly -- themes in English literature. And she certainly isn't repeating any ideas Somerby would want to defend, as he has defended Obama's statements.
If Somerby were a big boy, he could express his own ideas instead of cloaking them in Yeats and hiding behind Obama. Why, after all of this repetition, do we have no clear understanding of where Somerby stands in this plethora of views expressed with passionate intensity? Does he have none? Was he beaten as a child for having opinions of any kind? Why doesn't he have the guts to pick a perspective and express it consistently?
My theory is that he is funded by someone to undermine democracy and denigrate lefties. I posted a description of how it works when Russia and the far right pay trolls to meddle in the election. To me, that is the best description of what Somerby does here routinely. And it has nothing to do with media criticism or American discourse. It has to do with burying occasional negative statements about Democratic candidates in a pile of horse manure on a variety of other topics that don't matter at all. Those constant negativities sink in and depress voter turnout by sapping enthusiasm (passionate intensity) on the left. The rest of it is just camouflage of the troller's intent, while Somerby chips away at faith in media and education and expertise, opening the door to acceptance of bonkers right wing ideas. And he's been doing it at least since Trump declared his candidacy.
Somerby's funders didn't reckon with his laziness. Why start a new topic when he can cut and past the current one for another week or two. Somerby talked about those MS NAEP scores for 6-1/2 weeks! We may be hearing about Ungar-Sargon (who?) for another month. Meanwhile, the House passed a budget resolution yesterday. Crickets from Somerby. Trump called libs vermin. Crickets from Somerby. But he got his usual digs in, and that is what matters.
And yet you continue to read him, year after year, in a valiant and thankless effort to expose his corrupt enterprise so as to protect his gullible readers! Thanks!
DeleteDwelling on ancillary people's "transparent lunacy," as if it matters, shows a lack of caring about what is happening in the Middle East. Somerby would rather play gotcha over random TV statements than think about serious issues.
DeleteThat's right DG. They're explicitly here to "help" you. Don't mind the insults, that's how they express their affection.
DeleteActually, no one was offering to help Dogface. We were hoping he might help himself.
Delete"I posted a description of how it works when Russia and the far right pay trolls to meddle in the election.'
DeleteRight. In fact you claimed to have seen a shift to the right by Bob around 2015. So to test your hypothesis, I went back randomly to the late 2007 period to see what Bob was writing about.
Here's some sample TDH headlines from that period, all of which attack liberal media:
12-11-07 Parents should show their children the Post—and tell them they mustn’t be like that
12-10-07 The Work in Yesterday’s Post and Times was almost impossibly awful
12-3-07 Howard Kurtz—and the New York Times—got busy enabling Rudy
11-14-07 Matthews’ loathing of women has long been clear. Why won’t lib journals say so?
11-5-07 The Times’ twin stooges, Dowd and Rich, predictably swung into action
10-16-07 Jonathan Chait kept his trap shut back then. Today, he invents some new history
10-12-07 How many times do we liberals plan to get ourselves punked by the Post
So apparently Bob's been on the payroll of his Russian masters far longer than you realized. Either that or your theory is a crock.
"Actually, no one was offering to help Dogface. We were hoping he might help himself."
DeleteThis happens practically every time I post here. Read the first two comments if you actually don't understand (I can never tell because the commenters are so dishonest here.)
Hector, actually those posts do not demonstrate what you think they do, this is in part because you are ignorant on basic issues related to the subject of politics.
DeleteThis is not an insult, many of us are ignorant on various subjects, it’s a vast and overwhelming world - for example, when my car tire goes flat, I go to a tire shop to have a new tire installed. There’s no shame in this circumstance.
No offense taken. Your masterful deconstruction of my post--point by point--will enable me to avoid such errors in the future.
DeleteWhat is wrong about making negative statements about Democratic candidates?
DeleteMaybe you're afraid to face the accuracy of the negative statements. Hence, the ridiculous, paranoid accusations attacking character and motive instead of substance.
@4:34 It depends on whether you are trying to get a candidate elected to the presidency instead of Donald Trump.
DeleteHector, you listed a bunch of posts criticizing journalists who are considered to be right wing, mainstream opponents of Bill and Hillary Clinton (who was running for the Dem nomination in 2007). That isn't what anyone has meant by Somerby repeating right wing talking points here.
If you were sincerely interested, you would compared what Somerby started writing in 2015, not 2007, when most of us felt that Somerby was what he claimed to be, a liberal defending Dems from the press.
I do not understand why you would deliberately seek out examples from 2007, portray them as the same as what Somerby currently writes and conclude you have disproven a claim. Why didn't you look at 2015? Perhaps you don't know who Rich and Dowd and Matthews are?
Bob's not calling for criticism of Democratic candidates. He's calling for more understanding of them.
DeleteAfter all, Bob isn't tribal.
"@4:34 It depends on whether you are trying to get a candidate elected to the presidency instead of Donald Trump."
DeleteWhat does this mean? Trump is running therefore negative statements about Democratic candidates are off limits? Why?
"I do not understand why you would deliberately seek out examples from 2007, portray them as the same as what Somerby currently writes and conclude you have disproven a claim."
DeleteAll I can say is, if I can show Bob's targets are essentially the same in 2023 as they were in 2007, then any basis for positing a rightward shift in 2015 goes away. I'm sorry that you can't understand that.
Bob's targets in the 2007 samples I gave were:
the NY Times 3 times;
the Wash. Post 3 times;
Frank Rich (described by Wikipedia as a "liberal oped columnist");
Howard Kurtz, who currently works for Fox but in 2007 wrote for the Post;
and Chris Matthews who, whatever you think about him, was a Democrat.
So Bob was attacking the left side of the aisle back in 2007, just as he's doing today.
They are not the same Hector. For one thing, you have confined yourself to only journalists. For another, several journalists have switched political views also, such as Matthews. You have not posted about any of his articles doing these things:
Delete1. Defending Roy Moore
2. Blasting Rachel Maddow, repeatedly
3. Attacking Hillary Clinton
4. Defending Donald Trump, not just calling him crazy and to be pitied, but explaining away his bad behavior
5. Attacking female academics and journalists.
6. Attacking gay journalists, especially black gay journalists such as Charles Blow and Don Lemon
7. Attacking the notion of expertise and the value of higher education
8. Defending the woman who was supposedly assaulted by Biden
9. Excusing the Gov of Virginia who was accused of misusing funds (Republican)
10. Attacking efforts to desegregate NYC schools and schools elsewhere in the country
11. Defending parents who have tried to censor school materials and ban books in school libraries, generally defending parental rights against schools.
12. Attacking the concept of a gender pay gap or any discrimination against women in work.
13. Defending Brock Turner, a convicted rapist on the grounds that women shouldn't drink at parties.
14. Complaining that the word "racist" shouldn't be used by liberals because racism is no longer a thing and it makes The Others feel bad.
15. Ditto for the word "sexist".
There is lots more that I am probably not remembering. If I have time tomorrow, I will got back to the years after 2015 and list some more.
You're fucking stupid as fuck.
DeleteNice try, Hector. But your examples are hilariously ridiculous. Howard Kurtz is a lefty? Bwahahaha.
DeleteHe didn't defend Roy Moore, dumbfuck.
DeleteHe said "there's a great deal to criticize in the realm of Roy Moore's public conduct. Routinely, Moore's public conduct has proven too extreme even for Alabama conservative elites ... that, several women have made very serious accusations against Moore, accusing him of serious sexual misconduct in 1979."
He criticized a broadcaster who claimed Moore "succeeded in marrying a woman who was 14 years younger."
SOMERBY: "Lawrence didn't mention the fact that Moore stood accused of assaulting two teenage girls. He seemed to be more upset by the fact that Moore had dated teenage girls—and that he'd even married someone fourteen years younger!"
YOUR A FUCKING MORON!!!!! GO FUCK YOURSELF!
Somerby also objected to the press using the word pedophile instead of a more specific term referring to men attracted to pre-adolescents girls aged 12-14, as if that made Roy Moore’s behavior more acceptable. He said Roy Moore might be considered a catch by the mothers of such girls and said the culture was different in the south so the moms might approve which would presumably make his “dates” ok. Why would Somerby choose to criticize how the press covered Moore’s problems with young girl’s nitpicking such things? Moore is scum, not because he liked young girls but because he harrassed and assaulted them. Press coverage was right to point that out and Somerby’s defense of Moore was ridiculous in the context of Moore’s behavior.
DeletePut “Roy Moore” into the search box and read for yourself.
Delete8:45 It's generally understood that the responsibility to provide proof lies with you. It's your assertion, not anyone else's.
DeleteI love the “You go prove the accusations I’m making by using the Search function!” dodge.
DeleteIt's another way of saying 'I can't back them up because I am trolling you.'.
DeleteIt's the new "do your own research".
DeleteI went back to look at the Howler posts on Roy Moore. As usual, the 'defense' of Moore he provided was only against the illogic of the attacks on Moore by being made by the media.
DeleteBut I did run across this gem, which Somerby pointed out at a time when Moore was being criticized for having married a 24-year old when he was 38:
"We don't know, but just for the record, when Rachel Maddow met Susan Mikula, she was 26 years old; Mikula was 41. Should we organize an intervention to rescue Rachel from Susan's home?"
Hector, your list of previous posts cuts against your claim, those were instances of attacking media, right leaning media at that, for repeating Republican talking points.
DeleteOn Roy Moore, Somerby spent weeks posting about how we should normalize May-December relationships, in combination with his defense of Moore. Furthermore, Moore wasn’t merely criticized about marrying someone much younger, it was part of the context concerning the issue of Moore’s documented interest in minors.
It would help your discourse if you learned about what is meant by left and right, the political leanings of media people and the corporations they work, and relied less on excessive literalism and more on context; then your comments would gain more coherence.
Batya Ungar-Sargon attended the Ceremony of Innocence, but she wasn't searing suspenders, so I ejected her. I am not Corby.
ReplyDeleteCeremony of Innocence is a video game.
Delete>searing suspenders
DeleteDefinitely the best pickup in the game. Grants wearer unlimited fireballs.
I was talking about the actual ceremony, not the game.
Delete"When people start talking about who needs a sign, we always think about our old semi-pal, the very well-liked Bill Engvall"
ReplyDeleteSomerby loves to name drop. But what kind of sign should Somerby be wearing these days? I vote for "craven" because I don't know anyone else who pretends to express opinions on a blog but can never bring himself to actually express one clearly, without obfuscation, weasel words and equivocation.
It may be true that Engvall is well liked. Anything is possible. Notice that the first sentence of this paragraph is almost an opinion, except for the words "may be" which introduce uncertainty. Then the second sentence entirely negates the first one, since the possibility that Engvall is NOT well liked is encompassed by it. Leaving us with no clear statement at all. It may be true that it will rain tomorrow. Anything is possible. Do you know whether I think it will rain or not? Of course you don't, because I haven't said a thing with any confidence (much less conviction) and this entirely lacks any semblance of passionate conviction. And this is how Somerby writes.
Even Somerby's pal is called a "semi-pal" in case Engvall cannot remember who Somerby is.
Delete10:44 - You criticize Somerby’s writing style, but it seems to have worked with you - you read him year after year.
DeleteDogface, did you not read a word of what I said?
DeleteSomerby's post today was clear and it was one of his best.
DeleteObama, Dershowitz and Ungar Sargon are not going to solve the Mid-East crisis. What did you find “best” about Somerby’s essay? Did you learn anything from him (that he didn’t already say yesterday)?
Deleteanon 1:08 - He picked dershowitz apart pretty well. Dershowitz and the Berkely Ph.D are two faces in a big right wing crowd that has ramped up this bogus narrative, that anyone who suggests that the Palestinians have any legitimate beefs are antisemites. What did TDH say to suggest he was going to solve the mid-east crisis?
Delete"Dershowitz and the Berkely Ph.D are two faces in a big right wing crowd"
DeleteRight-wing? Lol. A good one.
Whatever wing. The Zionism that meant that Jews would live side by side with the Palestinians might have worked out. The Zionism that expelled Palestinians and built a violent state was and still is a disaster.
DeleteThere's never been any "live side by side" Zionism.
Delete"Early Zionist leaders were explicit about what they deemed “transfer” plans to effect a “Jewish majority” in Palestine. Yosef Weitz (1890-1972)—known as the “architect of transfer”—served as director of the powerful Jewish National Fund’s Land Settlement Department. As head of what he deemed Transfer Committees, Weitz set in motion long-held Zionist plans to “transfer” (ethnically cleanse) and dispossess Palestinians from their homes, land and businesses. His diary entry from 12 December 1940 is revelatory: “It must be clear that there is no room in the country for both peoples….If the Arabs leave it, the country will become wide and spacious for us…. The only solution is a Land of Israel…without Arabs. There is no room here for compromises…There is no way but to transfer the Arabs from here to the neighboring countries, and to transfer all of them, save perhaps [a few].” "
https://www.counterpunch.org/2023/11/10/the-roots-of-catastrophe/
Dershowitz is a life-long Democrat. And Berkeley - cracka, please...
DeleteYou found a bigot. There are equivalent writings on the Palestinian side, referring to cleansing the Jews.
DeleteAre you saying Palestinians were planning to come to Europe and kick Europeans from their homes?
DeleteDersh has for years been claiming he is against using Public Office to punish political grudges, while throwing his full support behind Trump, who openly does exactly that. He is a nutter, and full of crap, no serious person has taken him seriously for years. All Bob is showing is another example of him being a bigot who makes no sense.
DeleteDershowitz was never "throwing his full support behind Trump". That's something that only exists in your head. Dershowitz is a Democrat.
DeleteWhat kind of Democrat defends Trump and appears on Fox News? What kind of Democrat rips Obama (after his presidency is over)? This is why you have to evaluate people's politics based on what they say and do, not based on labels that seem to have lost their meaning due to too much ratfuckery.
DeleteRemember back in WWII when there was Lord Hawhaw who tried to convince British radio listeners that he was British too? Or Tokyo Rose? There were others pretending to be what they were not in order to more plausibly spread enemy propaganda. And then there are people who were once Democrats but who changed under various sorts of inducements. And then there are also crazy people, sometimes celebrities, who are saying crap and have no idea who they are besides attention-seekers. Recall that Trump used to be a Democrat too.
@2:19 I am saying that Palestinians tried to kick Jews out of the Palestinian Mandate and then out of Israel. They may have thought of that as "their" land but that was not the political reality. How can there be close to 4 million Palestinians in Israel if Israelis have been kicking Palestinians out? In order for there to be cleansing, there needs to be some evidence that Palestinians have left Israel.
Delete@2:29 PM
Delete"I am saying that Palestinians tried to kick Jews out of the Palestinian Mandate and then out of Israel."
That's called "resistance". If someone comes to your home to "transfer" you out of it, you resist.
Open the link, and look at the picture on top of it.
https://www.counterpunch.org/2023/11/10/the-roots-of-catastrophe/
I" don't know anyone else who pretends to express opinions on a blog but can never bring himself to actually express one clearly, without obfuscation, weasel words and equivocation."
DeleteIn my opinion, one of the most uninteresting things a writer can do is give you their opinion.
Palestinians and Jews were both newcomers to the largely uninhabited territory of the Palestine Mandate, arriving at roughly the same time. It did not "belong" to Palestinians any more than to Jews at that time (before 1948). Using prior ownership to excuse the attempts to rid the Mandate of Jews is part of the reason why there are hostilities today. The ownership of that territory was settled by the United Nations and the nation of Israel was declared in 1948 and attacked the day after its formation, not only by Palestinians living in Israel but also by surrounding Arab nations who did not want a Jewish country to exist. Palestinians who participated in that war lost their homes and were resettled in camps in occupied territory acquired from the attacking Arab nations after their loss. Gaza had been part of Egypt but Egypt lost that land as settlement at the end of the war.
DeletePalestinians may be claiming to have the right to land going back to the 40s, but the land itself was part of the defunct Ottoman Empire run by the Ottoman Turks, not Palestinians, and that was subsequently govened by the British as part of the Palestinian Mandate, not by Palestine. Several other Arab nations were formed out of the Palestine Mandate, including Syria and Jordan. None of those countries wanted to take in the Palestinian refugees after losing their war against Egypt, so that refusal also contributed to the ugly situation that exists today. Palestinians never had that land and they aren't going to get it now. They need to let go of aspirations they were encouraged in by Arab nations who are no longer supporting their demands. It is time for Palestinians to stop being terrorists and learn to be neighbors to the Jews and others in Israel.
Dersh has thrown his full support behind Trump. The fact he has voted for Dems in the past does not change that. He also seems to have a big chip on his shoulder because people think he is an idiot for throwing his full support behind Trump. Which only makes him more of a fool.
Delete
Delete"Palestinians and Jews were both newcomers to the largely uninhabited territory of the Palestine Mandate, arriving at roughly the same time."
Wow. Any other earth-shattering discoveries in your hasbara brochure, Corby?
10:44 is spot on, and well put.
DeleteAC/MA actually makes a decent point as well, a rare occurrence, with all due respect.
Ungar Sargon and Dershowitz are indeed right wingers, and neither are significant in the American discourse.
They both represent the civil libertarians of the Right, supposedly a neutral stance, which is made incoherent when considering context, particularly how rampant various oppressions are manifested in our society.
Since they engage in rhetoric that muddies their political leanings, they are popular in right wing media that revel in finding so called “liberals” that align with their worldviews.
Dershowitz is a special case since some of his support for the Right and Trump, comes from interesting connections with Epstein and the services he provided.
Republicans are a subset of the right wing, and so are some Dems too - neoliberals, for example. Those on the right have trauma borne worldviews that go against human nature, and therefore work hard to present themselves falsely as “nuanced” when in reality they are avoiding clarity like the plague.
Delete"What kind of Democrat defends Trump and appears on Fox News? What kind of Democrat rips Obama (after his presidency is over)?"
The kind of Democrat who isn't just parroting DNC talking points, like your kind, the dumbshit kind of Democrat does.
It's that simple, Corby.
I've never seen a DNC talking point. I am Corby.
DeleteActually there were Jews who just wanted to move to Palestine and be good citizens. That was a tendency within Zionism. The violent Zionists won out, and the decent Zionists are forgotten.
Delete@5:23 PM,
Deleteno, I don't think so. This is like saying that some Communists just wanted to share their property with their neighbors.
No. Zionism is a political ideology. It's main concept is establishment of a "Jewish" (i.e. Zionist) state. To establish this state Zionists need to be a majority on its territory. To become a majority they need to remove (ethnically cleanse - is there another way?) the indigenous population.
Apparently, the campaign to eliminate anonymous commenting on blogs has support in the ideas of Nikki Haley, candidate for the Republican presidential nomination:
ReplyDelete"During a Tuesday, November 14 appearance on Fox News, 2024 GOP presidential hopeful Nikki Haley made a proposal that has been drawing a great deal of vehement criticism online: abolishing anonymous social media accounts.
The former South Carolina governor and ex-U.S. ambassador to the United Nations described anonymous social media accounts as a "national security threat" and proposed that platforms like X, formerly Twitter, and Facebook be required to verify the identities of all users."
So, Haley wishes to take this a step further and require that all social media users by identified by real life name, in order to "increase civility," she says. Among those objecting to this as excessively authoritarian are other Republican candidates for presidents, including Ramaswamy and Trump loyalist Charlie Kirk. Ramaswamy said: "This is a flagrant violation of the Constitution and straight out of the Democrats' playbook." Except it is the right wing fanboys here who object to anonymity, not the liberal commenters, whether they use a nym or don't.
The impetus for outing people at this blog comes from the right, not the left. Somerby of course uses his real name, but he makes very sure to never say anything that can be pinned down, making it impossible for anyone to attribute anything to him, name or not.
Nikki Haley is a disaster. Incidentally, Amy Klobuchar is also a disaster.
DeleteAnonymouse 11:01am, that’s a ridiculous and petty idea from Nikki Haley that I’d wager has little support from any corner.
DeleteIf she, Trump, and the rest of their fellow pols can’t handle ankle-biters on Twitter, they need to stay in Biden’s basement.
What tyrants on both sides like to do is to publicly out some regular joe who has said something they don’t like in order to get them harassed and threatened.
No one here has suggested that anyone use their given name as a nym. In fact you should use the name that I generally give you which is Bozo.
You really think that the freedom to be an Anonymous is a civil rights issue that is under attack by the right wing?
DeleteIn my mind, I’m seeing a pack of Anonymice marching in Selma or trying to get served at the counter of a diner.
DeleteIs the secret ballot a civil rights issue?
DeleteIs voter registration?
DeletePerhaps voter registration is an equivalent of having an IP. You have an IP - you have access. The identity behind this IP is not revealed.
Delete@11:07, please name all the other women you consider to be disasters.
DeleteWhat's a "woman"?
DeleteCorby is NOT a disaster.
DeleteOnline voting is probably not too far in the future.
DeleteI am a national security threat. I am not Corby.
DeleteI thought Cecelia was your real name. My real name is Corby, but I’m not the commenter who used that nym.
DeleteThe commenter called Corby is still in Iceland waiting for the eruption. You don't see a fissure ooze lava every day.
Delete"The impetus for outing people at this blog comes from the right, not the left."
DeleteThe statement of someone who doesn't know the difference between a nym and a name.
A woman is whomever earnestly identifies as a woman.
DeleteNotably, Cecelia pretends to be a woman.
The freedom of both cases should be protected. The former case involves nature, the latter case is more akin to a cry for help.
Regardless, the fanboys want it known they are part of a cult of personality, the rest of us just want to express ideas while participating in a discourse.
Interestingly, the fanboys also represent the tortured wounded souls that emerge from our horribly hierarchical and dominance-oriented society; some of us would like to see their suffering eased, even while being spit in the face by those same fanboys.
As I sit pondering the 8" x 10" glossy of Bob that I have pinned to my bedroom wall, I must ask:
Deletethis definition of a woman as someone who 'earnestly' so defines themself (a formidable bar to entry, that!): from whence did they derive the authority to enact this redefinition of a word so central to our culture and history?
The word isn't being redefined. The person's identity is being defined by the person who will live with that identity. Or sometimes a parent will assign a sexual identity that a child later wishes to change. We all form an identity and revise it throughout the course of our lives. Gender is part of identity. Sex is the part we are born with.
DeleteNature (biology) does not always result in a person who has a clear-cut male or female anatomy or physiology. There are many variations. People define themselves in the light of whatever natural endowment they have, and that may be female or it may be male, or biology may not fit well into those two binary categories -- hence someone may call themselves non-binary. What their genitals are like is their business and not public information. Our society should not be in the business of punishing people for having different biological endowments. We should not be panty-sniffing or snooping and we should accept people at face value when they label themselves as male or female or something not in either category (trans or non-binary).
I don't know why any of us should have to explain this to conservatives, but maybe their approved textbooks didn't tell them that nature doesn't make people in only two sexes. There are close to a hundred different biological sexual variations occurring in nature due to genetic anomalies. It is a shame that this info is only taught at the college level because too many ignorant people think that this is about people choosing to be female in order to play games or be "special" or some such nonsense.
If your anatomical endowment doesn't fit male and doesn't fit female, then you have to "earnestly" define which category you will live your life as, because society doesn't let you be both or neither or anything else. That is not the fault of the person who is different, but the fault of a society that doesn't consider any other alternatives.
The unkindness of conservatives surrounding this issue boggles my mind.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK557435/
This book might be helpful to those who think gender identity is just about role-playing and not fundamental to a person's being.
Deletehttps://www.amazon.com/As-Nature-Made-Him-Raised/dp/0061120561
This is about a boy who suffered a circumcision accident in infancy. His parents were advised to amputate the penis and raise the child as a girl, which is what they did. However, there is more to being a boy than having a penis, so problems arose throughout children and especially adolescence. This book is about the doctor's attempts to help this child and similar children who have anomalous genitalia and are misclassified as children into the wrong gender identity.
typo: children should be childhood
DeleteAuthor is John Colapinto (2006) which predates the culture wars over gender identity issues.
“The word (woman) isn't being redefined.”
DeleteBut it is. And you provided the redefinition, in which objective, biological criteria are replaced with a subjective criterion of earnest self-identification.
My point is that language belongs to all of us, and the words ‘man’ and ‘woman’ are part of that language and can’t just be hijacked by a small minority.
There are many examples of women who lived their entire lives as men and were only discovered to be female by doctors/morticians upon their death. Should someone have outed them and prevented them from doing that? Or isn't that a major invasion of someone's privacy and freedom?
DeleteAre you aware that it is routine for girls living under the Taliban to live as boys so that they can participate in sports and outdoor activities, have more personal freedom, and attend school? There is a name for it and others look the other way, if they suspect it is happening. These are usually girls in a family with nothing but daughters, because it is considered shameful for a man to admit that he cannot father any sons, in that culture. Is that highjacking a definition or is it simply a culture that permits definitions to be more flexible under certain circumstances?
I don't see how you could better define a 'transgendered' person other than "someone who is pretending to be another sex".
DeleteThey are not pretending anything.
DeleteHector, tail between his legs, whimpers out his right wing nonsense, thus exposed.
DeleteAnonymouse 11:54am, and your marked ballot is secret too.
ReplyDeleteWhile we all squabble over minutiae, the Biden economy just keeps getting better and better and better. PPI rose just 1.3% in the last year. Inflation is a thing of the past.
ReplyDeleteDogface, I'm doing ok, as are a lot of people, but a lot of people aren't. Loads of people are living paycheck to paycheck, with costs, rent, way up, buying a house becoming beyond reach - I think you have your head in the clouds to some extent.
DeleteIn the clouds? His head is firmly in Big Guy's ass.
DeleteDogface never said that poverty was eliminated. It is OK to celebrate an improved economy.
DeleteMy father used to say: "I cried because I had no shoes until I met a man with no feet." This illustrates the silliness of disparaging the improvements in our economic situation nationwide, because there are still some people who are poor. Meanwhile conservatives do nothing whatsoever to lower the poverty rate.
Or another way to say it is "Perfect is the enemy of the good." You should learn to appreciate progress when it occurs.
I'm just looking at the data. Strong GDP growth, real wage growth, low unemployment, low inflation. This is as good as it gets.
DeleteAC/MA, the traditional way to help the poor is to serve in a kitchen providing meals to homeless and indigment people, or to donate excess food to a food bank. Here is a suggestion:
Deletehttps://www.feedingamerica.org/take-action/volunteer/thanksgiving
It does nothing to help the poor when you refuse to let yourself feel a tiny bit of joy as economic indicators improve. Yes, Biden did this, but it doesn't matter where help comes from when you are thinking about the needs of those who are struggling financially.
"low inflation"
DeleteAnd the inflation that doubled some of the prices a few months ago, I've already forgotten about it. I only remember the DNC talking points from 5 minutes ago. And it was Trump's fault anyway.
I don't think the spike of inflation that we endured was Trump's fault. The pandemic came, freezing up the economy. Stimulus packages were enacted to restart it. But how much stimulus was needed? Too little, and we'd get a slow, prolonged recovery (e.g., Obama). Too much, and we'd get inflation.
DeleteBut these risks were seen to be asymetric, because inflation can be curbed by raising short-term interest rates. So, we enacted too much stimulus; inflation spiked; the Fed raised short-term interest rates; and voila - a near-perfect economy.
The DNC doesn't produce economic statistics. Kevin Drum gets his from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Yes, things were worse before, which is exactly the point of these improved numbers.
DeleteTrump may not have been responsible for economic problems during covid, but Biden is definitely responsible for coping with the economy he was handed, and it seems churlish not to acknowledge that he has done a good job, @2:17.
Delete@2:35 PM
Delete"and it seems churlish not to acknowledge that he has done a good job"
You have the right to an opinion (or for parroting DNC talking points, as it may be). But most people disagree.
"Yes, things were worse before, which is exactly the point of these improved numbers."
DeleteThe numbers have not improved - in the sense that prices haven't come down.
Inflation was high, now it's lower. That's not "improvement". It only means that things are not getting even worse.
"But most people disagree."
DeleteNumbers are numbers. If people "disagree," it could be because they are not actually provided with the numbers, or because they are not informed that these numbers are some of the best ever.
Perhaps the people who disagree should be provided this true information, and perhaps that true information might inform the voting decisions of a few of them.
2:47 - You really want deflation? Lots of deflation during the early '30's.
Delete"If people "disagree," it could be because they are not actually provided with the numbers, or because they are not informed that these numbers are some of the best ever."
DeletePeople disagree, not "disagree".
People have all the numbers that matter: what they're paid and what they spend.
The numbers favor Biden and suggest he has been doing a good job. That's why we're getting troll comments suggesting they mean nothing and that people are not doing better. This is Republican trolling.
DeleteBiden is not great, really bad in many ways, but easily our best president in decades, probably since FDR.
DeleteTrump is responsible for the economic downturn, since he failed to respond with any competency to the pandemic.
The stimulus was not “too much”; notably child poverty was cut in half in a single year due to some of the stimulus. Furthermore, there are many myths about inflation, which in reality is essentially nothing more than profiteering. Corporations have been enjoying record profits during this time of inflation, it is nothing more than a money grab, supported by those with outdated and misguided notions about economics.
AC/MA makes another decent point. Huh!
2:58,
DeleteSend those folks "Trump: Fuck Your Feelings" T-shirts, and enjoy the bounce back economy.
"notably child poverty was cut in half in a single year due to some of the stimulus',
Deletethen the stimulus ran out and it more than doubled:
https://www.npr.org/2023/09/12/1198923453/child-poverty-child-tax-credi-pandemic-aid-census-data
3:53 correct, if anything the stimulus was too small.
DeleteMany issues seen as intractable, are, in fact, not. To end most of child poverty only requires a continuing enhancement to the Child Tax Credit.
Good riddance, Manchin and Sinema.
You can't give Biden credit for economic success because of a stimulus. It's just printing more money which artificially gooses the child poverty numbers as we all can clearly see from their huge jump back to where they were. Having a bigger stimulus would just lengthen or artificially increase the numbers more.
DeleteYeah. And then Biden admin printed tonnes more money, and called it the "inflation reduction act". Funny.
DeleteIf you don't know the exact amount of stimulus to enact - and you don't - it's better to err on the side of too much. So they erred on the side of too much; the Fed raised rates; and they stuck the landing.
DeleteIt's a remarkable achievement.
If inflation is caused by too much money being printed, the solution is to tax the money out of the economy, which reduces spending and lowers inflation.
DeleteBidenomics, or perhaps more accurately Powellenomics has a way to go but current trends, if continued, will be more reflected at the consumer level in the year before the next election. If so, the right wing will be stridently rooting against such progress and their media outlets will ignore the hard data and spend all their time anecdotally interviewing the man on the street about how bad things are.
DeleteInflation is not caused by too much money being printed; inflation can occur when businesses take advantage of such a situation.
DeleteBefore the pandemic, businesses were already posting record profits, this only increased during and after the pandemic, therefore the inflation, as all inflation is, has been caused by businesses profiteering.
Cutting child poverty in half in a single year was not “goosing” anything, it was a real and material benefit to those children, and all it took was enhancing the Child Tax Credit. When the enhancement was ended, poverty went back up. That does not make the impact on poverty not real, it just exposes how easily poverty can be diminished.
The stimulus helped but it was too small, mostly due to the interference of Manchin and Sinema.
As others have noted, Biden’s economic plan has improved the overall economic circumstances, but the majority of that improvement has been for those already well off, so it’s not really been a stuck landing.
Meanwhile, conservatives are boycotting the Macy's Thanksgiving Day parade because it will include two non-binary performers from broadway shows. What is it coming to when entertainers cannot even be gender non-conforming without offending Christian conservatives!
ReplyDeleteI love how the conservatives recognize and celebrate the spirit behind such holidays:
"As we grow in gratitude, we learn to be thankful not only for the good gifts God gives us but for everything in our life, including trials and sufferings."
I assume that God gives us transgender individuals in order to learn tolerance, but those Christian moms don't see it that way, apparently.
Those million Christian moms cannot let themselves feel positive emotions on Thanksgiving as long as one single gender non-binary person might be having fun celebrating the day. Better for those moms to deny their kids the pleasure of watching inflated Snoopy and other cartoon characters, than to let one single broadway performer of suspicious gender enjoy the parade too. How small are these people!
DeleteCan someone add some genitalia to the inflatable Snoopy, I can not tell what its sex or gender is.
DeleteMaybe draw it in with a Sharpie.
Why has Somerby stopped screening out this kind of spam?
ReplyDeleteBob has never been able to keep this stuff out, it's here from time to time.
ReplyDeleteAs moderator, blogspot gives him the tools to block such spam. But he has to look at his comments to do it.
ReplyDeleteGreat post.
ReplyDeleteI admire anyone who sets-out to blow-up FaceBook and X's business models.
The comments are moderated, for example if I post anything related to the extracurricular activities of a certain law-based pundit, it is deleted.
ReplyDeleteAh, 3:35, the Pope of What Is Genuine, has spoken from up high.
ReplyDeleteMost of us probably think we're already doing this.
ReplyDeleteAre you talking about Alan Dershowitz and Jeffrey Epstein and the sexual allegations against them such as child rape?
ReplyDeleteYou're new here, no?
ReplyDeleteI would suggest that disingenuous(= lacking honesty) is a poor word choice, but you might use that comment as an example of passive aggressive behavior.
Note that Dershowitz has been more sanguine about taking on the defense of murderers than he is of defending Trump; God knows he would like to. He and Rudy would have knocked it out of the park together. That is, a trailer park filled with alcoholics and child molesters.
ReplyDelete