Bret Stephens is a Wall Street Journal columnist who declares the Iraq war won today:
does not sponsor terrorism, and is unlikely to again seek WMD. We have
a democratic government, a first for the Arab world, and one that is
increasingly capable of defending its people and asserting its
interests.
Please. All you can say about Iraq right now is it is approaching greater stability. Wonderful. Let it flourish. The rest of this is bunkum. Stephens aims his ideological darts at Francis Fukuyama. He justifiably criticizes Fukuyama for objecting to the Iraq war in '03 in only a "whisper"–myself I was in the streets shouting against the disaster–but ventures that in ten years time Fukuyama will celebrate Iraq's "liberation."
It's startling that the U.S. media is still hosting this sort of dazed arrogance, with its hidden agenda unspoken, even after Joe Klein bravely dimed out the Zionist host� of "benign domino" theorists whom Klein himself traveled with in his pro-war days. Zionism/non-Zionism is the faultline under Stephens's column, and of course in all neoconservative declarations about
remaking the Arab world into democracies by smashing their societies. Stephens is a former Jerusalem Post editor who once baited Ian Buruma when he dared to criticize Israel:� "Are you a Jew?" Meaning that if he wasn't, he had no standing.� Guess what, everyone has standing. Fukuyama, a man of artistic temperament, has largely abdicated his own standing to criticize the neocons and Israel since Charles Krauthammer accused him of antisemitism, though his fine book America at the Crossroads, which upset Stephens, pointed out that Arabs are angered by U.S. policy in the Mideast and trying to ascribe their rage to the downfall of the Caliphate is patronizing psycho-claptrap. Maybe he will remind Stephens of the tremendous suffering these policies have caused.
"Are you a Jew?" is a relevant question to ask.
Its not the last question, but its not all that different from my efforts to speak to Congressional representatives in topic areas of interest to me, but not my representative.
I still get form letters back in the mail, but NEVER a personal response.
That contrasts with how my own representatives communicate. (Mostly form letters, but I have gotten three personal responses from my representatives and senators on energy issues over the years.)
the stephens and krauthamers and wittys and swords at play:
"An Israeli child from a far-right settler group in the West Bank city of Hebron hurls a stone up the stairs of a Palestinian family close to their settlement and shouts: "I will exterminate you." Another spits towards the same family.
Another settler/squat woman pushes her face up to a window and snarls: "Whore!"
people so diseased become evil; the evil is the community.
Brett Stephens is a rather stupid prep-school puppy journalist who has but one agenda: the welfare of Israel. I read his sickening and quite repetitive columns regularly (maybe I'm the nut?) just to see what the lobby thinks. One wonders if Bret was potty trained too early (ange issues result) becasue under his uber soft exterior beats the heart of an angry Aeron Chair warrior. He has no qualms about spilling American blood against Iran. Let us hope he is only heard by other neo-con morons…I'm afraid he is more dangerous than that however.
The concept of standing is a jurisdictional one. Legally, in layman's terms, it means: Does the law (appointed or elected Judge[s])officially recognize you have a relevant "dog in the fight?" The usual legal approach is to see if you, the plaintiff, have been (more or less) directly injured, assuming the facts you allege are true. Apply this to some simple and common civil plaintiffs: Guy hit by a car & his family. Guy who bought a defective prouduct that caused physical or emotiona injury, etc.
Class actions (e.g. Taxpayor protection agency actions) assume probabilities. What is a Gentile American's interest in our governing federal regime's foreign policy in the Middle East?
On somewhat another hand, standing in terms of federal Constitutional issues is assumed, at least to raise your question,
which always implicates the alleged common wrong in terms of our Constitution on its face, and/or as applied, or selectively (discrimination) applied.
The law is not Morality per se. That's one of the first things law students learn.
Whether whites ever have standing to address racial discrimination issues has been answered in part by the results of the thread of reverse discrimination cases (applying the officially chosen abstract words of legislation or court decisions.) A "right" must be recognized by the system's designated official (judicial) rulers before it becomes a "right." If there's no prevailing agreement by our three-pronged government (actually
four prongs, adding the "Fourth Estate," or unelected MSM).
So where does the leave the concept that a white has no standing to address raciscm, a gentile has no standing to address anti-semitism?
Goes in circles.
But one thing is clear: The First Amendment stands to protect free speech. The Second Amendment stands to protect citizens
from a regime that has shut out free speech by direct or indirect force of arms.
Of course that's just the bare bones. The reality is there's more than one way to skin a cat. Control of information and money are the more delicate instruments. Here pussy, pussy…
My own experience with our congressional representives is similar. Usually form letters that do not address the issues I raise except in the most generic and superficial ways. One exception was when I received a telephone response from my house rep's foreign affairs lead. We talked for about fifteen minutes. I'd say something; she'd respond with the usual official line anyone would recognize immediately. Finally it came down to the USS Liberty incident. After more detailed phone exchange when I did'nt buy her responses (again, all were the standard official lines), it came down to one detail: Did the Israeli pilots act as they did in full view of an American flag flying? Her final say was the ship at the time in question never showed an American flag. I said my research indicated it did. I gave her the sources for my conviction; she simply ignored them, repeating aspects of the usual official explanation. So it goes…
Charles,
The point is that the first question asked is "are you from my district?"
A good question.
But, it shouldn't be the last one.
.
"It's startling that the U.S. media is still hosting this sort of dazed arrogance, with its hidden agenda unspoken … Zionism/non-Zionism is the faultline under Stephens's column." — Phil W.
A spot-on diagnosis. But is it really startling? Ever since Big Media started cross-owning broadcasting facilities (which are much more heavily regulated than print), there has been a tacit understanding not to bite the hand that feeds. Plus, paid government agitprop (don't take dope, buckle your seatbelts, etc.) BUYS loyalty from Big Media.
As Israel's leading business daily, the WSJ is somewhat of a special case. Think of it as an emigré rag, and you won't be startled anymore. It's based in America, but not of America.
As for Stephens' laughable assertion that the Iraq war is won, note that the word "occupation" nowhere appears in it. How many long-term occupations have ever been successful? You would think that an Israeli business daily might supply some insight into this point, given the 40-year-long occupation of Palestinian territories which isn't going so well. But you would be wrong. Frickin' emigré fanatics …
The question is: Will the new Iraq be a state friendly to the US/West and Israel or will it become an Iranian satelite state unfriendly to the US/West and Israel.
I bet, it will become the latter.
Since when is the Wall Streeet Journal owned by Israel. I believe its Rupert Murdoch, an Austrailian. Are you still pissed off about the civil war Haygood?
Maureen Dowd this morning said that Jesse Jackson's agenda has been keeping whites "on the hook". She is saying that some black leaders have tried to keep the guilt and resentment fresh in everyone's mind. Obama is trying to transcend that.
When I proposed that the Jewish religion's foundational premise is victimhood,this is what I meant. I am not being anti-semitic or Jew bashing. It just seems quite apparent that this technique is being used to raise money, to intimidate gentiles, to provide a glue for community.
Is this healthy for human beings?
Witty, what's your point? I was from the district.
What is the Caliphate?
A Jew and a Hindu walk into a goldsmith's shop. The Hindu says, "I'll have a swastika made of gold".
The Jew says, "The Swastika is a symbol of ethnic superiority! Behind it lies years upon years of oppression, slaughter and persecution! Any reasonably minded person would agree it should be banned!'
The Jew convinces the goldsmith to have the Hindu banned from the shop.
Then the Jew says, "I'll have a Star of David."
Got to love the humor of the Phil Weiss fan base. Must have taken you months to think that one up. But, probably speaking too soon, Right up your alley isn't it Keating. Wonder what your supposed Jewish wife, and your supposed half Jewish spawn would think of that one?
A "Sacred Bond" between the US and Israel?
I attended a speech today by Florida Congressman Robert Wexler, author of the book FLAMING LIBERAL.
Now Wexler is indeed liberal on domestic issues, but on matters mid-eastern he went out of his way to flaunt his dual loyalty in a most outrageous fashion repeatedly citing a so-called "sacred bond" between the US and Israel that must be defended at all costs.
When it comes to Israel there is not much difference between liberals like Wexler and the Bush neo-cons except perhaps on tactical issues.
Israel's leading business daily
LOL!!
"Charles,
The point is that the first question asked is "are you from my district?" A good question. But, it shouldn't be the last one."–
Richard Witty
In the context of: "Are you a Jew?"
Sure, that's important to any congressional representative.
Are you an American?
Richard, I think you've made your multiple loyalty priorities clear on this blog. Even taking pains to do so.
You missed my responsive point completely. Certainly, in the example I gave, I gave the result of the Q & A sequence, and the result, which showed those in power don't care about any controversial alleged facts. You buy their line. If not, they ignore you. Need moneybags for a different result.