On Countdown last night, Keith Olbermann would not mention the scandal of Israeli racism--or, rather, what would be a scandal if people like him dared to talk about it.
First Maria Teresa Kumar (of VotoLatino.org) and then Jonathan Turley attacked the Republican plan to deprive children born to illegal immigrants of automatic U.S. citizenship, comparing such an injustice with that of "stateless people," as Turley said, in another country--Germany.
Neither Turley nor Kumar can make the leap from U.S. nativism to the crisis in Israel over the government's plans to deport children of migrant workers.
Kumar commented, "That's not what America is all about." Why not at least talk about both Germany and Israel? Of course, doing so would raise troubling questions about the identity between Israel's agenda and the U.S.'s agenda in the Middle East.
Olbermann at least defended Christiane Amanpour against Tom Shales's attack. Shales had walloped Amanpour for what he saw as her implied sympathy for the Taliban, when she spoke of mourning all the war dead. Shales exclaimed that, "If this were 1943, we would hardly think it appropriate to mourn Nazi casualties."
For once, an American corporate newsguy, Olbermann, had the guts to retort, "Well, it's not 1943." And Olberman showed some grit when he accused Shales of having "gone to the mourn-Nazi-casualties-card."
“we would hardly think it appropriate to mourn Nazi casualties.”
I got two words for Shales: Reagen, Bitburg.
In the sense that wars waste precious human life, of course we should mourn those dying in today’s wars as well as those who died in the wars of yesteryear, WW II included. Mourn the losses and condemn the leaders and historical forces that bring about these bloodbaths.
Susie Kneedler wrote:
“Keith Olbermann would not mention the scandal of Israeli racism….”
One of the most fatuous aspects of the U.S. is the ability of people who, in reality, are merely preening for the approval of some impregnable reigning social establishment that they couldn’t imagine disagreeing with, nevertheless seeing themselves as essentially lion-hearted, Guevara-ist insurgents, in near lone Cong mortal combat with the evil, crushing and ruthless reigning establishment that may, at any minute, haul them away to some Gulag. No matter how clear it is from past history that the more ferociously they have attacked the almost invariably real target of their disdain—the essentially defenseless middle-class bourgeoisie or its values—the only place they’ve been hauled is to ever nicer parties in the Hamptons.
Herbert Marcuse meets Hugo Boss.
wow
I need to study up on leftism and gulagism and guevaraism and a whole bunch of isms I didn’t even know existed.
can’t we go back to just right and wrong?
Well, it’s not 1943, the Nuremberg race laws no longer exist in Germany. The basic facts of what is a complicated historical and post-war situation (including such issues as German sovereignty and EU membership) are that both (post-war) Germany’s and Israel’s citizenship laws grant priority on the basis of ethnicity and the ‘right of return’. In post-war Germany, ethnic priority immigration was the result of what is generally recognized to be the greatest refugee crisis in modern history – some 12-14 million ethnic Germans expelled from the East/Soviet sphere at and after the end of WW II.
link to en.wikipedia.org
This provision was limited to ethnic Germans born before 1993 after the collapse of the Soviet Union:
“some ethnic-priority policies restrict eligibility according to the time and place in which ethnic claims are raised, while others do not. On this dimension the German and Israeli cases finally take opposite positions. The German Law of Return was designed as a temporary remedy for
the consequences of war and expellation, covering only ethnic Germans caught in the Soviet Empire. By contrast, Israel’s Law of Return is a permanent, state-constituting provision, applying to every Jew in the world. In its expansiveness and state-defining quality the Israeli ethnic-priority immigration is unique in the world. ”
link to ccis-ucsd.org
Turley says ‘stateless Turks’ constitute a major problem in Germany. Turks are either citizens of Turkey or Germany (Germany does not automatically grant dual citizenship). I am aware of problems caused by Turkey expatriating citizens living in Germany who have been convicted as members of criminal organizations to prevent their being returned to Turkey by Germany. Germany is obliged to integrate stateless people by the Geneva convention, so there have been complaints
Expecting these establishment presstitutes to change is futile. They are where they are now because theyagree with the system. This olberman attacked Chavez with some israeloamerican propaganda in one clip I saw. Annapoor has shilled for just about every war and crime the israeloamerican establishment has been involved in. Their “liberalness” is all for show. They’re there to get rich and push establishment propaganda.
Write them off and put the effort behind real progressives working for change.
Olbermann, had the guts to retort, “Well, it’s not 1943.”
This is splitting hairs. The fact is these television personalities that we watch and try to connect with, are puppets on a string.
Amy Goodman is worth watching anyday over these mainstream shills.
“Amy Goodman is worth watching anyday over these mainstream shills.”
And that’s certainly not saying very much, considering her shilling for the mossad/cia green colour coded “color rev” destablisation operation against Iran last summer.
oh, will have to check it out. Thanks. she no hero, but certainly better.
Democracy now is generally a good source. It’s just when something important comes up to the ziofascist/fascist establishment, they’ll do a little shilling. If the subject they are covering is one you are familiar with, then you can use your own judgment on whether the material being presented is accurate or propaganda. But if you don’t know the subject beforehand, then you’re liable to be conned. Nobody is an expert on everything. And nobody has the time to follow up all they hear, see and read for accuracy. This is what I don’t like about sites like democracy now. Maybe 95% of the time, they provide decent info, but the rest is propaganda, and much of the time there is little chance one will know when they’re being bamboozled and when they are being told accurate info, unless they are intimate with the particular subject under discussion.
The Iran “color rev” was one of those important subjects to the ziofascist/fascist establishment. It had zero chance of success, obviously, but that wasn’t the intent of it. They wanted to disrupt Iran, and to impress the people outside Iran that Iran was governed by an illegit guv. Later, when israeloamerica does go hardcore on Iran, people outside Iran will be less likely to object. This means the mainstream media watching herd will cheer the war on, and the progressives (who normally would protest) will say “maybe it’s for the better, they have a totalitarian guv”, and be less inclined to make a stink. I remember seeing some “progressives” exhibit such views when Iraq was attacked. And this was brought on by constant media demonisation of saddam, that definitely had the intended result.
I’ld agree to this analysis of their strategy against Iran. And it even succeeded to get a whole bunch of population in Western countries behind regime change for Iran.
But in one point the warmongers miscalculated this time: the US military this time opposes to invade Iran for Israel. The military people know quite well, that Iran is larger than Iraq andAfghanistan together and much better prepared. The war mongers managed to stage the public support for an attack on Iran, so they could attack, but the military knows it’ll loose the war if they attack.
That, the strong defense capabilities of Iran, is the only thing that prevents this destructive war. And now – and already for some time in Bush administration – the war mongers are helpless. verything prepared for war but they can’t invade.
I too cling to the hopes mentioned by Bandolero. Not only is there no enthusiasm for more war in the top brass of the armed forces. Obama’s financial advisers must be warning him that there is no money. There is no international war party, no Tony Blair figure. There is widespread scepticism about WMD stories. ‘More War’ candidates would not do well in any election. If this situation in the West persists it will, I tell myself, eventually lead to realistic negotiations in the ME itself.