-
-
- Exile and the prophetic: The Jewish Identity Network 0
- Trauma begins at home 0
- CNN’s Tapper lends himself to claustrophobic discussion of unicorn– Israel’s … 0
- Church of Scotland’s revised ‘Promised Land’ report has softer edges … 18
- Guatemalan genocide got assist from US, Christian Right, and Israel 15
- Barbara Boxer’s visa bill for Israel comes under concerted attack 49
- Exile and the prophetic: No dissenter is an island 8
- Islamophobia is as widespread and acceptable as anti-Semitism used to … 20
-
- Israeli airport sorts passengers with ‘Jewish stickers’ and ‘Arab stickers’ 676
- ‘Newseum’ folds under pressure, will not include Gaza cameramen in … 312
- Dershowitz calls Hawking an ‘ignoramus,’ a ‘lemming,’ and likely an … 203
- In photos: Gaza marches and rallies mark 65 years of … 149
- Glenn Greenwald brings facts and reason to ‘Real Time’, ruins … 145
- San Francisco bus ads condemn Israeli apartheid: backlash begins 120
- Washington Post’s racism map omits Israel 101
- Washington state bus-ad campaign dares to state: ‘Equal rights for … 100
-
- Dershowitz calls Hawking an ‘ignoramus,’ a ‘lemming,’ and likely an … 149
- Glenn Greenwald brings facts and reason to ‘Real Time’, ruins … 88
- International Criminal Court opens preliminary investigation into attack on Mavi … 82
- Israeli airport sorts passengers with ‘Jewish stickers’ and ‘Arab stickers’ 69
- Washington Post’s racism map omits Israel 63
- ‘Newseum’ folds under pressure, will not include Gaza cameramen in … 62
- Church of Scotland backs away from boycott call in the … 62
- More on the Church of Scotland’s controversial report on occupation 60
-
- The Latest from Mondoweiss for 05/19/2013 - http://t.co/CEtLw0LHmv, 5 hours ago
- Church of Scotland’s revised ‘Promised Land’ report has softer edges but thrust is unchanged http://t.co/FCgbAw9vEO, 19 hours ago
- Exile and the prophetic: No dissenter is an island http://t.co/vnbRO0AgjV, 2013/05/18
- Islamophobia is as widespread and acceptable as anti-Semitism used to be http://t.co/j9GvEIOYqI, 2013/05/18
- Guatemalan genocide got assist from US, Christian Right, and Israel http://t.co/oJT9HsoQcD, 2013/05/18
-
Recent Comments
click link to see last 100 comments- Barbara Boxer’s visa bill for Israel comes under concerted attack (49)
- Alex Kane: Yes, you’re absolutely right Henry, my oversight.
- Accentitude: I completely agree with this statement: “This is the only place in the world where I feel that it means...
- Accentitude: Actually there is a formal defined Palestine. It was adopted by a majority of the planet earth not too...
- Islamophobia is as widespread and acceptable as anti-Semitism used to be (20)
- Kathleen: Islamophobia is far more accepted than anti semitism. Especially with the Pam Geller’s of the world...
- Uncompromising hope inspired by Ghassan Kanafani (50)
- Walid: Annie, read both and I agree that WU is somewhat amateurish but I wouldn’t go as far as branding her a...
- Christians denounce Israel’s manhandling of worshipers at Holy Sepulcher on Easter weekend; Israel apologizes to Egypt (15)
- Accentitude: I was covering this even “Sabt al Nour” or the day of the Holy fire that is referred to in...
- Washington Post’s racism map omits Israel (63)
- irmep: I emailed several people in charge of fielding the survey, mentioning this discussion. Two of them responded...
- Church of Scotland’s revised ‘Promised Land’ report has softer edges but thrust is unchanged (18)
- talknic: RJL” if they butt into Israel’s business “ Israeli activities in territories “outside the...
- Exile and the Prophetic: Joseph Massad strikes again (12)
- yonah fredman: Massad’s essay is toxic. (It is poison with the purpose of poison rather than the purpose of...
- International Criminal Court opens preliminary investigation into attack on Mavi Marmara (82)
- Hostage: Really? In August 1948 Emil Ghoury, a member of the Arab Higher Committee, the “Cabinet” of the Palestinian...
- Barbara Boxer’s visa bill for Israel comes under concerted attack (49)
Our Writers
More WritersBlogroll
The War of Ideas in the Middle East
Is yet another lesson that no people can be prioritized over another?
This is not the last, but the first. This is the key from which other lessons can be derived.
Feeling the love.
link to vimeo.com
Israel has not always been under the sphere of the US. I think that it is a mistake to assume that the US is the be-all and end all for Israel foreign policy.
In the same way that singling out South Africa was racist.
Since when did Israel wait until aid ships were within 12 miles of Israel (Wherever the ---- those borders are) before boarding?
Ops! - Sorry. Wrong topic. :)
The problem of course is Castro did not get rid of the crooks. He managed to get them out of Cuba and they became someone else's problem.
On a slightly off topic note - I recently visited Cuba and was extremely surprised to see how small scale capitalistic Cuba is in the tourist industry. It is probably the most capitalistic culture I have ever seen - people really hustle. Very different than my experiences with the US, Canada, Spain, UK. There are definitely class differences in Cuba. For a real taste of capitalism - visit Cuba! Take that Mr. Castro.
It is interesting how similar this map is to another map.
link to learner.org
Religion molds itself to the needs of nationalism. "Judiasm" is no different than any other religion in this regard. What is needed in Judiasm will be found whether it is truly there or not.
Jewish nationalism, like all other forms of extreme nationalism are highly immoral. It has nothing though to do with Judiasm, except as it can be mined and perverted to support that nationalism. It could just as easily be Christianity as it is being mined and perverted in the US to support American Nationalism.
Being a victim in the past has nothing to do with how moral one is in the present. If only people who were abused as children did not grow up to be more likely to abuse than the general population.
This seems to me to be a violation of the new guidelines. We do not expect more from Jews, and we do not expect less. The reverse of this statement should be obvious: "For Jews to use it is understandable."
All religions are creations of people. What is sacred is not not the religion, but the creation of God. Without that we are left with worshiping the golden calf.
As the comment policy becomes more complicated it becomes harder and harder to follow. Probably a reason for refusing a comment would be helpful. (do not allow argumentation over that reason - just delete such posts)
The add will polarize, isolate, and create a "white" vs. "coloured" siege mentality . It could indeed backfire. I would imagine that most immigrant groups will not be impressed. I imagine that the black community will not be impressed. If European countries notice, they will not be impressed.
Welcome to the 1930's.
You are probably right. Selling them to white supremacists is a whole new ball game though.
link to guardian.co.uk
Canada has the "capacity" to produce nuclear weapons. Which first world countries do not have this capacity? I think that this resolution is an attempt to declare that a first-world Iran is a threat and is unacceptable.
Who's the leader of the cult that thinks for you and me?
Mit tRo mney e (Barack Obama!)
- ok so it doesn't quite scan.
The question is how far can the average American take obsequiousness before she throws up? I have little doubt that the average American can go all the way when it comes to violence without losing much sleep just as long as the media keeps it down to a dull roar, but the humiliation that Romney exposes the US to is a different matter.
I don't think he's crossed the threshold yet.
No one has mentioned what Romney is doing to future relations to Europe. It will be like Bush, but worse if he becomes president. I'm sure that leaders in Europe are cringing right now. He is not helping them at all, nor is he helping the European perception of the US.
War in context has an updated article:
Canada 1812.
The US tried to annex Upper Canada and Lower Canada. A series of events leading from that attempted annexation lead to a free democracy. See - the US actively trying to prevent a freedom has managed to sew the seeds of a democracy. Stunning, isn't it.
Oh - that's not what you meant. Well carry on then.
Zyklon B was used as a disinfectant and used for pest control. What is your point?
Jewish money or no Jewish money, at some point the United States of Israel is going to upset folks back in the USofA.
There is a line that can be walked only so far until there is a backlash. It is stupid for the Democrats to be positioning themselves a hairsbreadth to the left of the Republican Party.
To position themselves to the right of the Republican party leaves them open to being the one to take the fall when the hits the fan.
Who knows - maybe there will be unintended consequences. Perhaps the Republican Party will go so completely wingy that they will alienate themselves. Or perhaps the majority of Americans will fail to notice or even worse be truly represented? Or perhaps the US will continue its slide into authoritarian "democracy" with no recourse for the majority of the population.
It is also stupid for mainstream Jewish groups to continue to pray towards Jerusalem. There may be a backlash against recognized Jewish groups as well over the creation of the United States of Israel. There's a reason that separation of church and state is so important.
The "paranoid fringedwellers" believe anything that is convenient to their world view, and so do you. There is no skepticism in your analysis. The world is black and white, good and evil. It must be Hezbollah and you have grasped at any straw that indicates that must be true. At the same time you have shut your eyes to anything that indicates there is room for doubt.
There are a lot of people who always blame Israel for everything. There are people who blame the US for everything. There are people who think that Israel is never wrong for anything, and that Hezbollah is always to blame.
You have ridiculed the "paranoid fringdwellers", but you have shown yourself to be a "paranoid toady". Have you learned anything from the current backtracking of official sources on who has done it?
Right above your quote Colin Wright hits it dead on - He doesn't know that it is a false flag. Neither do I. We both know that Israel often uses false flag operations, and if you are not completely blind, so do you. The Lavon affair is the most famous, but by no means the only.
Colin: I agree 100%.
Explicitly avoiding any discussion of the merits of 9/11, the same thing applies there too.
I think that more and more, Israel and the US are seen as a single country in terms of foreign policy.
Perhaps not so much as not sovereign, but criminal.
There is no world war one in the offing. An Israeli/US/Europe attack on Iran isn't world war 1. It may lead to Iran engaging in a world wide terror campaign, but that also isn't ww1.
thanks
And yet, the colour of skin of those who are Shas does not matter. What matters is that a Jewish state must define who is and who is not a Jew. You must have your own definition, just as Shas does, just as the state of Israel does.
Ethiopian Jews must have their culture destroyed (over time) because their version of Judaism is not acceptable. Jews for Jesus are beyond the pale. A Jewish state must be an oppressive state, to among others, Jews - just as a Catholic states originally felt they had to control Christianity.
The contradictions of Shas and they are voting for a white definition when they are hardly white is indeed funny - but the funny part is that some people are white. The only people who are white are extremely ill. It is not a natural colour for homo sapiens.
The creation of what is acceptable Jewish behaviour for a Jewish state is no more and no less arbitrary than Shas's desire for white skin. And it is no more nor no less racist.
Same enough for all Jews to be covered by the state of Israel according to you.
Shas - 10% of the vote 2009, 4th largest party in the knesset. There seems to be a very large number of backward nutjobs in Israel who seem to think that only white people can be Jews.
I'd say that the difference between believing Israel is for Jews and Israel is for white Jews is one of degree not kind.
I call these people racists. I don't try to emulate them.
Fascism.
And I note that a rather large number of Zionists seem to want pretty much the same thing as the right-wing Evangelicals do as they use them as justification for their views.
Or an Aryan one?
The "white race" is a constructed concept - what the hell is white and how is skin colour the definition of a race? Religion is not a whole lot better - I thought it was anti-semetic to claim that all Jews are the same, and yet we have Israel and its one-size-fits-all. If that isn't bad enough we have Israel is for the white people.
Christian states worked so wonderfully - think of the long lasting peace christian Europe had. In the end, Christian has also demonstrated that it too is arbitrary.
It is mind blowing to use dignity and Jewish majority in the same sentence. There is no dignity in telling people who they can and can not marry. There is no dignity in controlling what religion people belong to by punishing "incorrect" religions.
How about: Later in the day, after I tweeted out news of this latest round of vandalism [against Quakers], I received an e-mail from a self-identified Southern White who wrote, "Which side are you on, the Southern side or the enemies of the South side, like Quakers?" Hagit Ofran, I would only point out, is a self-described Christian who seeks to preserve the South's White majority, and its democracy and at that the same time afford the Black people some dignity, dignity being a Southern White value, of course.
If we are going to talk about fascism, lets at least throw out a reasonable definition to work with:
link to academico.direito-rio.fgv.br
I completely fail to see your point hophmi. What are you trying to say?
AIPAC isn't doing something that no one else is doing. AIPAC is playing by the rules. The US political system is fucked beyond belief. Still what is it you are trying to say? Do you agree with seanmcbride? Do you disagree with him? Are you upset that he didn't provide a detailed statement on what he thinks about the US lobby system? What's up?
Ah. I missed this bit of racism.
The monolithic Christianity and the monolithic Judaism.
There has been a lot of dead people in the attempt to keep/prevent the monolithic Christianity. There is no monolithic Christianity now. The Catholic church lost.
There's an interesting lie for you. Try peddling that shit in Northern Ireland. There is a reason that Christianity has been called a thousand different religions all based on the same book.
You choose not to proselytize. Own it and take responsibility for your own actions. Judaism is not the only religious group that does not proselytize (except of course when it does.). There are Christian sects that do not proselytize. I would be stunned if there weren't other religions that did not proselytize.
Religions come and go. If you don't like it, I understand that ancient Egypt had a religion that is in need of followers, and who better than a people who come out of Egypt.
Churches are closing left, right, and center. Suck it up like the Christian sects are. The world is changing. Rather than having the highest rate of assimilation, Jewish cultures have the lowest. Talk about sore winners.
That and $2 will get you on the bus. No culture has "rights". People have rights - the right to choose their religion, the right to choose whom they wish to marry, the right to assimilate or adopt cultures as they wish. If you wish to keep the 3,000 year old history going, sell it - make it attractive to new people. Over time all cultures will die, and new cultures will come into being. That is part of life. As someone who has "assimilated" I am quite insulted by your post.
Sounds not to hot to me. My parents supported my right to marry whom I wished, without pressure. I also haven't experienced that welcoming, inclusive, compassionate and support of couples that choose to intermarry. Sure as hell didn't happen in our family.
As a member of the most successful minority in the history of the US you should know all about privilege. There are Christian sects that have long and bloody histories of being oppressed. I don't think that your holier than thou attitude is at all appropriate.
One thing is sure - Jewish history of oppression does not provide an excuse to oppress the Palestinians, nor does it provide an excuse to set up a theocracy where there are public penalties for failure to maintain the correct religion or marry the correct person.
It is not acceptable to rely on the good graces of the Jewish Synagog for those who intermarry, change religions, adopt new cultures, or assimilate. That's why I support a secular society. I don't need the oppression of organized religion on my neck because I have made unpopular choices.
Try this on for size:
There is such a massive asymmetry of power between Theists and Atheists that your comparison is rendered meaningless. Theists are the largest group in the world with over 5 billion followers. Theists actively proselyte and are therefore constantly bringing in new recruits. And the intermarriage rate for Theists is extremely low (far less than 50%).
It is silly to talk of affirmative action in a system of apartheid. It is imperative to talk of affirmative action after such a system has ended.
All affirmative action is, is a form of empowerment. Empowerment is quite reasonable to talk about about when talking about resisting apartheid.
BDS!
Perhaps this should be split into a new thread?
The earliest government affirmative action that I can think of in the US is the 50 acres and a mule. This seems to me to be potentially an extremely effective form of affirmative action for the time it was not implemented.
Johnrich - I am no sociologist, but I am interested in the differences in affirmative action between Canada and the US in particular and am interested in affirmative action in other countries.
Affirmative action in the US has generated a lot of hostility. I believe that it is based on a quota system. It has generated less hostility in Canada. I believe that it is based on the availability of qualified minorities. As I said, I am no expert on this, and it is possible that I am mistaken.
I also think that there is "hidden" affirmative action in Canada - equal pay for equal work of equal value - that has forced wage increases to women to match or to match over time male counterparts.
I don't know the stats on how bad things are for minorities in Canada vs. the US, with the note that for the Native population things are pretty dire. A native woman survivor of the residential school system has an amazing amount going against her.
I think that there is something in the US method of affirmative action that has generated this hostility. I don't think that it is necessarily made up. I would accept that any inconvenience that whites in general and white males in particular suffer is miniscule to those that are helped by affirmative action. I do think though, that there is perhaps something to the claim of reverse discrimination that is leveled in the US.
How we implement a program can have major consequences to how it is perceived and to its success.
Can't say, but he apparently considers it extremely important for Muslims in Germany to be able to mutilate their male children before age of consent.
link to circumstitionsnews.blogspot.co.nz
Link please.
I think that Mooser's wife is the candy man.
Israel is a democracy is even a bigger one.
I am reading about those who were working to abolish US slavery. One of the things that surprised me is that the two state solution to slavery was once very popular. Eventually it lost its popularity when those opposed to slavery realized that it was being used to remove free blacks from the US and not to emancipate slaves.
This is the problem with the two state solution in Palestine. One side sees it as a vehicle to oppress Palestinians and has no interest at all in actually seeing a true Palestinian state, and never has, and never will. The object is to make the Palestinians go away and keep them subservient, not give them freedom next door. The very best that can be hoped for is that they accept a two state solution through fear.
Removing the "forskin" from women will most likely achieve similar health "benefits" for women. It is the same piece of anatomy. Isn't it amazing that the US with the highest rate of circumcision has the
lowesthighest rate of HIV of europe/north america. A 60% reduction in risk is like the rhythm method. You are going to have children. The question is when. It does not translate into 60% less cases of HIV. It translates into a much smaller reduction.Israel must curtail the right to marry whom one wishes, and attend the religion of one's choice in order to create a Jewish state. There are other requirements to keep the state Jewish. One of those requirements is that all boys must undergo at least mutilation, if not mutilation without anesthetic - torture. The individual Jew is required cast aside individual aspirations for the greater good of the Jewish faith. Judiasm first, and personal life second. Circumcision is part of the package of what makes Israel Jewish and theocratic instead of secular and democratic. Circumcision proves the willingness to sacrifice ones male children for the state.
Shut your mouth and open your wallet.
link to thehasbarabuster.blogspot.ca
link to lawrenceofcyberia.blogs.com
You might be on to something.
link to en.wikipedia.org
So Jews come from Israel, except for those that don't.
link to porozow.net
It is called the Jewish Colonial Trust because that is what Zionism is - a colonial enterprise. When the word colonial became a bad word suddenly all Jewish colonial activities magically became something else.
If we are going to go to absurdities, Jews come from from Egypt, or more distantly, from Africa.
The modern world does not have room for such messianic re-births through blood and soil. I would have thought the first time was more than enough. Today we recognize the rights of individuals to religious freedom and to marry whomever they wish. We believe, well most of us, that the rights of an individual are more important than the rights of a religion, or the rights of an ethnicity.
Judaism does not have rights. People have rights - the right to practice whatever religion they please.
The ancient "connections" of Judaism to Israel should have no bearing on the modern rights of individuals to run their own lives. That Stonehenge is extremely important to Wiccans everywhere does not give all Wiccans automatic right to British citizenship, nor the right to expel those non Wiccans who live near Stonehenge, and steal their homes.
Yes - all those converts to
IsraelJudaism really secretly came from Israel. So did all those people who were born in England, United States and so forth.No - the only people, by your definition, are the Canaanites. Jews come from Egypt or so the fairytale goes.
As far as conflict goes - most civilized countries have managed to work something out with a form of democracy and guaranteeing equal rights for everyone.
Colin, please.
Zionism and Stalinism are two ideologies. Israel is a state. You are comparing two different things here.
One can love a state and disavow its crimes. See for example:
How Would a Patriot Act?
If one loves Israel as the Zionist State then I would agree with you, even noting that a few Zionists manage to some pretty strong criticisms of Zionism. I would also agree that it is uncommon or even rare for someone to "love Israel" but to see Zionism as a form of extreme nationalism. That does not mean that it can not be done.
This first name thing reminds me of something the south was famous for: Southern Hospitality.
Should Israel be singled out by people who aren't Israelis?
Lots of different answers here:
1. Should South Africans (notice that the Whites is assumed just as Jewish is assumed) be singled out by people who aren't South Africans?
2. Should I ignore the crimes that the country I live in commits in foreign countries because I don't live in those foreign countries?
3. Should I ignore the claims of foreign countries, or should I examine and criticize those clams? Eg: Israel has the most moral army. Israel is a democracy.
4. Should I ignore the crimes of countries because there is an active effort to cover up those crimes, or should I redouble my efforts to expose those crimes?
Claiming that everyone belongs to a shared humanity and has equal rights and potentials then claiming that people should not single out countries that fail to meet the standards is bizarre.
Yup. And if the US could bury the attack on the USS Liberty, this little teensy thing can be buried too.
The burning olive trees seem to hold the same value as the buffalo - and the belief that if one killed all the buffalo the Indians would leave.
Liberalism and imperialism is an excellent example of bad faith. I wish I had thought of it earlier.
The idea that we are enlightened and we can help you too become enlightened is extremely seductive - to place it in the form of America bringing "democracy" to your country is a natural extension of this. Of course it directly contradicts the idea of self determination for all people.
The difference between supporting people in their own liberation, and attempting to take over that liberation is a fine line indeed. If I understand my history, that was a major trend in early Zionism - bringing enlightenment to the backward natives.
I think that liberalism has some basic tenants that are not reconcilable with imperialism, or its close cousin colonialism. So, I would say Zionism is not unique or special in its bad faith - though it is special in the power it has managed to array in maintaining itself.
A liberal Zionists is someone who is avoiding reality - who is hiding from the truth. They are lying to themselves. A liberal Zionist is not an oxymoron, but rather someone who is living in bad faith.
This makes liberal Zionists no different than other liberals who find reasons to oppose basic human rights - as has happened in the past over equality for women, gay rights, equality for minorities (slavery for an extreme example).
I think it is worth arguing this point, because depending on what a liberal Zionist is, the tactics used in dealing with them changes. If they are living in bad faith, it makes senses to repeatedly confront them with their bad faith (politely). I know I don't do the politely very well though I am working on it.
I think we are seeing an excellent example of the tension between liberalism and Zionism in the recent court ruling on circumcision from Cologne. The Zionist line is that Hitler is just around the corner. There appears to be no understanding of what this ruling is about, and why it occurred. It is as if, rather than just tensions between liberalism and Zionism, Zionism has a hard time understanding what liberalism is.
Yes. Canada also is developing a history of overthrowing democracies in favour of dictatorships.
Advanced democratic cultures - well that excludes Israel and the United States for sure.
Ah - Judaism is an obligation that weighs on a person's shoulder like a millstone. Heaven forbid someone have as few children as they please - or even worse marry someone who is not Jewish.
Given the global increase in Jewish population 2000-2001 of .3% (whatever Jewish means) "restoring" the Jewish population isn't going to happen very soon. Perhaps if your goal is increasing the numbers, Judaism should start recruiting converts.
We don't know because proper statistics are not kept. That includes records listing cause of death. It has been common to list cause of death as something else other than circumcision. We do know some general information - such as the risks of general anesthesia and local anesthesia, for example. We know that people occasionally die from these - no matter how qualified the people providing them.
Since the foreskin is the most sensitive portion of the penis (and comprises 40% of the surface area) we know that complications occur in 100% of all circumcisions.
Of course you can cut the risk of anesthesia by eliminating it - changing circumcision to torture.
Here is one set of statistics:
Immediate complications 5.26%-16.17%
Late complications 5.25%-11.76%
Adhesions 10.52%-29.41%
link to circumstitions.com
THYMOS: Journal of Boyhood Studies, Vol. 4, No. 1, Spring 2010, 78-90
LOST BOYS: AN ESTIMATE OF U.S. CIRCUMCISION-RELATED INFANT DEATHS
- Dan Bollinger
Abstract: Baby boys can and do succumb as a result of having their foreskin removed. Circumcision-related mortality rates are not known with certainty; this study estimates the scale of this problem. This study finds that approximately 117 neonatal circumcision-related deaths (9.01/100,000) occur annually in the United States, about 1.3% of male neonatal deaths from all causes. Because infant circumcision is elective, all of these deaths are avoidable. This study also identifies reasons why accurate data on these deaths are not available, some of the obstacles to preventing these deaths, and some solutions to overcome them.
link to circumstitions.com
At one time similar views were held about female circumcision as well. The world is changing, and as usual, the US is behind the rest of the world.
I do not know of any other form of surgery where it is left to the parents to make the decision. This is not standard medical practice - and violates medical ethics.
link to circumstitions.com
I made a response to the entire article which deals with this issue in more detail. It appears to have disappeared into the ether.
Briefly, I do not make a moral distinction between how we mutilate our children. To claim that we are morally superior because we mutilate our children in a doctor's office seems to me to be a false sense of superiority.
Personally, I would have thought that hacking off bits of your male children's sex organs was mortifyingly unthinkable no matter how it was done - including in a doctor's office.
I think that if a non-consenting woman was held down and the hood of her clitoris was removed without her permission, it would be considered, among other things, rape. So, yes, removing the hood of the penis on a new born baby boy is also rape. The issue of sucking the blood is graphic and obscene, but of minor importance to the entire issue.
We're here! We're Intactivists! It's a human rights issue! Get used to it!
In Canada there is a religious controversy with Jehovah Witnesses who do not believe in blood transfusions.
In extreme cases, where a minor needs a blood transfusion to save their life, the Canadian government takes custody of the child, performs the operation, then returns custody of the child.
If the requirement of the religion is barbaric enough, that right is not recognized.
I am willing to bet that you aren't willing to take the same stand with regard to homosexuality - another topic that breaks down some of the Jewish/Muslim barriers.
Well do you believe in freedom of religion? Is it ok to brand baby boys as Jewish? Do you believe that it is wrong to remove the foreskin from baby girls? Do you believe that women should have the right to control their own bodies? Do you believe that men should have the right to control their own bodies? What do you think about performing amputations without anesthetic? Are you willing to give it a go?
You should have an opinion here - in the same way that those who do not have an opinion on whether a Jewish state, or for that matter an Islamic state, or a white state is a good or bad thing.
No - you are probably right that in the short run - or even perhaps the medium run - this isn't going to help the IP issue, though ultimately it is the same issue - the right of every individual to run their own life. The right that one's religion, ethnicity, and one's body are private and not the business of the state.
As an aside, it is interesting that some of those who have been at the forefront of the anti-circumcision movement have been Jews. In 1843 reform rabbis questioned the need for circumcision. 1869 Approval by 13 Reform Jewish Rabbis who met in Philadelphia that: "... birth, and not circumcision, is the initiation into the Jewish religion." 1885 At the National Rabbinical Convention of the Reformed Hebrew Church in Pittsburg, Pennsylvania, Dr Kohler of New York, "denounced the rite of circumcision as a relic of barbarism."
There has been a concerted effort to find some reason to engage in circumcision. So far the results have not been very convincing. There are three studies that indicate a stunning 60% decrease in adult African males who have been circumcised over males who have not been circumcised. The flaws in the study are many. Immediately, the results make no sense when looking at aids rates in the US vs Europe/Canada and the circumcision rates in the US vs Europe/Canada. The US has the highest rate of circumcision, and the highest rate of aids and other sexual transmitted diseases.
When looking at rates of aids in African countries, there is no coloration between circumcision and aids rates.
A number of countries are considering outlawing circumcision, or severely limiting its use, starting with the UK who (i believe in the 50's), after a study of circumcision decided that it was not something that should be routinely done.
There are doctors and nurses that flatly refuse to engage in routine circumcision. Indeed, it is the medical community that has been driving this issue.
The idea that FGM is worse than MGM is incomplete. The worst examples of FGM are indeed worse than MGM, but the worst examples of MGM are worse than some examples of FGM. MGM can, and does, lead to death.
Health benefits of MGM, while illusionary, are completely a side issue. First of all, newborn babies do not engage in sex. Secondarily, we do not remove healthy tissue from baby girls to prevent breast cancer.
Within the context of Judaism, circumcision implies that Judaism is an obligation not a choice.
You are randomly guessing. Imagining that evolution would create a unique structure to the human body and provide it with 50% of the skin of the penis and give it no function is astounding.
If you want to know the function of the foreskin - you can go here.
link to circumstitions.com
In fact Dr. Kellog and other early doctors used circumcision to prevent masturbation. In this case, anesthesia was not used as the pain of the operation was considered to be a bonus.
link to circumstitionsnews.blogspot.co.nz
The health benefits of circumcision are quite debatable with an amazing list of diseases listed that circumcision cures. There is a simple operation that can be performed on baby girls that would solve one of the major diseases that women get. We could remove the breast buds from all baby girls. Is that acceptable?
Here are some of the diseases circumcision "cures":
"spermatorrhoea"
Masturbation
syphilis
paralysis
epilepsy
homicidal rage
diarrhoea
irritated the nervous system which hampers digestion
phimosis and hence masturbation
cancer of the penis
smegma causes cervical cancer
aids
spina bifida
When you talk of the benefits of circumcision, which diseases are you referring to - or perhaps you have some others to add to the list?
It is fairly easy to document that the US has a higher rate of circumcision and a higher rate of diseases like aids compared to other western countries in general and Europe in particular. Disease rates for aids for circumcised and uncircumcised males are known for several African countries. The results are all over the place and do not show that circumcision prevents aids.
Circumcision does siphon money from all other areas of heal care in Africa causing problems for emergency health procedures like caesarians.
Israel is based on the notion that Jews, collectively, have rights, but Jews as individuals must give up rights for the greater good of the collective. Circumcision helps to normalize this type of view both in Judaism and Islam, (and currently an attempt to expand it through out all of Africa.) To challenge circumcision is to challenge the notion that the individual must subordinate themselves to the majority. It is to insist that rights belong to the individual, not to the collective.
I support Palestinian rights as an individual initiative. It is for each individual Palestinian, not for Palestinians as a collective. I am not beholden to the policies of Hamas or any other governmental or quasi-governmental body.
Circumcision of newborn babies is the identical formulation. An operation is performed for religious or cultural reasons with the individual having no say in it at all. It violates all medical ethics.
As with any operation there are risks, including death. This is amplified when an operation is performed on a newborn child.
My impression of the anti-circumcision movement is that the mainstay has been the medical community. Here is a site that may be of interest. link to circumstitions.com
link to moonofalabama.org
So anan - the enemy of my enemy is my friend?
Wisemanw1 - here is a list of Jewish Anarchists:
Just saying.
If we put aside Palestine for a moment, Israel is in deep trouble. It is a society with declining education with a privileged class that could become too large for the society to support.
link to ynetnews.com
Israel seems to rely on conflict and racism in order to hold itself together. Even ignoring the I/P conflict, it seems that the country is not sustainable in the long run.
In the video the minister said she did not intend to compare the "infiltrators [African migrants] to people."
She's a really nasty piece of work.
They were described to me as "stumbling stones".
This memorial in Budapest is even more powerful.
link to en.wikipedia.org
Circumcision - a form of torture - usually practiced on newborns or children, is probably almost universal in Israel.
The psychotic split between a country that tortures its infants and bans spanking is I suspect similar to the behaviour on one side of the wall versus the other.
You forgot the bit about "And you can't criticize us if we are not the worst because that would be anti-Semitic!"
Perhaps you could tell me what the borders of Israel are?
Keith - I don't think that you have disproved the notion of the Protocols are a best seller, and similarly, Tokyobk hasn't proven that they are.
On such an issue I would like to see some real backing - including who is reading the Protocols. A certain number of readers, may well be Jews . It matters if the readership has shifted from Jews to Muslims, for example. There is a difference between those who are on the receiving end being racist against those who seek to oppress them, and Israel does what it can against all Muslims, it claims in the name of all Jews. The ongoing attempt at a war against Iran being an example.
Of course, who is oppressed today, may be on the giving end tomorrow - just as has occurred to Jews under the racist philosophy of Zionism.
There is a second part has not been discussed - and that is when evaluating the The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, are Jews any less racist than Gentiles? Is this pamphlet unique? Are Jews better than that?
You would think that after Nazi Germany there would be no Jews who supported Hitler.
link to jewssansfrontieres.blogspot.ca
There is also the feeling the love series by Max Blumenthal.
link to maxblumenthal.com
No matter how much we wish otherwise, there is no difference in the racism of Jews and everyone else. Neither more nor less, the Protocols of Zion not withstanding.
In itself a Jewish state is no more or less odd or improper than a Muslim or Arab one. Jews on a small piece of land that once housed Jewish communities throughout is not in itself an evil.
I'm not sure how many people here would think that a Muslim state is proper or acceptable. I don't. Ultimately, a Muslim state must be willing to enforce religion, and marriage or it becomes a secular state with a Muslim majority, or in the long term, not even that. I believe in freedom of religion, and ultimately a Muslim state must deny this. I believe that religion is a personal, private activity. A Muslim state must deny this as well. There is no problem with Jews inside any country, but in context, that is not what you said.
When you finish with "Jews on a small piece of land..." you are moving the goal posts and engaging in racism at the same time. Either Jews are just another religion or Judaism is "special" and should be treated differently than every other religion. I think that people anywhere in the world have the right to their own faith - Judaism included. That does not give them the moral right to move to another country. Nor does it make it acceptable to officiate on who is and is not a Jew.
In my dreams there is a secular state that protects religious minorities and welcomes exiled refugees and welcomes Jews who want to be close to their holiest sites and the land that figures in all of our liturgy.
I am glad that you wish to protect religious minorities, and would welcome exiled refugees. This is, in my mind, where we draw the line between civilized and barbarism. I think that this is the key to a non-violent future from the Jewish side of the conflict. Similarly, the stated goal of not expelling Jews from even occupied Palestine, is the Palestinian side of this - recognizing that it means more for the victim to say this than the oppressor.
Still - you have a need to see Jews as "other". You did not say that you would welcome exiled refugees and welcome all those who want to be close to their holiest sites - Christians, Jews and Muslims. Ultimately, you must be willing, as the Catholic church tried to do with Christianity, decide who is worthy - who is a good Jew and who is not worthy, and who is a bad Jew. Ultimately, you resist freedom of religion, feeling that state privileges and penalties should be assigned based on religious belief. When privileges and penalties are applied to religious beliefs at the state level, there is no true freedom of religion.
I was interested in Aaron Levitt's comments and experiences with Chabad and Shabbat in Jerusalem.
Reading Phil's post and hearing tokyobk's comments reminded me of the article.
link to justiceforpalestine.blogspot.ca
2. What wud you rather – (i) live in an ethnocratic regime, able to protest, however imperfectly; or (ii) be shot, raped and tortured?
Hmmm. There are a whole lot of Palestinians who are shot and tortured. Don't know any statistics about rape though. Israel actually has legalized torture - I think that makes it the only country in the world with torture legalized in some circumstances.
link to stoptorture.org.il
asherpat, I think that this is known as a false choice.
There are a lot of Jews around here, now that you mention it.
Jews for Jesus - Met one who studied under a Rabbi as part of a group for a while until the Rabbi kicked them out.
Elliot/Johnrich: Religious Society of Friends (British style) has had a component of Jews for a very long time. The Religious Society of Friends, while Christian, does not have a creed. They also do not do conversion. Perhaps Christianity is stranger than you think.
Perhaps you are borrowing trouble. Religions are not cast in stone. Religious beliefs are not cast in stone. People can be whatever they wish to be.
What is it with Gunter Grass and the SS?
I understand that he was drafted into the SS, in a country where refusal to serve often led to death. Did he make a mistake or did he have little option - far less option than those who serve in the IDF.
So she has failed to do proper market research on what her customers want and is pissed because they aren't buying and because she must cater to their desires or suffer financial consequences.
Knowing your customers is part of running a business. If your customers are critical of Israel and you bombard them with pro-Israeli messages, they will go somewhere else. If your customers are pro Israel and you bombard them with BDS messages, they will go somewhere else.
Mixing politics and business is always a dicey proposition - a certain percentage of people are going to be pissed. That's just the way it goes - and scheduling StandWithUs is highly political.
The time she is putting in to make a new business work sounds just about right. It sounds like she picked an excellent choice for type of food. Sounds like it was a big initial hit. Unfortunately, she missed the ambiance that her potential clientele wanted. It is not the fault of her clientele that she does not know what they want. It is also not the fault of her clientele that she does not wish to provide the ambiance that they want. Maybe she should have checked these things out before opening up her business - instead of whining about it now.
One last comment - if it was an anti-Jewish sentiments - either boycott or otherwise - the initial success would not have been there.
Countries come and countries go, and in between times everyone thinks of these countries as being eternal and their existence ordained by god.
No - Israel is not threatened by full ror- whatever the hell the borders of Israel are.
I think that technically Galloway wasn't banned - he was threatened with being banned and did not actually test the waters.
link to ccla.org
Sydnestel: I don't think I would be willing to say exactly what Quebecers want, though I have never lived in the province.
The collapse of the Bloq during the last election tells us something important. From my distance I do not know if Quebecers are tried of sovereignty or tired of the issue of sovereignty.
From the short term I can not say if Shingo is correct.Still I would be very reluctant to state that sovereignty as an issue is over for Quebec.
It is worth noting that the campaign for sovereignty was tinged with racism -
There are some very good historical reasons for french speaking people to desire separation. Still it is worth noting that the native vote was a jaw dropping 96% opposed. I think that nationalism and racism tend to go together.
Rather than blaming the loss on immigrants, he should have blamed the loss on the incredibly bad relations Quebec has with its native communities.
I think that one of the take-away lessons from Quebec is that "Nationalism is an infantile disease" as stated by Einstein. Israel is not immune.
When talking to Zionists it is complicated. Judaism becomes exactly what is needed at the moment morphing between religion, culture, ethnicity, race and whatever else as needed to make the argument of the moment.
Ultimately, though, Judaism should be private, and not of anyone else's business - especially the state.
Excellent use of a qualifier in there.
Shingo: Even the concept that nation states in general and borders in particular are problems is not allowed. We frame the debate in terms of "nations" because that is how field has been described to us. We don't have to, if we do not want to.
As a person in Canada, does it bother me if an elected official is a dual citizen of France or the US? No. I don't believe in such knife edge distinctions. I don't accept the "enemy within" that is hidden in such distinctions. We are an international community these days and we need to break down nationalism not reinforce it. I'm not interested in the direction that the opposition to dual citizenship leads - to can a person who only has been in the country 2 generations be sufficiently loyal to run for state.
Those who accept an illegitimate citizenship - such as Jewish nationality - I do mind very much, but I don't mind because they are dual citizens, but because they have chosen racism as an integral part of who they are. I mind in the same way as someone who believes in white power being elected in office. It is not a question of dual loyalties, they have bluntly stated that they do not represent all of their constituents.
The chair of the DNC does not represent Palestinians in particular, and Muslims in general (recognizing that not all Palestinians are Christians). She prefers to be around her own kind. At one time the local white racists were handing out leaflets at subway stations expressing exactly that. It is not that she has dual loyalties. She does not. She has exactly one loyalty as far as I can see, and that is to the "Jewish Race" - and that is the problem. It is a problem whether she lives in Israel or in Florida. Her views are violent and she will leave a trail of violence behind her.
So you believe in the big Jewish conspiracy. Jews are a race and speak with one voice.
So much for freedom of religion and so much for the right to marry as one chooses.
So tell me - is a half jew really a Jew. How about a quarter Jew? How about an octoroon? How about a Jew who converts to Islam?
Your middle image is to small for some of us to read. You need to either make it bigger or to link it to a larger version.
Are there any basic rights that the US now supplies to its citizens?
/Let’s see – right of return./
We are talking about Israeli citizens where would you want them to return to?
And so it goes on and on.
They are not alien neither inside nor outside.
And yet you use the language of the colonial master. They are Palestinian.
Inside they are in a weird situation due to split loyalties ,
but nonetheless they have full rights by the law even though their situation and integration into Israeli society must be improved.
Full rights: Let's see - right of return. Nope. I guess they don't have full rights.
link to arabhra.org
They have changed and became a lot more like the rest of the Israeli
whether they want to admit it or not.
Outside they are in an ongoing national conflict with us which is yet to be resolved.
They, they, they - Somehow I think that "they" get the point. Palestinians are second class citizens whom you, and Israel society view as the "other" to the point where you can't even speak the word "Palestinian".
You have taken up the white man's burden - as you have "changed" them for the better.
There is always the "demographic threat". Israel can never give equality to the Palestinians inside Israel because of it. There is no peace on the horizon because of it. Crimes must be committed and diversions to these crimes must be found.
As with South Africa and as with the United Sates, we know what is required for peace.
Separate is not equal. No special laws for Jews. Justice must no longer know what someone's ethnicity and religion is. Justice must be blind.
Jews have the right to return - well the problem must be that Justice is unable to see who is and who is not a Jew.
Israel is not the first country where the law carefully provided one set of rules for Jews and another set for other people. In each case the result has been horrendous abuses of human rights. You don't get peace when you have horrendous abuses of human rights.
I think that is in part a function of the internet. As a medium it promotes debate or conflict. Nuances are much better done face to face.
Interestingly I kind of agree with both of you - the need to tone down the attacks, and the frustration Chaos expresses.
In one sense I know that Chaos is wrong. It is possible to discourse with Israel's supporters - especially "liberal" Zionists. On the other hand it can be a project measured in years - and in a confrontational setting like this is just is not possible at all. So for all practical purposes I guess I fall into Chaos' camp. It is interesting that I often seem to find myself there. An yet I have found myself quite put off by the easy tendency to attack anyone.
The one area that I've seen very little on in the Palestinian conflict is what drives the supporters of Israel. What do they believe, and how do they think.
link to jewssansfrontieres.blogspot.com
provides some insite into what Chaos is saying - but I think that the comments
should be a starting point, not an ending point. I don't think we understand what liberal Zionists believe and why they are less honest than the right wing. The right wing will never ever be in our camp, but the liberal Zionists... one would think that we should be able to reach out - but it is as if a wall is there.
My impression is that liberal Zionists are in a crisis where they are trying to reconcile two mutually opposing philosophies that can not be reconciled. One is obviously Zionism and the other I think can be called liberalism - universal human rights centered on the individual with the individual more important than the state.
It is always the way with the extreme right. The Republican party cares very little about regular Americans as well - and for all their posturing about soldiers, they care nothing about US soldiers as well.
Mayhem - I'm a bit confused here. I thought that there were several strains of Judaism. I wasn't aware that all Jews were the same and spoke with one voice. Jewish state? ... Really?
I see you believe in punishing Palestinians because of their ethnicity. Do you think that the intransigent and recalcitrant nature is in their blood? Do you think I can judge all Jews based on your behaviour?
There are a lot of anti-zionist Jews these days. I think that intransigent and recalcitrant may be quite good adjectives in describing them too. Perhaps we should punish all Jews for their intransigent and recalcitrant behavior because of the actions of the anti-zionist Jews.
The issue is - are we talking about individuals or are we talking about races? You have framed the discussion in terms of the denial of the individual in favour of the group. Judiam is no longer an individual choice, but an obligation to the greater glory of the state. One true religion. One true state. One true people. Palestinians have no rights as individuals, but shall be judged and punished as a race, and more so - punished for failure to know their place amongst their betters.
Holocaust is a long standing human activity. Possibly the first were the Neanderthal.
Rafael Castro does not show up except for this article when searching YNET either. I found myself carefully checking to make sure that today wasn't April 1 as well.
I guess that means I'll go Onion as well - though it is becoming more common for Onion articles to be indistinguishable from what can be found in other quality newspapers.
I vote "Onion"
I think I'm going to cry.
An excellent article.
I'd hunt for the blog policy on comments. I think you will find it on the very first line in the center of your screen. It is labeled Comments Policy
Hope that helps.
I thought that the two state train was a mirage that never existed.
Let's add to the excuses for the Nakba - They made us do it.
That is quite unfair and quite rude. I think you owe an apology for this.
I would agree that Nakba denial gets at least a partial pass. I don't know what is moderated. Part of the problem, as I see it, is that Mondoweiss is in an impossible situation.
It claims to oppose racism and support discussion between Zionism and anti-Zionists. Zionism is a philosophy that believes that Jews should have their own state. This leads to obvious questions of who is and who is not a Jew and how can we prevent Jews from marrying non Jews, or converting to other religions. It gets worse as Israel claims the right to speak for all Jews, and believes that Jews who marry out are doing the work of Hitler. In other words Zionism is a form of racism - the dividing of people into identifiable races, or other distinguishing groups that must be kept pure. On some level it is unavoidable for a Zionist to descend into racism and violence. If you believe that a Jewish state must exist, you must believe in the means to keep it that way - and that on some level that means violence. The most progressive Zionists engage in heavy denial in order to hold two diametrically opposing views in their heads at the same time.
You can't have a non-racist discussion when one of the sides fairly explicitly supports a definition of Jew that for all practical purposes is a definition that divides people into separate races
When it comes to the Nakba, Zionists don't have a lot of choices. 1. It did not occur. 2. Too bad we didn't finish the job properly or 3. So sad, too bad.
Frankly, denial may be the best of a bad set of options. At least there is some minimal connection to the concept of right and wrong.
Whom you have and whom you don't will set the tone of discussion or argument.
RW would definitely set the tone towards argument. In my impression, there is more discussion with disagreement of course without him.
Banning/not banning clearly sets the tone for what and how things are discussed. With RW, the blog changes considerably.
Ultimately, the choice is yours as to how and what you wish your blog to be. I will not say one is better than the other, though I have my preferences.
If you want discussion with less argument, then you probably have little choice but to moderate.
I think that if there is fairly heavy moderation, it probably would in the long run help to actually remove a person's post and say why it was removed as part of the moderation process. Hopefully people would learn over time - as opposed to just complaining. Eventually, perhaps as people get a better feel for what is allowed, you may be able to move to a flagging process - trusting some users to flag comments that potentially cross the line - speeding up the moderating process by not requiring that all comments be moderated directly.
While I haven't posted that many comments under the moderation process, I can't think of any that have been rejected - so I don't have a feel of how heavy the moderation process is.
Good news.
Glenn Greenwald has a good post on the topic.
Israel, MEK and state sponsor of Terror groups
link to jstandard.com
RE #10
Can we say that Christian Zionists support Israel in classically anti-Semitic ways right now?
Thank you for mentioning the Roma and Sinti.
Hostage: Turnabout is not fair play. I think that we should be trying for a state is more moral than Israel. It is not just more moral than Israel - that bar is so low as to be a complete embarrassment. It is a state that is much more moral than Israel.
As far as NATO goes - be careful of what you ask for.
The reality is different. Christian Zionists are more than 1% of the electorate. Also, in the US support for Israel is, while cracking, truly impressive.
To tie this in with your previous comment - the lobby is effectively working, along with the Republican Party to produce what looks to me like a classic fascist state. (link to w3.salemstate.edu)
In some ways, I believe that the issue isn't Zionism at all in the US elections. The fight is about the political future of the US and what type of political system the US will have. Zionism is a symbol of that alternative future, the best wedge issue of that system.
Obama, in this sense, has already provided his adversaries key victories as you note. In fact, no matter what Obama does, it will never be enough because he is not a true believer. In this, by trying to placate the opposition, I think he has erred greatly.
I haven't heard much about the possibility that Iran has biological weapons. Even with the assurance of Uri Avnery's Column this is still a very dangerous game. It could become the war that no one wanted.
I think that liberals started opposing the war when it started looking like the US was going to lose.
Krauss:
I read what you wrote. You believe a Jewish and Christian theocracy is better than a Muslim one. The anti-democratic nature of Israel does not seem to bother you very much at all, neither does the US, but you are quite afraid of Turkey.
Perhaps the problem comes from an inability to see problems within your favourite country while seeing the problems in countries you do not like in exquisite detail.
It's not that you are wrong about Turkey - I really don't know enough about the country - it's that you are wrong about Israel.
Israel is how you describe Turkey. The democratic bus is grinding to a halt in Israel, and everyone is getting off the bus. Israel has found its stop, and it is none to pretty.
Similar, the US now is in a situation where the Republican Party has contempt for democracy, and the Democratic Party really does not care much one way or the other. Of course Israel and American interests intersect.
I hear you say that a Jewish theocracy and a Christian theocracy are better than a Muslim theocracy, and frankly you are wrong. Each one is worse than the others.
Yes - that is what I was thinking too.
However, since we have grown very quickly as an organization, we have not been able to come to consensus on certain issues that are outside the scope of the original message of OWS, which has dealt with the American financial crisis, democracy and wealth inequality.
OWS is developing a platform - a set of policies and demands! If you are in OWS because the environment is being destroyed by corporate greed, you are in the wrong movement. If you are in OWS because the military industrial complex has become just about the only tool in the US foreign policy kit and it is creating extreme poverty and death throughout the world and bankrupting the US, you are in the wrong movement.
American Financial Crisis - yes this applies - current total "aid" to a first world country is approximately 140 billion and rising.
Democracy - yes this applies - the money is being used to prevent democracy - one person one vote in Israel. Israel is the guiding light of the Republican party and its attempts at destroying democracy in the US.
Wealth Inequality - Massive sums of money for wealthy heavily militarized countries at the expense of poor countries, and at the expense of health care for poor Americans. If the US were to give a $500 gift to the poorest 6 million or so Americans it would make a huge difference, instead of providing bullets and guns to a first world country that does not need the money.
Say it like it is - freedom for everyone is just too hot to handle for OWS.
Whether OWS likes it or not, the US as a country is part of the "1%" of countries. So are you going to stick it to the poorest of the poor in order to maintain your economic privileges? Is this issue outside OWS too? You really need to get a list of formal demands going so those who have incorrect demands can go somewhere else.
[ ops - this is not a comment dirrected at witty ]
There's no need to pretend that Canada is an independent nation. Just think of us as the 51st state.
I wonder if he is obliquely referring to the Russell tribunal on Palestine
link to russelltribunalonpalestine.com
Hey! What about Canada? We're being absolute pricks too! Isolate us.
Damn. No body ever pays any attention to Canada.
(and a big f-u to Dear Leader Steven Harper.)
dimadok - I see you haven't bothered to provide a source for this "quote".
Facts don’t even matter to these neoconservative war mongers.
Why bother with facts when you can make up your own.
Obama has screwed himself. He needed to provide an alternative to the Republican vision. Instead he pushed compromise. He needed to stand up for civil liberties and justice. Instead he counselled "look forward" and don't look back.
I don't think that there is much argument over whether the dog wags the tail or the tail wags the dog anymore.
This obsequious behavour is actually embarrassing to watch.
I would still be interested in if Noam Chompsky believes that the the dog wags the tail, why.
I can't imagine a more obvious troll comment than what you are responding to. Just saying.