Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 10 (since 2010-07-10 20:39:15)

Struggling artist type stuck in small business!

Showing comments 10 - 1

  • Why I support a one state solution and still consider myself a Zionist
    • I can't seem to respond to the comments under the comment I just posted--not sure why the program won't let me do this.

      As for the point that societies don't make themselves more diverse, they're already diverse.

      So, if that's the case, no society is more diverse than any other society. Japan is just as diverse as American, right? Most people don't think this is the case. A society can become more or less diverse. Policies can move it in one direction or the other.

      Also, Mooser is suggesting something about what I wrote that I didn't mean.

    • "That’s why I agree with you on the Palestinian question, because it’d be like white Americans claiming that they want an ethno-state in America on the broken lands of native Americans."

      I'm interested in what you think about ethnic nationalism in places (in Europe) where Europeans are the indigenous peoples.

      Personally, I think one of the problems we have today is the fetishization of multiculturalism--as if being multicultural makes one a holy, pure person. And it's crazy that this group of pro-multis tends to think of themselves as very vanguard. Crazy because: At the high school in the small city in which I live there is a painted sign above the main door: "Diversity is our greatest strength." No kidding. I saw it myself. And this is high school in a small city in a very non-hip place. So how vanguard are we talking about?

      I'm not sure exactly what the ramifications of ethnic nationalism would be--probably different things to different people. But why not have this type of society?: Minorities should be treated well but a society is under no compunction to make itself more diverse to prove some sort of point or to strike a supposedly morally heroic pose or because it "quite clearly just makes economic sense."

  • Did 'Hashomer Hatzair' shape Sanders's views on socialism and Israel?
    • (Very) tangential comment about socialism. A while back someone here once wrote about going to some sort of elite prep school (was it in Baltimore?). Not having the benefit of having gone to such a school (yet possessing a curious mind nonetheless, despite my modest upbringing!), I availed myself of the opportunity to visit the school's website at which I read over the school's newspaper. And I found that seemingly all the kids in this elite, well-heeled school were socialists. In my humble view, this more than anything else is a very good reason not to be a socialist.

      What is it with trust fund babies and socialism? Is life some sort of joke to them? They're so rich they get to play around with movements: "I've always subscribed to socialism. . . ."

      This seems so unfair. Rich trust fund babies shouldn't be socialists. They just shouldn't. It's too much like a concrete instance of the saying the rich keep getting richer. So not only are they (literally) rich, but they're metaphysically and existentially rich because they can come across as "enlightened." And when the revolution comes, there they'll be: A wave to us. "Hi!"

      I prefer rich people to self-segregate: Polo wear, Nantucket embroidery, the entire works. That's the only way we can keep them under control, really.

  • How NPR talks about Israel/Palestine
    • I'm not a "Rah-rah" multiculturalist, but then neither am I a my-ethnic-group-first kind of guy, either. I consider myself conservative because A) on social issues I am conservative and B) anyone who isn't a Rah-rah multiculturalist is basically conservative in this day and age (as I see things, anyway).

      From my standpoint: I have to say, I find it very interesting when American liberals give Israel a pass when it comes to the dictates of multiculturalism and yet grill their own country over the smallest of sins. Darren Wilson: What temerity! He actually tried to save his life! Racist!!!

      Israel: Well, you know the Jews need a safe haven, don't you? You DO KNOW history, don't you?

      Of course, even if we accept that the Jewish community had nothing to do with historical European anti-semitism (I don't think this is reasonable, but I'll entertain the notion for the sake of argument), it simply doesn't follow that Israel should be an ethnostate.

      Why, after all, ASSUMING ONE IS COMMITTED TO MULTICULTURALISM (definitely the impression NPR-type liberals would like to give us), would one throw the baby out with the bath water? If European gentiles were the problem, then by all means bar them from Israel. By don't bar anyone else: Arabs, Africans, Muslims, Buddhists, Shamanists--anyone and everyone else should be let in! And there's no need for Jews to maintain a majority--because that implies that different people groups (again, the European gentile group excepted) have conflicts of interests which can't be resolved easily through reason and by adhering to standards that "everyone knows" are correct: No negative generalizations (never! --and very rude, according to Annie (not that I completely disagree with her, by the way)) and a commitment to dialogue--which, we know, will solve everything.

      "Brother! I hear you say you're concerned about Jewish persecution in faraway lands. I hear you say that your co-ethnics must come to Israel to escape such persecution. Now, brother, I may not be Jewish, but I am your brother and your fellow countryman, and as your brother I deeply care about you. In fact, you could say: Your concerns are my concerns. And, of course, the deeper your concerns are, the more my heart goes out for those concerns. (How bizarre to think I would only be concerned about minor issues but not about the deepest ones you care about!) So, of course there will be no conflict of interest. Why would you think otherwise? Again, because you are my brother, your concerns are my concerns, and, I know, vice-versa. Ethnicity and religion would never get in the way of our humanity!"

      But! But! pro-Zionists say! (I can hear the pro-Zionist crowd saying this): The Arabs have done horrible things to Israelis! They would push us into the sea!

      But! But! I could say in return: No justice, no peace, right? 700,000 Palestinians were expelled. Many discriminatory laws exist right now in Israel. Right the wrong and then everything will be fine. It's so simple. Sooo simple.

      Again, I'm (really) sort of in the middle. I do think Jewish Israel is treating Palestinians poorly, but I also have doubts hyping multiculturalism because I have concerns about such societies living even relatively conflict free. My writing above is simply to show all of you folks in left-wing internet land how a conservative views matters: How hypocritical and two-faced (unprincipled) the mainstream liberal crowd is on Israel vis-a-vis America.

  • Roundtable on the Palestinian solidarity movement and Alison Weir
  • 'NO DISCUSSION of Gaza' -- new Zionist etiquette
    • “a youth-led march to end racial profiling, police brutality, and honor the life of Michael Brown Jr.”

      All well and good and necessary.

      --Using this incident to trigger that kind of march: But isn't the problem that we don't know what happened yet? Is it or is it not entirely possible that Wilson was assaulted by Brown?

      Question: How would you react if someone were to physically harm you to the point that they broke your eye socket bones? (Again, we don't know that Brown seriously harmed Wilson, but at this point that's a definite possibility.)

      --I have a feeling that most of the (very academic, bookish) people on this site would be screaming bloody murder. "World! Look on my pain! My BRAIN could have been damaged! My SOUL! My precious, precious NEURONS!" Dropping the Bomb itself on Ferguson would hardly be sufficient punishment for such an outrage against humanity--nay, an outrage against the very Universe Itself!!!

      --But as long as we're talking about someone else--particularly a white someone else--well then, without even knowing all the relevant information by all means roll out the red carpet for Multiculturalism! for Diversity! for our brother (who, in case you didn't know, is African-American!) Michael Brown!

      Moral heroism at its finest!

      As for the rabbi, she's got issues.

  • 'The clash of civilizations’ theory is absolutely and completely dead
    • Aren't there all kinds of ideological (a subset of which would be theological) clashes going on in the world? Just because a conflict doesn't lead to bloodshed doesn't mean there hasn't been a clash. Suppose a wrong is enacted on a population but done through all the correct legal channels?

  • University of Hawai'i faculty responds to administration’s condemnation of ASA boycott resolution
    • It's interesting that they used the justification involving Israel being part of a group of nations which should be held to a higher standard--a "world historical club" which is mostly comprised of Western nations. There's so much "down with us," anti-Western animus in certain sectors of the academy--particularly ethnic studies. And to use this argument is to actually pay the West a compliment of sorts.

      Of course, maybe the professors didn't see the implication of the argument.

      (I agree with Avishai's sentiments, by the way.)

  • NYT obit of rabbi left out his urging Sharon: 'Very simply, wipe them out'
    • Yonah,

      There is something to what you're saying, and we should always keep in mind that people speak in a particular context and that they might have something else to say that comes across as quite different in a different context.

    • Krusty,

      It's not uncommon for people to be biased (consciously or otherwise) toward their own ethnic interests, particularly when their ethnic identity is strongly held. Let's put the shoe on the other foot: If all of the Jewish reporters/editors/advertisers/subscribers of the NYT and other major American media sources were replaced with Palestinian Americans, do you think that the reporting on this subject would be the same or different? If different, in which direction from the today's status quo: pro-Israeli or pro-Palestinian? To me, the answer is so crazy-obvious it's almost funny even to ask the question.

Showing comments 10 - 1