Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 7415 (since 2009-12-17 04:46:00)

Showing comments 7415 - 7401

  • Arab Bedouins expelled for second time to make way for new Jewish community
  • More than half of US aid 'to entire world' goes to Israel and it ignores our warnings on settlements -- Kerry
  • Obama would have overwhelming support from US public to allow UN establishment of Palestinian state
  • A missing piece of the puzzle of Trump's victory: the 2003 invasion of Iraq
    • I have found that the people who have to do the actual shooting-and-being-shot-at part of the business are frequently pretty cynical about it. People like myself - armchair strategists who never been in the military - are often much more enthusiastic about wars.

  • US Senate quickly passed the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act
    • Noooooooooo!

    • I was going to wish all the Americans on MW a fond farewell as you were rounded up and sent off to the re-education camp, but then I saw “denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, and denying Israel the right to exist”.

      I have no doubt that the craven Australian government will agree to the extradition request, so I'll see you all there.

      And I don't think you'll be too safe, either, eljay.

  • Trump is forcing us to redefine the idea of 'Home'
  • Despite Israeli restrictions, surfers in Gaza hope to join global competition
  • 'Make this my dream as well' -- in historic appearance, Palestinian offers one-state vision to a NY temple
    • Annie, thank you for supporting correct punctuation.

      It probably won't stop Raphael from sprinkling punctuation marks around at random, but every little effort on the side of the angels will help.

  • Israeli settlers celebrating weekly Torah portion smash Hebron shop windows
    • "This weekend in al-Khalil brought thousands of extremist Jews and settlers from all over Israel and abroad to celebrate the week’s Torah study on Chayei Sara (Life of Sarah), ...After threatening the shop owner and his customers, and smashing both shop-front windows, they continued on their way to the religious festival, loudly shouting and singing."

      Give me that old time religion
      Give me that old time religion
      Give me that old time religion
      It's good enough for me

      It was good for Hebrew children
      It was good for Hebrew children
      It was good for Hebrew children
      And it's good enough for me


  • Video: Israelis look forward to the Trump presidency
    • I remember reading that the Hopi have a "world preserving dance". If they don't perform this dance every year, the world will cease to exist. We owe a great debt to the Hopi and the Haredi.

    • Immortal rabbits? We're doomed!

    • "Unemployment, especially in the ultra-orthodox community"

      I thought that ultra-orthodox men, at least, kept themselves unemployed so that they could study the Torah. It's a public service. If they don't keep it up, we'll all drop dead.

      Or so Mooser told me.

  • The link between Israel's forest fires and the 'muezzin bill'
    • "And, how did that Eucalyptus planting work out?"

      Eucalyptus trees give out oil which forms a highly inflammable vapour. This can turn a small fire into a major bushfire in a very short time. And the oil in the trees sometimes explodes in the bushfires, as well. (You didn't think Australian trees would be harmless, did you?)

      On the plus side, Israel was able to invent the Koala.

  • It is time to imagine how one state-- one person, one vote-- will work
  • David Brooks's drumbeat: an 'expansive foreign policy'
    • "Populists love rich people. They just hate professionals. So they hate journalists, they hate teachers, they hate lawyers,"

      Do populists hate teachers?

      As for hating journos and lawyers, populists are no different from anybody else. They follow the crowd because they are the crowd.

  • 'Tis the season, to boycott!
    • "you had used the phrase “repulsive Israelis”, which set off red flags for me, as this is how haters talk,"

      That raises several issues. I should point out that I am not quite in the first flush of youth. My waistline is expanding, my hairline is receding, my knees are creaking, and I tend to begin sentences with "I remember, from many years ago...", "when I was a lad...", and the ever-popular "Young People today ...".

      This means that my language habits and thinking habits were established half a century ago. So I don't have the hair-trigger super-sensitivity to "hate speech" that is so fashionable now. I am much more concerned with truth and morality than with whether this or that word is rude, or racist, or "hateful" in some way or another. And neither justice nor practicality requires people to have fond feelings for each other. Sensible people can co-operate even with those they hate, and those who hate them.

      If you pay attention and live long enough, you will recognise that if an idea is popular, fashionable, accepted by all the right people, treated as self-evident, and widely used in political or social commentary, then it is most probably empty-headed nonsense.

      The current obsession with "hate speech" and "haters" is just a symptom of the lack of logic and rationality even amongst the allegedly educated part of the populace. I have grave doubts as to whether there really are "haters" who hate for no reason. It seems to me that people who hate either have reasons for their hatred or are taught to hate by those who have reasons. The reasons may be utter nonsense, but they are the reasons nonetheless.

      " But getting down to my point here- I think you need to honestly reflect upon to what extent my interpretation of your “repulsive Israelis” remark was due to you not being clear enough,"

      I'm not in tune with this "reflecting" business, either. I had a student who was majoring in education. After using up a whole red pen in correcting the grammar errors on one of her philosophy essays (I needed another to comment on the philosophy) I suggested to her, fairly gently, for me, that if she was going to teach in schools it would be a good idea to improve her grammar.

      She said, "I'll reflect on that."

      I said, "Don't reflect on it. Just learn the grammar."

      And that allows me to move on to something important.

      "(and to contest this, would be willful ignorance)."

      I hope it was an honest mistake, and not willful ignorance that led you to put a comma before "would". Take out that comma and recycle it. Put it before "because" in this sentence: "But no, I NEVER said that because there is some unfounded hostility towards Jews in general, that is a reason to deny Palestinians their rights."

    • "Perhaps, in a perfect world, we can all just see each other only as fellow human beings, and all join hands and sing Kumbaya,"

      I'm all in favour of justice, world peace, recognition of common humanity, and so forth, but not if singing is required. That price is too high.

      "but the reality is that many will always regard Jews differently, no matter what we do. I could win the Nobel Peace Prize, and to them I’d still be just a goddamn Jew"

      But why do you let those people call the shots? Why do you agree with them that being Jewish is so desperately important? Can't you just say "Sod them. I'll make my own decisions"?

      "But no, I NEVER said that because there is some unfounded hostility towards Jews in general, that is a reason to deny Palestinians their rights."-

      Your support for maintaining the Jewishness of Israel, and the idea of Israel as a "safe haven" for Jews, does rather hint at that, though.

    • Sandra, I started by saying that I agreed with you that perfect justice is unobtainable and compromise is necessary.

      But I think our responses have shown you that your suggestion requires all the compromise on the Palestinian part, and no justice, and that even when those compromises are made, the Israeli government still refuses peace. (I hope you have also learned the truth about the 1967 war.)

      You may be surprised to know that I agree with you that boycotts are more effective when they have greater support and that BDS might seem a bit too radical to gain mass support.

      But if BDS is watered down to the level you want, it ceases to be a movement for any justice at all. Great support is not a lot of use if it is support for nothing of value.

      I hope you will continue to work for a just solution, and incorporate what you have learned here in your efforts.

      And now for the really, really, important point.

      "It is also my belief that the reason that BDS does not have more supporters, is because it is perceived as being too radical."

      You have put a comma between the subject clause and the verb. This is as wrong as writing "The cat, sat on the mat."

      As a rule of thumb, either (a) no comma before the verb, or (b) two commas before the verb, with a subordinate clause between them.

      That should help you to bring peace to the world.

    • Thanks, Mooser. I knew I could rely on you.

    • "Jews have historically found that even if they decided themselves that they no longer cared to retain their Jewish identity, it’s not completely up to them, because the world often still insists on seeing them as such. "

      I'm having difficulty in following the chain of reasoning here.

      It looks to me as though you are saying "a bunch of arseholes think my Jewish ancestry is sufficient reason to beat me up, or at least class me as being in some important way different, so I should agree with them and regard myself in that way".

      Could you clarify what you really mean, please?

      "However, I also believe it is possible that even if all Israelis from now on acted like perfect saints, that Palestinians would still continue to carry out terror attacks against them, for no other reason than pure bigotry and hatred. And please note that I’m not necessarily saying that this would happen, only that it could be like that- and it is impossible for anyone to prove otherwise."

      It's also possible that it wouldn't happen. Is there any reason to suppose that Palestinians are more given to pure bigotry and hatred than Israelis, or Hungarians, or Belizeans? This is just a desperate attempt to find a reason for denying Palestinians their rights.

    • Sandra, did it never occur to you to look at the context? The suggestion was that Palestinians might regard the Israelis as repulsive. And why wouldn't they, considering what they have suffered from the Israelis?

      Instead of complaining that the word is racist, bigoted, etc. , why not think about whether or not it may be justified.

      Alternatively, accept that some people do have that view of Israelis, and seek to make peace with them anyway. It is easy to make peace with those who love you, but peace with those who don't is what is necessary.

    • Do I have to be the first to admit to having a drinking problem? I'm sure you can guess what the problem is.

    • I wish I could grow as much hair as I desire. My pate is becoming more exposed to the elements every day.

    • People who want to live separately should not plonk themselves down in the middle of a lot of other people. They should do what the Amish did, and go and live in some God-forsaken wilderness miles from civilization. That's what the USA is for.

    • "I’m not going to ignore your hatred. It is significant, because this level of abject hatred is not compatible with peace. I feel that all relevant components should be factored in, including the hatred, and the fact that the Palestinians haven’t exactly acted like perfect angels, either."

      Perhaps you could ask yourself what generated the alleged hatred, and what caused the Palestinians to act badly.

      I seems to me that you are concentrating on "hate" to avoid meeting the points we make.

      But since you are so concerned with attitudes that are not compatible with peace, perhaps you could start with the attitude that being Jewish is terribly important, since that is at the core of the desire to maintain a Jewish state.

      I can understand religious Jews regarding it as important, but not secular Jews. For them, being a Jew is (according to Mikhael) a matter of having Jewish ancestors. Why is this such a big deal? Everyone has ancestors - even me! And most people's ancestors are as boring and inconsequential as mine. (No titles of nobility, no vast family fortunes built on piracy, slavery, or the opium trade. My ancestors did little to earn my gratitude.) So why does it matter whether or not they were Jews? What is the point of thinking in terms of being a "national group"?

      Would it not be better for the secular Israeli Jews to give up this nonsense, and start thinking in terms of citizenship in a state for all its citizens? And then invite the Palestinians to give up any similar nonsense they might believe, and be equal citizens of the state.

      Why not learn to live together, rather than maintain separation?

    • "The torrent of hostility that has been unleashed against me all came from my mere (and, sorry folks- RATHER SENSIBLE) suggestion that the actual “nuts & bolts” implementation of the right of return for Palestinians, might be somewhat difficult."

      Without making a careful analysis of all the posts responding to you, I would say that the hostility (such as it is) comes from (a) you apparently rejecting the possibility of ROR, rather than merely pointing out that it "might be somewhat difficult", (b) the stuff you write about the 1967 war being defensive and giving Israel rights over the conquered territory, and (c) your apparent concern for maintaining Jewish supremacy.

      "Here’s a suggestion, everyone: how about if you want to convince someone of something, you stick to calm, respectful, rationality?"

      Such as responding to the substance rather than complaining about "hate"?

    • One desirable feature would be a change in the mindset of Israeli Jews. I would like them to stop concentrating on being Jews in a Jewish state and start thinking about being humans and citizens of an egalitarian state.

      My frequent use of the name "The Socialist and Democratic People's Republic of the Holy Land" is not just a joke.

    • Sandra, what do amigo's motivations matter? Reply to the substance, not the tone.

    • "the policy largely serves to provide a safe haven for persecuted Jewry "

      And other persecuted people can go whistle.

      I've said it before, and I'll say it again. (And probably again and again and again.) If a "safe haven" for Jews requires the dispossession or suffering of others then Jews will just have to forgo their safe haven. Potential suffering of Jews is not more important than actual suffering of non-Jews. Further, actual suffering of Jews is not more important than actual suffering of non-Jews.

      Your sense of entitlement is stunningly outrageous.

      You are saying that the safety of Jews from merely possible, future, injustice is more important than the actual injustice being afflicted now on the Palestinians. The Palestinians have to be sacrificed as an insurance policy for foreign Jews.

      It's "We matter and you don't."

      This grotesquely immoral claim should be exposed and protested every time it emerges.

    • "the indoctrinated ladies of the IDF?"

      Stripping is OK, as long as they don't sing.

    • I see that you have no reply to the substantive points I made, and so, by pouncing on the word "repulsive", try to deflect the issue to my attitudes. My attitudes do not make any difference to the substance.

      Others have made the same points, and in more detail. Perhaps you should take those into account.

      (I will add, irrelevantly, that your indignation seems selective. You made no objection to the word "plague" .)

    • And not a moment too soon!

      I'm looking forward to it.

    • Edit function failed to work. It should be

      1 “The reason Israel has that territory

      2 "So Israel could claim ...

    • I think you are right in saying that perfect justice cannot be attained. I also think you are right in saying that some compromises need to be made. But I find myself in disagreement with much of your screed.

      1. "The reason Israel has that territory in the first place, is because it was gained from winning an unprovoked war of self-defense. "
      The war was deliberately started by Israel, and was not in self defence.

      2. So Israel could claim that they won it fair & square, and thus have the right to do with that land whatever they like."

      Gaining territory by conquest gives no rights to the territory. This was accepted into international law long before 1967.

      3 Thus, withdrawing from that territory would not be a concession.

      4. "And also a part of this, are the countless Jewish victims of terrorism, many of them innocent children… what justice can there ever be for them?"

      They are not countless. There are fewer of them than the victims of Jewish terrorism and Israeli aggression. There can be no justice for them either.

      5. That there are Jewish victims of Arab terrorism does not mitigate the injustice meted out to the Palestinians.

      6. Given that the Nakba is a fairly recent event (in my lifetime) I doubt it would be all that difficult to work out which Palestinians have the right of return to the territory that is now Israel.

      7. "I believe that a country has the right to determine whatever immigration policies it chooses to,"

      But the return of refugees is not immigration. The refugee has the moral right to return, and a law which prevents that is an immoral law.

      8. So the only point you make which has any force is the practical one of absorbing and influx of Palestinians. Now the mere number of people cannot be the concern, otherwise Israel would not try to attract as many Jewish immigrants as possible. I think the concern is that the refugees would behave like the worst of the Afghan, Somali, Syrian, "refugees" who currently plague Europe.

      There are three points I want to make about that

      First, it is by no means certain that all, or even most, of the people entitled to return would return. Many might give up the right in return for compensation and assistance to settle elsewhere, rather than having to live with the repulsive Israelis.

      Second, a fifth of the population of Israel is already Palestinian Arab. Many Palestinians entered Israel as day workers. Palestinians already have a good idea of what Israeli life is like, and Palestinians are more sophisticated than the Afghans and Somalis. Nor would it be a sudden, unexpected influx. If the programme is carefully planned, integrating the refugees should not be too difficult.

      Third, the refugees have a right to be there. Israel has a duty to integrate them.

      Of course, all this is in the context of a two-state solution. My own preference is for a single state. That, I think, will be closer to justice.

    • But a comma does not indicate a pause, dramatic or otherwise, and a person in an editorial position should know that.

      A dash would, indeed, do the job, especially if bolstered by a few italics.

      "Tis the season - to boycott!"

      I would prefer that to a full stop, because it keeps a closer connection between the ideas.

      Some people might want to use an ellipsis, but that would be wrong, and, worse, it would upset Mooser terribly. He has a thing about ellipses.

    • Why on earth is there a comma in the headline?

      It is particularly bad because Nadia gives the correct version. She writes "Apparently, ‘tis the season to boycott!" Didn't the headline writer read the story?

  • A conversation with Miko Peled
    • 'Australia's foreign minister Julie Bishop has spoken out against Israeli's use of torture stating that “I am deeply concerned by allegations of the mistreatment of Palestinian children,”'

      And since Julie Bishop is a traitor who puts Israel first, I suspect she means "I am worried about these stories getting out and giving Israel a bad name."

    • "He has heard the siren song of Palestinian suffering and can hear nothing else. "

      What else should he be listening to, then? People who think that Jewishness is more important than morality, than human happiness, than human life? I'm not sure dialogue with such people is possible.

  • Tulsi Gabbard's screw-the-neocons meeting with Trump sparks anger, derision, encouragement
    • Not to worry, Keith. Modi is cooking up another war with Pakistan, so that'll distract from the currency cock-up for a while. Or longer, if it goes nuclear.

  • Thanksgiving in Palestine
  • Global outcry appears to stop Israeli demolition of Palestinian village to make way for Jewish settlers
    • "BTW facts are always a good way to start a revisiting process. "

      Heavens, no, Ossinev! The facts might not support what you want to say. Invoke them at your peril!

  • Leading pro-Israel groups dare not criticize Trump lest they lose access to White House
    • "Anyone who has visited jerusalem laffs at those who think the temple was elsewhere."

      How do they react to those of us who don't know where the Temple was and would like to see some proof before we form a belief about it?

  • If American universities ignore attacks on Muslim students, who will defend them?
  • Why 'give him a chance' is not an option
    • Thanks, Bandolero.

      At the risk of seeming the mitigate the pure evil of everything even remotely connected with Putin, I have to ask whether the Russian bank needed Putin's agreement before lending that credit.

      But perhaps everything that happens in Russia is Putin's doing.

    • "If only it were a coherent argument: nobody has any objections to Putin supporting nationalist right-wing movements across Europe, from Greece (Golden Dawn), to Le Pen and the NF in France, to Jobbik in Hungary, and Pegida/AfD in Germany – all Putin (and Trump) lovers. "

      The right wing movements may love Putin, but that does not mean that Putin supports them. I don't know whether he does or doesn't. Aside from polite acknowledgement, what support has he given?

    • "How many Syrians, Iraqis, Afghanis, and Libyans has Trump killed, Marnie? That’s right, ZERO. "

      He's obviously not fit to be President.

  • Trump aide blows off Zionist gala, and Dershowitz warns that politicizing Israel means 'we could lose'
  • Zionists embrace of Trump and Bannon is no surprise
    • "Why do people persist in failing to understand why Palestinians and Arabs resent and resist Israel — and blaming antisemitism when Israel’s crimes are the actual source?"

      Because they do not want to acknowledge that Israel has committed crimes.

  • I'm not worried about anti-Semitism
  • Why was the Clinton campaign obsessed with fighting BDS?
  • When Sanders changed political reality. And hasbara culture slapped him down.
  • Donald Trump is ready to bring Islamophobia into the White House
  • Neoconservatives warm up to Trump (maybe they have an agenda)
    • Though I will tentatively suggest that any Swedish woman who has avoided being raped by a "refugee" only to be subjected to the horror of mansplaining could try the magic words "Ingen förklaring, tak. Jag förstår det redan, förmodligen bättre än du." Might save a phone call.

    • I'll pass. If I said anything, I'd probably end up mansplaining.

      Oh, wait! Am I mansplaining now? Phone the hotline to check.

    • "There is a huge potential among the general population, not necessarily “liberal” or “trendy” or Democrat,"

      I think you are probably right about that.

      " which is being repelled by posts and comments that assume that everyone must share your vision of things."

      That's if they see them. But if they do, they will also see that there are plenty of us here who have differing views about matters unrelated to Palestinian resistance.

      Just at the moment, though, I agree there is too much wailing and gnashing of teeth about Trump, and I think that is likely to be off-putting for that very large number of Americans who voted for him.

      "...please take whatever is unrelated to Palestine to more appropriate venues."

      If you think I am going stop correcting bad grammar, think again.

  • Saving the daughters of Israel from the annihilation of intermarriage
    • " A national group living in a territory, whether you want to designate it an “n” nation or a “c” nation, has a moral right to set up a state in a region where it dominates."

      Do you have an argument to back up that claim?

      "The Jews of the former British Mandate of Palestine constituted more than 1/3 of the population of that entity and they had a right to govern themselves in the area where they were the majority."

      The overwhelming majority of the population of the Palestine did not want the country to be sliced up. They wanted a single, democratic state with full civil rights for all the inhabitants. This would have meant that Jews in Palestine were as self governing as everyone else.

      This equitable arrangement was rejected by the Zionists. In setting up Israel they infringed the rights of the majority of the population, and brought bloodshed and misery to the region.

    • "Hebrew is the common national (and ancestral!) language of the Jews. "

      How can it be a common language when most Jews did not speak it? Modern Hebrew had to be constructed and then imposed on the migrants to Palestine.

      " By your logic, the Chinese can't claim a common collective national or ethnic identity, they really no have common language except to the extent that a central government forces them to adopt a specific dialect of Mandarin as a standard, the cuisine in various regions is extremely divergent, and when it comes to the Chinese Diaspora, even more so.

      And so? Why can't the Chinese be as deluded as you are?

      If they wish to claim a common "identity", it has to be on the basis of citizenship in the Chinese p-nation, or descent from people with such citizenship.

    • "if you’re really a Jew."

      Technically, Mooser shouldn't be a Jew. He was excommunicated a few years ago by a commenter called eee, but somehow it didn't take. So now, in spite of all temptations from the goy denominations, he remains a Jewish man.

    • "Anti-Zionists are simpletons who believe in a binary world and who think that Jews, alone of all national groups, should be denied right to national self-determination in their original ancestral homeland."

      I assume that by "national groups" you mean the sort of thing I call "n-nations" .


      Other anti-Zionists can speak for themselves, but I argue that no national group (n-nation or c-nation) has a right to set up or maintain a state (a p-nation) anywhere.

      A state/p-nation can only be set up or maintained in a territory.
      Setting up a state in a territory will seriously affect all the people in the territory
      By general moral principles of equity, then, the decision and right (insofar as there is one) to set up the state is a matter for all the population of the territory.
      But national groups are not necessarily co-extensive with the population of the territory.
      If the right to set up a state were vested in national groups, it would exclude some the population who, by equity, are entitled to it.
      Thus, the right cannot be a right of national groups.

      Let us look at my paradigm example: the Finns.
      The territory of Finland is largely inhabited by (national group) Finns, but it also includes Finland-Svensk and Sami. To say that the Finns, as a national group, have the right to set up a state is to say that the rights of the Finland-Svensk and Sami do not count. Bizarrely, it also extends that right to those Finns who do not live in the territory (those around Kiruna, for example) who would not be be affected by the decision in the way that the Finland-Svensk and Sami would be affected.

      So the right to set up a state is not a right of the (national group) Finns, but a right of all the people in Finland.

      Now, you might want to reject this argument, claiming "the Jewish People has a right to national self-determination and independence in its own historical and ancestral homeland ... is in fact intrinsic to Orthodox Judaism" but that is just to say that you, and Orthodox Judaism, reject the normal moral principles of equity.

      That is hardly a persuasive stance.

      (You give the impression of believing that the norm is that of pre-existing n-nations setting up p-nations. But the reality is rather different. There are number of p-nations which include members of several different n-nations. China, Brazil, Indonesia, the USA, India, and Australia all fit this description. Also, some n-nations have come into being by several distinct groups being welded together in a single p-nation. This happened in England, where Britons, Saxons, Angles, Jutes, Vikings, and Normans have merged to become the English. In this case the p-nation preceded the n-nation. From Qin Shi Huang onwards, rulers of China have attempted to create a single n-nation in China, but with less success.)

    • "the notion that the Jewish People has a right to national self-determination and independence in its own historical and ancestral homeland "

      A mistaken notion, of course. There is no such right.

    • "With Animus and Malice? Oy Gevalt they are going out with Gentile girls"

      Is that Alice Aforethought? I used to know her. Totally failed to get off with her, as usual.

    • Interesting link, gamal. Thanks for that.

      (But I'm afraid it supports the general impression that Mediaeval Jewish culture was a by-product of Islamic culture. Showing this won't make us friends in certain quarters.)

    • "The Arab guy comes and buys them things, treats them well."

      Ooooo! Those sneaky, evil, Arabs! Decent men would never do anything like that.

  • We are in an era of conservative counter-revolution
    • So you don't think Trump will raise the scarlet banner high? There's a disappointment. But I'm sure we can count on George Soros to lead us into a worldwide socialist revolution.

      I agree that these labels "conservative", "left", "right", etc., are inadequate. I used the label partly because Phil did, and partly because Thatcher was leader of the Conservative Party. A lot of the old conservatives didn't like her or her ideas.

      I'm not sure that what is called "the left" has any economic agenda now. They just want to show they are nice people with all the right, fashionable, ideas.

      Life on a Greek island can be very pleasant, if you are rich.

    • That is an excellent article, Keith.

      Phil's idea of being on "the left" seems to be just a matter of supporting fashionable causes, most of which (worthy though many of them are) will have no effect on the overall power and economic structures. Global corporatism will not be affected by gay marriage, the power elite are not greatly concerned about skin colour, apologies to the Aborigines will not reduce profits.

      My idea of the left starts with economic justice.

      The conservative counter-revolution really got under way in the Thatcher- Reagan era, when the Big Money Boys overturned the 1948 welfare state in Britain, and did similar things in other parts of the world. The left failed to respond effectively, and now seem to have given up on socialism entirely. (Took up too many evenings?) I see little sign of a real left anywhere.

      The populism that supports Trump and led to Brexit is not, I think, a real left movement, but it is a rebellion against the power elite and the chattering classes.

  • Trump may kill Netanyahu with kindness
  • A most mournful gathering
  • Epic battle looms over accused anti-Semite entering White House, and 'NYT' graywashes the moment
  • Where do we go from here? Our thoughts & yours on the US election
    • Hmmn. Maybe, when referring to a bunch of drama ... monarchs. I should have said "like middle-aged white men who have just been told their old noses will grow back". It isn't as compelling an image (it lacks the implied shrillness) but it's probably doubleplusgood politically correct.

      Naaa. I'm not going to capitulate to Newspeak. Let the Minitrue unperson me .

    • “A bunch of girls”

      1. I didn't say "a bunch of girls". I said "a bunch of girls who’ve been told their old noses will grow back."

      That is a reference to a specific group, namely, those who have had nose-jobs, and as far as I know, not many boys have nose jobs. It isn't a reference to girls in general. It's the nose-job that counts, not the sex.

      2. "Why use gender to hurl insults?"

      Why not? If the sexes are supposed to be treated equally, we should not worry about it.

      3. Ask yourself (you needn't report back) how much of your complaint is just a knee-jerk reaction to seeing girls in the comparison. Would you have reacted if I had made a denigratory comparison with a bunch of schoolboys?

    • "Jeez, guys, get a grip!"

      I can't decide whether it is amusing or depressing to watch so many people flapping around like a bunch of girls who've been told their old noses will grow back.

      Need a few more adults in the place.

    • Good sense, Sally.

    • So was pre-election Trump evil because of what he said he was going to do, or is it post-election Trump who is evil because he might not do what he said he was going to do?

Showing comments 7415 - 7401