Trending Topics:

Jennifer Rubin’s fast track to intolerance

Israel/Palestine
on 48 Comments

At Politico, here  is a Ben Smith profile of Jennifer Rubin, the intolerant neoconservative blogger at the Washington Post. She is 49 and never worked in journalism till 2007. Fast track. Before then she worked for Hollywood studios. And then, of course, she worked for Commentary. Smith doesn’t mention that part. He does have this. Helpful:

She planned to be the perfect suburban PTA mom, if with an intense and combative interest in foreign affairs and politics in general, and in Israel in particular – the sole bumper sticker on her gray Honda Pilot reads, “JERUSALEM IS NOT A SETTLEMENT. It’s Israel’s Eternal And Undivided Capital.” …

She emerged as a leading voice, in particular, of pro-Israel Republicans like Standard editor Bill Kristol and his protegés who view the interests of the United States and of Israel’s hawkish government as almost identical and who view any public suggestion of difference between them as a dangerous.

philweiss
About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

48 Responses

  1. MRW
    MRW
    October 26, 2011, 8:24 am

    Here’s a question: how many non-Jewish graduates of the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism get columns in the Washington Post?

    • pabelmont
      pabelmont
      October 26, 2011, 1:27 pm

      How many non-Jewish graduates of the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism does it take to screw-up a foreign policy?

      (Or to straighten it out by opposing the censorship? Are Phil and Adam grads of Col UGSoJ?)

  2. Woody Tanaka
    Woody Tanaka
    October 26, 2011, 10:45 am

    JERUSALEM IS NOT A SETTLEMENT.

    Baloney. The Jews invading Arab East Jerusalem are settlers and they are trying to create a settlement.

  3. Chu
    Chu
    October 26, 2011, 11:11 am

    Rubin is a bad conservative act, and it only illustrates how sad Neo-cons are in reality. She poses for the ‘right’ cause, but she really doesn’t know what side she is on (when we know it’s the one that is more supportive of Israel). And leaving Hollywood to go and blog for Israel makes many realize the nefarious relationship of the two. I think Dan Reihl, below, captures the essense why she is blogging.

    from article:
    “I don’t have time to waste bytes on someone not in the conservative movement,” RedState’s Erick Erickson, who broke with Rubin over her support for the release of Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard, told POLITICO when asked about her in an email.

    Dan Riehl, another conservative blogger, described her as an “establishment Republican” and a “neocon” and said he suspected the Post uses her as a kind of foil, to define the rightward limit of the debate as relatively close to the center.

    • MarkF
      MarkF
      October 26, 2011, 11:32 am

      Bingo, I think that’s where neocons such as Rubin need to be picked apart – from the right. They’re not in any way shape or form conservative.

      • Chu
        Chu
        October 26, 2011, 12:59 pm

        Many on the right know that these people are silly Pollard fanatics.
        I don’t think the Neocons realize it’s going to be as easy to slither over to the right. When enough snakes cross into the neutral zone, it will be the moment for the country to notice and the limelight will be on them.
        Ed Koch is one great recent example, as well as Jennifer Rubin.

      • Dan Crowther
        Dan Crowther
        October 28, 2011, 1:42 pm

        Here is what happened to Erick Erickson when he called Rubin “Likud”:

        http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/erick-ericksons-strange-attack-jennifer-rubin_604053.html

        Update: Erickson apologizes:

        after a friend explained to me the implication — that it suggested a loyalty to Israel above a loyalty to the United States among other things — that’s absolutely not what I meant and certainly do apologize for leaving anyone, including Jenn, with that impression.

        We can fight on other matters, including whether she’s a conservative, but I don’t question her love of this country.

      • seanmcbride
        seanmcbride
        October 28, 2011, 3:10 pm

        Not only does Jennifer Rubin put Israeli above American interests, but there is not the least indication that she cares about American interests at all. She is all Israel all the time.

        Why doesn’t Erick Erickson have the balls to point out the obvious and irrefutable facts in this case? Why would he permit himself to be bullied by such a weak mind? Grow a pair, RedStater.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        October 28, 2011, 6:57 pm

        I would have thuoght Rubin would have taken that as a compliment. In truth Rubin is to the right of Likud.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        October 28, 2011, 6:58 pm

        Why would he permit himself to be bullied by such a weak mind?

        He saw what happened to Rick Sanchez.

    • annie
      annie
      October 26, 2011, 1:02 pm

      why does wapo feel the need to ‘define the rightward limit of the debate ‘ with a regular columnist? they certainly don’t do that for the leftward limit of the debate.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        October 26, 2011, 7:36 pm

        why does wapo feel the need to ‘define the rightward limit of the debate ‘ with a regular columnist?

        I think push is the term you;re looking for rather than define. As Glenn Greenwald explained, there is no limit to the degree to which one can be to the right.

  4. Chu
    Chu
    October 26, 2011, 11:17 am

    The dominant feature of Rubin’s politics, of course, is her ultra-hawkish Greater Israel Zionism. … While she is quick to accuse Israel’s critics of anti-Semitism, Rubin is not so fond of actually existing American Jews, whom she views as unpatriotic and insufficiently supportive of Israel.”[11]

    http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/rubin_jennifer

    • seafoid
      seafoid
      October 26, 2011, 4:43 pm

      “Rubin is not so fond of actually existing American Jews, whom she views as unpatriotic and insufficiently supportive of Israel.”

      This is from 2010 but is even more relevant now

      http://csis.org/publication/israel-strategic-liability

      At the same time, the depth of America’s moral commitment does not justify or excuse actions by an Israeli government that unnecessarily make Israel a strategic liability when it should remain an asset. It does not mean that the United States should extend support to an Israeli government when that government fails to credibly pursue peace with its neighbors. It does not mean that the United States has the slightest interest in supporting Israeli settlements in the West Bank, or that the United States should take a hard-line position on Jerusalem that would effectively make it a Jewish rather than a mixed city. It does not mean that the United States should be passive when Israel makes a series of major strategic blunders–such as persisting in the strategic bombing of Lebanon during the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict, escalating its attack on Gaza long after it had achieved its key objectives, embarrassing the U.S. president by announcing the expansion of Israeli building programs in east Jerusalem at a critical moment in U.S. efforts to put Israeli-Palestinian peace talks back on track, or sending commandos to seize a Turkish ship in a horribly mismanaged effort to halt the “peace flotilla” going to Gaza.

      It is time Israel realized that it has obligations to the United States, as well as the United States to Israel, and that it become far more careful about the extent to which it test the limits of U.S. patience and exploits the support of American Jews. This does not mean taking a single action that undercuts Israeli security, but it does mean realizing that Israel should show enough discretion to reflect the fact that it is a tertiary U.S. strategic interest in a complex and demanding world.

  5. Kathleen
    Kathleen
    October 26, 2011, 11:32 am

    Fast track…sounds like you hit the nail on the head… Phil

  6. Jim Holstun
    Jim Holstun
    October 26, 2011, 1:28 pm

    Mr. Patrick B. Pexton
    Ombudsman
    The Washington Post

    Dear Mr. Pexton:

    As you probably know by now, your blogger, Ms. Jennifer Rubin, has approvingly retweeted Rachel Abrams’ shockingly racist attack on the Palestinian people, which calls for genocide. Please explain to me your paper’s policy on racist incitement, and whether or not there is a double standard whereby some groups are held to a higher standard than others. For instance, can you tell me what your response would be to a WP blogger who approvingly retweeted a posting calling the Israeli captors of Palestinian prisoners “Satan worshippers,” and called for them to to be driven into the sea?

    Thanks for your time.
    truly,
    James Holstun
    Professor of English
    SUNY Buffalo
    _________________________
    Thanks for writing, I am looking into this.

    Patrick B. Pexton
    Washington Post Ombudsman
    [email protected]
    202-334-7582

    • seanmcbride
      seanmcbride
      October 26, 2011, 2:16 pm

      We need to pay close attention to how Patrick Pexton follows up on this and to what official statement he finally provides.

  7. seanmcbride
    seanmcbride
    October 26, 2011, 2:12 pm

    I’m not sure why, but these folks seem to assemble themselves in my mind as a group, a cluster:

    1. Israel lobby > pro-Israel militant+female > Caroline Glick
    2. Israel lobby > pro-Israel militant+female > Danielle Pletka
    3. Israel lobby > pro-Israel militant+female > Debbie Schlussel
    4. Israel lobby > pro-Israel militant+female > Ileana Ros-Lehtinen
    5. Israel lobby > pro-Israel militant+female > Jennifer Rubin
    6. Israel lobby > pro-Israel militant+female > Laurie Mylroie
    7. Israel lobby > pro-Israel militant+female > Melanie Phillips
    8. Israel lobby > pro-Israel militant+female > Meyrav Wurmser
    9. Israel lobby > pro-Israel militant+female > Michele Bachmann
    10. Israel lobby > pro-Israel militant+female > Midge Decter
    11. Israel lobby > pro-Israel militant+female > Orly Taitz
    12. Israel lobby > pro-Israel militant+female > Pamela Geller
    13. Israel lobby > pro-Israel militant+female > Rachel Abrams
    14. Israel lobby > pro-Israel militant+female > Sarah Palin
    15. Israel lobby > pro-Israel militant+female > Shelley Berkley

    Pamela Geller’s nonstop hysterical shriek is the signature note. (Please do not read any subterranean anti-feminist sentiment into this post — there is none.)

    • seanmcbride
      seanmcbride
      October 26, 2011, 2:23 pm

      Two additions:

      Israel lobby > pro-Israel militant+female > Mona Charen
      Israel lobby > pro-Israel militant+female > Rita Katz

      Also: pro-Israel militancy played a key role in motivating Hillary Clinton to threaten to “totally obliterate” Iran and in encouraging Madeleine Albright to declare the deaths by sanctions of a half million Iraqi children to be “worth it.”

      A collection of Lady Macbeths.

    • seanmcbride
      seanmcbride
      October 26, 2011, 4:04 pm

      Ok, here’s the thing: the picture of women, whom we often like to associate with conscience, caring, compassion and kindness, inciting genocidal violence of behalf of Israeli extremism is unbelievably disturbing and creepy.

      Shrill hate-filled fanatics like Pamela Geller, Rachel Abrams, Caroline Glick and Jennifer Rubin are unbelievably disturbing and creepy.

      What is wrong with them? How did they get to be the way they are? Religious indoctrination? Cultural indoctrination? Personality flukes?

      (I find myself wondering: who were their equivalents in extreme right-wing politics in Europe in the 1930s and 1940s? No names come quickly to mind in terms of engaged relentless savage aggression.)

      • AhVee
        AhVee
        October 26, 2011, 8:00 pm

        “Ok, here’s the thing: the picture of women, whom we often like to associate with conscience, caring, compassion and kindness, inciting genocidal violence of behalf of Israeli extremism is unbelievably disturbing and creepy.”

        While we’re talking stereotypical associations, let’s add ‘female proneness to hysterical and illogical behaviour’ to the list, and spice our dish of misogyny du jour with some decreased capacities over men in the logic department and bang smack, a nice explanation for this radical behaviour to those so inclined.

        “(I find myself wondering: who were their equivalents in extreme right-wing politics in Europe in the 1930s and 1940s? No names come quickly to mind in terms of engaged relentless savage aggression.)”

        This springs up conveniently on google, I’m sure many more lurk beyond the first 5 results on page 1.

        http://investigation.discovery.com/top-ten/female-nazis/5-female-nazi-war-criminals.html

        Among the selection:
        “[She] was reputed to be smart as a whip and mean as a snake. She had an affinity for classical music and listened to it when selecting women and children for the gas chambers — a deed she particularly enjoyed.”

      • seanmcbride
        seanmcbride
        October 26, 2011, 9:22 pm

        AhVee,

        I figured that post would be misunderstood by some and trigger some cheap shots, and I wasn’t disappointed.

        Does it really not strike you as weird that so many women who are prominent in the establishment punditocracy are trafficking in the most extreme forms of hate speech on ethnic and religious issues? This phenomenon has captured my attention.

        On what ethnic or religious nationalist issues other than Israel and Likud Zionism are so many women so extreme and vicious in their political and rhetorical attacks? Give us some examples.

        Here is the updated list. Do you have any problems with the names on it?

        1. Israel lobby > pro-Israel militant+female > Andrea Levin
        2. Israel lobby > pro-Israel militant+female > Bat Ye’or
        3. Israel lobby > pro-Israel militant+female > Caroline Glick
        4. Israel lobby > pro-Israel militant+female > Danielle Pletka
        5. Israel lobby > pro-Israel militant+female > Debbie Schlussel
        6. Israel lobby > pro-Israel militant+female > Hillary Clinton
        7. Israel lobby > pro-Israel militant+female > Ileana Ros-Lehtinen
        8. Israel lobby > pro-Israel militant+female > Jennifer Rubin
        9. Israel lobby > pro-Israel militant+female > Laurie Mylroie
        10. Israel lobby > pro-Israel militant+female > Madeleine Abright
        11. Israel lobby > pro-Israel militant+female > Melanie Phillips
        12. Israel lobby > pro-Israel militant+female > Meyrav Wurmser
        13. Israel lobby > pro-Israel militant+female > Michele Bachmann
        14. Israel lobby > pro-Israel militant+female > Midge Decter
        15. Israel lobby > pro-Israel militant+female > Mona Charen
        16. Israel lobby > pro-Israel militant+female > Orly Taitz
        17. Israel lobby > pro-Israel militant+female > Pamela Geller
        18. Israel lobby > pro-Israel militant+female > Rachel Abrams
        19. Israel lobby > pro-Israel militant+female > Rita Katz
        20. Israel lobby > pro-Israel militant+female > Sarah Palin
        21. Israel lobby > pro-Israel militant+female > Shelley Berkley

        Something odd and disturbing in contemporary American culture is going on here. It merits notice and analysis. This issue isn’t about women per se: it’s about the ability of Likud Zionism as an ideology (and its close affiliate Christian Zionism) to radically undermine the judgment of many people in surprising and remarkable ways. Some of these folks are now clamoring for genocidal policies with language that is not the least bit subtle — and that includes Madeleine Albright and Hillary Clinton (both “liberal” Democrats) as well as Pamela Geller and Rachel Abrams.

      • seanmcbride
        seanmcbride
        October 27, 2011, 10:53 am

        AhVee,

        Follow-up:

        Confession: I must admit that I did largely buy into claims from some feminist circles that women overall might be able to manage affairs of state with greater wisdom, empathy and compassion than testosterone-driven males overall, who have demonstrated over millennia a strong inclination to indulge in wars at the drop of a hat as a form of bloodsport. I imagined that women, as they rose to higher levels of influence in elite power structures, would exercise a restraining hand on the crazier and more violent impulses of males in leadership positions.

        In any case, Rachel Abrams, Pamela Geller, Melanie Phillips and other members of the pro-Likud, pro-Christian Zionist, pro-Clash of Civilizations and Islamophobic group mentioned above have inspired me to take another look at this belief. I plead guilty to being naive and too susceptible to succumbing to stereotypes in this domain — you nailed me.

        And lurking in the background of all my remarks on this subject is the fact that Pamela Geller’s writings drive me absolutely nuts. I feel permanently violated by having read even a few of her shrill paragraphs. And she has ready access to Rupert Murdoch’s media empire to spew her hatred. And, good God, if that were not enough, it turns out that she’s not a bizarre anomaly but the head of an ever-expanding bloodthirsty army whose tentacles reach into the highest levels of the American government.

      • annie
        annie
        October 27, 2011, 11:19 am

        you forgot ann coulter

      • seanmcbride
        seanmcbride
        October 27, 2011, 11:32 am

        annie,

        I thought about Ann Coulter, but she is a bit of an outlier. She is a Christian militant and an anti-Arab racist, but I doubt that she is a Likud Zionist in the school of Geller, Abrams, Glick and Phillips — she may even be a bit (or very much) antisemitic. But she sure as hell is as bloodthirsty as any testosterone-besotted male in search of enemies to slay and exterminate. What boggles my mind is that Coulter has not said anything more extreme than “liberal” Democrats like Madeleine Albright and Hillary Clinton (to the best of my knowledge).

      • annie
        annie
        October 27, 2011, 11:42 am

        i was just thinking about female shrill hate-filled fanatics. i agree i don’t think she’s part of the lobby but i’m sure they find her helpful wrt her war mongering muslim hatred.

      • seanmcbride
        seanmcbride
        October 27, 2011, 11:58 am

        annie,

        We also have plenty of examples at hand of shrill and shrieking male haters, of course — Robert Spencer and David Horowitz come to mind (there are many others). Anders Breivik, whose rhetorical hysteria escalated into physical mass murder, is a male. But I confess that Pamela Geller’s hysteria is so over the top that she has riveted my attention. She could shatter the windows of entire city blocks with that rhetorical voice. She really hurts my head. And one keeps seeing an ever-expanding collection of Geller clones in American politics. It’s discouraging and dispiriting. But she and her cronies are still greatly outnumbered on the American and European scene by women who are sane, calm, reasonable and dedicated to solving conflicts, not inflaming them.

        Yes, the neocon wing of the Israel lobby continues to exploit haters like Coulter. But I think they were taken aback by her bigoted Christian views on Judaism. Have you noticed that she has been much less visible since she made those remarks? She managed to scare many pro-Israel activists and militants.

        Sean McBride
        http://friendfeed.com/seanmcbride
        http://friendfeed.com/mideast-politics

      • lysias
        lysias
        October 27, 2011, 12:44 pm

        Then there’s Laurie Mylroie’s coauthor Judith Miller.

      • seanmcbride
        seanmcbride
        October 27, 2011, 1:55 pm

        Also:

        Israel lobby > pro-Israel militant+female > Brigette Gabriel

        And a militant Islamophobe.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        October 28, 2011, 2:10 pm

        “On what ethnic or religious nationalist issues other than Israel and Likud Zionism are so many women so extreme and vicious in their political and rhetorical attacks? “

        Gee, maybe being circumcised has some advantages. Maybe I shouldn’t judge it so harshly.

      • hophmi
        hophmi
        October 28, 2011, 3:56 pm

        It’s another list. Hillary Clinton and Madeleine Albright are not “pro-Israel militants.”

        Other than that, you appear to have proved that you can come up with a list of 21 (or 19, I guess) women who are right-wingers and pro-Israel. Congrats. I’m not sure what that proves exactly. A number of these women are bloggers; Glick is an Israeli columnist. Melanie Phillips is a British columnist.

        “This issue isn’t about women per se: it’s about the ability of Likud Zionism as an ideology (and its close affiliate Christian Zionism) to radically undermine the judgment of many people in surprising and remarkable ways.”

        It is? Making a list of people does not make that case.

      • rpickar
        rpickar
        October 27, 2011, 3:37 am

        Sean McBride:

        Equivalents in extreme right-wing Europe:

        Leni Riefenstahl: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leni_Riefenstahl
        Hanna Reitsch: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanna_Reitsch
        Ilse Koch: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilse_Koch
        Irma Grese: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irma_Grese

      • seanmcbride
        seanmcbride
        October 27, 2011, 9:42 am

        Robert,

        Are these really equivalents? I am referring to the highly conspicuous presence in the establishment punditocracy of women who are aggressively promoting the most extreme forms of hate propaganda designed to incite genocide — female versions of Julius Streicher or Joseph Goebbels. Riefenstahl was part of the Nazi propaganda machine, but even she didn’t make a career of promoting hatred (although she obviously helped enable the success of the entire hate machine). Certainly some women committed hate crimes and war crimes during World War II but they weren’t ringleaders of the Nazi propaganda machine.

        I can’t recall any period in modern American history in which haters like Pamela Geller, Jennifer Rubin, Orly Taitz, Rachel Abrams and others in their camp have played such a visible and aggressive role in mainstreaming hate speech based on an ethnic or religious nationalist agenda. Am I forgetting some of my modern American history? I think future historians will be interested in this development and topic.

        Americans have been pushed so far in this direction in recent decades that Madeleine Albright and Hillary Clinton, both US secretaries of state, have been able to make crudely genocidal statements about Arabs and Muslims with very little censure or hardly an eyebrow being raised. Can you see where this is going? — probably towards acts of collective violence driven by ethnic and religious hostility that will greatly exceed in scope the Iraq War. Hillary Clinton has already threatened to “totally obliterate” Iran. Neoconservatives continue to agitate for a no-holds-barred apocalyptic Clash of Civilizations between “the West” and the entire Muslim world.

      • AhVee
        AhVee
        October 27, 2011, 12:35 pm

        Thanks for elaborating. I wouldn’t say nailed, I thought I’d comment on the part of it that disturbed me, that be all. I think focusing on gender is completely irrelevant, IMO, because it begs a debate on feminism and the social construction of the female role in society, something that would likely hijack this thread. Even within feminism, there’s sufficiently radical groups that call for segregation from men, even male castration or some form of male ethnic cleansing.

        “And lurking in the background of all my remarks on this subject is the fact that Pamela Geller’s writings drive me absolutely nuts. I feel permanently violated by having read even a few of her shrill paragraphs.”

        It’s another reason I can only stomach reading so-much of what Zionists say, it makes me angry beyond comprehension. I’m shocked at the gravity Zionism has developed, shocked by its unparalleled influence on American culture, shocked by the extremism of many of its ardent supporters. It seems to bring out the worst in almost everyone. I’ve met preciously few Zionists who don’t end up resorting to apologists, pre-conceptions revisionism and lies when backed into a corner.

      • seanmcbride
        seanmcbride
        October 27, 2011, 1:46 pm

        AhVee,

        I appreciate your point that we don’t want to get sidetracked on gender and feminist controversies. My reaction on this issue is largely primal and visceral: I keep noticing that quite a few women seem to be conspicuously in the forefront of pushing hate-filled anti-Muslim propaganda and policies, and I have begun to wonder WTF — I am experiencing cognitive dissonance. (Vigorously lobbying for women’s rights in a rational way in Muslim societies I totally get and support.)

        With regard to the destructive effects of Zionism in American politics — all varieties of ethnic and religious nationalist politics, especially of the militant and messianic type — seem to stir up violent emotions and actions. Since the neoconservative and Christian Zionist wings of the Israel lobby are not backing down but are rather escalating their fanatical rhetoric and agitation for war, matters are likely to get much worse. These political trends could easily leave America in ruins.

        The whole point of the American experiment has been to transcend ethnic and religious nationalism, not to wallow in it.

  8. Justice Please
    Justice Please
    October 26, 2011, 2:19 pm

    “JERUSALEM IS NOT A SETTLEMENT. It’s Israel’s Eternal And Undivided Capital”

    The Germans who claimed they had a right to all that ‘Lebensraum’ in the east didn’t know history, either, but that did not protect them from the consequences of their actions.

    Someday, Rubin and her racist peers will hopefully get the Nuremberg treatment.

  9. Woody Tanaka
    Woody Tanaka
    October 26, 2011, 3:07 pm

    the sole bumper sticker on her gray Honda Pilot reads, “JERUSALEM IS NOT A SETTLEMENT. It’s Israel’s Eternal And Undivided Capital.”

    I want a bumber sticker that says, “AELIA CAPITOLINA IS A COLONIA. But it is not the Capital of Syria Palæstina.”

  10. Robert Werdine
    Robert Werdine
    October 26, 2011, 3:33 pm

    I like Jennifer Rubin. She’s a swell gal.

    • Woody Tanaka
      Woody Tanaka
      October 26, 2011, 4:07 pm

      “I like Jennifer Rubin. She’s a swell gal.”

      LOL. My guess is that more people were surprised when Ricky Martin came out of closet then are surprised to hear that you /heart/ Jennifer Rubin.

    • Avi_G.
      Avi_G.
      October 26, 2011, 4:12 pm

      Robert Werdine October 26, 2011 at 3:33 pm

      I like Jennifer Rubin. She’s a swell gal.

      Everything you ever wanted to know about Robert Werdine but were too disgusted to ask.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        October 26, 2011, 7:34 pm

        Everything you ever wanted to know about Robert Werdine but were too disgusted to ask.

        They probably became best friends when they met at Robert’s Bar Mitzvah.

    • Shingo
      Shingo
      October 26, 2011, 7:32 pm

      I like Jennifer Rubin. She’s a swell gal.

      Yeah, jjust like I’m sure you fanatsize about Pamela Gellar.

  11. DICKERSON3870
    DICKERSON3870
    October 26, 2011, 6:04 pm

    RE: “Jennifer Rubin’s fast track to intolerance” ~ Weiss

    MY COMMENT: Obviously, Rachel Abrams is one very sick puppy! Sadly, I’m certain she’s also the type who would never even consider seeing a therapist. Like my father.

    • DICKERSON3870
      DICKERSON3870
      October 28, 2011, 9:45 pm

      P.S.

      You can shine your shoes and wear a suit.
      You can comb your hair and look quite cute
      You can hide your face behind a smile
      One thing you can’t hide
      Is when you’re crippled inside
      ~~ John Lennon, “Crippled Inside”

      John Lennon: “Crippled Inside” (VIDEO, 03:56) – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYETxkU3WdY

  12. Shingo
    Shingo
    October 27, 2011, 1:52 am

    Clearly the ECI were onto something when they said hate was not an American value. What they should have said was that it is a Zionist one.

  13. seanmcbride
    seanmcbride
    October 28, 2011, 12:42 pm

    My comments so far on this topic have been quite disorganized and inchoate because I hadn’t thought through precisely what has gotten under my skin about the prominence of many women in promoting extremely anti-progressive policies with regard to the Iraq War, the Libya War, agitation for an Iran War, Islamophobia, Israeli settlements and Mideast politics in general.

    Here’s the deal: I think feminists and feminist groups, *on feminist grounds*, should be much more visible and aggressive in challenging Jennifer Rubin, Pamela Geller, Melanie Phillips, Caroline Glick, Rachel Abrams, Hillary Clinton, Madeleine Albright and the other names that have been mentioned on their anti-progressive views.

    There, I said it. Am I off base? Be sure to let me know. :) This is difficult and problematic territory to navigate and negotiate.

    Example: yes, I do in fact expect women to exhibit a greater concern for the welfare of children than most men. Why aren’t more feminists more troubled by Madeleine Albright’s dismissal of the deaths of a half million Iraqi children as a matter of not much consequence? Something is wrong here. What about the suffering that was inflicted on children in the Iraq War?

    How do feminists feel about Hillary Clinton’s threat to “totally obliterate” Iran? I can’t recall any former US secretary of state ever using such extreme and violent language — genocidal language, to be exact.

    • Mooser
      Mooser
      October 28, 2011, 1:57 pm

      Look Sean, what do you expect out of a movement (feminism) started by women? I’m sure feminism would be much more consistent if they would only ask men what feminism should consist of. And not guys like me, who would only say “Whatever you think best, dear”

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        October 28, 2011, 2:12 pm

        Sean, what you need is a good dose of Thomas Otway. He’ll make you feel a whole lot better.

Leave a Reply