In the “West Wing” episode “Inauguration,” scriptwriter Aaron Sorkin has his characters quoting–I believe–Margaret Mead in saying, “”Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it’s the only thing that ever does.”
So now we’re seeing this taking hold in Crawford, Texas, as Cindy Sheehan puts exactly what the White House has never wanted onto the losses in Iraq: A human face.
I have to admit, I think it’s absurd when I read the contention that her son joined the army some years back but never thought he’d actually have to GO anywhere. Ma’am, he joined the ARMY. Did he think it was all Sergeant Bilko or Gomer Pyle? I mean, sure, there were those eight reviled years of peace and prosperity, but there was no guarantee it was going to last.
Nevertheless, when the time came, her son did what he signed up to do. Did what he had to do. And now she’s doing what she has to do–getting in the President’s face. And the President is doing what he has to do–hide in his ranch and wait for this to go away.
She’s demanding accountability from her president.. Now we see just how much building rage there is in this country in terms of others likewise demanding it.
PAD
UPDATE–I really like this notion, as mentioned below: “Wouldn’t it be interesting if some of the other moms who lost their sons in Iraq decided to join that one-woman protest, so that it continued to grow in size…and grow…and grow…”
It’d be like Mothers Against Drunk Driving, except it’s Mothers Opposing Bush. MOB. “Yes, there’s a MOB scene here in Crawford.” “MOB rule has broken out outside the White House…”
Interesting thought.
• 
TWL wrote What a lovely quote to see mere seconds after you said something about pretending in order to get in a good rhetorical jab.
Who’s pretending? You’ve been a regular on here for as far back as I can remember, and most of the time I’ve respected you even when I’ve disagreed with you. But not in your comments after the election, and certainly not now.
You might want to see my response to Mark if you really think I was accusing him of lacking the capacity for compassion. Your choice, of course.
Which part did you want to make sure I saw, the part where you told him to bite you, or the part where you defended rejoicing in the death of another human being?
I’m going to repeat a story I’m sure I’ve mentioned on this blog before. The first big case I was involved with as a prosecutor was a death penalty case. My role was that of “third chair” which is roughly equivalent to “flunky.” (This is not a complaint, actually; I was a year and a half out of law school, and flunky work was all I had any business doing in a murder case.) A few things stick in my mind from that experience. One of them is the sight of the family of one of the victims right after the death verdict came back, forming a circle in our waiting room and praying to thank God for the verdict. I may never get past the image of people thanking their maker for His alleged role in the death of one of His children. Another thing that will stick with me is the party (with cake) my bosses threw after the death verdict (not the guilty verdict, after the sentencing). One of the things the flunky does is wheel around the little cart that has the pile of books and case law that the actual trial attorneys need to have handy in the courtroom, which usually meant that shortly before court started I’d have to ride up the only functioning elevator with the other interested parties, including the defendant’s father. That poor old man whom I’d seen dozens of times now had just seen his son sentenced to death, and these people were celebrating.
I told that story to make this point: it was utterly inappropriate to rejoice in the death of a sexually sadistic serial murderer then, and it’s utterly inappropriate for you to drool over the possibility of dancing on this man’s grave now. Not his political downfall, which I agree is fair game, but his death. I could have understood getting carried away with rhetoric to begin with, but having come back afterward and say, in contemplation of the man’s death, “I *will* enjoy that when the time comes” you have forfeited almost all the respect I formerly had for you. (Not that I expect that to ruin your day, any more than your response would ruin mine, but there you have it.)
I say “almost all” because, similar to PAD’s acknowledgement of what he considers Bush’s amazingly evil qualities, I have to tip my hat to your amazing gall in questioning the sincerity of someone else’s expression of compassion.
Okay, no matter what you think about Cindy Sheehan’s vigil, can we all agree that the guy who drove a druck over the crosses she put up is an áššhølë?
Absolutely.
“Well, apparently, someone who hates the idea of honoring dead soldiers decided to smash through a number of the crosses with his/their pickup truck. What exactly does that say about the mindset of Dubya’s neighbors?”
Well, it says that aside from horribly disrespecting Dead soldiers and their Parents, that they are dumb enough to burn up Gasoline when they do it. I hope that $40 in gas, plus the beer these good ol’ boys ingested, was worth it.Morons.
Im sorry, but this is just sad to think for all this “Support the Troops” rhetoric that some Yahoo would do this crap. In front of parents of soldiers no less.
David,
Who’s pretending? You’ve been a regular on here for as far back as I can remember, and most of the time I’ve respected you even when I’ve disagreed with you. But not in your comments after the election, and certainly not now.
I don’t know which post-election comments you’re referring to. I seem to recall that many conservatives actually gave me significant praise for my first post after Kerry conceded. Not that you need to be in lockstep with those people, but I certainly wasn’t feeling a sense of uniform scorn.
(Not that I expect you to dig them up by any means; it’s idle curiosity, that’s all.)
[my response]
Which part did you want to make sure I saw, the part where you told him to bite you, or the part where you defended rejoicing in the death of another human being?
Okay, you’re just not even trying to read at this point.
Yes, I said those two things (justifiably, IMO and clearly not IYO). I also said several other things which I considered clarifying remarks — I believe it was the same post, but it could have been another one.
it was utterly inappropriate to rejoice in the death of a sexually sadistic serial murderer then, and it’s utterly inappropriate for you to drool over the possibility of dancing on this man’s grave now.
To quote Bill, I’m going to have to challenge you on that. Please show the post wherre I drooled or mention same.
You can feel it’s utterly inappropriate, and I can respect that. Doesn’t change my feelings one whit, though.
And I realize it’s difficult to get tone of voice in a print medium, but the “I will enjoy that” was more a sense of grim I’ll-have-little-else-to-enjoy-by-then-given-the-country determination than sending out party invitations. I don’t know if that helps. I doubt it. Ah well.
you have forfeited almost all the respect I formerly had for you.
Just for being “inappropriate”? Ðámņ, what happens to the people who are downright rude?
As for losing respect … gee, I figured I’d done that after the fourth time you said I was a coward for considering leaving the country.
Now, clearly we do agree on one thing — that the guy who ran down the crosses in Crawford is a jerk. (And you’re the first person to agree with that as well; I was starting to wonder if anyone was going to chime in on it.) I’m happy to start over from there if you’d like.
But rest assured, I will not apologize for my beliefs, my values, my convictions, or my passions, and if those particular elements of my humanity have so soured your opinion that you can no longer engage in a respectful conversation, well, I can live with that too.
TWL
Ðámņ, what happens to the people who are downright rude?
Oh! Oh! I know, I know! 😉
G’wan, shoo. Git, Craig. No, no, not nearly enough. Git mo. Git mo.
TWL
Now, clearly we do agree on one thing — that the guy who ran down the crosses in Crawford is a jerk. (And you’re the first person to agree with that as well; I was starting to wonder if anyone was going to chime in on it.)
See, this reminds me of a previous thread where, if memory serves me right, we were all supposed to agree that threatening to kill judges was wrong and there was some disappointment when there was not a flood of posts agreeing with this. (forgive me if I’ve completely forgotten the correct details). I hate having to feel like silence = assent on this board. Some things strike me as worth commenting on and others don’t. I’d rather write about exploding bats than dumb rednecks.
I mean, if I mention that David Duke has come out in support of Ms. Sheehan and expressed the hope that all the liberal posters will join me in condemning this jerk, would you all feel obligated to do so? (And wouldn’t my doing so be a fairly transparent attempt to score points against Ms. Sheehan’s supporters under the guise of righteous outrage over David Duke?).
“…that you can no longer engage in a respectful conversation, well, I can live with that too.”
This is one of the more vitriolic thread I have seen here in a while. When you have a subject as flammable as the war in Iraq, I suppose tempers are bound to run high, but some of it strikes me as…excessive. I am as guilty as anyone of being harsh, but it really serves no ones purpose. Instead of getting reasoned, informed, respectful discussion, you get radicalism.
Just my two cents, and maybe I’m putting it where its not wanted, but I never saw anyone hurt by good manners. (except when I dropped “Miss Manners’ Guide to Excruciatingly Correct Behavior” on my toe.) 😉
I remember that thread as well, Bill, and you’ll note that I *didn’t* in fact say something like it this time, nor has anyone else. I stated a fact, that’s all — given the activity of the thread up to this point, a nearly 4-hour delay between the link going up and anyone saying “yeah, that guy’s an ášš” struck me as atypical.
That’s all. No judgements or hidden messages.
TWL
I don’t know which post-election comments you’re referring to.
As for losing respect … gee, I figured I’d done that after the fourth time you said I was a coward for considering leaving the country.
Yeah, actually that was the post-election discussion that I was referring to. And no, that didn’t eliminate all respect, just a large chunk of it.
But rest assured, I will not apologize for my beliefs, my values, my convictions, or my passions,
Same here. Going back to the post-election argument, I would no more emigrate from the US than I would abandon my nuclear family. I realize that there are people who do both of those things, and I disapprove of both. You have the right to act on your convictions, but I have a corresponding right to criticize what I perceive to be a disturbing lack of tenacity, and I don’t apologize for exercising my right. Similarly, if you want to enthuse in a public forum about dancing on a human being’s grave, that’s your business, but please don’t be surprised when people mistake your gallows humor for appalling sadism.
Now, clearly we do agree on one thing — that the guy who ran down the crosses in Crawford is a jerk. (And you’re the first person to agree with that as well; I was starting to wonder if anyone was going to chime in on it.) I’m happy to start over from there if you’d like.
Works for me, and I’ll even throw out the first topic. The State of Texas charged the “jerk” (far too mild a term, in my opinion) with a felony; according to CNN, Sheehan doesn’t want him prosecuted. I hope the DA in Crawford completely ignores her wishes and slams the little schmuck. I’m not that forgiving; perhaps you’ve noticed.
I’m going to throw out a real curveball: I don’t necessarily disagree with Cindy Sheehan’s choice of protests. If there’s an ounce of sense in her body she knows the President cannot come out and meet with her, for the reasons that PAD articulated above. It’s a brilliant protest maneuver for that very reason: the media will cover her for a solid month, and at least some portion of the population won’t do the math to realize why the President can’t let himself be guilted into meeting with people, so she’ll be a sympathetic figure sitting in weather that will remind people of, gee, a desert. This is a far more effective PR blitz than the fake USAF memo from last year, and it probably has the advantage of being essentially sincere (let’s all be honest here– if one of our close relatives were killed for what we considered a bad reason, we’d be pretty outraged). She doesn’t seem to be breaking any laws and she’s getting her message out perfectly. Good for her.
That’s all. No judgements or hidden messages.
That’s cool. I apologize for jumping to conclusions.
Ðámņ, what happens to the people who are downright rude?
I think they’re given their own shows on FOX News.
Sasha is right. One unfortunate mistake many people make is to confuse the Jewish people with the nation and government of Israel. One can disagree with the policies an actions of Israel and not be anti-semetic.
OK, let’s suppose that the comment “Get Israel out of Palestine.” is not anti-semitic.
If you know much about the history of the area, you will recall the purpose that Israel was created in the first place. It was to be a home for the Jews who goodness knows had been persecuted enough throughout history up to that point in time. You could even call it a refuge of sorts.
Given that, I reiterate: how would you characterize Mrs. Sheehan’s remark? Better yet, how would you propose to have solved the issue of a Jewish homeland?
On a slightly different take, Kathleen Parker also agreed with Peter in her August 16 column in the Orlando Sentinel that the President should not meet with Mrs. Sheehan, but for somewhat different reasons.
The unfortunate reality that she points out is that Mrs. Sheehan was against the war from the start (fair enough), but that she has now turned into the “poster girl” of sorts for the anti-war movement and worse for all those other political interests who have an axe to grind, some without necessarily the best interests of the populace as a whole. So regardless of what the ultimate outcome of the situation, it boils down to a situation of “nobody wins”. It also provides a distraction from the real problem and creates a circus atmosphere which can be spun in an infinite number of ways. I wonder if Mrs. Sheehan’s son would approve of all this were he able to voice an opinion?
Bill
That’s cool. I apologize for jumping to conclusions.
Accepted, and thanks.
TWL
David,
Works for me, and I’ll even throw out the first topic. The State of Texas charged the “jerk” (far too mild a term, in my opinion) with a felony; according to CNN, Sheehan doesn’t want him prosecuted. I hope the DA in Crawford completely ignores her wishes and slams the little schmuck.
I think we can agree on that as well. (I haven’t managed to find the details on it yet, though — felony what? Can willful destruction of properly be a felony-level offense? Last I checked, there wasn’t a statute for felony áššhølìšhņëšš, particularly in Texas.)
I’m not that forgiving; perhaps you’ve noticed.
Not touchin’ that one.
TWL
Given that, I reiterate: how would you characterize Mrs. Sheehan’s remark?
First of all, given that she has publicly denied making the remark, I can’t say for certainty that it is her remark in the first place. Second, as far as territory goes, the terms “Israel” and “Palestine” can mean different things to different people. To many Arabs, Palestine refers to the entire region, while to many of the Israelis, Palestine doesn’t even exist. So, it’s possible that (assuming she did say it), that “get Israel out of Palestine” could have just meant withdrawing from the Gaza Strip and West Bank, which Israel is already doing partially. Without knowing what may or may not have been in her head at the time she allegedly made the statement, I’m not assuming any motive to a statement taken out of context. Finally, we all know that modern Israel was created to give the Jewish people. Thank you for telling us something every 8th grader knows. The point is, given that there are millions of Jews not living in Israel, to say that “Israel = the Jewish people” is absurd.
Better yet, how would you propose to have solved the issue of a Jewish homeland?
Given that Nobel Peace Prize winners have failed to solve that problem, I doubt that anyone in this forum, including myself, has the solution. The secret to lasting peace is for everyone in the region to learn to coexist peacefully. Now, if you ask me how we get there from here, my answer is, “beats the hëll out of me”.
Never one to let a sarcastic remark be mistaken for silent assent, let me add my “aye” to Mr. “I Only Support Our Troops If Support Means Run Over Their Honorary Death Markers With My Pickemup Truck” does get whatever legal violations he’s commited thrown at him. Bravo for Mrs. Sheehan for showing compassion, but let’s leave the real showing of compassion decision up to the jury on this one.
On a slightly different take, Kathleen Parker also agreed with Peter in her August 16 column in the Orlando Sentinel that the President should not meet with Mrs. Sheehan, but for somewhat different reasons.
Amusingly, Ted Rall also agreed with PAD’s comments in his blog yesterday.
I get the feeling we’re going to see alot more pieces like this in the coming weeks.
If only more of those had come out a year ago.
the real problem with saying Israel=The Jewish People is that it cuts both ways.
on the one hand, anyone criticizing the Israeli government can be written off as an anti-semite. which is very much like saying that anyone who doesn’t agree with George Bush’s administration is anti-American. it’s a logically bankrupt but often effective tactic.
on the other hand, there are people who have legitimate concerns about the Israeli government, who for years have been told Isreal=The Jewish People. is it any wonder that some of these people transfer their anger towards the Israeli government to Jewish people as a whole?
for years i was a supporter of Israel, because i bought into this false equivalence. i felt that supporting the Jewish people meant supporting Israel. the Jewish people were the underdogs throughout history and i naturally felt sympathetic towards them.
more recently i’ve learned to separate the two. i’m sure there are many people out there who just de facto support Israel without seeing that there are two viable sides of the issue.
is it any wonder that some of these people transfer their anger towards the Israeli government to Jewish people as a whole?
Yes, it is a wonder that anyone could be so stupid. Just because people say something doesn’t mean you can be excused for believing it if it has no logical basis.
Just because people say something doesn’t mean you can be excused for believing it if it has no logical basis.
Like Saddam being responsible for 9/11, for example. People in power implied it, and lots upon lots upon buttloads of people believed it. (Wasn’t there a recent poll showing something like 73% of those polled believed Iraq had a hand in it?)
If you’re saying approximately 73% of the populace is really stupid, well … frankly, at this point I’m not sure I disagree, but I’m glad to see you saying it.
TWL
In all fairness, Tim, there is always the possibility that some piece of evidence will emerge that shows that Iraq and Al Queda were closer than we know. That will not change one’s opinion on whether or not it was a good decision to go to war given the facts as known at the time, but it remains a possibility.
(And “had a hand in it” is an awfully ambiguous term. One could argue that the CIA “had a hand in it” since they supported the rebels in Afghanistan, some of whome morphed into the Taliban. If Iraq has ANY ties whatsoever to Al Qeda you could make the argument that they “had a hand in it”. Pretty meaningless term.)
(and yeah, I know I must have at least 14 ways of spelling Al Queeda. Just doesn’t seem worth my time to look it up.)
There will never be any evidence to support racism, including anti-Semitism, because it is simply a fantasy to think that people are good or evil based on their ancestry. (yes, I am aware that you agree with this).
I may think that believing that Dennis Kusenich will be the next president is crazy but it isn’t in any way shape or form as crazy as, say, astrology or fairy photos.
At any rate, no, I don’t think that 73% of the population is stupid, even when they have the temerity to disagree with me. If 73% ever think that a cabal of Jews is pulling the strings of the USA government I may have to amend that opinion.
I think that’s sophistry, Bill. A far greater percentage of people are believing this demonstrably false statement than the one you responded to, yet you’re bending over backwards to say that this one kindamightapossibly be okay. I wouldn’t go so far as to say that it’s intellectually dishonest, but it’s certainly fuzzy … and very disappointing, as it’s way below your usual standards.
I’m not saying the two statements are MORALLY equivalent, simply that when you say “just because lots of people say something doesn’t mean you can be excused for believing it if it has no logical basis”, you’ve made your argument far bigger than saying “racism is utterly stupid”.
TWL
“Just because people say something doesn’t mean you can be excused for believing it if it has no logical basis.”
it’s the big lie. you take something logically indefensible and treat it like it’s self-evident long enough, and eventually a lot of people will be fooled.
“There will never be any evidence to support racism, including anti-Semitism, because it is simply a fantasy to think that people are good or evil based on their ancestry. (yes, I am aware that you agree with this).”
there are many situations where otherwise intelligent people will allow themselves to fall into habitual stupidity.
I think we can agree on that as well. (I haven’t managed to find the details on it yet, though — felony what? Can willful destruction of properly be a felony-level offense? Last I checked, there wasn’t a statute for felony áššhølìšhņëšš, particularly in Texas.)
According to the news story I read, property destruction can be elevated to a felony if $1000+ worth of property is destroyed, and somebody estimated the value of the destroyed memorial above $1500. (How you estimate a fair market value for a memorial, I do not know. Maybe they used the value of the construction materials.)
The point is, given that there are millions of Jews not living in Israel, to say that “Israel = the Jewish people” is absurd.
For starters, I have never ever said that Israel equals the Jewish people as a whole. However, I point out that someone who makes a remark like “Get Israel out of Palestine” might…..just might…..have a wee, tiny, infinitesimal bias against having Jews in the area, and could therefore have that same wee, tiny, infinitesimal bias….well you know.
And now, just to reinforce my earlier statements in previous threads about the aim of many in the area, the following comes from the AP today, and it is a direct quote:
“This is only the first step to liberating all of Palestine including Jerusalem east and west and every inch of Palestinian land from the sea to the river.”
Made in dead seriousness by Hamas spokesman Younis al-Astal in reference to the Gaza evacuation.
It should be interesting to watch what happens with Sharon and Israel if Hamas continues its terrorist ways. Comments?
I think that’s sophistry, Bill. A far greater percentage of people are believing this demonstrably false statement than the one you responded to, yet you’re bending over backwards to say that this one kindamightapossibly be okay. I wouldn’t go so far as to say that it’s intellectually dishonest, but it’s certainly fuzzy … and very disappointing, as it’s way below your usual standards.
Well, they can’t all be homeruns.
Made in dead seriousness by Hamas spokesman Younis al-Astal in reference to the Gaza evacuation.
And this has exactly what to do with Cindy Sheehan?
My point is that neither you nor I know what she meant by that statement, even if she did make it. Of course, you have chosen to ignore that just as you have chosen to ignore the fact that she denied making the statement in first place. Instead, you quote a terrorist and pretend the two are somehow equivalent. The ignorance of that is astounding to me.
“According to the news story I read, property destruction can be elevated to a felony if $1000+ worth of property is destroyed, and somebody estimated the value of the destroyed memorial above $1500. (How you estimate a fair market value for a memorial, I do not know. Maybe they used the value of the construction materials.)”
Have you seen what funeral services cost these days? I kid not, my father-in-law paid $100 for a funeral employee to use model glue (Testors) to “seal” a tinfoil box containing his mother’s ashes.
Tube of model glue: $1 (conservatively)
Tin Foil Box: $0.50
Time taken to glue lid of box: less than 1 minute.
Cost for that “sealant application?: Almost $6000 an hour.
Here’s something from a new article on Yahoo:
“The State Department warned U.S. Central Command before the invasion of
Iraq of “serious planning gaps” for postwar security, according to newly declassified documents.
In a memorandum dated Feb. 7, 2003 — one month before the beginning of the Iraq war — State Department officials also wrote that “a failure to address short-term public security and humanitarian assistance concerns could result in serious human rights abuses which would undermine an otherwise successful military campaign, and our reputation internationally.”
(sarcasm)
I’m shocked, utterly shocked at such a revelation!
(/sarcasm)
“(sarcasm)
I’m shocked, utterly shocked at such a revelation!
(/sarcasm)”
What’s more shocking? That there are Federal employees competent enough to have thought and reported this? Or that the people at the top are so incompetent that they disregarded this?
What’s more shocking? That there are Federal employees competent enough to have thought and reported this? Or that the people at the top are so incompetent that they disregarded this?
It would have to be the former.
We all know, by this point, that the Bush Administration is so dámņëd incompetent, that nothing they do should surprise anybody any more.
The level of ignorance, stupidity, negligence, and contempt they’ve shown the rest of the country really is on a monumental scale.
hey Peter, i know this has nothing to do with the current thread but i wonder if you’ve read this. It’s about you & McFarlane
http://www.savantmag.com/14/rant14.html
Joe V.
“We all know, by this point, that the Bush Administration is so dámņëd incompetent, that nothing they do should surprise anybody any more.”
And yet, the other party couldn’t defeat them in the election. Who’s more imcompetent?
“Exactly, what files did Sandy Berger destroy? Of course, since he was a Clinton guy, no one on this board gives a dámņ that Sandy Berger stole top secret documents (hidden in his underwear, no less) and destroyed them.”
didn’t comment on this before, because i didn’t know the story.
when they say Sandy Berger had files in his pants, they are strictly correct. he had them in his pants pocket.
he removed photocopies of files, not the originals. on 7-30-04, the Wall Street Journal, that great bastion of the left, reported that officials investigating the matter found that “no original materials are missing and nothing Mr. Berger reviewed was withheld from the [9-11] commission.” the article was titled “Berger Cleared of Withholding Material From 9/11 Commission.”
he improperly took copies of documents he had access to home. the improper part was that even copies weren’t supposed to leave the building.
his story, against which no contradictory evidence exists, is that he wanted to review cases to better testify before the commision.
so, the reason the lefties aren’t concerned about this case is that there isn’t a case.
when someone comes up with anything more than unfounded accusations, i’ll be concerned.
-will
“And yet, the other party couldn’t defeat them in the election. Who’s more imcompetent?”
i don’t think that anyone here is denying that the Republicans in general and the Bush team in specific are very good at playing politics.
they are political geniuses but policy idiots.
“And yet, the other party couldn’t defeat them in the election. Who’s more imcompetent?”
Hey, it’s my favorite “we won, nyah, nyah, that proves we’re better than you” argument. If Bush were so competent, why are his support numbers seemingly falling every week? And why are there an increasing number of protests about his continued sham war on Iraq? A competent president wouldn’t lose the support of the country in what is really the most crucial period in terms of needing support, i.e., the long rebuilding process that insures against the need to go back and do this all over again in 2 years when the shell government we leave there gets overthrown by a guy worse than Hussein.
Bush’s poll numbers are sinking because their constant “everything is going fine” drumbeat doesn’t square with reality. People are seeing the casualty figures for a 2.5 year-old occupation that was supposed to last “six months, top” and know that we’re being conned.
At any rate, no, I don’t think that 73% of the population is stupid, even when they have the temerity to disagree with me.
I’m willing to bet 73% of America, if asked, would agree with the following statement:
Columbus discovered the world was round.
It’s not true. Washington Irving invented the Columbus story. Knowledge of the Earth’s roundness was known to scientists of that time.
The big lie works. If something is said enough, people start believing there has to be some truth to it. Or else it wouldn’t have been said, right? Wrong.
1) I’m an Israeli. I was also a Peace activists. I have seen Israeli mothers and fathers do similar things to what ms. Sheehan has done.
2) The situation here is very complicated. It is hard to explain. I’m not sure Ms. Sheehan understands the complications. The slogan that Israel should get out of Palestine is problematic because of them. I have held signs that say that Israel should get out of the Territories in order to avoid such complications.
3) Israel has no interest in Iraq.
4) Criticizing Israel is fine. I do it all the time. However, the same way that criticism of American policy has turned for many, in Europe and even more so in the Arab and Muslim world (which has much more crazy state propaganda), into anti-Americanism, so it is with Israel and anti-semitism. The difference is that people criticising American policy may (and too often do) tap into silly prejudices about Americans; but people criticising Israel tap into a very dark well of anti-semitism. Case in point, the idea that Israel or Jews somehow control American policy with Iraq or in general. I don’t know if Ms. Sheehan has done so.
5) The only significant similarity between the situation in Iraq and Israel/Palestine is that in both cases you have to deal with terrorists and guerrillas working inside a supportive civilian population.
6) The differences are many. Three significant examples: Israel can leave Gaza like the Americans can leave Iraq, but Gaza will still be next door; The Israeli occupation of Gaza was supported by an ideology that Gaza belongs to Israel and they built settlements there, wheras America has no such interest in Iraq; many Palestinians in Gaza wish to see Israel gone completely, which means that withdrawing from Gaza and even from the west bank (both of which I support) do not necessarily end the conflict.
7) Sharon probably did not withdraw from Gaza for Peace, but because he thinks it will make the control of the West Bank easier. This is a mistake on his part, Israel should leave the West Bank. But it is still good that we left Gaza.
8) The Hamas will continue to attack Israel, because they believe that terrorism is a good way to force Israel to withdraw from places, and because they gain political prestige this way. Israel wil retaliate, they will retaliate back, and so on. I fear this will cause Israel to stay in the West Bank even longer. In any case, it will not acheive the purpose of removing Israel completely from the region.
9) It is a mistake to support a cause just because it is the underdog.
You make some excellent points, Micha. I just want to emphasize that you can’t take an out of context quote from a letter that the person it is attributed to denies making and use it to ascribe a particular motivation to that person.
I’m willing to bet 73% of America, if asked, would agree with the following statement:
Columbus discovered the world was round.
I don’t consider it an example of stupidity when people repeat something they have heard, if it’s a reasonable fallacy. I’ll bet that 73% of this blog probably think that the change in seasons has to do with the distance of the Earth from the sun, especially if they had the same teacher I did in third grade. Knowing the facts isn’t a sign of intelligence, just education.
My lack of sympathy for racists over the age of 6 is in part because I’m tired of people making excuses based on emotionalism and expecting the rest of us to accept them. “I’m racist against blacks because a black guy raped my sister.” Yeah, so, every black guy raped her? Does that make ANY sense? But I’ve endured normally sane women ranting for hours over how evil men are just because they have had the misfortune of dating a few losers (ignoring the fact that each of these guys was an exact carbon copy of the other).
It gets tiring. People are basically saying “I know what I’m saying is wrong but I feel like it’s right.” I’d like to make them feel the back of my hand upside their head.
I know what you mean, Bill. There is a definite difference between being ignorant and being stupid. At least a person who is ignorant of the facts has the capacity to learn the correct facts. A stupid person will just continue on the way they always believed because challenging a preconceived notion is too much for their mind to handle.
As for Columbus, while the scientists of his day acknowledged that the world was round, many of the lay people of the day persisted in the belief that it was flat. Kind of like certain people with regards to evolution or global warming.
Of course, Columbus didn’t *prove* the Earth was round anyway since he never made it all the way around or even to China what with an entire continent in the way. Magellan was the first to successfully circumnavigate the globe and even so, there are still people today who insist the world is flat.
Side note about Bill’s comment about women: I’ve had similar experiences. I’ve known many women who bash men at every expense and complain about how horrible *all* men are. Strangely enough, these are the same women who, when they encounter a man who doesn’t have a job, a clean shirt, or the ability to speak in complete sentences, can’t seem to keep their clothes on.
Strangely enough, these are the same women who, when they encounter a man who doesn’t have a job, a clean shirt, or the ability to speak in complete sentences, can’t seem to keep their clothes on.
Where were these women when I was single? I could have managed each and every one of those attributes.
Re Israel again: I found the following comment by James Lileks regarding the the Presbyterian Church’s efforts to use its stock holdings to target Israel for its treatment of Palestinians:
But they’re not anti-Semites. Heavens, nay. Don’t you dare question their philosemitism! No, they looked at the entire world, including countries that lop off your skull if you convert to Presbyterianism, and what did they choose as the object of their ire? A country the size of a potato chip hanging on the edge of a region noted for despotism and barbarity. By some peculiar coincidence, it happens to be full of Jews.
Strangely enough, these are the same women who, when they encounter a man who doesn’t have a job, a clean shirt, or the ability to speak in complete sentences, can’t seem to keep their clothes on.
Where were these women when I was single? I could have managed each and every one of those attributes.
Ðámņ. Is that all it took?
“Ðámņ. Is that all it took?”
No, there is on more thing that you need. A wedding ring helps.
I got hitched last Dec. and it blew my mind how many more women hit on me now then before. I swear I’ve got about 10X more women hitting on me now then I did pre-ring.
And women call US dogs with no standards.
And yet, the other party couldn’t defeat them in the election. Who’s more imcompetent?
Not that it’s much of a claim to fame, but I said several years ago that Bush would have us in a war to get reelected.
And, like I said, not much of a claim to fame, because I’m far from the only person to say it.
Bush didn’t win by a landslide in this last election (contrary to the opinions of those who saw the election as a ‘mandate’).
Between the war (people don’t like changes of leadership in times of war) and ‘moral values’, Bush didn’t need to worry about working on his script for Hamlet.