Bush Out

August 10, 2005

Links like this I can live without - know what I'm saying?

9 comments:

Tman said...: Tis a pity, the link to which you refer.

Doesn't agree with you does it?

Yes, tis a pity. Please go ahead and SPEAK TRUTH TO POWER!!!

SHOW THEM THAT A CITIZEN JOURNALIST LIKE YOU WILL TAKE NO PRISONERS!!!!!

McCHIMPYHALIBURTONCHENEYABUGHRAIBGUANTANOMOOIIILLLL!!!!!!

....cough....ahem..; 12:26 pm
elendil said...: Hrm. I'm not surprised they totally jumped on you for that comment. I know that you're not an anti-semite, but if I didn't know who you were, I would have assumed the same thing. Esp. with the "payroll" comment. In that context, it sounded very "5 Jew bankers". Not helpful when you actually do have a good point to make about buzz-marketing tactics.

Well, in future, I'd be more careful about making the distinction between "Jewish" and "anti-Arab neo-con agenda". ... In much the same way I'd encourage others to make the distinction between "Muslim" and "terrorist" (but now I'm just stirring).; 5:48 pm
Jaraparilla said...: elendil,

Since I value your input, please explain what exactly I said that was so anti-Semetic.

If nobody can ever criticize Israeli government policy for fear of being labelled anti-semetic, and if nobody can ever point out that a huge segment of Bush's supporters are pro-Zionist Jews, who have a lot to gain from Bush's ME policies, then I might as well give up this blog.; 3:46 pm
elendil said...: If nobody can ever criticize Israeli government policy for fear of being labelled anti-semetic ...

I agree whole-heartedly. I often see completely legitimate criticisms of Israeli government policy attacked as "anti-semitic", when that is completely not the issue. Particularly surprising when it's directed at the ideological left, which has a tradition of fighting racism, by the ideological right, who only just admitted that lynching black people was wrong (okay, I exaggerate, but you get my drift ...).

It's a cop-out, and I think that some proponents of those policies will misconstrue your words on purpose, because calling you an anti-semite is much easier than actually addressing the issues. For them, there's no point in dialogue. However, there's lots of in-between people, and the last thing that you want to do is confirm their suspicion (no doubt spurred-on by the former group) that people who oppose Israel are usually just doing it because they hate the Jews[1]. It just means being really careful and clear about what you mean, so that there's minimal room for error.

please explain what exactly I said that was so anti-Semetic.

Well, the trick is that you actually didn't say anything anti-semitic, you just said things that were easily misconstrued as anti-semitic. Think of it this way -- close your eyes and imagine that the post you are about to read was written by some crazy skinhead who thinks that the Jews are out to get him, and they have an account full of money to pay bloggers to attack him for speaking the truth. Then re-read what you wrote ...

No, you didn't say anything anti-semitic, but if one had an established paradigm that presupposed that you were likely to be an anti-semite, then it wouldn't be to hard for them to read that comment and maintain that presupposition.

This is all pretty unfair on you, because comments are necessarily short. God knows I've made exactly the same mistake in various forms a billion times, and probably will a billion more. Truth is, although it's inaccurate and pretty unfair, it's much quicker to say `Jew' than `person espousing a complex political-religious affiliation strongly correlated with anti-Arab sentiment and a support of the Bush administration's nefarious neoconservative ideology' (or whatever the appropriate phrasing would be). But in the climate of a blog like that, where leaping for the anti-semite label is such an appealing cop-out, you might just have to be that anal-retentive :-)

Keep smiling, Gandhi. According to your site meter, you still have 100 or so visitors per day who find your blogging valuable. We know what you meant. There's no need to throw in the towel just yet :-)

[1] And they're never doing it because they believe that the welfare and happiness of Palestinian is just as important as that of the Jew. Because ... you know ... they're not racist like that? (sigh); 5:56 pm
Winter Patriot said...: Yikes! You have to step carefully through all these minefields, don't you?

I recently had to explain to my wife that Dutch people come from Holland and play football for the Netherlands. Why do we have three such different words for the same thing? Dunno!

On the other hand, there is a big difference among the terms Israeli [a nationality], and Jewish [a religion, culture and/or ethnicity], and Zionist [a political philosophy].

Most of the Jews I know are not Israelis and detest Zionism. Some of the Jews I know are Israelis and support Zionism. I know Zionists who are not Jewish or Israeli. How complicated things get -- and in what a hurry!

Keep looking for the truth and keep telling us about it when you find it. Don't worry about the hit-counter. Don't worry about the trolls. Don't worry about anything except telling the truth as you see it. That's what you do best and that's why some of your readers -- including this lowly and nearly frozen one -- keep coming back.; 7:22 pm
Jaraparilla said...: This is crap.

Elendil, I appreciate the comments, but as you say:

... you actually didn't say anything anti-semitic, you just said things that were easily misconstrued as anti-semitic.

Things are normally "misconstrued" in this way by people who have pre-determined mindset and are LOOKING for bias. I cannot imagine that any anti-Bush, anti-Zionist Jew would have found anything wrong in my comment.

Now these same fools at Protein Wisdom are calling Cindy Sheehan an anti-semite!

That's on the basis of this quote:

Am I emotional? Yes, my first born was murdered. Am I angry? Yes, he was killed for lies and for a PNAC Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel. My son joined the Army to protect America, not Israel. Am I stupid? No, I know full-well that my son, my family, this nation, and this world were betrayed by a George Bush who was influenced by the neo-con PNAC agenda after 9/11.

And this:

It was the unstated threat. Iraq wasn't going to attack America or nuke America. But Iraq was a threat -- to Israel. That was the real threat and had been for fifteen years. But for the US government this was the threat that couldn't speak its name. Europe doesn't care much about that threat. And the US government didn't think they should lean too much on it, because going to war to protect Israel wouldn't be popular.

Is that really an anti-Semetic quote? No, it's the damn truth!

But now the people who support the Zionist agenda permeating Bush's US government policy want us all to discuss whether I am anti-Semetic of Cindy Sheehan is anti-Semetic of Jesus H. Christ was anti-Semetic, while the real issues go ignored.

Screw that. Like I said before, I am going to be a bit more hard-headed. If that means pissing off a few Bush apologists, warmongers and chickenhawk dipsticks, so be it.; 7:32 am
Wadard said...: Gandhi: - I was a little bit not happy about what I saw as Jeff Goldstein (protein wisdom) coming in here, dropping the 'blame the JOOOOOS'line and then pretending that you went over to his blog to antagonise without cause, and pasting you as anti-Semetic. So I told him so and he claims that this is not what happened:

repost

Wadard—

protein wisdom here. You seem a bit confused. Gandhi came here, dropped the “this blog must be run by a Jew” line, THEN I went to his blog and posted what he wants to hear: “It’s ALL ABOUT THE JOOOOS.”

So what really happened Gandhi? I owe the guy an apology if I have misread the sequence. But then why would you be referring out of the blue to attacks on your site by pro OIF jewish activists without any foundation. I don't think you are that type. So what's the story? Wadard; 11:14 am
elendil said...: Like I said before, I am going to be a bit more hard-headed. If that means pissing off a few Bush apologists, warmongers and chickenhawk dipsticks, so be it.

It's your call how you want to approach what you do, and I don't think it matters too much provided that you do it with mindfulness. Life is full of constraints, and you can't win 'em all. Treading lightly means that you may not get your message across as forcefully as it deserves. Being more hard-headed means that you may alienate the moderate right-wingers. And there's good arguments either way. I guess whatever you decide, as long as you do it with self-awareness, you should be fine.; 1:32 pm
Jaraparilla said...: wadard,

my hit counter picked up lots of visitors coming from Pro-teen Wizbang so I went to see why.

JG had posted a mindless, vindictive attack on both Cindy Sheehan and Michael Moore. He then trawled the net looking for blogs linking to Moore's story on Sheehan. He then characterized them all (including me) as mindless sheep, so his own mindless readers could have a good "groupthink" laugh.

So I posted this comment by way of reply.

It's no coincidence that the right wing is attacking Sheehan now (just as they have attacked Joe Wilson, Michael Moore and anyone else who's ever dared attack Bush's inane, immoral adventurism).

And it's no coincidence that many of those doing so have a vested interest (financial of otherwise) in keeping Bush's enemies from being given a fair hearing. It's not wrong to try to ascertain these people's motives: in fact, it is stupid not to do so.

The kind of crap comments you can see on this post are a damning indictment on these people's lack of either intelligence or genuine morality.

Like many others, I am sick of it.; 5:21 pm

Bush Out

August 10, 2005

9 comments:

Pages

Blog Archive