General politics

[LaBombo]

 

Israel is not some sacred cow, and we should be able to criticize what has been a right wing regime for decades without inviting antisemitism.  

 

This is not just a straw man, it is a straw Colossus.

[ewen21]

 

Look, I think the left's views on Israel are pretty wonky .

Develop that thought.

[TheLeviathan]

 

If you're not familiar with Nazi/Klan conspiracy theories about Jewish manipulation of banking and politics, we've gone as far as we can go on this subject. Sorry, I'm not trying to be dramatic, but we're better off shutting it down right there.

 

I'm familiar, what I'm not familiar with is what comments she made that rose to that level.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Develop that thought.

 

We've discussed it before in other threads, but short version - I don't hold the Israelis blameless, they've done things they shouldn't have done.  They are too aggressive at times.  But the problem is not Israel.  

 

Mike or ashbury had a short, sweet way of saying this that escapes me right now.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Israel is not some sacred cow, and we should be able to criticize what has been a right wing regime for decades without inviting antisemitism.  

 

I agree.  On the flip side, we should be able to criticize Palestine without it being racist.

 

Alas, neither are possible it seems.

[LaBombo]

 

I guess I missed the King thing, apologies. It happens.

 

If you don't think that resolution that just passed was done in response to her, I don't know what to say.

 

As for her words, I don't like them, but I can listen to my Jewish friends who have said these words were aimed at policy, not people. That said, I can see how others see more there, and I don't know that I disagree with them. Like I said, I don't actually know her intent here....

 

She accused a nation, not a religion. I think there is a distinction there, you don't. That's fair, but I am looking very specifically at her words. Her past, as you point out, should maybe lead me not to......

 

And, no, she pretty much killed her rising star (if there was one), with these words, and I anticipate it will only get worse for her, not better. I could be wrong about that, of course.....

 

No problem, and I apologize for accusing you of being a DU'er

 

Yes, of course the resolution was damage control necessitated by her. Yet Dems couldn't bring themselves to even mention her by name. That went by the wayside after those who DO view her as a rising star went ballistic over a resolution specifying her behavior as tantamount to censure in her record.

 

And yes, criticize Israel and our policy toward them all you want, but don't question the loyalty of Jews who oppose you, which she absolutely did. As for nature of the actual remarks, well, her 'boss', Eliot Engel, called the loyalty remark "a vile anti-Semitic slur".

 

Fwiw, I think you're underestimating her party's investment in seeing her succeed, and their willingness to pivot to defending her by attacking her critics as Islamaphobic. She'll have to curb her rhetoric but in no way will this limit her future.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

Fwiw, I think you're underestimating her party's investment in seeing her succeed, and their willingness to pivot to defending her by attacking her critics as Islamaphobic. She'll have to curb her rhetoric but in no way will this limit her future.

may I push back a bit? To the extent that the Democrats are “my party” (not really but sorta but sortanotreally), I’d say there’s zero investment in seeing Omar be a rising star. Maybe among a small few, but I doubt among anyone with any real influence. Either way, can we start calling her IAO now? j/k

 

She probably holds the seat as long as she wants it, but unlike Ellison, I don’t see any natural political post for her once she retires or is voted out.

 

Oh and this just in—Omar is now criticizing Obama!

[LaBombo]

 

I'm familiar, what I'm not familiar with is what comments she made that rose to that level.

 

Honestly, I'm not understanding where you're going with this. You're cool with the whole hypnosis thing? Svengali ringing any bells? Will you at least allow that puppet strings would be over the line?

 

I'm a little scared that your next move is to impugn Eliot Engel for having... ulterior motives for denouncing her loyalty slam as a "vile, anti-Semitic slur".

[PseudoSABR]

 

This is not just a straw man, it is a straw Colossus.

Well, I made the conscious point of not quoting and replying to your post, so as not to directly respond or seem to put words in your mouth.  I mean you took a post about 'outrage' over sentencing, and pivoted to Omar's comments on Israel; talk about an interesting and arguably fallacious rhetorical tactic...

[PseudoSABR]

 

If you're not familiar with Nazi/Klan conspiracy theories about Jewish manipulation of banking and politics, we've gone as far as we can go on this subject. Sorry, I'm not trying to be dramatic, but we're better off shutting it down right there.

How does one make a valid criticism of Israel using its financial resources to affect US policy without inviting this trope?

[LaBombo]

 

may I push back a bit? To the extent that the Democrats are “my party” (not really but sorta but sortanotreally), I’d say there’s zero investment in seeing Omar be a rising star. Maybe among a small few, but I doubt among anyone with any real influence. Either way, can we start calling her IAO now? j/k

She probably holds the seat as long as she wants it, but unlike Ellison, I don’t see any natural political post for her once she retires or is voted out.

Oh and this just in—Omar is now criticizing Obama!

 

Mayby you're right, but I would submit that a specific investment in her is a better motive for the last-minute rally to her defense than just a blanket party refusal to deal. If that's the case it doesn't bode well for their ability to cut ties with Women's March.

 

And no, I'm not seeing her as a future Prez/VP candidate, or even a cabinet member. But I do think some in the party see her as AOC Lite, and along with Tlaib they have a very telegenic Three Amigos thing going on. They've had a high profile as freshmen so far, with varying degrees of success, and it will be interesting to see if Omar is back in the mix right away or not.

[ewen21]

The thing I like about Israel is they don't attack Ameican citizens.

[LaBombo]

 

How does one make a valid criticism of Israel using its financial resources to affect US policy without inviting this trope?

 

By not using the word "Hypnotized". By not insinuating that favoring a given pro-Israel policy is dual loyalty. By not misrepresenting and exaggerating AIPAC's influence as outright purchasing of votes.

 

Try those for starters, anyway.

 

And then maybe listen to at least the fellow Democrats among your Jewish colleagues in Congress, who are furious and appalled.

[Badsmerf]

Her choice of words was bad. Her criticism of Israel has merit. If she wasn't to continue to be a member of Congress she needs to get better at communicating criticism without being a bigot.

 

She is a target, has been since she took office. A part of that is because of her religion and how she looks. We've all seen the evidence, and she needs to rise above that nonsense and be a leader.

[PseudoSABR]

 

The thing I like about Israel is they don't attack Ameican citizens.

Like Palestinians do?  Because that's the implication I'm getting here.

[LaBombo]

 

Her choice of words was bad. Her criticism of Israel has merit. If she wasn't to continue to be a member of Congress she needs to get better at communicating criticism without being a bigot.

She is a target, has been since she took office. A part of that is because of her religion and how she looks. We've all seen the evidence, and she needs to rise above that nonsense and be a leader.

 

Her criticism of Israel doesn't need merit. She's been elected to the House and absolutely has a right to be heard on matters of policy, whether people agree or not.

 

Her choice of words was bad before she was warned by her own party.

 

Now her choice of words is deliberate and "vile" in the words of her committee chair.

 

And if people within her party encourage her to play the victim card in response to legitimate criticism of her bigotry, then I hope they're held accountable by party leadership.

 

Or, failing that, the voters.

[PseudoSABR]

 

 

By not using the word "Hypnotized". By not insinuating that favoring a given pro-Israel policy is dual loyalty. By not misrepresenting and exaggerating AIPAC's influence as outright purchasing of votes.

 

Try those for starters, anyway.

 

And then maybe listen to at least the fellow Democrats among your Jewish colleagues in Congress, who are furious and appalled.

I had to look up the hypnotized/Svengali thing; I had no idea about the use of that word carrying an antisemitic quality until today.  Do you think she intended it as a dog-whistle there?    Because she did seem to profess ignorance or at least carelessness with her Benjamins comment. 

 

And America has been stupid-weird about Israel for a long, long time.  It may not be dual loyalty, but I haven't seen a prominent politician criticize our policy on Israel like ever.

 

And I've seen plenty of Jews who are not furious and appalled.   (Bernie Sanders for one).  As you point out, she was not named in the condemnation. 

[ewen21]

Wasn't thinking about Palestine. Was thinking of Somalia, though

[TheLeviathan]

Honestly, I'm not understanding where you're going with this. You're cool with the whole hypnosis thing? Svengali ringing any bells? Will you at least allow that puppet strings would be over the line?

 

I'm a little scared that your next move is to impugn Eliot Engel for having... ulterior motives for denouncing her loyalty slam as a "vile, anti-Semitic slur".

It's just that I despise when the sensitivity dial is too high. What she said about Israeli lobbyists is no different than how we talk about any lobbyist. Hypnotizing? Yeah, dumb. Maybe even anti-Semitic but the context does leave open more benign possibilities.

 

I understand the reaction is genuinely offended. However, our barfor what offends us is far too sensitive for me. Jews have been, and continue to be, the victims of much hatred. But perhaps this is overblown a bit.

[LaBombo]

 

I had to look up the hypnotized/Svengali thing; I had no idea about the use of that word carrying an antisemitic quality until today.  Do you think she intended it as a dog-whistle there?    Because she did seem to profess ignorance or at least carelessness with her Benjamins comment. 

 

And America has been stupid-weird about Israel for a long, long time.  It may not be dual loyalty, but I haven't seen a prominent politician criticize our policy on Israel like ever.

 

And I've seen plenty of Jews who are not furious and appalled.   (Bernie Sanders for one).  As you point out, she was not named in the condemnation. 

 

Credibility aside, the ignorance card had to be honored. Unless it's blatant, that's just how it works. And that's fine.

 

But she used hers up before she even arrived in DC. The Benjamins and dual loyalty business all happened after what sounds (by the account of the Democratic organizer) like what amounted to nothing short of an intervention in MN to help her understand the hurtful nature of her previous rhetoric.

 

The loyalty comment stands apart from the rest as a terrifying slander straight from the era of Henry Ford/Charles Lindbergh Nazi sympathizers. 

 

Absolutely agree that US/Israel policy history is both confusing and emotionally charged. And normally I would tread lightly because of that, but her behavior is unconscionable.

 

And yes, sadly, her behavior has its partisan defenders, as almost all bad behavior does. If she cleans up her act they can pat themselves on the back for sticking by her, and if not, they can acknowledge their facilitation of further slurs and reap. We'll see.

 

 

[PseudoSABR]

 

Wasn't thinking about Palestine. Was thinking of Somalia, though

Those Arabs, all the same. 

[PseudoSABR]

 

 

 

The loyalty comment stands apart from the rest as a terrifying slander straight from the era of Henry Ford/Charles Lindbergh Nazi sympathizers.

I just don't agree.  American politicians seem weirdly loyal to Israel.  And I think your conflating too easily country and religion. 

 

(As for the rest of your post, we're pretty much on the same page).

[LaBombo]

 

It's just that I despise when the sensitivity dial is too high. What she said about Israeli lobbyists is no different than how we talk about any lobbyist. Hypnotizing? Yeah, dumb. Maybe even anti-Semitic but the context does leave open more benign possibilities.

I understand the reaction is genuinely offended. However, our barfor what offends us is far too sensitive for me. Jews have been, and continue to be, the victims of much hatred. But perhaps this is overblown a bit.

 

Fair enough. But I would add that the reaction this past week is not to a single comment any more, but to a pattern, one that is unabated by previous efforts from within the party. She knew the difference between policy critique and inflammatory rhetoric, and she went down that latter road. Again.

 

In any event, I'm hoping that she gets her act together, lays off the Twitter bombs (she was retweeting John McCain slander immediately after the resolution vote, of all things), and maybe works more at listening and learning from the willing party elders for a bit before she wades into the deep water again.

 

Given the fact that she's already having to walk back the Obama comments that just dropped, it seems safe to say that she's probably not done in the spotlight just yet.

[LaBombo]

 

I just don't agree.  American politicians seem weirdly loyal to Israel.  And I think your conflating too easily country and religion. 

 

(As for the rest of your post, we're pretty much on the same page).

 

Setting aside my personal feelings: the ADL is no right-wing shill, NYT and WAPO aren't conservative rags, and Eliot Engel is... well, he's Eliot Engel. They're all going against their political leanings to condemn her remarks, and are to be commended for doing so. America would be better off if both parties would do so more often.

 

Again, I freely acknowledge that there's a grey area between anti-Israel and anti-Jewish rhetoric. And legitimate criticism of the former should never be trivialized or villainized by unfairly portraying it as the latter.

 

But Omar's hypnosis and loyalty comments can be traced back to a time when anti-Jewish rhetoric passed from hurt feelings and marginalization to groundwork for barbed wire and boxcars. She's not espousing anything of the kind, but she's betraying a mindset that needs to change. I hope she can.

[PseudoSABR]

 

Setting aside my personal feelings: the ADL is no right-wing shill, NYT and WAPO aren't conservative rags, and Eliot Engel is... well, he's Eliot Engel. They're all going against their political leanings to condemn her remarks, and are to be commended for doing so. America would be better off if both parties would do so more often.

 

Again, I freely acknowledge that there's a grey area between anti-Israel and anti-Jewish rhetoric. And legitimate criticism of the former should never be trivialized or villainized by unfairly portraying it as the latter.

 

But Omar's hypnosis and loyalty comments can be traced back to a time when anti-Jewish rhetoric passed from hurt feelings and marginalization to groundwork for barbed wire and boxcars. She's not espousing anything of the kind, but she's betraying a mindset that needs to change. I hope she can.

To the extent any kind of rhetoric can be construed as derogatory, it should be condemned.  Nonetheless, I just don't see an antisemitic intent here, so I think we can condemn the rhetoric without necessarily condemning the person. 

[LaBombo]

 

To the extent any kind of rhetoric can be construed as derogatory, it should be condemned.  Nonetheless, I just don't see an antisemitic intent here, so I think we can condemn the rhetoric without necessarily condemning the person. 

 

The party has collectively exonerated her, at least implicitly, by not naming her in the resolution, and at least three 2020 candidates have actively backed her by predictably shifting the conversation to potential Islamophobic backlash.

 

But that rescue mission didn't come without a potential political cost to them. And now she owes them, whether she respects the debt or not.

 

We already know that nonpartisan warnings about her behavior weren't enough to keep her out of trouble. So next we find out if party leadership reminding her from time to time that 'now their butts are on the line too' will take care of her behavior.

[PseudoSABR]

So I'm reading the Maryland's Court of Appeal's (their highest court iirc) decision reinstating Adnan Syed’s (of Serial fame) sentence and conviction, and I came across this gem of legal reasoning:

Another sign of fabrication is that Syed’s two references to the alibi during his meetings with his trial counsel’s law clerk were inconsistent with each other. On July 13, 1999, Syed said that McClain and Banks had seen him at a library at 3:00 p.m. On another date, Syed said that McClain and Banks had seen him in a library between 2:15 p.m. and 3:15 p.m. A reasonable lawyer in Syed’s trial counsel’s position could have found it unusual that Syed pinpointed a specific time on one occasion, yet referred to a one-hour timeframe on another.

 

https://www.courts.state.md.us/data/opinions/coa/2019/24a18.pdf

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Great question.  The most basic response I can give you is, if there is a will, there is a way.

 

To expand on that, we have accepted, since we were old enough to understand, that the media needs to be centrally located, with a primary hub/office with various affiliate sites spread out over large swathes of territory.  This is one method information collection can occur, but there are newer ways that are coming into existence as we speak. 

 

There are many independent journalists that are not owned or operated or in any way affiliated with corporations or corporate based financial backing that are putting in their own time and resources to uncovering truth.  They are self funded and do most of the work by themselves.  The reduction in potential conflicts of interest is what keeps them afloat, because there is a market for this now due to the overwhelming corruption of the establishment media.

 

This is just the beginning of a growing trend of newer sources of news using alternate methods versus the standard method of information collection.  Just because they are doing this right now in 2019 does not mean these operations will still be viable in say, 2030.  Now that it is easier to build your own studio at minimal cost, use your own cameras and production also at minimal cost, individuals are slowly making news more decentralized and self operated.  I have no idea what it will look like 10 years from now, but I'm guessing no one really does since the landscape is changing so fast.

 

Breitbart and similar websites are dinosaurs just like the rest of the establishment media.  They are trendy these days because Trump established his own kind of media conglomeration indirectly to combat the establishment media complex, but they both operate under similar guidelines and rules and should therefore both be questioned, disputed, and discarded in the same way.

My god. No.

How do you think Breitbart and DailyKOS started, anyway?

Because you just described how they started and became media empires. Yet I asked how media should be called out for its transgressions and face repercussions.

 

I don't mean to go at you too hard but you really haven't thought this through very well. In fact, I'd say you haven't thought this through at all.

 

You're basically a libertarian right now. All ideology, absolutely no realization of its effects, no care about its repercussions, and then throwing up your hands after things go to hell and saying "YOU DIDN'T TRY HARD ENOUGH".

[Otto von Ballpark]

You're basically a libertarian right now.

Hey -- name calling has no place here!

[ashbury]

Hey -- name calling has no place here!

Where it comes to libertarians I choose to reverse the quote attributed to Churchill about socialism: “If a man is not a libertarian at 20, he has no brain. If he still is by the time he is 40, he has no heart.”

 

Obviously an oversimplification. Mostly it just reflects my own path.