Why News Aggregators Can Never Replace the News

How Writer's such as Marty Peretz make a compelling case for intellectual anti-Semitism

I actually find the behaviour of Marty Peretz to be far more disturbing than the wolf calls of Antisemitism. Conservative Jewish commentators have had a long history denying legitimacy to their opponents that is much more fundamental than accusations of Antisemitism.

Leon Wieseltier is right to be worried about making moral, political, and economic arguments a religion as opposed to its followers, he seems blind to how far many in the Jewish community have committed to this path.

While this certainly has found many manifestations in the "War on Terror" its origin in American culture goes back much further, at least to Irving Kristol.

Irving Kristol did not merely choose sides in a debate that pitted different factions of the western Christian tradition against each other, he eventually made it an object of faith that political discourse must chose a winner. That the Christian socialist tradition was in fact so inferior as to be an illegitimate influence on public discourse.

Irving Kristol made a political dynasty of separating good Christians from bad. The centrality of this separation is common amongst conservative Jews.

While columnist such as Dennis Prager engage in full throated denunciations of main stream protestant denominations, main stream Jewish columnist have come nearly as close.

Marty Peretz recently spoke of the inferiority of Haitian Voodoo culture. David Brooks was even more explicit. Voodoo is clearly within the Western Christian tradition. While Voodoo does preserve elements of African religions it is heavily influenced by and almost always practiced in conjunction with Catholicism.

Most notably the arguments that Brooks and Peretz use against Voodoo is that it deviates from their particular view of capitalism an argument that could just as easily be made against many main stream Christian movements.

While Peretz may be far more vocal in his denial of the legitimacy of the Muslim faith, the nature of the arguments are merely one of degree not kind.

When Peretz and Brooks say there is good Christianity and bad Christianity they are inviting Judaism to be similarly evaluated.

If Voodoo is holding Hatti back and is bad because it discourages capitalist behavior. Then is Zionism bad because it rejects equality based on practice of religion.

Peretz and Krauthammer do not make modest claims regarding terrorism and rule of law but broad claims. They repeatedly state forthrightly that they place either no value what so ever upon the due process of those of accused terrorist or so little value that whatever value it has would have no effect in policy.

While they often like to say that this is merely denying rights to terrorist, it is in fact granting the government huge unchallengeable powers to imprison and kill unquestioned.

This type of thinking deviates substantially from western thinking at least since the War of the Roses.

If there is something about their Jewishness which causes them to deviate from the rule of law, then why can't that be condemned

If Kristol, Brooks, and Peretz are willing to delegitimize elements of the Western tradition, than why not strike off elements of Judaism, or Judaism as whole.

What could Peretz have to say if some Haitian wrote Israel has been cursed with Judaism which by encouraging the government to grant different rights to Jewish and Muslim citizens has contributed to an environment which risks millions of innocent lives?

But far more realistically, what would prevent another Pope from deciding that Judaism, like Islam is incompatible with European culture.

If as many conservative Jewish commentators seem to agree there is a superior religious culture that should drive out inferior ones; and if, as the current Pope has repeatedly stated Catholicism is superior to all other paths, than what defense is there against intellectual anti-Antisemitism.

The Shoa did not happen in one generation. Europeans had been murdering Jews in spirit long before Hitler industrialized the physical destruction. When Brooks or Peretz try to kill Voodoo, they are engaging in the first acts of their own Shoa.

in reference to:

"Krauthammer"
- Something Much Darker | The New Republic (view on Google Sidewiki)

Not willing to spare a drop of blood for Democracy

40 000 Americans die every year for lack of health insurance. Thousands more die from respiratory diseases directly related to auto emissions, from toys and chemicals which the government refuses to inspect before market, and of course in a drug interdiction and prohibition effort which has not reduced drug use in nearly a hundred years.

The easiest way to foil 9-11 would have been to have competent professionals screening the passengers at the gate. But in America saving the Airlines a few bucks was worth the risk of having minimally trained, minimally compensated, employees who were so poorly compensated that they rarely stayed long enough on the job to learn anything from work experience.

Yet let one person die in defense of democracy and people lose their minds. Israeli citizens may be under the perpetual illusion that they can be an occupying power to large geographically integrated population and have the security enjoyed by Europeans, but Americans would never dream of such security. Every year for over a decade I lived in New Orleans an average of 400 people were murdered. My life has been in more danger from violence every single year of my life than it would have been if I had lived the same 38 years in Israel and served my compulsorily military duty.

The reality of the matter is that it is not civil rights concerns that limits the screening of passengers but cost. If there was one idiotic move by a Democratic President it was Clinton's decision to give permanent most favored nation status to China.

Since then America's position in Asia has declined dramatically. Unthinkable just 10 years ago, both Japan and Australia have moved further from America's orbit than anytime in history and closer to China than anytime in history for Australia and closer for Japan since before Japans isolation during colonial times.

China is extending its power in to Africa. America can't afford to buy the relations and access to raw materials China can. Even in Bolivia, China has a much greater access to the South American nations crucial Lithium resources.

America simply can't afford to further alienate nations like Nigeria that have substantial resources. With lost decade in climate control India, and China will consume more and more of oil resources from the Middle East.

Even if America stays loyal to Israel, China which has generally good relations with Israel, but no deep cultural bond will act in its self interest. Which means Israel might be looking at Arab governments armed with the latest military technology.

Those who claim to be tough minded in their willingness to sacrifice civil rights and strategic interest in the name of avoiding terrorism deaths are actually sacrificing much more.

If Israel does not find a peace with the Arab world it may be saving some deaths from suicide bombs but looking at nuclear armed Iran whose nuclear missiles are protected by sophisticated Chinese anti-missile technology.

Terrorism exists people will die. But to make a fetish of these lives is cowardly and stupid.

in reference to: Comment / Overly democratic ways can prove deadly - Haaretz - Israel News (view on Google Sidewiki)

Wouldn't you love to see Marty Peretz and Pat Buchanan locked in an elevator?

Perhaps the saddest element of Israel's struggles is the siege mentality that has overtaken not only Israel but many of her supporters. One begins to wonder if the experience of defending Israel against what can only be described as a literal siege has so damaged them that they will not be able to function normally even absent external threats.

Marty Peretz seems to have suffered a complete and total meltdown. He has indeed become the ultimate self hating Jew -- so much that if I were a loved one I would certainly advise him to seek psychiatric help.

He is showing classic psychosis in this article. He is paranoid. He believes himself to possess special knowledge which others can not or in this case refuse to see. Finally he ends in his final paragraph in an act of rhetorical immolation that is so earnest one wonders if the authorities should be contacted.

The special knowledge that Peretz claims to have is that found in the quote "I do not say that all Muslims are terrorists, but I have noticed that an alarmingly high proportion of terrorists are Muslim." Like most paranoid delusions the quote has kernel of truth. Some terrorist are Muslim and any percentage is alarming.

But, the supposed heightened Muslim propensity for terrorism is mostly a dangerous illusion that harms American safety. Were the Tamils secretly Muslim. Is FARC a terrorist organization? If so is are its members secretly Muslim. Were the members of the Shining Pat Muslim. Are the Mexican narco terrorist Muslim, if so what's with the Our Lady tatts? Are the Moaist terrorist in India Muslim, if so they seem to get along suspiciously well with their Hindu comrades in arms.

Muslims carried out the deadliest terrorist attack on American soil, the second deadliest not Muslim. By focusing on Islam we open ourselves to attacks from the numerous foreign and domestic non-Muslim terrorists. There are many more reliable indicators of terrorist activity than religion. Peretz secret knowledge is actually a dangerous delusion.

What is truly scary is the last two paragraphs. The majority of immigrants are Mexican. Does Peretz somehow believe that Mexico is a non-western culture. It isn't even a non-American culture. If America has the right to remain America, at what point do we freeze it in time. And, why not freeze it at the point where Jews fleeing the Holocaust where turned away? Why does Peretz hate Peretz so much? And what can be done to help him?

in reference to: "I Do Not Say That All Muslims Are Terrorists, But I Have Noticed That An Alarmingly High Proportion Of Terrorists Are Muslim" | The New Republic (view on Google Sidewiki)

Trevor Norwitz's letter to read.

Though, I find much to disagree with in this letter, it shows the type of writing that should be coming from conservative supporters of Israel, but isn't.

Writing from such authors as Jennifer Rubin, Marty Peretz, and the editorial board of the Washington Post have the effect of damning Israel with shoddy arguments. These writers arguments are often not only only poorly written but often obviously written in such a manner that subverts Israel's interest to the domestic political agenda's of the author. Trevor Norwitz treats so fastidiously like a client, the only alternative motive that could be attributed to him is advertisement for his legal services.

in reference to: Commentary » Blog Archive » An Open Letter to Richard Goldstone (view on Google Sidewiki)

Leiberman endangers national security for cheap Fox stunt

Lieberman fans something much worse than McCarthyism

Say what you will about McCarthy at least there was a kernel of truth to his accusations. There was a world wide Communist conspiracy that was in many ways headed and controlled by the Kremlin.

While he was a dangerous political opportunist who used the war against Communism to support his own craven goals, the Communist threat was real. A systemic response focused on Soviet Communism was indeed warranted.

Having defeated Communism the right naturally has wanted to

"Islamist Extremism" is another kettle of fish altogether. There is not one Islamist conspiracy directed by one organization. But many conspiracies by many different Muslims located in many different regions of the world that are as much at odds with each other as they are with us. Understanding the threat this way the term "Islamic Extremist" is too broad and perhaps even underestimates the threat.

But in another sense the term is much too narrow. One of the most dangerous lies perpetrated by the likes of Lieberman is that Islam somehow is unique in its production of dangerous militants.

While Islamic terrorism has presented a unique danger to the United States to imply that actions against Muslim religious terrorism are sufficient is an incredibly dangerous under estimation of the problem.

Religious violence is actually quite common with significant acts of violence perpetrated by Christian, Jews, Sheiks, and even Buddhist and Hindus.

Much of the terrorism and even genocide in Sub Saharan Africa is directed by Christian sects. As Climate driven migration and water wars spread and our competition with China for African raw materials intensifies we are almost certain to face these types of groups.

As for the Fort Hood attacker a profile that could explain his actions could certainly include a Jewish soldier angered by a future American governments vote in the UN Security council to recognize a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders of Israel or a Christian soldier angered by the integration of openly homosexual soldiers into the armed forces.

But rather than propose responding to a threat that is decentralized and complex Lieberman chooses to promote falsehoods about the threat posed by a Fort Hood type radical. These falsehoods could give such a radical a crucial opening to do untold damage.

crossposted at http://www.google.com/sidewiki/entry/robert.lee.hotchkiss/id/RSB7k7_owRUi6r-O2faiYpIvAis

Is John Bolton an Iranian Mole?

There can be no argument that the destruction of Iraq was the single most significant event in Iranian history, even surpassing the Islamic revolution in importance. The destruction of Iraq converted its most deadly ally into a probable future client state.

The concurrent inclusion of Iran in the axis of evil slated for regime change and the torture and execution following sham trails of leaders in Iraq and Afghanistan removed any deterrent to seeking weapons of mass destruction. If attack and regime change was a true threat in any event pursuance of weapons of mass destruction to deter such an eventuality became the only logical response by the Iranian government. By demonstrating that people associated with the regime would be tortured and summarily executed after sham trails, everyone associated with the government had a personal vested interest in its continuance.

The emergence of an empowered, more repressive Iran bent on acquiring a weapon of mass destruction deterrent was an easily foreseeable result of the destruction of Iraq.

An attack by Israel on Iran's nuclear facilities would almost certainly increase Iran's power, make it more resistant to regime power and more certain to develop a weapons of mass destruction .

The nuclear program in Iran is one of the few popular polices of the current regime. Far from causing a crisis for the Iranian government it would almost certainly strengthen the regime and the national resolve to obtain a credible weapons of mass destruction deterrent.

The attack on US interest will be immediate and won't come from Iran. Israeli forces will have to fly over Iraq airspace to attack Iran. As the United States is air force is the de facto air force of Iraq the Iraqi people will see this as a betrayal and termination of their agreement with the United States.

There would almost surely be immediate attacks on US forces in Iraq. The government would be under extreme pressure to demand and immediate departure of US forces.

The majority Shiite population would want closer contact with Iran and perhaps invite the Iranian air force to replace the departing Americans.

This would understandably not be well received by the Sunni population. Unrestrained by the presence of US troops the Shiites will most likely continue the sectarian cleansing that made the surge so successful.
This would result in heavily armed militant refuges entering Saudi Arabia.

Israel would definitely face repercussions for its attack on Iran. There would be a strong temptation for Israel to go ahead and do all the things it perceives as offensive to the international community at once and be done with it.

Its attacks on its neighbors and its threats have been increasingly violent. The Israeli population has almost completely lost faith in a peace with the Palestinians. There is more and more talk of a permanent solution.

It is highly probable that Israel would use any attacks from the occupied territories as an excuse for large scale ethnic cleansing. This would result in heavily armed militants flooding into Jordan and Egypt, destabilizing both of these countries. Israel would almost certainly launch massive attacks on Lebanon as well.

These actions will also make it clear that Israel never intends to reach a peace with Syria.

The result of these actions will be a destabilized Egypt or a an Egypt run by the Muslim Brotherhood. Lebanon would fall under greater control of Syria or Hezbollah or both. Syria would be drawn into a closer alliance with Iran and would itself be desperate to obtain a weapons of mass destruction deterrent against Israeli attack.


It is almost impossible to believe that Bolton's proposal could be motivated by concern for American interest in the region which would almost certainly be drastically damaged.

in reference to: Articles & Commentary (view on Google Sidewiki)