Archive for Liberal Nonsense

The Casual Antisemitism Of The Vice President Of The United States

Shylocks, anyone?

Vice President Joe Biden “should have been more careful” in a speech when he used a term that some consider anti-Semitic, the national director of the Anti-Defamation League said Tuesday.
At a conference marking the 40th anniversary of the Legal Services Corporation, Biden recalled anecdotes from his son’s experience serving in Iraq and meeting members of the military who were in need of legal help because of problems back at home.

“That’s one of the things that he finds was most in need when he was over there in Iraq for a year,” Biden said, “that people would come to him and talk about what was happening to them at home in terms of foreclosures, in terms of bad loans that were being...I mean these Shylocks who took advantage of, um, these women and men while overseas.”

ADL National Director Abraham Foxman issued a mild reprimand later Tuesday.
“When someone as friendly to the Jewish community and open and tolerant an individual as is Vice President Joe Biden, uses the term ‘Shylocked’ to describe unscrupulous moneylenders dealing with service men and women, we see once again how deeply embedded this stereotype about Jews is in society,” Foxman said in a statement, first reported by Yahoo News.

Who is Shylock?:

The name “Shylock” derives from the name of the antagonist in Shakespeare’s “Merchant of Venice.” Shylock, a Jew, was a ruthless moneylender in the play, and he’s remembered for demanding a “pound of flesh” from the merchant Antonio if he failed to repay a loan.
“Shylock represents the medieval stereotype about Jews and remains an offensive characterization to this day,” Foxman said. “The vice president should have been more careful.”

Let me give you a quick timeline of Shylock. In 1290, all of the Jews of England were expelled. Why? Due to Medieval Christian laws, they were not permitted to own property or to farm; instead they were required to loan money with interest, so that the King could take whatever he wanted (or felt he needed) from the interest charged. Christians were not allowed to loan money, only Jews. So, prior to the expulsion, the Jews were necessary to running the economy, but eventually the Kind needed everything that they had, and so they were expelled. (This dynamic occurred in the Hitler era. See Gotz Aly’s great study: Hitler’s Beneficiaries.) For a good overview of the economy surrounding the expulsion, check out the wiki link.

In 1657, 350 years later, Oliver Cromwell allowed the Jews to return to England.

Think about the years the Jews were absent from England – 1290 to 1657. And when, Gentle Readers, was the Merchant of Venice written? Scholars date it to 1596-1598. This means, of course, that neither Shakespeare nor anyone living during his time had ever met a Jew. They just hated because that’s what Christians did, that’s what Brits did, think about it as you will.

And today we read about our deeply ignorant and cynical Vice President blaming the housing crisis on Jews.

– Aggie

Comments

All About the Benjamins

So now that ISIS and we are at w—…what is it again? A “very significant counter-terrorism operation [that's] going to go on for some period of time.” Yeah. Now that we’re doing that, how is the anti-w—…counter-terr—oh, eff it! How’s the antiwar crowd taking it?

Medea?

Medea, welcome to Democracy Now! Can you respond to President Obama’s speech and the fact that the vast majority of Americans polled support taking military action in Iraq and Syria?

MEDEA BENJAMIN: I think President Obama has been hounded by the media, by the war hawks in Congress, mostly from the Republican side but also from the Democrats, and is going into this insane not only bombing in Iraq, but also talking about going into Syria, at a time when just a couple of months ago the American people had made it very clear that we were very tired of war.

So, the most powerful man in the world, a man gifted with such intelligence, such articulateness, such cleanliness—and “no Negro dialect unless he wanted to have one”—has been “hounded” by the press and the Republicans into “insanity”.

That’s your story?

Oh, Medea, and we remember you when you had guts:

Literally.

Now, this is the best you can do:

MEDEA BENJAMIN: Well, the peace movement was really decimated when Obama came in, and has been trying to rebuild ever since. But I think now we have to think of all of us as the peace movement. Now is the time to say, if you’re an environmentalist, you better understand that war is the greatest environmental disaster and the U.S. military is the greatest polluter on the planet. If you care about having money for youth groups or for infrastructure or for green energy, you better understand that sucking money into the military—we’re now paying $7.5 million for just the bombing in Iraq.

Seven-and-a-half million to bomb Iraq? What a bargain! Screw the youth groups and “green” energy (algae?), hit the bid! At that price, it would be a waste of money not to bomb Iraq.

Cindy Sheehan, are you going sit idly by and take that?

Cindy Sheehan, peace activist
I believe the reason that the presidents of the US can continue to make such belligerent and jingoistic speeches and follow through with the continuation of endless wars is because the American people keep falling for the propaganda and the lie that either one of the two major political parties is better than the other when it comes to war for profit. I think last night’s speech by Obama was just a regurgitation of any speech by GWB and shame on anybody who is falling for this same tired, yet hostile, rhetoric. It would be funny if so many lives weren’t unnecessarily compromised because of US aggression.

Regular readers know that we check in on Cindy’s rantings from time to time. She may be mad as a hatter, but we share this: we’re consistent. She’s always against “time-limited, scope-limited military actions”; we’re usually for them. The only difference being we trusted George Bush and his people to get it right (eventually). We have no such faith in Obama.

But if bombing ISIS is wrong, I don’t want to be right.

Comments

On the War* With the Islamic** State***

*It’s not a war.

**It’s not Islamic.

***It’s not a state.

So, what is “it”, and what are we “doing” about it? Hey, we just told you what it’s not—why can’t that be enough? Next you’ll want the recipe to Michelle’s kale cupcakes.

Some in the Obama administration run from the w-word like the French fun from w itself (cheap shot). Others therein wrap themselves in the battle colors like a latter day Barbara Fritchie. But this is the same administration that blamed the Benghazi atrocity on a YouTube video—and then successfully dodged responsibility for doing so (for a time).

Speaking of Benghazi, remember that Libya was no war either.

Remember what it was?

It’s not a war, the White House says.

Instead, Libya is “a time-limited, scope-limited military action, in concert with our international partners, with the objective of protecting civilian life in Libya from Moammar Gadhafi and his forces,” White House spokesman Jay Carney said.

Pressed on the point by reporters, Carney said, “I’m not going to get into the terminology,” but Libya is not an “open-ended military action, the kind of which might otherwise be described as a war.”

“There’s no ground troops, as the president said,” Carney said. “There’s no land invasion.”

“A time-limited, scope-limited military action”: wonder why they didn’t bring back that gem from 18 months ago? Look at what it did for Libya. Oh wait…

Libya Closer To Failed-State Status, Ushering In Possible ISIS, Jihadist Haven

Well, that was from yesterday. Maybe things are better now.

So, our “strategy” against a non-Islamic non-state is to conduct a non-war, which is, rather, a non-Iraq, non-Afghanistan, quasi-Libyan-cum-Yemen “very significant counter-terrorism operation [that's] going to go on for some period of time.”

Got it?

Comments (1)

Welcome to CNN, Jay Carney!

Now, don’t tell me, let me guess: you’re back to being an independent, straight-shot, call-‘em-as-you-see-‘em journalist, right?

SEN. JOHN McCAIN: I think it was a very weak argument. And by the way, I’m astounded that Mr. Carney should say that the Free Syrian Army is now stronger. In fact, they have been —

JAY CARNEY: Well, that’s not that I said, Senator. If I could, sir, what I said is, if we know a great deal more now about the makeup of the opposition. —

McCAIN: Come on, Jay, we knew all about them then. You just didn’t choose to know. I was there in Syria. We we knew about them. Come on, you guys were the ones — your boss was the one when the entire national security team wanted to arm and train them that he turned them down, Mr. Carney after —

CARNEY: Well, Senator —

McCAIN: The fact is —

CARNEY: I think we have to agree to disagree on this.

McCAIN: No, facts are stubborn things, Mr. Carney, and that is his entire national security team, including the Secretary of State said he want to arm and train and equip these people and he made the unilateral decision to turn them down. The fact he didn’t a residual force in Iraq, overruled all of his military advisers, is the reason why we’re facing ISIS today.

So the facts are stubborn things in history and people ought to know them. And now the president is saying basically that we are going to take certain actions, which I would favor, but to say that America is safer, and that the situation is very much like Yemen and Somalia shows me that the president really doesn’t have a grasp for how serious the threat of ISIS is.

CARNEY: Well, again, Senator, we’re going to have to agree to disagree. And I think on the question of the residual force, there was another player in that which was the Iraqi government. A, and B, it was the fulfillment of the previous administration’s withdrawal plan. And it was also the fulfillment of the president’s promise to withdraw from Iraq and not maintain a true presence, in perpetuity, which is pretty consistent with what the American people wanted and believed it was the right approach.

McCAIN: Mr. Carney, you are again saying facts that are patently false. The fact is because [Senator] Lindsey Graham, [former Senator] Joe Lieberman and I, we were in Baghdad, they wanted a residual force. The president has never made a statement during that or after that he wanted a residual force left behind. The Iraqis were ready to go. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee that the number cascaded down to 3,500. That was not sufficient to do anything but to defend themselves. And you in your role as a spokesperson bragged about the fact that the last American combat troop had left Iraq. If we had left a residual force the situation would not be what it is today. And there would be a lot more —

CARNEY: Senator, I can posit for great respect for you we can disagree on that.

McCAIN: You can’t.

CARNEY: Sir —

McCAIN: You don’t have the facts, Mr. Carney, that’s the problem.

CARNEY: Senator, I understand that that you present the facts that you believe are true based on the arguments that you have made for a long time, sir, that we should leave troops in Iraq for perpetuity. And that is not what this president believes. Obviously, he was elected president to fulfill what he believes is right for our country and right for our national security.

McCAIN: It is a bad decision.

CARNEY: I certainly understand where we are today.

McCAIN: It is not a matter of disagreement; it is a matter of facts, and you have yours wrong and you have distorted it.

COOPER: Jay, do you believe, does the president believe at all, if a residual force had been left on the ground in Iraq, that we would not be in this situation now?

CARNEY: Anderson, I think it is a mis — basically a whitewash of history to suggest that there was not — were not periods of enormous chaos and fighting and bloodshed in Iraq when there were tens of thousands of troops, of American troops on the ground. That is a fact. And it was true in 2004, it was true in 2007. And it was true even when we had the highest number of U.S. troops on the ground.

We cannot — the United States of America ask our military to be a permanent occupying force in a country like Iraq. We have to get to a situation where we can help build up and assist an Iraqi security force, where we can put pressure on Iraqi political leaders to form an inclusive government, which they have taken steps to do, as was noted earlier. And then we can provide the kind of military support that we’re providing, an action that we’re taking against a threat like ISIS as appropriate.

But the alternative of leaving a permanent, massive U.S. force on the ground in Iraq, not for 10 years, not for 20 years, but in perpetuity, is simply not sustainable financially; it is not consistent with what the American people think we should do.

MCCAIN: Again, Mr. Carney misstates the facts. We had it won, thanks to the surge. It was won. The victory was there. All we needed was a force behind to provide support, not to engage in combat, but to supply support, logistics, intelligence. And by the way, the Koran War, we left troops behind. Bosnia, we left troops behind. Not to fight but be a stabilizing force. And Mr. Carney neglects the fact that thanks to David Petraeus, and Ryan Crocker, who by the way, are very strong on this issue, that we won the conflict, and then by pulling the rug out and setting a date for withdrawal and bragging about it —

CARNEY: Excuse me, sir, but I think you have forgotten that the date for withdrawal was —

MCCAIN: I think you have forgotten — no, the date for withdrawal. They always contemplated an additional date behind it. And you can ask Condoleezza Rice, or George W. Bush.

CARNEY: Absolutely, and so did we, and we–

MCCAIN: So that is absolutely false too. And we didn’t need to go through the Iraqi parliament. All you had to do was have an agreement. And we were there on the ground.

COOPER: Senator McCain, let me ask you about in terms of what you heard tonight, do you believe the U.S. can fight an effective counter- terrorism strategy, which is what the president is calling this fight against ISIS, without U.S. military personnel on the ground? In harm’s way?

MCCAIN: We — this is another falsehood the president is purveying. We already have boots on the ground, well over 1,000. We need more. But we don’t need them like the 82nd Airborne sent in direct — to do — into direct combat.

We need to have additional support there, and we need to help the — the Iraqi army rebuild its capabilities. But we don’t have to have a ground combat invasion of the type we had before. But, the fact that they didn’t leave — we were not there before is a direct result we are paying a very heavy price for. And it doesn’t mean in perpetuity, but it does mean to keep the situation stable, which we could have done.

COOPER: Senator McCain, the president also said that we have not yet detected specific plotting against our homeland. Americans who hear those words might wonder, if that is really the case, then why do we need to take action against ISIS? To that you say what?

MCCAIN: I say that today, we had a hearing, and there was testimony from the counterterrorism people and the Department of Homeland Security. There is Twitter traffic right now and FaceBook traffic, where they are urging attacks on the United States of America. And there is a great concern that our southern border and our northern border is porous and that they will be coming across.

So is there a specific, direct threat? No, but is there any doubt to what their goal is? Mr. Baghdadi, the day he left our prison in Iraq, Camp Bucca, said “see you in New York.”

COOPER: And in terms of, as you said, you have been in Syria, you met with Syrian moderate opposition a while back, do you believe there are enough on the ground right now in Iraq who actually have military capabilities that can actually stand up and fight against ISIS, against the Assad regime?

MCCAIN: I do, but it is going to be very tough, and it is going to be a heck of a lot tougher, despite what Mr. Carney said, than it would have been two years ago when it was recommended by his entire national security team.

How many times did he call Carney a liar? He called Obama one once or twice, but Carney got more than I can count. Delicious.

You were a lousy candidate, Senator, and who knows what kind of president you would have made. But as grump old man, you’re peerless.

Comments

A Timely Warning

As another 9/11 dawns on the nation, a clarion call rings out a warning:

A warning to the women of America: If Republicans win control of the House and Senate in the midterm elections this fall, it will be a powerful victory for the war on women, with consequences that will be severe and long-term. A large majority of women know this. The question is, will they will vote in November?

Say your prayers, women, you’re going dow—…. Uh, say your prayers.

But the cavalry is coming:

Democrats should issue a clarion call for women to vote through an extraordinary and urgent campaign initiative bringing together three women of great credibility and appeal for the cause: first lady Michelle Obama, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.).

Two political wives and a fake Indian—he can’t be serious. It’s a good joke, but he can’t be serious.

Can he?

Bringing together Obama, Clinton and Warren for joint campaign events, TV appearances or a mass distributed video would create an electrifying moment that dramatizes to female voters the enormous damage to their vital interests of a GOP victory in the midterms.

How predictable is an election, when the popularity of Congress is hardly higher than that of ISIS terrorists; when the brand of Democrats, who are predicted to lose, is more popular than the brand of Republicans, who are predicted to win; when the most popular candidate for president in 2016 is Hillary Clinton, a Democrat, and the most popular living former president is Bill Clinton, who is barnstorming for Democratic candidates?

The 1990s called. They want their candidate back. Anyway, isn’t “the most popular living former president” like being the world’s tallest midget? Last and most important, if Bill Clinton is your standard bearer in the War on Women, you have to ask yourself if you’re on the right side.

Comments (1)

We’ve Touched Bottom

Against most evidence, there is a depth below which we in Massachusetts will not sink. Not yet, anyway. When given the choice between a moral reprobate (D) and a knight in shining armor (R), we will choose the (D)erelict every time.

But when the choice is between an empty suit (D) and a (D)ecorated marine, we will choose the marine every time.

This time:

BOSTON (AP) — Nine-term incumbent U.S. Rep. John Tierney on Tuesday conceded defeat to political newcomer Seth Moulton in the Democratic primary in the state’s 6th Congressional District.

Moulton, a former Marine and Iraq war veteran from Salem, would face Republican Richard Tisei in the November election.

Moulton, a 35-year-old businessman and Harvard graduate who enlisted in the Marines in 2001, described himself in a campaign ad as a “progressive Democrat who opposed the war in Iraq.”

“But I also was a Marine serving my country,” Moulton said. “So I went, led my platoon and always ate last after my men.”

Make no mistake, he’s a moonbat’s moonbat, but he’s that rare object, a patriotic, honorable moonbat.

And then there’s John Tierney:

In August 2010, Tierney’s wife Patrice’s brothers Robert and Daniel Eremian were indicted in federal court for operating an illegal internet gambling business. Robert had allegedly, with Daniel’s help, operated the business out of St. John’s, Antigua and Barbuda, and funneled a portion of the profits into a Bank of America account in Massachusetts. In October 2010, Patrice was charged in U.S. District Court with four counts of “aiding and abetting the filing of false tax returns” by Robert. John Tierney issued a statement announcing his wife’s intention to plead guilty, stating that Patrice accepted “full responsibility for being ‘willfully blind’ to what her brother was doing.” Patrice pled guilty on October 6, 2010, and on January 13, 2011, was sentenced to 30 days in prison followed by five months of house arrest. The conviction bolstered the campaign of Bill Hudak, Tierney’s Republican opponent in the November 2010 election, but Tierney was re-elected. In June 2012, a federal judge ordered Daniel Eremian to forfeit $7.7 million in assets for his role in the illegal offshore sports betting scheme. Following his sentencing, Daniel Eremian told reporters that the congressman “knew everything that was going on,” a charge which Tierney rebutted.

And we still reelected him.

But we have stumbled upon a floor to our perversion: give us a choice between a corrupt moonbat and a heroic moonbat, we’ll choose the hero. This time.

PS: The Republican opponent in November, Richard Tisei, is a gay man. But he’s still a Republican. Look for the Boston Gob and the rest of the media to ignore their all-out gay agenda, and hail the Democrat’s war record (what some of them called baby killing once upon a time). They would have supported Tierney over Abraham Lincoln (R).

Comments

And Another Big Surprise!

Obama has decided to delay executive action on immigration until after the November elections

President Obama will not take any executive actions on immigration until after November’s elections, a White House official confirmed to CNN on Saturday.

The decision to postpone means any political repercussions for such action would come after the congressional midterm contests.

Obama, who has been weighing ways to change the immigration system on his own after congressional action on the issue stalled, decided to delay any move to “take this issue away from those who would use it to score points as a kind of grandstanding issue,” the official said.

“It’s too big of an issue to allow it to be used as a tool for people trying to get votes,” the White House official said, speaking on condition of anonymity. “It isn’t about votes for any particular candidate; it’s about dealing with this issue in an environment that avoids the grandstanding we’ve seen in the past.”

Let’s try to count the lies there, one sentence at a time: “take this issue away from those who would use it to score points as a kind of grandstanding issue,” the official said. [Obviously not true. He promised to give amnesty this summer, he ran into the very strong possibility that democrats would lose the Senate, and he correctly concluded that the American public is so stupid, that if he just holds off until after the election, the dems can hang on.]

“It’s too big of an issue to allow it to be used as a tool for people trying to get votes,” [another lie, of course politicians use issues to garner votes and all issues are "tools"] the White House official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

“It isn’t about votes for any particular candidate; it’s about dealing with this issue in an environment that avoids the grandstanding we’ve seen in the past.” [The biggest lie of all ... or is this true? It isn't just about the female Senator from Louisiana, it is about a lot of Senators who might lose their jobs. But we're splitting hairs, aren't we BTL?]

Reportedly immigrant groups are pissed but they shouldn’t be. He’ll take care of you on the first Wednesday of November.

And one other thing – I was dead set against this amnesty until I had a conversation with a Loopy Liberal this morning. He informed me that he had voted for Obama during the last round because he took an early retirement – no official income – and he wanted cheap health care. And I decided that I’m all for bringing in cheap labor to compete with all the kiddies of the Leftists who think this way. Sorry yoga teachers – there are immigrants who will do this for less. Ditto baristas and child care providers. I am well and truly fed-up.

– Aggie

Comments

Big Surprise

Cuban agents recruiting academics in the US

This is from an internal FBI report:

The academic world—primarily defined as schools, colleges, universities, and research institutes— provides a fertile environment in which foreign intelligence services can operate. Consequently, the Cuban intelligence services (CuIS) are known to actively target the US academic world for the purposes of recruiting agents, in order to both obtain useful information and conduct influence activities.

More at the link. And I won’t even bother to rant; do it yourself. But do go to the link to read about how agents are identified, recruited, possibly blackmailed, etc.

– Aggie

Comments

Bat-Shit Crazy

Listen to this:

Wednesday at a ceremony to appoint Texas lawyer Shaarik Zafar to be special representative to Muslim communities, Secretary of State John Kerry said it was the United States’ Biblical “responsibility” to “confront climate change,” including to protect “vulnerable Muslim majority counties.”
Kerry said Scripture, in particular the Book of Genesis, make clear it is our “duty” to protect the planet and we should look at Muslim countries “with a sense of stewardship of earth,” adding, “That responsibility comes from God.”

Seriously, you must go to the link to see this astounding video. We have always claimed that Global Warming is a religion, but who knew that it was Judaism.. or Christianity.. or even Islam? Did you know that?

One serious comment: The Obama administration would not be doing this if they didn’t assume that we are so stupid that our national IQ is undetectable.

– Aggie

Comments (1)

Mad Muslim™ Or Crazy CopyCat™?

You decide

One of the problems with Mad Muslims™, such as ISIS or Hamas, is that they inspire Crazy CopyCats™ or garden variety nut jobs. So what happened in London today?

A woman has been beheaded in a back garden after being attacked with what is thought to be a machete.
The victim was found at an address in Nightingale Road, Edmonton, north London, just after 1pm today.

Scotland Yard gave few details but said that a man has been arrested. Eyewitnesses reported seeing a man with a machete in the area.

There is no suggestion that the killing had any terrorist motive.
A spokesman for Scotland Yard said: “Police were called to an address in Nightingale Road at 13.07pm today to reports of a stabbing incident.

“On arrival officers discovered a female collapsed in a garden area.
“A man has been detained and remains in custody.
“At this very early stage we are not in a position to give further details.”

So it is a Mad Muslim™ or a Crazy CopyCat™? Hard to say…

– Aggie

Comments

Captain Obvious To The Rescue

We’ve all been made aware of the social science research which claims that conservatives are stuck in rigid ways of thinking, always support authority, blah, blah, blah, whereas liberals are oh-so-open-minded, right?.

Those of us who are conservative, but reside in very liberal parts of the country, know this to be nonsense. Just attend a single cook-out in Cambridge, MA and see if you can express yourself when the conversation turns to: Obama, Health Care, Bush, Israel, the economy, school choice, conservatives, the Tea Party, Christians, Muslims, hate speech, etc. You can compliment the host on the food, though.

Anyway, now there is research that highlights the obvious:

Conservatives are conservative because they’re authoritarian and resistant to new ideas. Everyone knows that, right? There’s a bunch of social-science research that even proves it. If only conservatives were more open and less dogmatically attached to their tribe and their traditions, the world would be a much better place.

A lot of smart people endorse some version of this story. And yes, research surveys show that conservatives do express a much stronger affinity for obedience, authority and in-group loyalty than do liberals.

But there’s a question those surveys can’t answer: How does what people say translate into what people actually do? Jonathan Haidt, one of my favorite social scientists, studies morality by presenting people with scenarios and asking whether what happened was wrong. Conservatives and liberals give strikingly different answers, with extreme liberals claiming to place virtually no value at all on things like group loyalty or sexual purity.

One of Haidt’s most memorable questions involves a man who has sex with a frozen chicken, then cooks the chicken and eats it for dinner. Is this wrong? he asks. Philosophy-class enlightenment values pretty much give one answer: No one was harmed, so it can’t be wrong. And yet: I’m willing to bet that most of the folks who say that it’s A-OK would still be weirded out if they found out this is what their spouse had prepared for a special anniversary feast. Or that this is how a co-worker spends every Monday night.

In the ultra-liberal enclave I grew up in, the liberals were at least as fiercely tribal as any small-town Republican, though to be sure, the targets were different. Many of them knew no more about the nuts and bolts of evolution and other hot-button issues than your average creationist; they believed it on authority. And when it threatened to conflict with some sacred value, such as their beliefs about gender differences, many found evolutionary principles as easy to ignore as those creationists did. It is clearly true that liberals profess a moral code that excludes concerns about loyalty, honor, purity and obedience — but over the millennia, man has professed many ideals that are mostly honored in the breach.

Apparently, I’m not the only one who had questions about the prevalence of conformity on both sides of the political spectrum:

The way I saw it, this slavish obedience to authority and tradition on the part of conservatives was the true source of the culture war between liberals and conservatives over foreign war, abortion, same-sex marriage, gun control, and racial inequality. They way I saw it, conservatives clung to old, near-sighted ways of thinking and fell in line with the dictates of the “man in charge.” If only conservatives would think for themselves — like liberals do — the war would be over and we could get on with life, governance, and progress. Or so I thought.

Then, in 2012, I went on a cycling trip around Cuba.

Jeremy Frimer, the author of the piece, noticed that socialists seemed unable to tolerate even mild questioning of Che Guevara’s eminently questionable legacy. Frimer is a researcher at the University of Winnipeg, and he decided to investigate. What he found is that liberals are actually very comfortable with authority and obedience — as long as the authorities are liberals (“should you obey an environmentalist?”). And that conservatives then became much less willing to go along with “the man in charge.”

Frimer argues that conservatives tend to support authority because they think authority is conservative; liberals tend to oppose it for the same reason. Liberal or conservative, it seems, we’re all still human under the skin.

Here’s a question: Can the average liberal bumbling through Harvard Square even understand the nuance here?

– Aggie

Comments (3)

Hah! Israel Less Worried About ISIS Than Hamas

Former intel chief blasé about ISIS

Yadlin appeared to try to quell heightened concern following the gruesome murder of the journalist Steven Sotloff, who held dual American-Israeli citizenship.

“There is no real reason to be afraid. ISIS is an expert at PR and intimidation. They murder their prisoners in a shocking way and thereby gain media attention,” Yadlin said at an event held by the Ashkelon Academic College.

While the insurgent terrorists have captured territory in nearby Syria and Iraq as part of their stated objective to reinstate an Islamic caliphate, Yadlin stated that “they only succeed in areas that no one wants to go to – the neglected Sunni areas of northeastern Syria and the deprived areas of Iraq.”

According to the former military intelligence chief, Islamic State insurgents will face superior armed forces if they reach Shi’ite-majority cities that are motivated to protect main population centers like Baghdad and Karbala.

Yadlin claimed that the Islamic State would be easier for the IDF to eliminate than Hamas terrorists who he said were hiding in hospitals in Gaza.

However, Britain is freaking out. This tells us that the British jihadis are a real threat to their country, just as Hamas and Fatah threaten Israel. Hmm. Perhaps we need to show restraint, talk to these guys, see if we can give them what they want in return for peace?

There Will Be Peace In Our Time.

– Aggie

Comments

« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »