See how they are?

how they are?
The demonstration that neocons deliberately programmed Bush's MidEast agenda, framing Iraq with non-compliance with bio-chem treaties TO WHICH THE US WAS NOT A SIGNATORY, as if that projected the glory of a "next year in Jerusalem" which will never be, is applauded as Yahweh's (whatever) blessing.
Since the "out of the ballpark" quote from Hitchens got garbled in transit, it needs re-stating:
" Sheehan has obviously taken a short course in the Michael Moore/Ramsey Clark school of Iraq analysis and has not succeeded in making it one atom more elegant or persuasive. I dare say that her "moral authority" to do this is indeed absolute, if we agree for a moment on the weird idea that moral authority is required to adopt overtly political positions, but then so is my "moral" right to say that she is spouting sinister piffle. Suppose I had lost a child in this war. ! Would any of my critics say that this gave me any extra authority? "
Curious to see whether such poison might not in fact originate in tribal loyalties, explaining the Bitchen's shift from "left" to "right", (transl: is he a Jew?) I googled up -- walla!:
http://www.forward.com/issues/2001/01.01.26/arts1.html By CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS According to the laws of Moses, the Law of Return, Israel's civil code and the Nuremburg Laws (not to mention -ishness -- my add.), I am a Jew."
This seems to be a way of saying, without really saying, "I had a Jewish mother". He goes on: "I'm fairly globalized: My father was Anglo-Celtic; my first wife is Greek; my second wife's family came from Odessa or thereabouts, and I have a godchild in Zimbabwe." -- blatantly avoioding saying it again.
Is this ambivalence or what? The title of his piece is "The Part-Jewish Question: Double the Pleasure or Twice the Pain?" Otherwise, he seems to detest ambivalence ("Here is an unambivalent statement: "The moral authority of parents who bury children killed in Iraq is absolute"...above 8.15 @ 5:05 -- the ambivalence of which he goes on to parody. We could be on to something here :-)
Well, Zev Chavetz isn't shy about outing Arik's mommy: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/16/opinion/16chafets.html
August 16, 2005 Mother Knows Best By ZEV CHAFETS Tel Aviv
PEOPLE don't ordinarily think of Ariel Sharon as a mama's boy. But he was. And he had some mother, too. Even among the flinty Zionist farmers of the 1920's, she stood out as a hard case, a woman of epic quarrels who carried a grudge and slept with an ax under her bed.
Mr. Sharon's mom lived to a ripe old age, and she never stopped exerting an influence over her son. ***** I'd say that's obvious.
****
Tonight's CNN Wolf Blitzer reports had a segment on Cindy Sheehan with two notable vignettes:
One, a fierce looking guy saying "thats desecrating the American flag!" -- pic of crosses with flag run over by a pickup truck.
The second: a 30 something brunette leaning over a text, mouthing the words "racist agenda" in re Sheehan. Because, one assumes the implication is, she linked Israel to the Iraq war.
Well, this showed these things:
1. The intent to link American and Israel as "anti-Sheehan" -- as the coupling of the vignettes is supposed to show (the ones desecrating the American flag have a "racist agenda")
2. "Racist" is an over-determined pejorative, like "anti-semitic"; as if she were against blacks, or Hispanics, as opposed to the Zionist State of Israel. Anything to hide what her actual message (which she had evidently been persuaded to 'focus' out of the picture)
3. The juxtoposing of "guy" and "gal" to get a pro-Israel subtext balance.
4. How 'z Jews totally control and manipulate the media.
*****
On Hate. Hate is rational when directed toward that which deserves to be hated because it abuses the privleges that go with civilized behavior.
Considering what has been demonstrated, in the present case it is morally required as part of a Weltanshauung grounded in metaphysics.
Posted by JONES 08/16/2005 @ 8:57pm