Sunday, March 21, 2010

Today's Aphorisms

The Democrats are just as morally sleazy as the Republicans, just on different issues.

Obama is Jimmy Carter in blackface.

In 2008 I campaigned because I wanted a rational and moral government. I still want a rational and moral government. And I still don't have one.



  1. Anonymous8:28 PM

    That's because you're not rational and moral by the usual standards....

  2. Anonymous8:30 PM

    Nobody gets everything the want.

  3. Christy2:31 AM

    What the hell are you on about? Carter was the most humane President in American history. He only failed because he was a white dove surrounded by fat pigs. You should be ashamed, sir.

  4. Carter had a book about the Arab-Israeli conflict published over his signature called, "Peace or Apartheid", which came down squarely on the side of the Arabs. Shortly thereafter it was disclosed that the centerpiece of his life work since leaving office, the Carter Center, is now 85% funded by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Which is to say that Carter, this "white dove surrounded by fat pigs" is for sale to the highest bidder. Which in this case is the ever-so-humane Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

    Saudi Arabia is a kingdom in which no religion but Islam may be practiced, that actively discriminates against its Shi'ite population, to which no Jew may be admitted, in which women may not leave their homes unaccompanied, may not drive, which has an active religious police, and in which slavery is still practiced. Saudi Arabia uses its oil wealth to fund jihadist madrassas all around the world. And to corrupt effortlessly corruptible failed ex-presidents.

  5. Christy2:03 AM

    Yeah yeah yeah. Whatever. Jimmy Carter is from a party of Jews, paid for by a party of Jews. Being sympathetic to the Palestinians in a party by and paid for by Jews implies that he had a natural sympathy with their cause. He was always a political outsider anyway, and of all Presidents, it is really only Carter who can be thought of as the least corruptible. Jog on Jack.

  6. Christy, that is just rambling antisemitism. Write again when you actually have something to say.

  7. Christy2:45 AM

    How? Is it anti semitic to say that Jews overwhelming support the Democratic party, and that Jewish money (Particularly New York Jewish money) holds a lot of sway in national politics? Its no less racist than suggesting Irish Americans hold a disproportianate influence in American politics due to their electoral influence in large eastern cities. Is that anti Irish? Its the realities of American politics. Irish Americans have influenced American foreign policy for generations, both due to their electoral power and their financial resources. Relax and stop seeing anti semitism in your midst.

  8. That is the standard antisemitic rant alright. Jews constitute about 2% of the voters in the US. Oddly enough the Democrats treat us like we have 2% of the vote. Do you think they would have felt free to shit on us like they just did in an election year if we had had 8 or 12 percent of the vote?

    Only antisemitic dolts like you believe that 2% of the voters are able to control the Democratic Party. Moreover, what little there is of the Jewish vote is about 30% Republican.

    Actually you are merely repeating the conventional trash you have heard. You are merely too unthinking and too uncritical to do the arithmetic for yourself. Your shared conventional antisemitic inclinations supply the will to believe such arithmetically demonstrable falsehoods.

  9. Christy9:44 AM

    blah blah blah. I know the size of the Jewish population. But I'm not talking about their electoral influence, I'm talking about their financial influence. Irish Americans have people and money and thus are very influential. Jews have money and thus are very influential. Getting the picture? Is that anti semitic to state?

    'The party of Jews, paid for by Jews' was a tad lazy I'll admit, but the 'paid for by Jews' bit isn't wrong. Its not anti semitic to say that. You think Jews have been shafted this year by the Democrats? Because some middle eastern demagogue wants to set civilisation back a thousand years and build homes on land that doesn't belong to his nation? Honestly, even you can't be that obtuse.

  10. Christy9:49 AM

    For some reason my mini essay didn't make it. Ah well. All I'll say is that quite obviously I was talking about the influence of Jewish money in American politics, and particularly in the Democratic Party. NOT about direct electoral numbers. Is it actually anti semitic to make a factual statement? Its only anti semitic if you suspect I'm implying that Jewish Americans are engaged in some kind of conspiracy to control the political system. I'm not. I'm just talking about the beef and potatoes of American politics - where the money comes from. I may have been a bit extreme with the 'party of Jews, paid for by Jews', but that was an offhand comment in relation to your ridiculous series of blog posts.

    And do you really, honestly, think its ok for a right wing middle eastern extremist to continue to build homes on occupied territory? Where is that going to leave the peace process? Back to the cave with you Jack and give us a shout when you're prepared to join the 21st century along with the rest of society.

  11. Occupied territory? Illegal settlements? Do please show me the treaty or agreement which makes it Palestinian land. Aside from a number of other reasons, a large number, the land is Israel's if anyone's.

    The British Mandate was divided into two states by the UN in 1947. The Jews gladly accepted their new state. The Palestinians categorically rejected theirs. The Jordanians and Egyptians seized the bulk of its territory and occupied it for 19 years.

    Since the Palestinians were offered the land and rejected it, how is it theirs?

    The truce line, the green line, was never the boundary between the Jews and Palestinians. It was merely the battlefront between the Haganah (later the IDF) and the Jordanian army.

    Nobody recognized the Jordanian occupation of any part of the Palestine Mandate and eventually, after losing another war to Israel, they dropped the claim.

    Which brings us back to how exactly the Palestinians are entitled to the borders of the state they rejected in 1947? How exactly is the battlefront between the Haganah and the Jordanian army enshrined and legally established as an agreed to boundary?

    Israel didn't agree to it and the Palestinians didn't agree to it. Yet ignoramuses continue to repeat "illegal settlements" and "Palestinian land" with not a shred of an argument on which to base such a claim.

  12. Christy12:31 PM

    When you destroy Palestinian homes in order to make way for pizza diners, you lose the moral high ground. I struggle to understand how the idea of a 'greater Israel' still commands the minds of some American extremists. You belong to the past Jack, your line of thinking is thoroughly marginalised in this day and age, thank God.

  13. Christy12:34 PM

    And yes, you're right, there is no 'Palestinian state' and ERGO, no such thing as 'Palestinian land'. Just as there was no Palestinian state in 1095, when Frankish armies installed miniature Kingdoms across the Holy Land. History has a cruel sense of irony.

  14. Thank you. I will accept your trying to change the subject as the admission that you are wrong.

    Now you are back to propaganda phrase-making about 'homes' and 'pizza parlors' and 'greater Israel', all of which is just eyewash.

    Again, if the problem were pizza parlors or settlements or 'occupation', then why were there three wars before there was a state?

    And I will assume you are just ignorant about referring to pizza parlors. The association with pizza parlors in Israel is the bombing of one which murdered sixteen young people. If you think that is an argument why the Palestinians have a right to anything, you are mistaken.

  15. Christy3:46 AM

    What else would you call building on land that, morally speaking, doesn't belong to you? Imperialism? A greater Israel?

    Just like the crusaders came to Jerusalem and massacred, Muslim, Christian, and Jew, and installed their own state, the modern Israeli state comes to Jerusalem and (perhaps not massacre) bulldozes Palestian homes and install cinema's and pizza parlours.

    Where the hell do you think this is going to leave the peace process? Or do you just not care about that and expect ordinary Palestians to accept getting screwed with their trousers on? Radicalising YET ANOTHER generation of Palestinians will do absolutely nothing to re-inforce Israeli security.

  16. Actually morally speaking, the land belongs to Israel. If you were to look at maps of Europe you would find that land that had belonged to the Third Reich was taken from the Germans because they lost a war of aggression that they started. Austria, East Prussia, Silesia, Pomerania, Alsace-Lorraine, the Sudetenland, Bohemia, Slovakia, Ruthenia, Slovenia, and Schleswig-Holstein were all taken from them. It is beyond question that they are not getting those lander back and that they have lost the moral right to claim them.

    The Arabs have initiated three major wars of aggression against Israel and lost all of them. They have lost their moral right to the land Israeli armies drove them from, just as the Germans lost their moral right to the lands the Allied armies drove them from. Those lands include Judea, Samaria, Benjamin, Golan, Gaza, Sinai, and most importantly Jerusalem.

    There are sixteen other reasons why the land is Israel's but we'll stick to that one for brevity's sake.

    Morally the land belongs to Israel.

  17. Christy4:18 PM

    No, politically, the land belongs to Israel because they won a war(s). The average Palestinian was not behind the various Arab invasions. The only real moral case that can be made is for the Golan Heights, as they command a strategic high ground that prevents rocket attacks which can hit pretty much any Israeli target. However, Israel has absolutely no moral case for any occupation of Palestinian land, especially if their indigenous populations resoundingly refuse to consent to Israeli occupation.

    There is a difference between legal right and moral right.

  18. "The average Palestinian was not behind the various Arab invasions." And you know this how? Because you can read their minds?

    You can tell that though they riot frequently, often over nothing, they don't mean it? And throw stones and lynch any Israeli they can get their hands on, but secretly they're friendly? They join in communal chants of "Death to Israel! Death to the Jews!" because down deep they really like us? They publish maps on which Israel does not appear because they intend a two state solution? They name the town square of their largest city after the murderer of 37 Israelis because they have peaceful intentions?

    Israel has a moral right to all the land because they fought for it and won. And also because the Palestinians have forfeited any moral claim they might once have had by their bigotry, violence, terrorism, and rejectionism.

    Nothing supports your argument except your repeating it. What you say is contradicted by every fact.