from Wednesday's Santa Rosa Press Democrat -Reporter Accused of PlagiarismThis is a huge improvement for the Times. Copying from the Wall Street Journal, which is more or less an actual newspaper, is a substantial improvement from the NYT's usual practice of copying from "The Eastern Establishment Handbook of Political Correctness, Veiled Antisemitism, and Anti-Israel Bigotry".
The New York Times is looking into the work of one of its reporters following accusations that he plagiarized from the Wall Street Journal and other sources.
The paper published an editor's note online Sunday and in papers Monday that said reporter Zachery Kouwe "appears to have improperly appropriated wording and passages published by other news organizations".
The Times frequently copies Palestinian sources verbatim and presents them as news. So one assumes it is not Kouwe's copying , but his copying from something other than 'the E.E. Handbook' which is the source of the Times' editorial wrath.
[full disclosure - the co-author of this blog had a rural bicycle delivery route for the Press Democrat during 1957-58. He was thus arguably an employee of the P-D. He denies being currently in their employ or otherwise in cahoots with them.]
Is being opposed to Israeli domestic policy a sign of bigotry Jack? To what extent can someone oppose the military actions of the IDF and not be an anti-semite?
ReplyDeleteOn a more semantic point, is the term 'anti-semite' not obsolete? The 'Semites' is a term used to describe the Arab people, so if someone is an anti-semite then surely they are anti-Palestinian as well?
Yes, Christy it is. It is when one is opposed to no one else's policy. When legitimate Israeli actions taken in defense of her people get you outraged while monstrosities committed by other governments produce indifference in you, you are a grade-A antisemitic glute-hole bigot.
ReplyDeleteYou are quite correct that the term "antisemite" as originally used, is obsolete. Over the decades and now centuries since it was originally formulated as part of a 19th Century theory of racism, its meaning has changed. The meaning of the word has changed as it usage has changed. It now means a generic hostility to Jews and has nothing to do with other Semites. Indeed, among the most virulent antisemites in the world are the Arabs, who are also Semites.
The meanings of words evolve to what people understand them to mean, regardless of what they originally meant. For example, "British" originally meant an inhabitant of the British Isles. You Christy are an inhabitant of the British Isles. Would you call yourself British? To quote the fellows on that other, larger, British isle, "Not bloody likely!"
You make the assumption that people like me (Who aren't particularly enraged by Israeli policy anyway) don't care about other injustices. My denunciations of Israel are solely engineered to irritate you, an eternal source of amusement for me.
ReplyDeleteDo you not find it interesting that South Africa maintains cold relations with Israel, and is one of the few developed or near developed nations to openly sympathise with the Palestinians? Does the charge of Apartheid irritate you Jack?
No, Christy, it doesn't. Nor does the charge that Israelis eat Christian babies at Passover, because they are equally credible and come from the same well of ignorance and bigotry. We used to read weekly or more about suicide bombers murdering as many Israelis as they could get near. Followed by demonstrations of joy and the giving out of sweets among the Palestinians. With the construction of the security fence, which gives rise to the charge of apartheid, there have been almost no further such attacks and the Palestinians have been obliged to do without the extra candies. Poor babies.
ReplyDeleteAs to the charge of apartness itself, that is exactly what the Palestinians have been demanding with words, thrown rocks and molotov cocktails, sniper fire, mortars, suicide bombers, rockets, wars and UN resolutions for more than 80 years now. And now they have it.
Except for the 1.2 millions of Israeli Arabs willing to live peacefully alongside their fellow Israelis.
On the same question, why does Ireland maintain apartheid between the Republic and Northern Ireland? Should you be throwing stones when you live in a segregated house?
I thought we discussed the distinction between Ireland and Israel before. Both countries begin with an 'I'. The similarities begin and end there.
ReplyDeleteBut Christy, if you can make ignorant and groundless charges of apartheid, why can't I?
ReplyDeleteEy up Jack. I was only trolling. Chillax.
ReplyDelete