Feel-good racism

A couple of days ago Bookworm posted a story about kids in her daughter's school saying that people should vote for Obama because he is black.  This started a discussion, in which I participated.  There was also a nice lady named Helen, also a blogger on Wordpress.  Helen is a leftist, or, as she prefers to call herself, a Progressive.  She is very nice and polite, and generally a pleasure to disagree with.  Helen defends the Affirmative Action practices and thinks that Obama's race is important because racism still exists.  There were others commenting on the Bookworm's post, who disagreed with Helen and agreed with me, but still acknowledged existence of racism.  That includes Bookworm herself.  I, on the other hand, suggested that, save for few idiots on the fringes, racism does not exist in this country.  As an example of real racism I described anti-Semitism in the old Soviet Union, something I faced personally.  I also mentioned anti-Russian discrimination in many of the Soviet republics.  What Helen and others missed in my argument was that, while there are some racist idiots in this country, the discrimination in the Soviet Union came from the government.  This has not happen in this country for at least 40 years.  Ironically, the biggest reason that caused any kind of discrimination to end was something that back in high school I was told was bad about America: the so-called "cult of dollar".  But it only makes sense: if you need to hire someone for your business, you would want to hire the most qualified individual.  Ethnic, racial or religious background are usually irrelevant to the person's ability to do the job.  There might be exceptions: if you are looking for a rabbi you will have to hire a Jew, while a pastor will have to be a Christian.  But other than that, things like that are irrelevant.

By focusing on the race, ethnicity or gender the Left prevents these irrelevant characteristics from being viewed as irrelevant.  In fact, the closest thing to government-sponsored discrimination is the Affirmative Action, so loved by the Left.  Supposedly this rights some wrong that was perpetrated over 40 years ago.  But as I commented, so I, as a Jew, was discriminated against in Odessa.  Does this fact mean that I should condone anti-Russian discrimination in Tashkent?

The Left continues with this feel-good racism.  In another post Bookworm showed the way Time magazine reported the breakdown of the Primary voters:

GOP Results

 Republicans: McCain 40, Romney 36, Huckabee 18
Evangelicals: Huckabee 33, McCain 31, Romney 30
Conservatives: Romney 42, McCain 31, Huckabee 20

Those most concerned about:

Immigration: Romney 48, McCain 25, Huckabee 15
Economy: McCain 40, Romney 32, Huck 18
Iraq: McCain 51, Romney 20, Huckabee 15

Democrats

Blacks: Obama 81, Clinton 17
Whites: Clinton 50, Obama 44
Hispanics: Clinton 62, Obama 36
White women: Clinton 57, Obama 45
Young whites: Obama 64, Clinton 35

The breakdown for Republicans is on the issues, while the breakdown for Democrats is along ethnic and gender lines.  One commenter on the Helen's post that was the result of the comments on the Bookworm's post was thus praising the openness of our elections to everybody:

"I find it amazing that not only are a black man and a white woman running for president, but also a minister and a medical doctor and a soldier who survived years of torture."

So, she described the Republicans by what they do and their life experience.  She described the Democrats by their racial and gender identities.  Why?  Who cares about Obama's race and Hillary's gender and race?  How do their identities impact their ability to the President?  Their race and gender are absolutely irrelevant to the job they might have to do (although I hope they won't get to do that).  I will not vote for either of them, but I absolutely don't care about Obama's blackness or Hillary's femininity.  I simply disagree with their ideas.  I don't think that anything approaching Socialism is a good idea to implement.  I should know: I grew up with that.  But their identities have nothing to do with that, although their party affiliation does.

The way to end racism is just to end it.  My daughters are not capable of racism for one simple reason: they don't know about racial differences.  Oh, sure, they have all kinds of kids in school and preschool.  But for them the racial differences are on the same level as the difference between someone with blond and brunet hair.  I'd like to keep it that way.

Powered by Qumana

Confessions of a Libertarian

My Thoughts on Ron Paul's Candidacy for President.

I used to be a card-carrying member of the Libertarian Party.  In fact, while I stopped paying membership dues years ago, I still have the Libertarian Party card in my wallet.  I still hold many Libertarian views.  But I cannot and will not vote for Ron Paul to be President.  In fact, I probably would not vote for any Libertarian, despite holding many of Libertarian views.  Why?  There is a couple of reasons.

The main thing in the Libertarian philosophy that appeals to me is the basic principle of "live and let live".  In my view it is not Government's job to protect people from themselves.  People should be free to do good or bad things to themselves, as long as they don't harm others.  Government also should not be in the business of helping people: there are charities for that.  However, and this is where I part company with Libertarians, the Government should provide a minimal safety net.  Because relying on charities does not always work.  Here is why.  My personal test for any policy that sounds good in theory is this: let's take it to its logical conclusion in practice and see whether I still like it.  In engineering this approach is called "worst case analysis".  It basically checks whether a given system would still work under extreme circumstances.  So, returning to politics, let's say, for example, that someone who does not have health insurance and does not have a lot of money to pay for expensive treatment gets into a bad car accident.  If no charity comes along to pay for that person's treatment, that person has to be left to die on the side of the road.  I don't think that would acceptable in a civilized society.  That is why guaranteed minimal safety net is necessary.  And the only entity capable of guaranteeing such safety net is the government.

My other disagreement with the Libertarians is the view on foreign policy.  And this is the main reason why I would never vote for someone like Ron Paul.  Libertarians, Ron Paul among them, are uncompromising isolationists.  Because the term "isolationist" is historically associated with pre-World War 2 isolationism in the face of Nazi aggression, they now came up with the term "non-interventionist".  Can someone please explain the difference to me?  Because I don't see any.  Maybe it's the fact that English is my second language.

Ron Paul in particular now tries to ignore the history behind our current conflict with the jihadis.  Here is what he wrote (thanks to Sultan Knish):

...Arab Muslims are tired of us.

Angry and frustrated by our persistent bullying and disgusted with having their own government bought and controlled by the United States, joining a radical Islamic movement was a natural and predictable consequence for Muslims.

We believe bin Laden when he takes credit for an attack on the West, and we believe him when he warns us of an impending attack. But we refuse to listen to his explanation of why he and his allies are at war with us.

Bin Laden’s claims are straightforward. The U.S. defiles Islam with military bases on holy land in Saudi Arabia, its initiation of war against Iraq, with 12 years of persistent bombing, and its dollars and weapons being used against the Palestinians as the Palestinian territory shrinks and Israel’s occupation expands. There will be no peace in the world for the next 50 years or longer if we refuse to believe why those who are attacking us do it.

This ignores the long history of conflict, starting with the Barbary Wars.  Here is what the Tripoli's Ambassador to London Abd Al-Rahman told Thomas Jefferson and John Adams in response to their question about why American ships were being attacked:

...Jefferson would perhaps have been just as eager to send a squadron to put down any Christian piracy that was restraining commerce. But one cannot get around what Jefferson heard when he went with John Adams to wait upon Tripoli’s ambassador to London in March 1785. When they inquired by what right the Barbary states preyed upon American shipping, enslaving both crews and passengers, America’s two foremost envoys were informed that “it was written in the Koran, that all Nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon whoever they could find and to make Slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.” (It is worth noting that the United States played no part in the Crusades, or in the Catholic reconquista of Andalusia.)

Ron Paul ignores the teachings of Hassan al-Banna and Sayyid Qutb. He seems to think that complying with jihadists' demands will bring us peace.  But the truth is that the followers of Islamist ideology cannot be appeased and satisfied.  Ron Paul also ignores the history of Arab-Israeli conflict, in which multiple offers of peace by Israel were answered by more war from the Arabs.  Not to mention the fact that Israel is tiny compared to the sea of Arab land, so what occupation are we talking about?

Ron Paul thinks that should mind our own business.  He thinks we should just trade with everybody, no matter how horrible they might be, and respond only to a direct attack.  By the way, in regard to direct attack, Ron Paul actually had a good idea.  After 9/11/2001 he suggested that the Congress should issue Letter of Marque and Reprisal, introducing Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001.  This power of the Congress seems to be specifically designed to deal with non-governmental hostile entities, such as pirates or terrorists, and is similar to Declaration of War.  Thus, it would apply perfectly to our response to 9/11 attacks.  Unfortunately, Ron Paul's suggestion did not pass.  But back to my disagreements with Ron Paul.  His idea taken to the extreme is analogous to a gun shop owner knowingly selling guns to a robber, as long as that robber does not rob his store.  Or, in a schoolyard situation, continue playing with a schoolyard bully, as long as that bully does not bully you.  But if he beats up your friend, well, that's not your problem.  You do not intervene.

You see, isolationism is immoral.  And it always catches up with you.  Because if you just keep telling the bad guys that you have no quarrel with them, they will see it as a weakness and will attempt to take advantage of you.  You don't need to go very far in history in order to see what attempts to avoid a fight at all costs lead to.  Yes, I am talking about World War 2.

Ron Paul seems to get his support from outright nuts (also here, here and here).  For the record, it is incorrect to say that Ron Paul is a Nazi.  He might be an anti-Semite and a racist, although I would not know that for sure, but he is definitely not a Nazi.  Why?  Because Nazi is short for National-Socialist, and Ron Paul is most definitely not a socialist.  But one has to at least ask why he is getting support from the Nazis and other nuts.  But what really exposes Ron Paul as either a fraud or a nut himself is this solicitation letter.  Just in case this link to New Republic goes away, I saved this letter here.  The nutty conspiracy theories spouted in this letter remind me of idiotic claims about Y2K disasters.  People were seriously talking about pacemakers stopping and cars not starting because of Y2K "because pacemakers and cars have computers inside".  Of course, anybody familiar with computer technology and electronics would know that this is idiotic.  But many people who always had problems setting up their VCRs believed these claims, and unscrupulous hucksters took advantage of them.  Well, in this letter Ron Paul sounds just like one of those hucksters.  So, either Ron Paul is one those unscrupulous hucksters peddling his crap and trying to basically defraud naive people out of their money, or he is a nut who believes this crap.  Or, at the very least, he is incompetent to make those predictions that never came true.  And if he would claim that he was not the one who wrote it, well, his name is on it.  And if he can't control what gets published in his name, then he is just as incompetent.  Can you imagine a President giving a bad speech and then, as an excuse, saying that he wasn't the one who wrote the speech?  So, there you have it.  I do disagree with Ron Paul on foreign policy.  But this solicitation letter goes beyond disagreement.  It simply kills my respect for the guy.  So, despite his libertarian views, many of which I share, I prefer Hillary Clinton to this guy.  Obama - that's another story.  He is too committed to his leftist views.  So in case of a choice between him and Ron Paul I would simply skip voting for President.  But lucky for me, this is not going to happen.  John McCain is likely going to win the Republican nomination, so I will happily cast my vote for him in the general election.  He is far from ideal choice, but at least he will keep us in the fight against the islamo-fascists until someone better comes along.

Powered by Qumana

Entertaining Considerations

This is a title of the article written by Russ Vaughn of Old War Dogs.  Although I read this article already on the Old War Dogs site earlier today, since Russ was kind enough to e-mail it to me, I am posting it here, including his update.  It looks like Russ will be contributing to this site on the regular basis.  I certainly hope that this will be the case.  So, here is Russ Vaughn:

I am troubled by tonight’s primary results, especially troubled by the prospect that I may be forced to vote for an unprincipled political chameleon like McCain in order to save our country from two politicians, Bill and Hillary Clinton, who are even more unprincipled, even to the point of felonious criminality. I wrote this piece this morning and tonight stand by it even more. Hillary just slapped my face and that of many other honorable veterans with her sneering, gratuitous reference to swift boating in her gloating victory speech. It just demonstrates how twisted their leftist thinking is when they use this term of honor as a pejorative.

I will follow the dictates of my old regimental motto: Honor and Country,

Russ Vaughn

Entertaining Considerations

I was afraid this was going to happen when McCain started coming on stronger in the primaries. To an even greater extent than John Kerry, John McCain possesses the ability to politically divide American veterans more than any other presidential candidate. With Kerry, a key determinant of which way veterans’ loyalties fell was party affiliation. I’m sure there were many liberal Democrat veterans, particularly Vietnam veterans, who held their noses and supported a man they viscerally disliked because he was their party’s candidate and represented their overall liberal positions. It was easy for those of us who were politically conservative Vietnam vets to take a hard, unrelenting stand against the man we knew had smeared us because he was the candidate of the party whose positions we opposed.

Today, this division among veterans in general and Vietnam veterans in particular has been turned by McCain’s candidacy into a family fight among Republican veterans that threatens our already diminished prospects for victory in November. While virtually all of us admire and respect McCain’s military service and POW sacrifice, there are millions of us who feel that is simply not enough for him to be able to command our political loyalties four decades later. Setting aside the fact that McCain sided with John Kerry in 2004 and denounced those of us who dared to question Kerry’s very questionable war record, there are many reasons why we do not see John McCain as being someone we can trust to represent the mainstream views of the Republican party. I will spare you a Sean Hannity, rapid-fire recitation of the litany of McCain’s transgressions against his own party because I think there is a single issue far more compelling.

Go ahead and Google “McCain switching parties?” and look at the pages of hits which take you to articles from every sector of the media examining whether or not John McCain was preparing to switch parties as far back as 2001 and continuing into the 2004 campaign. The most chilling of all these reports is one from the Boston Herald in which McCain is quoted as responding to ABC’s Charles Gibson’s question as to whether he would even entertain the idea of running as John Kerry’s VP if Kerry extended such an offer,

“John Kerry is a very close friend of mine. We’ve been friends for years. Obviously I would entertain it.”
http://www.bostonherald.com/blogs/.../2408_briefing_-_kerry-mccain.pdf

That is a very telling quote. In his own words, to further his political ambitions, John McCain would have considered abandoning his party and his supposedly conservative principles to serve on the ticket with one of the most liberal candidates ever to run as a Democrat presidential candidate. Even worse, reading down, one reads that Kerry now claims it was McCain’s people who initiated such a proposal, not that we’d be inclined to lend too much credibility to that particular source. Some very close friends, huh? No wonder then that McCain was able to denounce his fellow Navy Vietnam veterans as “dishonest and dishonorable” when they dared to attack Kerry’s self-promoting war record. McCain was selfishly attempting to curry favor with the man and the party which could do the most for his personal political future.
http://dir.salon.com/.../2004/08/06/mccain_on_swift_boat_veterans/

Now I ask you, just who was being dishonest and dishonorable here? Was it the sailors who served in combat with Kerry and raised issues with his war record that Kerry never successfully refuted and refused to release the Navy records which he claimed would do so? Or was it the self-serving maverick politician who was entertaining the possibility of forsaking his Republican party to fill the number two position on the Democrat ticket?

A good friend and fellow Old War Dog, Bill Faith, cites Mitt Romney’s contradictory and self-serving statements about not serving in Vietnam as proving Romney unworthy of his vote. To that I would respond that talking out of both sides of one’s mouth is congenital in politicians and that perhaps Romney might have gone AWOL on the issue. But Romney’s transgression completely pales against John McCain’s admitted willingness to “entertain” the possibility of full-fledged desertion to the enemy in the midst of political combat.

I don’t know about you but I don’t want a commander-in-chief who even entertains such considerations.

Russ Vaughn

My own comment to this is that it appears from Russ's update above the article itself that he will vote for John McCain, if McCain wins the nomination.  I wholeheartedly agree with that position.  Whatever McCain's transgressions might be, he is infinitely better than any Democratic nominee.

Powered by Qumana

Second choice

It is sad, but Rudy Giuliani has dropped out of Presidential Campaign.  My second choice is Mitt Romney.  Just like Rudy, he showed that he can be blunt and not politically correct when he denied state escort to the former Iranian President and when he suggested that mosques suspected of terrorist ties should be bugged by FBI.  Here is what he has to say on the issues of keeping America safe, confronting radical jihad and nuclear terrorism from Iran.  These are the most important issues in my opinion.  Plus, Romney's business experience should help strengthen our economy as well.  But what if John McCain gets the nomination?  Well on the most important issue of our time - the war against Islamo-Fascism - he is almost as good as Romney.  In fact, Rudy Giuliani, who of all candidates was the best on this issue, seems to think that he is even better than Romney.  So, should he get the nomination, I will vote for him in the general election without a slightest hesitation.  I urge those who are concerned about the threat of Islamo-Fascism to our civilization to do the same.  Please don't sit the election out because you disagree with McCain on immigration.  As bad as McCain might be on any issue, Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama will be much worse.  After all, McCain does apparently have 80% conservative voting rating.  So, please don't let the Democrats win.

Powered by Qumana

My thoughts on Obama winning Iowa

Many of my fellow Republicans are now gloating at Hillary's loss in Iowa.  Hillary finished 3rd, after Obama and Edwards.  But for those of my fellow Republicans who are happy to see Hillary defeated in the Democratic Primaries I have this to say: consider President Obama or President Edwards.  As bad as Hillary is, all of her Democratic opponents are much worse, every single one of them.  Hillary Clinton is an embodiment of all the worst characteristics of a politician.  She is ruthless and unprincipled, and her only motivation in life is the hunger for power.  But if I were voting in the Democratic Primary, I would have voted for her.  Why?  Because she is the sanest of them all.  Because of her hunger for power she can at least be controlled by public opinion, Congress etc.  It is pretty sad that one of the major political parties in this country can do no better than Hillary Clinton.  But that is the reality we live in.  I do not think she would the easiest to defeat in the General Election.  In fact, I think she might be the hardest to defeat.  But as much as I hope that Republican Party will hold on to the White House, I have to consider the possibility that the Democrats might win.  And in that case I would much rather prefer to have a ruthless and unprincipled power-hungry politician as President than a naive appeaser or someone who just ponders to everybody in the world.

Oh, and one more thing.  Despite sharing many of Ron Paul's libertarian views, if I am given a choice between Ron Paul and Hillary Clinton, I would vote for Hillary Clinton.  You see, I cannot vote for anyone who would appease Islamo-Fascists, whether on the Left or on the Right.

Powered by Qumana

The Roosevelts...

..., both Franklin and Teddy, might soon join tearful Churchill.  This is also via LGF:

Inside the Ring

January 4, 2008

By Bill Gertz - Coughlin sacked

Stephen Coughlin, the Pentagon specialist on Islamic law and Islamist extremism, has been fired from his position on the military's Joint Staff. The action followed a report in this space last week revealing opposition to his work for the military by pro-Muslim officials within the office of Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England.

Mr. Coughlin was notified this week that his contract with the Joint Staff will end in March, effectively halting the career of one of the U.S. government's most important figures in analyzing the nature of extremism and ultimately preparing to wage ideological war against it.

He had run afoul of a key aide to Mr. England, Hasham Islam, who confronted Mr. Coughlin during a meeting several weeks ago when Mr. Islam sought to have Mr. Coughlin soften his views on Islamist extremism.

Mr. Coughlin was accused directly by Mr. Islam of being a Christian zealot or extremist "with a pen," according to defense officials. Mr. Coughlin appears to have become one of the first casualties in the war of ideas with Islamism.

The officials said Mr. Coughlin was let go because he had become "too hot" or controversial within the Pentagon.

Misguided Pentagon officials, including Mr. Islam and Mr. England, have initiated an aggressive "outreach" program to U.S. Muslim groups that critics say is lending credibility to what has been identified as a budding support network for Islamist extremists, including front groups for the radical Muslim Brotherhood.

Read it and weep.

Powered by Qumana

Churchill is crying - again

This is via LGF:

Scores of soldiers flying home from Afghanistan on Christmas leave were ordered to change out of their uniforms on a freezing runway before being allowed into a civilian airport terminal.

Troops were told not to be seen in public in their uniforms - which they had worn with pride while risking their lives during months of intense fighting against the Taliban.

Scroll down for more...

Fighting man: A British soldier in action in Afghanistan

Last night the Ministry of Defence and bosses at Birmingham International Airport blamed each other for the indignity suffered by the soldiers - which comes amid mounting anger over the treatment of British troops returning from war.

One soldier, who was ordered to undress for "security reasons", said: "It is an insult to the entire Army to force guys who've been fighting in Afghanistan to obey some jobsworth rule when all they want to do is get home to their families.

"So much for a nation proud of its servicemen. The temperature was Baltic on the runway but most of just wanted to get home so we cracked on."

I'll try to imitate British accent: "This is a horrible disgrace!"  So, once again I must post this picture from FreedomDogs.com:

What else can I say?

Powered by Qumana

I am back

It's been a month since my last post.  I've been very busy at work and had to work weekends.  I am still busy, but have a little bit of time to post here.  So, to start with, here is a great article by Judith Klinghoffer:

WORLD WATCHING AMERICAN ELECTION

Yes. The whole world is watching, frustratedly watching, the American election campaign. Many believe that they should have had the right to participate as the decision is bound to affect their own lives as well as American ones. Some living in democracies believe the Americans are too uncouth to be entrusted with such an important decision while those living in dictatorship are filled with hopeless wonder. Too many in the under developed world believe that America stands between them and an opportunity to made a similar choice. For in these difficult times the presidential candidates do offer Americans a real choice and it is a choice which will be understood by both friend and foe alike.

Read it all.

Powered by Qumana

Good article by Atlas

Pamela of Atlas Shrugs wrote this:

I once had a boyfriend who liked me more than I liked him. He was a musician - with me so far? Good. I thought it best to end things rather than lead him on. He would not take no for an answer. No matter how firm and definite - he pursued with singular determination. He did not hear a word I said. No matter how many times. And so I refused to see him or talk to him. He would wait outside my building .......... until one day the cops had to be called because he had a rifle.

Fast forward Annapolis.

What part of NO don't we understand?

The Palis, the Islamazis, the Arab world has been unequivocal in their refusal to recognize Israel. Every year, every decade, every war, every intifada .......... it has always been the same. Always. The Saudis would not even shake hands with Israel at Annapolis.  Wishing and hoping and dreaming and praying and land givebacks and billions  in aid and arms and food and medicine and all those delicious carrots the West is so good at handing over has made no difference. None. Today the President of the Islamic Republic of Iran calls for Death to Israel and Death to America.

And still we stalk. No matter what. We suspend our disbelief. We stalk for peace. We won't fight for peace.  We will beg, cajole, buy off,  sleep with evil men, fund terror, ignore everything the enemy is insisting on ........ we will do everything, except what must be done to create a real peace - fight. Self defend.

The only time Israel had a modicum of peace  was after she beat back the invasion of five Arab countries during the six day war and crushed the enemy. That's the fact. And the international communitay has been punishing Israel ever since.

Read the rest.  She is absolutely correct.  They tell us to our face that they want to kill us, and we still ask: "Why can't we get along?"  Enough already.

Powered by Qumana

Shameful

It has been several days since I saw this (via Atlas):

Jewish York students flee from mob

Posted On 11/27/07
By: Atara Beck

TORONTO  – York University saw the worst antisemitic display ever on that campus last week, said Ben Feferman, senior campus coordinator for the Canadian region of Hasbara Fellowships, an Israel advocacy organization spearheaded by Aish Hatorah.

The Betar-supported Campus Coalition of Zionists (CCZ), together with Hasbarah, manned a table in Vari Hall, with permission from the university, with pamphlets and brochures about the danger emanating from Iran.

However, the situation became very difficult for the students who participated. They were vastly outnumbered by pro-Arab students who surrounded them, and eventually the pro-Israel activists fled. As they left, there was cheering by the pro-Arab mob.

According to Feferman, “I’ve never seen anything like this at York. We weren’t even discussing the issues anymore. It was pure Jew hatred. That’s what it’s come to.”
In fact, Feferman noticed an acquaintance there and said hello, but received no acknowledgement. She emailed him later that day to apologize, explaining that she didn’t want everyone to know she was Jewish. To Feferman, this episode is a red light. “We know there’s a crisis when a student on campus is afraid to reveal she’s Jewish and feels unsafe,” he said.

Another disturbing issue that day, according to Feferman, was that a Hillel executive was standing nearby, watching. Feferman can’t understand why he didn’t take action or get his students to help out.

When asked why they didn’t offer to support Hasbarah and CCZ, Tilly Shames, associate director, Hillel of Greater Toronto, did not answer the question directly referencing a program Hillel had held previously that experienced no protest.

They fled?!  What the hell is that?!  What were they afraid of?  A confrontation?  A fistfight?  Only those who flee can be sent to the gas chambers.  And this headline is adding insult to injury.  I just want to hang my head in shame.

Someone might ask me: "What would you do?"  Well, this is one of few instances when I know exactly what I would do: I've been in situations like this one.  Suffice it to say, I would not "flee", and neither would my friends.

Powered by Qumana

About that phone call...

OK, last Monday morning I did call the White House, the Israeli Embassy and the State Department.  There was nobody, not even a machine, answering at the White House.  After saying "hello" several times I heard a beep.  I attempted to leave a message, but I think that that beep was the phone disconnecting.  The Israeli Embassy did not call me back: for some reason the system on that web site did not work for the Israeli Embassy.  The State Department call came through successfully, and I was able to leave my message.  I did not get a chance to try this again.  Of course, all 3 places can be contacted via e-mail, but the phone calls are usually more effective.

Now, some people are skeptical about making these phone calls, especially those who are originally from the former Soviet Union, like myself.  They don't believe that they can influence the Government.  So I'd like to tell a story about people influencing their government in a very unlikely place.

Back in 1987 I was still living in Odessa, Ukraine.  One of the historic streets in Odessa is Primorsky Boulevard (Seashore Boulevard).  It has beautiful historic buildings on one side and a slope leading to the Black Sea shore and Odessa Sea Port on the other side.

 

Between these beautiful buildings and slopes are old trees and benches.  Essentially, it's a park.  Well, in 1987 a Chief Architect of Ukraine decided that these trees block the view of the buildings from the see.  So, he gave orders to dig the trees up and replace them with some bushes.  The work had begun.  But the people of Odessa protested and demonstrated against it.  People even organized patrols to guard the trees during the night.  One evening I also went there and confronted the representatives of the authorities.  In the end the people won.  The trees were left alone.  Some bureaucrat from Kiev was not going to dig up our trees.  So, if it was possible for the people to have influence in the old Soviet Union, don't you think it is much more likely for the people to have influence in this country?

Returning to the subject at hand, here is an update from Jewish Russian Telegraph:

We Jammed State Department's Lines

Thank you to all activists who responded to our and other groups appeal and made a call.
We jammed the lines and sent a message.

Coordinating Council for Jerusalem:

COORDINATING COUNCIL ON JERUSALEM FILLS STATE DEPARTMENT VOICEMAIL BOXES TO CAPACITY

Innovative Grassroots phone calling campaign overwhelms State Department

 New York, NY/Washington, D.C. – November 28^th, 2007 – The Coordinating Council on Jerusalem (www.ccjer.org) is proud to announce the phenomenal success of their revolutionary Internet activated grassroots phone calling system. Calls facilitated by the CCJ’s system are overwhelming operators at the White House, State Department and Israeli Embassy.

By visiting the website http://callsForJerusalem.org, and taking 90 seconds out of the day, anyone who opposes U.S. pressure on Israel and believes in the significance of maintaining a unified Jerusalem, will be connected directly and free of charge to the various agencies to send a simple message expressing their opinion to the U.S. and Israeli leadership participating in Annapolis. The website has been up for less than 48 hours and has already proven to be a vastly effective grassroots technique; over 10,000 calls have been made already.

“The results are very gratifying and the turnout is incredible for a virally marketed campaign.” says Jeff Ballabon, the political consultant coordinating the strategy of the Coordinating Council on Jerusalem. “We have created a new way literally to give a voice to the Pro-Israel community’s thoughts and the calling volume is growing every hour.”

Even groups not officially affiliated with CCJ have jumped on the bandwagon. “Everyone from the Rabbinical Council of America to G Gordon Liddy are utilizing and promoting our callsForJerusalem.org  system to their bases,” says Ballabon. “We welcome them and encourage others to join.” In response to reports that the State Department has begun to advise callers that their mailbox servers have been filled, the Coordinating Council on Jerusalem will be requesting that the State Department increase the space in the voicemail boxes in order to accommodate the increasing number of Americans who want to petition their government against pressuring Israel.

Powered by Qumana

Urgent call

I just got back home from out of town.  I found this urgent e-mail from Jewish Russian Telegraph:

...Our children will ask us -- what did you do to defend Israel in Annapolis?

Time to call: Monday 11/26/07, during office hours
How to call: click http://jrtelegraph.callsforjerusalem.org/ for a completely automated calling system:

calls are free, courtesy of Coordinating Council for Jerusalem 

Again, here is the link.  It seems to be the same link that was posted on Little Green Footballs.  This link allows you to call the White House, the State Department and the Israeli Embassy.  I have just tried calling, but the offices are closed.  They will send an e-mail tomorrow to remind me to call during the business hours.  Please call also.

Also, here is Caroline Glick's article on the subject of this summit in Annapolis (via Jewish Russian Telegraph).  She nails it:

The mood is dark in the IDF's General Staff ahead of next week's "peace" conference in Annapolis. As one senior officer directly involved in the negotiations with the Palestinians and the Americans said, "As bad as it might look from the outside, the truth is 10 times worse. This is a nightmare. The Americans have never been so hostile."

On Thursday a draft of the joint statement that Israeli and Palestinian negotiators are discussing ahead of the conference was leaked to the media. A reading of the document bears out the IDF's concerns.

The draft document shows that the Palestinians and the Israelis differ not only on every issue, but differ on the purpose of the document. It also shows that the US firmly backs the Palestinians against Israel.

As the draft document makes clear, Israel is trying to avoid committing itself to anything at Annapolis. For their part, the Palestinians are trying to force Israel's hand by tying it to diplomatic formulas that presuppose an Israeli withdrawal to the 1949 armistice lines and an Israeli acceptance of the so-called "right of return" or free immigration of foreign Arabs to Israel.

The Palestinians are also trying to take away Israel's right to determine for itself whether to trust the Palestinians and continue making diplomatic and security concessions or not by making it the responsibility of outside parties to decide the pace of the concessions and whether or not the Palestinians should be trusted.

As the leaked draft document shows, the Americans have sided with the Palestinians against Israel. Specifically, the Americans have taken for themselves the sole right to judge whether or not the Palestinians and the Israelis are abiding by their commitments and whether and at what pace the negotiations will proceed.

But the Americans have shown themselves to be unworthy of Israel's trust. By refusing to acknowledge Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas's Fatah party's direct involvement in terrorism and indeed the direct involvement of his official Fatah "security forces" in terrorism, the Americans have shown that their benchmarks for Palestinian compliance with their commitments to Israel are not necessarily based on the reality on the ground. Then too, the US demands for wide-ranging Israeli security concessions to the Palestinians even before the "peace" conference at Annapolis have shown that Israel's security is of little concern to the State Department.

IDF sources blame the shooting murder of Ido Zoldan on Monday night by Fatah terrorists on Israel's decision to bow to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's demand to take down 24 security roadblocks in Judea and Samaria. If it hadn't been for US pressure, they say, it is quite possible that the 29-year-old father of two small children would be alive today.

But this is of no concern for Washington. As Rice has made clear repeatedly, the US wants to see "signs of progress." Since the Palestinians are taking no action against terror and doing nothing to lessen their society's jihadist fervor, the only way to achieve "signs of progress" is by forcing Israel to make concessions to the Palestinians. And so that is exactly what Rice and her associates are doing.

It is really upsetting to me as an American to read this.  Unfortunately Caroline Glick is absolutely correct.  Read it for yourself.  And

please call.

Powered by Qumana

Talking about my favorite candidate, ...

...here is a couple of ads:

Powered by Qumana

One of my favorite authors...

...supports my favorite Presidential Candidate.  I am talking about Vince Flynn, the author of "Memorial Day" and numerous other novels about Mtch Rapp, an American counter-terrorism operative who knows what needs to be done in the current war.  His latest book, "Protect and Defend", deals with Iranian threat.  I have yet to read this book.  For now here is Vince Flynn's interview that he gave to "Washington Times" upon release of his new book:

A page from his book

November 16, 2007

By Audrey Hudson - Novelist Vince Flynn's hot new political thriller featuring CIA superspy Mitch Rapp hit the New York Times best-seller list at No. 1 this week.

In "Protect and Defend," Mr. Flynn pushes the political debate on the use of torture in the war on terror as he pits Rapp against master terrorist Imad Mukhtar.

The following are excerpts of a recent telephone interview with Mr. Flynn:

Question: In the real world, how effective do you think torture is with Islamic terrorists?

A: Far more effective than liberals would have you believe. Congress really upset me with how they treated Attorney General Michael Mukasey and how the media pushed this question. Why aren't reporters forcing senators and Congress to answer the same questions about torture? What do you think we should have done? Given them a lawyer, three square meals a day and let planes get hijacked?

I think it should be done in the rarest of situations. Anybody who says torture doesn't work hasn't studied the history of torture. Torture, or aggressive interrogation, is only as good as the interrogators. Take Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, for instance. He got waterboarded and he sang like a canary ... he ended up naming operatives and giving up a treasure trove of financial secrets as well as plans for future attacks. This was not Uday and Qusai Hussein at work. This was done with clinical precision, not brute force. There are multiple interrogators, lie detectors, doctors and a group of analysts in the next room connected to every friendly western intelligence agency to check everything the subject says.

That's a far cry from what Senator [John] McCain experienced, and he says that torture does not work. I have a lot of respect for the man, but when he was in the Hanoi Hilton, he was brutally tortured to give up names, so he gave them the starting lineup of the Green Bay Packers. Back then, it would have been difficult to verify; but today, it's called "Google."

I'm not talking about pulling people out of cafes in Baghdad, torture has to be reserved for high-value targets.

All of these men and some women who happen to participate in the program have to be waterboarded themselves, they've gone through it and they know how terrifying it is. I know Amnesty International would disagree with me, but every American needs to ask themselves, "If you could turn back the clock one week [before the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks] would you want Zacarias Moussaoui to have been interrogated by waterboarding?"

Q: How can we win the war on terrorism when many cannot acknowledge who the enemy is?

A: That's a tough question. I'll waffle on this. As a society, we need to start demanding a few things. We have embraced liberty, equality in the sexes and religion — we believe in all of this. If you want to come to this country and you are Muslim, you had better agree and be fine with the Christian and Jewish faith. But if you are going to come over here and preach hatred and raise money for Hamas and Hezbollah, we're going to kick you out of the country.

As an Irish-Catholic kid in the 1980s, I remember being disgusted with the thugs and the terrorists in the [Irish Republican Army] and I don't remember anyone who was Irish-American saying to [novelist] Tom Clancy after "Patriot Games": "How dare you portray people in the IRA for what they were, a bunch of thugs and terrorists?" What drives me nuts is people like [the Council on American-Islamic Relations] who, any time somebody in fiction or on TV has a villain who happens to portray what is going on in the world today — Islamic radicals who embrace a cult of death and are running around killing innocent women and children — they get upset about it. CAIR would better serve American Muslims if they spent more time criticizing these Islamic terrorist groups.

Q: If Americans are so opposed to torturing our enemies, how do you explain the popularity of Mitch Rapp?

A: They're not opposed to torturing men like Sheikh Mohammed, but they don't want to run around and talk about it in public. Look at Hollywood. They all detest President Bush because their friends will think they are smarter by hating him. They wear it as a badge of honor. They try to prove to people they are smart and compassionate and enlightened, so people will like them. But instead, they make these movies the American people don't want to see, because deep down inside, the American public does not want to see a movie that bashes America. People like Rosie O'Donnell say they love America, but they have a funny way of showing it.

People want a guy like Mitch Rapp looking out for them. People want to believe there are guys like this out there protecting us.

Q: This year has seen a surge of antiwar films, which are flopping like dominoes, while "Protect and Defend" is the No. 1 book this week. Is Hollywood ready for Mitch Rapp yet?

A: I don't think we are quite there. Hollywood is now saying people don't want to watch movies about war. No, Americans don't want to watch [bad] anti-American movies about war. Americans would love to watch a great movie where Mitch Rapp is meting out punishment to these crazy zealots, but I don't know if Hollywood has the guts to do it. If Democrats take the White House, Hollywood will make a movie like that in a heartbeat.

Mitch Rapp has taken on a cult following, but Hollywood doesn't get it for the same reasons they don't understand talk radio, Wal-Mart or NASCAR.

Q: Who are you backing for president?

A: Rudy [Giuliani]. He's a bit of a moderate and can unite the country and get the country focused on the war against terrorists. He symbolizes the gravity of the situation, and I don't think the guy will back off for a moment having witnessed September 11. I don't think the man will waiver. If he gets ahold of Osama bin Laden, he will throw everything he can at the guy.

Powered by Qumana

Heil Putin?

In light of the current war against Islamo-Fascist ideology I was willing to give Russian President Putin a benefit of a doubt, despite his clearly dictatorial tendencies.  I was willing to view him as a Russian version of Spain's Franco or Chile's Pinochet, a dictator whose goal is to prepare his country for true constitutional democracy.  Unfortunately it looks more and more like I have been wrong.  A friend e-mailed me this disturbing article:

Russia: 'National Leader' Idea Gains Strength

By Brian Whitmore

Russia -- Members of the Vladimir Putin Fan Club participate in a rally in Moscow, 25 Oct 2007
Recent rally supporting Putin
(AFP)
November 18, 2007 (RFE/RL) -- Russia has a hot new catchphrase that is obsessing the political elite and is being chanted like a mantra by the media: National Leader.

More than 700 delegates from across the country turned up for a well-orchestrated pep rally in the city of Tver on November 15 to pledge allegiance to President Vladimir Putin and implore him to remain in power after his term ends next year.

Since Putin is constitutionally forbidden from seeking a third consecutive term as president, the event's organizers are proposing to grant him a sort of elevated mythological status as Russia's supreme ruler who would lord over any future president or prime minister -- unburdened by troublesome term limits and pesky constitutional restrictions.

The meeting, held in a local theater adorned with Russian tricolor flags and banners reading "For Putin!," followed a wave of demonstrations in support of the president in numerous Russian regions. It resulted in forming an organization called the "All-Russian Council of Initiative Groups to Support Putin."

"We are gathering not for a third term," Pavel Astakhov, a prominent attorney who was elected the organization's leader, told RFE/RL's Russian Service. "We respect the president's word and we believe him when he says he will not change the constitution. And since he will not change the constitution, we need to find a new configuration of authority."

Astrakhov later told reporters that his group has gathered 30 million signatures in support of Putin remaining in power as Russia's "national leader." (emphasis mine - Eric-Odessit)

He insists that that the recent groundswell of pro-Putin demonstrations is a genuine grassroots movement and is not being orchestrated by the Kremlin. Press reports and critics of the Kremlin, however, have alleged that students and state employees have been pressured to attend the rallies.

Read the whole thing.  So, it looks like Russia is moving from a Communist dictatorship to a nationalist totalitarian dictatorship.  I don't call it "Nazi" only because there seems to be no "socialist" part of it.  A country that is looking for some national idea and finding only nationalism, but lacking any moral foundation and failing economically and demographically, may blame others for its failings and lash out to prove its greatness.  That is very dangerous.  We might still find Russia allied with our enemies, even though it does not make any sense at this point.

Powered by Qumana

Happy Thanksgiving!

I am re-posting my Thanksgiving post from last year.  There is one notable addition to those whom I should give my thanks.  That group of people I most definitely meant to thank last year, but forgot to mention them by name.  I am talking about members of the American Armed Forces, past and present.  Thanks to them, we all have the lives we have.  So, thank you, American Military.

Thanksgiving is a quintessentially American holiday.  So, what am I thankful for?  I am thankful for my family, for my wonderful wife and 2 beautiful girls.  I am also thankful for the generally pretty good life I have.  But who should thank for all this?  The religious people thank G-d for all their blessings.  But I am not religious enough in order to do that.  And then it dawned on me.  I should thank this wonderful country called United States of America and its wonderful people.

So, thank you, America, for existing, for being a beacon of freedom in the world where freedom is far from being commonplace.  Thank you for making freedom your “national idea”, if you will.

Thank you, America, for accepting me as your own.  You welcomed me, my family and friends and made us all Americans, part of your great people.  You accept anybody who is willing to be accepted.  You made acceptance and tolerance part of your ideology too.

Finally, thank you, America, for defending “liberty and justice for all” all over the world.  Your young people volunteer to go and fight for what’s right and moral.  If I were 20 years younger I would have joined them (lame excuse really, but that’s the only one I have).  Winston Churchill once said: “The Americans can always be counted on to do the right thing, after they had exhausted all other possibilities”.  He knew what he was talking about.  It is only natural to try “all other possibilities”: people always look for easy solutions.  But in the end Americans do the right thing, no matter what the cost, for doing the right thing is a part of American ideology too.

Thank you, America.

This is a modified WW2 poster.  The modern American soldiers in Iraq were added to the original by the San Diego Chapter of Protest Warrior.

Powered by Qumana

Unraveling of a blood libel

Many people who follow the world events, especially the current war against Islamo-fascist ideology are familiar with the Muhammed Al-Dura controversy.  It was claimed that a 12 year old Palestinian boy was caught in a crossfire between Israeli soldiers and Palestinian terrorists and killed.  The Islamists and their sympathizers in the West were quick to blame the Israelis for the death of the boy.  I personally thought that the poor boy and his father were simply at the wrong place at the wrong time and were caught in the crossfire.  However, slowly but surely the evidence were beginning to emerge first that the boy could not possibly have been hit by the fire from the Israeli position, and then that the whole thing was likely staged and nobody died.  France 2 television channel that reported the alleged shooting showed a very small portion of the raw footage they had - only 59 seconds.  Only 3 minutes were distributed to other news organizations.  French journalist Philippe Karsenty attempted to expose France 2 and was sued by the TV channel.  In one of the most biased court decisions he was convicted of libeling France 2.  Karsenty appealed the court ruling, and was granted a hearing.  The supporters of Philippe Karsenty created a petition demanding the release of 27 minutes of raw footage shot by France 2 Palestinian cameraman.  At the hearing France 2 showed 18 minutes of raw footage, out of 27 minutes that were shot.  While the questions remain about the 9 minutes that were not shown, it has been proven that, at the very least, nobody can say for sure whether the poor boy had been shot at all, much less that he had been shot by the Israelis.  Thus, this modern blood libel has begun unraveling.  I hope that at some point the whole 27 minutes of the raw footage will be released to the public.  For now, here are some impressions of the people who were in the court room.

Here is what Richard Landes had to say on the subject.

Here is what Melanie Phillips had to say on the subject.

Here is Nidra Poller's account of the proceedings, with Richard Landes' comments.

I can't really add much to it.

Update 11/22/07:

Here is an essay on the subject by Yaacov Ben Moshe.  And, on second thought, here is what I can add to everything already said on this subject: unlike the previous blood libels against Jews, this one was perpetrated by Charles Enderlin, himself a  Jew.  When the realization of this finally dawns on him, he will have to live with that.

Powered by Qumana

Continued discussion of the book review

Sultan Knish, with whom I was having a friendly dispute over my recent book review responded to me several days ago.  So, here is my reply.  I'll try to keep it short because I don't want to keep dragging it along.

First of all, I strongly disagree that the Left was somehow less anti-Semitic than the Right.  The only place where it applied to a very limited extent was the early years of the Russian Revolution and the Civil War, mainly because the Jews were often major figures on the Left.  And even there the anti-Semitic atrocities committed by the Red 1st Cavalry Army were numerous and stopped only by the Army's commissar Voroshilov, whose wife was Jewish.  Later, during World War 2, according to some sources Soviet Partisan leader Ponomarenko issued orders not to accept Jews into partisan units (this varied from one instance to the next).  The treatment of the Jews by the Soviet partisans described in "Defiance: The Bielski Partisans" by Nechama Tec, a book that tells the story of the Bielski brothers' efforts to save as many Jews as they could.  In Poland, according to the book I reviewed, as well as Dan Kurzman's "The Bravest Battle", Polish Communist leader Gomulka also issued orders not to help Jews.  In fact, according to both books, explicit orders to help the Jews came from the Polish Government in London, which controlled the Home Army.  So, the amount of anti-Semitism was about equal on both Left and Right, as was the amount of help to the Jews.  I am just trying to avoid giving the Left an undeserved credit.

I don't think that Polish and Jewish nationalists found common ground in their respective nationalisms.  I think the fact that the members of the ZZW were officers of the Polish Army and fought together with the Polish officers back in 1939 was much more significant for their cooperation.  It is only natural: in an extreme situation, when survival is at stake, political considerations get replaced by the bond of combat, as they should.

Sultan's analogy of white nationalists being OK with Israel, but still wanting to rid their countries of Jews, might be a good explanation of why European white nationalists are friendly to Israel.  But I don't think it applies to America.  In this country white nationalists are aligned with Islamists.  By the way, Sultan has a great analysis of the recent dispute within the anti-Jihadist movement.

The NKVD conspiracy may or may not be true, especially in view of Sultan's recent revelation about the author of the article I mentioned in a private e-mail, but I don't see how, even if it is true, it excuses post-war pogroms in Poland.  After all, the fact that the pogroms in czarist Russia were often instigated by the government does not excuse the Russian anti-Semites.

Sultan mentions Russian military historians "claiming that Hitler was a Soviet agent".  He must be talking about Vladimir Rezun, better known under his pen name of Viktor Suvorov.  Suvorov indeed claims that Hitler was manipulated by the Soviets back in the 1920s, although I did not take this claim as meaning that he was consciously working for the Soviets.  I think in this Suvorov takes his argument too far.  But, for the record, I have to say that I subscribe to his theory that Stalin was getting ready to attack Hitler (this would not be necessarily bad).  Suvorov describes his theory in "Icebreaker".  In my opinion, this is the only theory that explains disastrous Soviet defeats in 1941 without portraying Soviet generals who eventually won the war in the East as complete idiots.  This theory is also supported by the circumstantial evidence that I read about in sources totally unrelated to Suvorov, as well as stories my grandpa told me.  But that is a subject of another discussion.

Powered by Qumana

My response to a comment on my first book review

I recently wrote a review of a book I have read: "Two Flags: Return to the Warsaw Ghetto" by Marian Apfelbaum.  I submitted this review to the latest Jewish Blog Carnival.  That is probably how a commenter by the name of Sultan Knish found me.  His comment is 3rd there.  He is a typical Jewish Conservative, with views very similar to my own.  His blog is very good and nicely done.  So it was very strange to read in his comment assertions typically coming from leftist Jews, not unlike frequent accusations of Christian Right of anti-Semitism.  Although, I suppose I should not be surprised: I've heard many times from fellow Jews, including the ones from the former Soviet Union, who are usually on the Right, that anybody could potentially be an anti-Semite.  So I would like to respond to his comment on the front page of this blog.  I have to preface my response with this: Sultan Knish and I agree on more issues than we disagree on.  In fact, we probably agree on almost everything.  So this is a minor disagreement between friends (I am pretty sure we could be friends, had we met).

Sultan Knish begins his comment by asserting: "The Home Army was indeed anti-semitic".  What is the basis of this assertion?  Or, more to the point, what does it mean?  Does it mean that Polish Home Army was an anti-Semitic organization, conducting anti-Semitic policies?  Or does it mean that many its members were anti-Semites?  Well, I have no doubts that many members of the Polish Home Army were anti-Semites.  But so were many members of the US Army, and other Allied armies for that matter.  Patton was known to say anti-Semitic things.  But that does not make US Army anti-Semitic.  As for the Polish Home Army policy regarding the Jews, that was most definitely not anti-Semitic.  There is evidence that they did what they could under the circumstances.  That includes evidence presented in the book I reviewed.

Sultan Knish also says that much of Poland was anti-Semitic.  Again, it is true that anti-Semitism in Poland was rampant.  But it is not fair to single out Poles for that.  People often talk about Polish anti-Semitism, but forget about the Vichy French, who ran their own concentration cam in Drancy.  People forget about Latvians serving in Arajs Kommando, Estonian SS Division, Lithuanian Nazis and Ukrainian SS Division.  People forget about Dutch SS and Belgian SS.  I am deliberately listing Nazis from the Allied countries.  And those Nazis were quite numerous.  So, in light of this, singling our Poles does not seem fair.  Especially given the fact that among Righteous Gentiles Poles outnumber everybody else.  This is really not surprising, since the Jews comprised about 10% of Polish pre-war population and since most of the Holocaust happened on Polish territory.  But this also means that there were a lot of people willing to risk their lives to help the Jews, despite rampant anti-Semitism.

Finally, Sultan Knish brings up the notorious Kielce pogrom that happened after the war to prove general anti-Semitism of the Polish population.  But there is no need to prove this: I agree that anti-Semitism was rampant in Poland.  I mentioned that I read in a Russian-Jewish magazine an article that suggested that the Kielce pogrom was instigated by the Soviet intelligence (this is disputed in the Wikipedia link I referenced above).  Even if that pogrom was indeed instigated by the Soviets, it does not mean that there were no Poles perfectly willing to kill the Jews in Kielce.  Quite the opposite.  The name of the magazine I read that article in is Alef (sorry, the link is in Russian).  It is published by Chamah in New York.  The author of the article was Vilen Lulechnik, a Jewish military historian from Russia, living in the US (sorry again, the link is in Russian again).  But whether that pogrom was instigated by the Soviets or not, it is very hard to suspect the magazine and the author of the article in Polish nationalism.  Suggesting that NKVD was involved in the post-war pogroms does not whitewash or excuse the original crime, but merely adds another set of criminals to already existing ones.  Comparing my mention of an article in a Jewish magazine to Holocaust denial was a bit offensive (understatement here).  It certainly was not my intent to whitewash the crimes of Polish anti-Semites.  I am merely attempting to give credit where credit is due.  Besides, the times have changed.  After all, it was the Polish Members of the European Parliament who boycotted anti-Israeli anti-Semitic hatefest organized by UN.  So, while condemning Polish anti-Semites, we should be grateful to those Poles who helped the Jews, who were and are on the side freedom, decency and Western Civilization.

Powered by Qumana

I am back

I haven't posted for a while: between being very busy at work and San Diego wild fires I simply did not have time.  I still don't, but today a have a little bit of time for my blog.

If anyone is curious how my family faired during the fires, we did have to evacuate: it was pretty close to our house.  But we are OK, and our house is OK too.  Now it's all back to normal.

I added this link below to my sidebar.  Apparently Amazon now lets you rent or buy movies by simply downloading them to your computer.  Then you can either watch them on your computer screen or, if you have an S-Video output on your video card, hook it up to your TV and watch a movie normally on TV.  There is also a way to use TiVo in order to watch a movie on your TV.  This is a great idea.  For a very long time I was wondering when it would become available.  Now it is.  Check it out.  This certainly beats going to a video store or waiting for a DVD to arrive in the mail.

Powered by Qumana