SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home Just How Influential Is the Christian Right?

POLITICS FEBRUARY 18, 2012

Just How Influential Is the Christian Right?

BY MARTIN PERETZ

My old student, that is, my former student from four-plus decades ago, Michael Kazin, has written that the long life of the Christian Right has come to an end. It certainly has lost its old “failsafe” battles. I have no nostalgia at all for the hardened hearts and mellifluous voices which judged intricate human dilemmas through dogma, through harsh dogma, at that. It’s odd, though—isn’t it?—that black churches, rarely labeled as “right anything,” are among the places where same-sex marriage, even the idea of same-sex sex, runs into trouble, big trouble. Sabrina Tavernise has written an intriguing story in Thursday’s Times: “Gay Marriage Bill Posing a Tough Sell to Blacks in Maryland.” But surely it’s not just Maryland. Ironically, there’s a counter-indicative piece by Susan Saulny five pages up reporting the happy news that “Interracial Marriage Seen Gaining Wide Acceptance.” My nine-year old grandson does not notice at all when couples are interracial.

One thing I’m sure about is that Mitt Romney dearly wishes the Christian Right to disappear, although in my ignorance I had long thought that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (the Mormon church) is an integral part of the Christian Right. Still, insofar as there still is a Christian Right, it does not like Mr. Romney at all. I read somewhere that it has pushed so hard against him that eleven contenders were at one time or another about to knock him out of the race. I think, nonetheless, that he’s the candidate. Still...

But something else has happened to and in the Christian Right. It may not like the Mormon candidate, maybe because it doesn’t trust his conservatism. But it no longer hates Catholics or Catholicism, hatred of which used to be doctrinal in each and every church on the prairie. And, of course, it has now jumped from Newt Gingrich to Rick Santorum, both of whom have adumbrated first names. They are also both Catholics, certified candidates of the Protestant Christian Right. Right now, there are no others. Look up Rick’s views—why shouldn’t I call him Rick? I call the other guys Mitt and Newt and I don’t know them either—on gays. Michael, do you really think that the Christian Right is kaput? (And while we’re talking about the presidential candidates and gay rights, let’s be honest: Obama deserves credit for repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, but his stance on gay marriage—maybe due to political cowardice, maybe out of conviction; it’s impossible to know—remains embarrassingly un-progressive.)

If you look in Wikipedia you can find a lot of material (who knows whether all of it is reliable or not?) about how some people think that Catholics are not Christians. Well, some people—Fundamentalist and Evangelical Protestants, for instance—think that “mainstream” Protestants like Episcopalians, Unitarians, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, even some Methodists are also not Christians. Actually, Christianity is not at peace with itself. Of course, most of this last cohort and others, cosseted together on New York’s Riverside Drive as the National Council of Churches (they used to say “Churches of Christ”), disagree with one another on many matters. But they agree that Israel is evil. These denominations are without fresh blood. One confab assembled by the NCC in Bethlehem (not Pennsylvania) a year ago resolved thus: “whether the solution is one state or two, the occupation must end.” These Christians may be thick. But they are not dumb. They know what they mean. Everybody does. These anti-Israel-obsessed Christians have no place to go in the elections. Obama is no longer running on the “Palestine First” ticket. The Republicans never did.

One more matter: The billionaires Sheldon and Miriam Adelson have given Newt’s PACs $10 million. He is very conservative, really very conservative. She is a doctor, a really accomplished physician. Read about her in a Fortune article last week. I don’t know them although I know I don’t agree with them on some matters. Important matters. But I agree with them on some social issues, like drug addiction and the treatment of it, a matter on which she has made innovative strides now used very widely. Of course, as you understand, I share (most but not all of) his views on Israel. I also know people who’ve worked for Sheldon. He’s tough. He’s also Jewish. What with his money and his giving his money, he’s a set-up for anti-Semitic rhetoric. It’s odd to find a super-wealthy Jewish couple in the middle of a right-wing campaign, giving funds against other right-wing campaigns. There has not been an anti-Semitic stereotype uttered against the Adelsons. Unless it was on the left. But I haven’t heard of that either.

So, as Ronald Reagan used to say, and now Barack Obama, “God bless America.”

Martin Peretz is editor-in-chief emeritus of The New Republic.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 156 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

156 comments

Run all this by me again, I didn't quite get it.

- basman

February 18, 2012 at 12:22am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Unitarians are by no stretch of the imagination mainline Protestants. The churches of the NCC are certainly not "anti- Israel obsessed", except perhaps in Mr Peretz's imagination. In fact, they don't pay much attention to Israel at all. This column makes very little sense.

- K_Wilson

February 18, 2012 at 12:35am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Finally, a little irony in a Marty Peretz post. It was little but it was welcome.

- arnon

February 18, 2012 at 12:39am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

K_Wilson "Unitarians are by no stretch of the imagination mainline Protestants. Don't you think Marty knows that. He was being sarcastic, but never mind. "The churches of the NCC are certainly not "anti- Israel obsessed", except perhaps in Mr Peretz's imagination. In fact, they don't pay much attention to Israel at all." What country do you leave in K Wilson? Unitarians, let's begin with them, don't even notice Israel: http://www.uujme.org/home/ and what about Presbyterians? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presbyterian_Church_(USA)_disinvestment_from_Israel_controversy Here are some reactions by Jews who are not Peretzians: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703572404575634813393141110.html So what universe are you living in Wilson? http://www.ncccusa.org/news/100603flotillaattack.html Had enough Wilson? At least Marty presented his views this time with a sense of irony.

- arnon

February 18, 2012 at 12:49am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

basman got it, or more precisely, didn't. The point being, again, what?

- peinstein

February 18, 2012 at 1:29am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The Christian Right is still very powerful in the Republican Party. I've been calling it the Religious Right lately, because it includes Jews and Mormons. In the past I thought of conservative Evangelicals and Catholics as the Christian Right. At any rate, Karl Rove is already stirring this bunch up to get them to march in righteous fury to the polls in November and chase the Prince of Darkness out of his socialist lair. Just to make sure he's gone, the Pope will go on an apostolic journey to America and exorcise the White House.

- magboy47.

February 18, 2012 at 3:12am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"It’s odd, though—isn’t it?—that black churches, rarely labeled as “right anything,” are among the places where same-sex marriage, even the idea of same-sex sex, runs into trouble, big trouble." http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2010/09/gods_bigmouths.html "Many other charlatans have benefited from the clerical racket, and the most notorious of them—Jerry Falwell, Ted Haggard, Jim Bakker, Jimmy Swaggart—have been white. But there is something especially horrible about the way in which the black pulpit gets a sort of free pass, almost as if white society has assured itself that black Americans just love them some preaching. In this fog of ethnic condescension, it is much easier for mountebanks and demagogues to get away with it."

- noga1

February 18, 2012 at 6:29am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Not a bad post at all, even with the little snipe du jour at Obama (I seem to recall a young Senator Obama as a keynote speaker at a certain Democratic Convention saying the words "God Bless America, but whatever). In any case, Peretz is correct that the religious right no longer wields the power it once had. To which I think we can all say Amen.

- Tristan

February 18, 2012 at 8:12am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Tristan, didn't you mean to which we can all say, "Thank you, Jesus!"?

- AaronW

February 18, 2012 at 8:29am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

arnon, while your UUJME link proves your point that some Unitarians do indeed think about Israel and think about it in ways that would tend to antagonize Zionists, no one should imagine that the UUJME represents the position of the Unitarian Universalist Conference or even that of most Unitarians. I was raised Unitarian, sort of. (No one can really say what it means to be "raised" Unitarian.) Unitarianism's only creed is that Unitarianism has no creed. You can find people who call themselves Unitarians who profess all sorts of outre, esoteric varieties of belief and non-belief, which is why my father, who was basically an agnostic rationalist (and an ex-USMC Alabaman, go figure) left the organization in disgust not once, but twice, first in the seventies when he was labeled a homophobe after expressing displeasure that members of the Unitarian Gay Caucus were seemingly using the church as a pick-up scene and then again in the nineties when he was forced to acknowledge that he did not and could not respect the congregation's neo-pagan members' choice to worship tree spirits. http://www.cuups.org/

- AaronW

February 18, 2012 at 8:55am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

AaronW "arnon, while your UUJME link proves your point that some Unitarians do indeed think about Israel and think about it in ways that would tend to antagonize Zionists, no one should imagine that the UUJME represents the position of the Unitarian Universalist Conference or even that of most Unitarians." Did you take a poll of American Unitarians in Australia, Aaron. Religions have organizations that speak for the whole religious community even if some members of that community don't agree with their spokes-peoples decisions. That how it works. From what I know very many Catholics are for the use of contraceptives but their Church is opposed to its use. It's the Church and not the individual that sets policy for the Catholic community.

- arnon

February 18, 2012 at 10:07am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Peretz addressed his comments about the religious right to M. Kazin, peinstein: "My old student, that is, my former student from four-plus decades ago, Michael Kazin, has written that the long life of the Christian Right has come to an end." It's part of a discussion about the relevance of the religious right in America. How come you didn't see that?

- arnon

February 18, 2012 at 10:11am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

magboy47 "The Christian Right is still very powerful in the Republican Party." It does, but it's also split and are at the moment in the middle of a nasty fight about it's future direction. This can only be good news for those who believe that our country should be secular and not allow religious dogma dictate socio-political policies and laws.

- arnon

February 18, 2012 at 10:15am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Israel wasn't mentioned until the fourth paragraph. Who wrote this for Mr Peretz and how soon will he/she be fired for taking so long to get to the point? Anyway, the problem for the Christian right in the GOP is that it is disunited. Its disunity is not so much about policy, but about what candidate should represent them. In 2008 and 2012 a bunch of Republicans got into the race, all, but two -- Ron Paul and someone else -- claiming to represent the Christian right. Then there is Ron Paul. And then there is the someone else, John McCain in 2008 and Mitt Romney in 2012. With six candidates all fighting for the Christian right and the Christian right unable to unify around one of them -- not even Mike Huckabee, who is one of them -- it was simple for McCain to win primaries and rack up delegates in the winner takes all system the GOP used in 2008. Having junked that system to prevent another candidacy like McCains, the party now faces a hard slog while Mitt Romney attempts to overwhelm his opponents with lavishly funded negative ads and hopes that the Christian right continues to divide its loyalties. A Christian right that unified behind one candidate early -- like before Iowa -- would be able to determine the candidate. But since disagreements can be about so much more than policy -- personality and ambition, to name but two -- the Christianists remain incapable of dominating the GOP the way their numbers suggest they should.

- DC Spence

February 18, 2012 at 10:49am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Just as a quick addition, Mike Huckabee would probably be the 2012 GOP nominee if he had run. He's closer to the Christianists than anyone currently in the race. But, as Mr Huckabee pointed out last year, it will be far more difficult to defeat Obama than many Republicans seem to realize. Only now, as economic numbers continue to improve, is it dawning on some Republicans that this is going to be an uphill fight for their nominee, whoever it is. Huckabee, never the clueless rube his critics on the right and left have imagined him to be, saw this coming and decided to continue making more money than he ever has in his life instead of facing the likely prospect of losing to the incumbent in November. Contrary to the increasingly unhinged rants of right-wing commentators excoriating GOP grandees for being too "cowardly" to get into this race, the decision Mr Huckabee made was eminently defensible and sensible.

- DC Spence

February 18, 2012 at 10:55am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I see no correlation bewteen how black churches, and their congregants, seem to oppose gay marriage, and the acceptance of inter-racial marriage. Does Peretz believe that the LGBT rhetoric that same sex marriage is as much about equal rights as Loving v VA was, has any traction outside of the LGBT community? incoherence otherwise understood - too bad Peretz does not appear able to directly confront what is really bothering him about this GOP contest :) Dr. Peretz: No, the Adelson's are not "... a set-up for anti-Semitic rhetoric ...", mostly because they are always willing to be the publicly named funders of "provocative" pro-Israel issues, as was the case with the re-construction of "east" Jerusalem's Shepherd's Hotel into apartments for Jews. The other funders could remain very anonymous. Come on, Peretz - you know why the Adelson's are publicly funding Newt's Super-PAC, so please let it be swirling in your head and not in online print, so that the anti-Semitic rhetoric does NOT enter the discussion. Just leave it at: Adelson is partly immune because his fortune is from gambling, which is far more difficult to stereotype as a 'Zionist conspiracy'. And, since the Adelson money has mostly gone to direct Romney attacks, I assume that is Romney's punishment for refusing to publicly state his opinion (of the minute) as to whether apartments in Ramat Shlomo and Gilo are "settlements". Enough reason for the Adelsons to fund media attacks on Romney as Vulture Capitalist via KingofBain, and the Romney-Bain ownership of a company fined for major Medicare fraud. sorry, I have been hoping the reading of the clues about the Adelson money issue can be kept offline (swirling in heads like mine), which is now going to be more difficult because it seems they are about to pop another $10million in that Super-PAC that supports Newt. Good thing the Mormon Church recently posthumously baptised Elie Wiesel's parents. Enough reason for Adelson to keep helping the NOTRomney cause through Super-Tuesday.

- K2K

February 18, 2012 at 11:43am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Charles Foster Peretz....

- MrCookie1

February 18, 2012 at 11:50am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

K2K, What I find difficult to grasp in your comment is that you first celebrate the difficulty of linking Adelson and his money to a "Zionist conspiracy. You then immediately proceed to assert, in effect, a "Zionist conspiracy" to use the continued funding of Gingrich in order to extort concessions from Romney on East Jerusalem. What is your point exactly, because I must be missing it?

- ccarrick@vzavenue.net-old

February 18, 2012 at 12:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I was just thinking of that old joke: if the Klan wants to terrorize Unitarians, it comes around at night and plants a burning question mark on their front lawn.

- ironyroad

February 18, 2012 at 1:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

@Irony HA!

- Tristan

February 18, 2012 at 1:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Run all this by me again, I didn't quite get it. For the second time now.

- basman

February 18, 2012 at 2:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This piece as an argument against Kazin for the Christian right not mattering anymore is less than useless. It posits a point that it then proceeds to ignore with a series of side bar comments. So in a word, or three, it's a failing piece of argument. And some people are confusing what it professes to be about with the incoherence that marks it. But the piece has the virtue of stimulating a bit of interesting discussion springing from its various asides, it's elementary incoherence notwithstanding.

- basman

February 18, 2012 at 2:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Arnon, I don't have to take a poll. The point of UU's non-credal character is that any form of belief, religious, political or otherwise is in principle consistent with Unitarianism. This means that any group of self-professed Unitarians can form a group around a particular shared set of beliefs and attach the UU label to themselves. The existence of a group of pro-Palestinian, anti-Zionist Unitarians, the UUJME, does not mean that the national church organization is anti-Zionist any more than the existence of a group of tree-worshiping Unintarians, the CUUPS to which I linked, means that the national church advocates tree worship. Your employment of the Catholic example is invalid. The RCC is founded around a creed supported by doctrine. The UU has neither--that's the whole point.

- AaronW

February 18, 2012 at 4:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

AaronW “Your employment of the Catholic example is invalid. The RCC is founded around a creed supported by doctrine. The UU has neither--that's the whole point.” I was writing specifically about UU Christian Churches which originated in New England. Aaron, I come from the place where Unitarianism was founded and I don't need a lecture on its belief system or organization. There are a number of doctrines that unites all Unitarians. You can’t be a trinitarian for example. There are some others. I have met many Unitarians who showed much understanding of the "plight of the Palestinians" but had little or no sympathy for Israel's problems. In any case, what you are really saying is that a “Unitarian group” can be antisemitic and it wouldn't matter since there is no "official doctrine."

- arnon

February 18, 2012 at 5:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Your comment that Obama's silence of gay marriage may be either due to conviction (It is not right.) or cowardice. Seriously? Do you know any presidential history at all? Did Lincoln or FDR, or any other president for that matter, continuously publicly state and advertise all their opinions on all the issues of the day, like a teenager on Facebook? Or do presidents sometimes wait until an auspicious moment arrives to take a stand?

- Vekert

February 18, 2012 at 5:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

So, is it your position that the views of the UUJME represent the beliefs of the UUA? If so, you are wrong, and the fact that you hail from New England makes not a bit of difference. Also, the Unitarian church does not refer to itself as "Christian" and never has. The fact that you refer to it as such suggests that you are more than willing to pontificate on subjects about which you know little.

- AaronW

February 18, 2012 at 6:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

aronW "So, is it your position that the views of the UUJME represent the beliefs of the UUA? If so, you are wrong, and the fact that you hail from New England makes not a bit of difference." From the UUA website: "Aug 24, 2011 ... "suspend all transfers of those types of weapons and munitions used to commit human rights violations until Israel is clearly in compliance with ..." www.uua.org/statements/statements/13983.shtml

- arnon

February 18, 2012 at 6:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Basman, this was just an opportunity for Peretz to: mouth off about Episcopalians; say "Ha ha" to liberals who usually see themselves as defenders of black America; praise the Adelsons, no matter that they supported Gingrich, and once again trash Obama. There. Not so hard to understand.

- MOLLYSIMON

February 18, 2012 at 6:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Aaron, I come from the place where Unitarianism was founded and I don't need a lecture on its belief system or organization." I don't normally leap to the defense of other posters, arnon, but this is just silly. First, to come from a particular location is not prima facie proof of expertise in a particular phenomenon territorially identified with that location. I'm from Ireland originally but there are without doubt several aspects of Irish life and history that I am not expert in. Second, irrespective of his comments on Unitarians' attitude to Israel, Aaron was unaware (as I was) of the region honored by being your place of birth, and he was not delivering "a lecture," he was making a point in an ongoing discussion.

- ironyroad

February 18, 2012 at 6:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

One of the bitter aftereffects of any system of oppression is that the victims generally become as bad or worse than the people who oppressed them in the first place. Scapegoating people is a traditional, widely followed method of making ourselves feel better about our miseries in life. White people oppressed black people (enslaving and raping them and describing them as inferior to rationalize the oppression). When black people got the chance they struck back in events such as the Watts riots (I was in the vicinity, but not harmed) and ""Mau-Mauing the Flak Catchers" (as Tome Wolfe memorably labeled it). But as black people moved up a bit in white society and in some cases gained some economic mobility, it was their turn to pick on somebody. Guess who's left? Sexual minorities. Don't worry. Humans will never run out of people and groups to oppress and scapegoat. It's in our miserable genes. The thing about the Religious Right is that once upon a time (Roman Empire), Christians were (for a while) the main oppressed group. Once they got a taste of power, well, let's burn the heretics, lets kill the (unconverted) Jews, let's drown the witches, let's exterminate the Irish and they aborignes. We're human beings. It's what we do. Gotta love us.

- skahn

February 18, 2012 at 6:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Also, the Unitarian church does not refer to itself as "Christian" and never has. The fact that you refer to it as such suggests that you are more than willing to pontificate on subjects about which you know little." "Unitarian Universalism was formed from the merger in 1961 of two historically Christian denominations, the Universalist Church of America and the American Unitarian Association, both based in the United States. At the time of the North American merger, the theological significance of these terms had expanded beyond the traditional Christian understanding." You know little about its history. Unitarianism is the stepchild of the Christian faith. Why would they need to call themselves Unitarians otherwise? They needed to distinguish themselves from Trinitarian Christianity. That later on many didn't see themselves as Christians anymore makes little difference since that faith left its imprint on Unitarians especially in New England. That some Unitarian group in Australia has its own history and beliefs has no bearing on its history. You yourselves said that Unitarianism comes in different flavors, well here in the Boston area many of its meeting places still have the imprint of its former Christian beliefs. Unitarians called themselves minsters like other Protestant denominations (Ralph waldo Emerson was one such minister who consciously broke away from Christianity and resigned. His Christian faith is all over his essays. TS Eliot, the poet, grew up in a Christian Unitarian home. "T. S. Eliot's grandfather was William Greenleaf Eliot, the midwestern "conservative" Unitarian minister who helped found the First Unitarian Church in St. Louis and Washington University. Another ancestor was Andrew Eliot (18th century) who was a Congregational minister and President of Harvard -- and opponent of Anglicanism."

- arnon

February 18, 2012 at 6:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"I don't normally leap to the defense of other posters, arnon, but this is just silly." This is news to me, Irony. "First, to come from a particular location is not prima facie proof of expertise in a particular phenomenon territorially..." I never said I was an expert on Unitarianism because I come from New England. It just happened that there a number of Unitarian Churches close to where I live. One of them, in fact allows Jews to hold High Holiday services there. Its wall is decorated with "Christian" Psalms put up in the late 18th century. Another Church is being sold because of declining membership. In any case, you can't understand early 19th c American literature unless you know something about Unitarianism. So, I don't know what you babbling about, Irony.

- arnon

February 18, 2012 at 6:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Here are Santorum's words about mailine Protestant churches. They are number two, after the academia, in his list of those who fell before Satan. I lived in the USSR but I never found myself being classified as belonging to a group which is, well... evil? or not quite? http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/santorum-satan-systematically-destroying-america

- harasan

February 18, 2012 at 7:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I wasn't "babbling," I was making a contribution to a discussion. Is it possible for you to actually engage with people while maintaining the minimal courtesy one would observe in face-to-face conversation, arnon? Do you talk to your colleagues that way? Your point about American literature and Unitarianism is perfectly correct, but as Aaron was not discussing American literature, its relevance is a bit distant. I'm pleased we both agree that personal origins do not guarantee any particular areas of abstract knowledge. But "I'm from New England and I know what winters are like" is a perfectly legitimate statement as it's about personal experience.

- ironyroad

February 18, 2012 at 8:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

harasan, I'm in academia, so according to Rick I'm irredeemably satanic. Nice to know there are still a few questions marks over some folks.

- ironyroad

February 18, 2012 at 8:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

“Your point about American literature and Unitarianism is perfectly correct, but as Aaron was not discussing American literature, its relevance is a bit distant.” If you are going to get into an ongoing conversation, Irony, you should read all the relevant posts. I brought up literature because Aaron claimed that I knew nothing about Unitarianism. “I'm pleased we both agree that personal origins do not guarantee any particular areas of abstract knowledge.” I never claimed it did, though Aaron seemed to claim that I didn’t know anything about it because I wasn’t a Unitarian (which I am not). “But "I'm from New England and I know what winters are like" is a perfectly legitimate statement as it's about personal experience.” Thanks for that much of a concession since Unitarianism is part of the weather around here.

- arnon

February 18, 2012 at 8:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

btw: Ironyroad “I wasn't "babbling," I was making a contribution to a discussion. Is it possible for you to actually engage with people while maintaining the minimal courtesy one would observe in face-to-face conversation, arnon? Do you talk to your colleagues that way?” Your original comment to me wasn’t very civil, Irony. 02/18/2012 - 6:44pm EDT | ironyroad “I don't normally leap to the defense of other posters, arnon, but this is just silly.” You also misread what I had said. If you want civility start by offering it.

- arnon

February 18, 2012 at 9:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I am listening to Santorum's sound bite from the link harasan posted. When do the witch burnings start again? According to Wikipedia perhaps the first “dunking” trials to determine if a person was a witch in England took place in 1612. The basic system was the accused was dunked and then brought up and given an opportunity to confess. After a while, the accused witch “confessed” (and was then hanged or burned) or the accused drowned, “proving” he or she was a witch. The phras “Catch-22” dates from a little later, but they certainly had the concept down in England in 1612.. Presumably, someone should bring this method of finding and applying justice to Mr. Santorum. I presume he would find it deeply satisfying, and if he is elected, I am sure he could find a way to apply this logic to our times.

- skahn

February 18, 2012 at 9:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Santorum seems to be running to be the nation's arbiter of correct theology. But what theology does he consider correct? He said today that the Christianity President Obama embraces is a "phony theology" and apparently, from past statements, believes mainstream Protestants are the spawn of Satan. Are "real" Americans ready to embrace such talk? 85 years ago the Klan was burning crosses in my Italian American mother's mostly Catholic immigrant neighborhood. 49 years ago, when I was a young child, shotgun brandishing bigots in a small Georgia town, where my dad was assigned for awhile by the New York based energy company that employed him, surrounded the home we were renting for most of a terrifying night -- as a response to my mother's naive inquiry at the post office that afternoon about the location of the nearest Catholic church. Given that kind of history, I not only can't abide the intolerance he demonstrates toward those with different beliefs, I'm deeply, deeply ashamed of Santorum as a Catholic and as someone with an Italian heritage.

- esmense

February 18, 2012 at 10:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Arnon, I also grew up in Massachusetts and I don't remember Unitarianism being a part of the weather. In fact, my experience was that it was a house of worship that intermarried Christians and Jews could attend b/c Jesus was never prominently mentioned.

- MOLLYSIMON

February 18, 2012 at 10:58pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Your original comment to me wasn’t very civil, Irony." How was it uncivil? I was making a clear effort to distinguish between a comment I thought silly and you, the commentator, whom I don't regard as silly. It's a mild term, and offers the other party the chance to come back and make their point in a more coherent way. That seems to me a difference from "babbling" which implies the person rather than the points made.

- ironyroad

February 18, 2012 at 11:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Actually it seems to me that Santorum's enemy target is the entire history of the United States in the 20th century. Yeah, he should get the nomination. At last, a culture war I can enjoy.

- ironyroad

February 18, 2012 at 11:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

MOLLYSIMON "Arnon, I also grew up in Massachusetts and I don't remember Unitarianism being a part of the weather. " Where did you grow up in the South or North Shore? "In fact, my experience was that it was a house of worship that intermarried Christians and Jews could attend b/c Jesus was never prominently mentioned." Not never, but seldom, that's true. Still, my point was that Unitarianism came out of the Christian tradition. Many of my friends who grew up Christian but are no longer religious embraced Unitarianism because of that history. A few of them even have Jewish spouses. It's from them that I learned about their congregations stance on Israel which they don't support.

- arnon

February 18, 2012 at 11:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You know what, arnon, forget it. Maybe you're right. I don't want to have a tiring argument about intangibles. But I think it doesn't make sense to accuse a fellow TNR poster of delivering a lecture when all he or she is doing is making an extended argument. In a less negative sense, I do lectures occasionally -- sometimes when the students won't respond. It's sort of an emergency mode. But one has to lay out the background too, which they don't know.

- ironyroad

February 18, 2012 at 11:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Santorum is insane, and is doing a bad imitation of an Evangelical. I doubt he will get the nomination and if he does he certainly will not become President. He may look like a worthy replacement for Mitt but once he is nominated he will not look that good to most evangelicals. Romney is actually the only sane candidate running on the Republican side. Newt's hypocrisy makes him almost sane. Peretz omitted to mention in his article that while among the republican front runners two are Catholic no Catholic has been elected President since John Kennedy. That is surely no accident.

- arnon

February 18, 2012 at 11:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

OK, Irony, but what do you make of this? AaronW “Also, the Unitarian church does not refer to itself as "Christian" and never has. The fact that you refer to it as such suggests that you are more than willing to pontificate on subjects about which you know little.”

- arnon

February 18, 2012 at 11:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Unitarianism is like Humanist Judaism. It doesn't speak of a "supreme being but does embrace the Judaic secular tradition: http://www.jewishboston.com/basilevine/blogs/1465-humanistic-judaism-what-we-do

- arnon

February 18, 2012 at 11:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Santorum Questions Education System; Criticizes Obama" http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/19/us/politics/santorum-criticizes-education-system-and-obama.html If hew thinks this will get him elected he is crazier than a June bug in may, or a barn owl.

- arnon

February 18, 2012 at 11:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

My not very religious/not very Jewish parents took me to Unitarian church services a few times as a child. When my wife and I decided to get married (agreeing that neither of us were religious believers), her mother (not very religious, either, but in a more WAPSish way) wanted her daughter to be married in a church. So I said, "Let's get married in a Unitarian Church; it's the least religious church I know of." The preacher, a genial grandfatherly man read from the Bible and Khalil Gibran's The Prophet; aside from being scared to death as a young groom, I thought the service was a charming, sentimental muddle. A few years later my brother was married in the same service. Our daughter, now two years old, toddled around and giggled through my brother's ceremony. My wife and I were mortified, the minister was delighted; nothing made him happier, he said, than small children at a wedding he was conducting. Now that Washington State is lurching toward legalizing homosexual marriage, I expect a wedding invitation one of these days from my daughter and her partner. One of the fathers out of law is a liberal Methodist minister who would be glad to perform the ceremony. Perhaps we will videotape it; perhaps the sperm donor and his partner can be married in a double ceremony. Our eight-year-old granddaughter would love to be a ring girl for all her mommies and daddies; bringing an entire new ring to the phrase "family values." Then we send a copy of the ceremony to Santorum and hope dies of apoplexy. I have a pretty good friend who is a retired New Orleans Police Officer; perhaps we can have him provide security and if evangelicals/fundamentalist drop in, his instructions would be to fire first and ask questions later. Well my daughter and her partner are pretty pacifistic people, so I guess he would just have to catch them in a net. We have coyotes living near our house; as they can't get to our electric-fenced chickens, they are probably hungry. I doubt they would turn up their snouts at fresh fundamentalist carrion.

- skahn

February 19, 2012 at 12:43am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I am an atheist and a materialist - a materialist not in the sense that I am addicted to shopping but in that sense I believe that empirical science trumps stories of supernatural beings as as way to arrive at the truth about the world (to the extent that we can arrive at the truth.) Why then am I prepared to vote for Rick Santorum if he is nominated? Because he and his working class/lower middle class followers believe that classical liberalism, with modern modifications to accommodate a minimal social safety net, is more likely to produce human flourishing and happiness than is European style social-democracy/technocracy. This view they share with most of the great thinkers of the Anglo-American political tradition, among them the founding fathers of this nation. Like most Americans I disagree with with Rick Santorum's extreme views on abortion. But the good news is that if he is elected president he won't be able to impose those views on the country, for the simple reason that he will be president, not dictator. By contrast another term of Obama and we will lose many of Constitutional liberties, and the country will continue to move along the road to statism. President Washington said that only "very fine minds" can be moral without believing in religion. Well, apparently most minds aren't very fine because most people believe that religion is necessary for both public and private morality. Whatever I think about that, I hope that the majority that believes that religion is necessary for morality will continue to be religious. Don't you?

- bulbman1066

February 19, 2012 at 12:55am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"OK, Irony, but what do you make of this? 'AaronW: Also, the Unitarian church does not refer to itself as "Christian" and never has. The fact that you refer to it as such suggests that you are more than willing to pontificate on subjects about which you know little.'" Yeah. It is a bit truculent on Aaron's part, and definitely historically at sea. But the topic isn't a simple one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarianism Some of the key terms of Unitarian thinking can be read in different ways.

- ironyroad

February 19, 2012 at 12:56am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Like most Americans I disagree with with Rick Santorum's extreme views on abortion. But the good news is that if he is elected president he won't be able to impose those views on the country, for the simple reason that he will be president, not dictator." Bulbman, every demagogue who was elected into office (as opposed to carrying out a coup) was elected by people who thought that he would never carry out his most extreme views. I am as worried about Santorum Opus Dei like views of public education being "evil" and "un Christian" as I am of his views on abortion. I still expect that a large majority of Americans once they are told what he believes and stands for will reject him.

- arnon

February 19, 2012 at 1:04am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Some of the key terms of Unitarian thinking can be read in different ways." Key term: unitarian reading one: one who doesn't believe in the Christian trinity. reading two: one who doesn't believe in "the father, the son, and the holy ghost." reading three: one who believes in there is no god but god. reading four: one who believes in shema Israel adonay eloheynu adonay echad. reading five: one who believes there is no god...sorry that would be an anti-tarian for short. reading six......feel i the blank reading seven.....time to rest....

- arnon

February 19, 2012 at 1:10am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I forgot to mention that I saw a a cayote in Lexington tonight. I wanted to call up Herman Melville and ask him what it and unitarianism meant. Than I remembered the great man with "kings and counselors."

- arnon

February 19, 2012 at 1:14am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Irony, just read an interesting story about Charlie Chapman who might have originated among the "travellers." Would that make him Irish or part Irish? "MI5 files: Was Chaplin really a Frenchman and called Thornstein? MI5 investigated whether Charlie Chaplin was actually a Frenchman called Israel Thornstein, previously secret files on the Hollywood film star have revealed." YOu have to get to the bottom of the story before they mention the Travellers (Irish or British Gypsies). http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/9086510/MI5-files-Was-Chaplin-really-a-Frenchman-and-called-Thornstein.html

- arnon

February 19, 2012 at 1:26am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Past my bad time.

- arnon

February 19, 2012 at 1:26am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Truculent? I'd say my comment was measured and directly to the point. Arnon claimed that because he grew up in New England he had nothing to learn about Unitarianism, and then almost in the same sentence referred to it as "the Unitarian Christian church", evidence that in fact he has much to learn. Does arnon realize that the term "Unitarian" refers to the unity of God, i.e. to denial of the trinity and hence denial of the divinity of Jesus? The Congregational Church out of which Unitarianism arose was Christian, but the doctrinal division that led to the separation of Unitarians from the Congregationalists was specifically this question of the divinity of Christ. To return to the point about the UUA and Israel, that quote you found was from a 10 year old position statement by the then president of the UUA. It called for a peace agreement and a two-state solution, an end to settlements in the Occupied Territories, an end to Palestinian attacks on civilians, and adherence to international law by both sides. The most controversial portion was the bit you quoted, calling on the US to end arms transfers to Israel. The statement did not call for Israel to relinquish its right to self-defense, nor did it demand a Palestinian right of return, nor did it question Israel's right to lands within its 1967 borders. Also it must be born in mind that this was a statement by the named individual president of the UUA, and no member of the church at any level was or is required to endorse his statement or any part of it. Unitarians are often, but not universally pacifist in outlook--my late father, a Unitarian as I said, supported both the Vietnam War and the 2003 Iraq War. If the fact that a decade ago a UUA president made a statement regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that is in line with his generally pacifist principles means that the entire denomination is in your eyes ideologically suspect, I don't think we have grounds for further discussion.

- AaronW

February 19, 2012 at 3:48am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

only a Peretz post musing about the influence of the "Christian Right" could spawn such an interesting comment thread about Unitarianism, which, from what I know, is NOT part of the "Christian Right" in America, circa 2012. Possibly a secret hotbed of Ron Paul supporters are Unitarians :) Guess this is the result of almost 300 years (1620-1920) of a huge beautiful landmass being populated by religious and political dissenters from every nook and cranny of Europe. Quite a sociological experiment - and how we got that "Christian Right". bulbman raises a really important point. After 2004, I finally moved the abortion issue via SCOTUS nominations out of consideration when I vote because the debt, and then, in 2008, foreign worldview, became more important issues for me. However, the more I know about Santorum, and, worse, the "Christian Right" war against a woman's right to privacy, I can not vote for him, even as a protest vote in NYC. The dilemma is that I resent that, what remains of the Democratic Party - no Blue Dog fiscal conservatives will remain after 2012 due to so many 2010 losses and retirements - is using "protecting women's reproductive rights" as being more important than solvency. btw, Santorum's big weakness is that he is suspect on being a true fiscal conservative, which continues to be the key driver in the messy GOP process. Too bad so many social conservatives gave Santorum his ticket out of Iowa, and that Romney's ego has distorted the entire contest. If Romney had decided to do something useful the past five years, America would not be having a year long seizure over finding a NOTRomney to run in 2012. I add that, if there was no PPACA aka Obamacare, or Dodd-Frank, the economy would be growing faster, and this partisan death-grip would perhaps be about issues that define the role of government, and how to manage a multi-hegemon globalization.

- K2K

February 19, 2012 at 8:41am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Joseph Stiglitz , economist, professor at Columbia University, Noble prize winner. Obama, Congress, Bernanke should listen to him. http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/2012/01/stiglitz-depression-201201

- JAIMECHUCH

February 19, 2012 at 10:21am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

AaronW: “Does arnon realize that the term "Unitarian" refers to the unity of God, i.e. to denial of the trinity and hence denial of the divinity of Jesus? The Congregational Church out of which Unitarianism arose was Christian, but the doctrinal division that led to the separation of Unitarians from the Congregationalists was specifically this question of the divinity of Christ.” I discussed this point above. I said that the very term Unitarian refers to a denial of the trinity and signaled the origin of the Unitarians in Christianity. It isn’t true, though, that Unitarians necessarily denied the divinity of Jesus though some did. There is a long history in Christianity of sects like Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormonism and many others. Hence the comment that its denial means that Unitarianism didn’t consider themselves Christians is false. Santorum, of course, would agree with you that a denial of the trinity is a denial of Christianity. I never said, btw, that I had nothing to learn about Unitarianism or any other subject. You made this up just as you make up a lot of comments and positions out of whole cloth when you argued with me in the past. You are right about one thing, though, there is no point in arguing with you. Truculent? I'd say my comment was measured and directly to the point. Arnon claimed that because he grew up in New England he had nothing to learn about Unitarianism, and then almost in the same sentence referred to it as "the Unitarian Christian church", evidence that in fact he has much to learn. Does arnon realize that the term "Unitarian" refers to the unity of God, i.e. to denial of the trinity and hence denial of the divinity of Jesus? The Congregational Church out of which Unitarianism arose was Christian, but the doctrinal division that led to the separation of Unitarians from the Congregationalists was specifically this question of the divinity of Christ. To return to the point about the UUA and Israel, that quote you found was from a 10 year old position statement by the then president of the UUA. It called for a peace agreement and a two-state solution, an end to settlements in the Occupied Territories, an end to Palestinian attacks on civilians, and adherence to international law by both sides. The most controversial portion was the bit you quoted, calling on the US to end arms transfers to Israel. The statement did not call for Israel to relinquish its right to self-defense, nor did it demand a Palestinian right of return, nor did it question Israel's right to lands within its 1967 borders. Also it must be born in mind that this was a statement by the named individual president of the UUA, and no member of the church at any level was or is required to endorse his statement or any part of it. Unitarians are often, but not universally pacifist in outlook--my late father, a Unitarian as I said, supported both the Vietnam War and the 2003 Iraq War. If the fact that a decade ago a UUA president made a statement regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that is in line with his generally pacifist principles means that the entire denomination is in your eyes ideologically suspect, I don't think we have grounds for further

- arnon

February 19, 2012 at 11:02am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Aaron: “To return to the point about the UUA and Israel, that quote you found was from a 10 year old position statement by the then president of the UUA. It called for a peace agreement and a two-state solution, an end to settlements in the Occupied Territories, an end to Palestinian attacks on civilians, and adherence to international law by both sides. The most controversial portion was the bit you quoted, calling on the US to end arms transfers to Israel.” Hardly ten years old since they asked you to join them in 2011: “Join us on our 2011 UUJME Human Rights Trip to Israel/Palestine, July 16-27!” “Unitarian Universalist Service Committee Establishes Gaza Humanitarian Relief Fund.” http://www.uujme.org/home/ They also stated that: “UUJME endorses Jewish Voice for Peace's TIAA-CREF divestment initiative.” Like many antisemitic groups these days, they use some “Jewish group” out on left field to cover up their own antisemitic bias. It used to be some of my best friends are…. Today it’s some of my favorite “Jews” endorse my anti-Jewish bias. Ergo, I am not anti-Jew.

- arnon

February 19, 2012 at 11:17am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

bulbman, You finally revealed where you're coming from. You're an atheist/materialist who's terrified of creeping statism. You're a worshiper of Ayn Rand. As Gomer Pyle would say, "Surprise, surprise!" Remember, Objectivism (which is really subjectivism--I is God) is not only a religion, but a cult. You either believe everything the Most Holy Mother says, or you're out. And if you vote for the religious-extremist Santorum, you're out. And don't think Santorum can't impose some of his religious beliefs on Americans behind the scenes. G.W. Bush did it. He increased government funding (taxpayer dollars) to churches dramatically, because Republicans believe charity should be private. How government funding makes charity private I don't know. But it does make church folks more likely to vote Republican, especially since Obama declared war on religion (uh-huh). "...I hope that the majority that believes that religion is necessary for morality will continue to be religious. Don't you?" No, I don't, bulbman. Islamists believe that a woman covering everything but her eyes is moral--and if she doesn't burka up, she can be beaten and/or killed. Ralph Reed of the Christian Coalition bragged about bringing his political enemies home in body bags. When you get down to actual religious dogma and practices, religion is not all that moral. The history of religion-inspired massacres will tell you that. So you would vote for a guy, Santorum, who called the aspirin-between-the-legs comment a joke? Does your guy also think a coat hanger in an alley is a joke? Do you? An aside here. You talk a lot about America's Anglo-Saxon political heritage, and yet your handle has 1066 in it. I hope that doesn't connote the Norman conquest of England. Those French, you know, they're so EUROPEAN.

- magboy47.

February 19, 2012 at 1:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Aaron, the first five words of the wikipedia entry on Unitarianism that I posted earlier are "Unitarianism is a Christian theological movement" Assuming that the entry has not been written by people trying to subvert Unitarianism's identity, I take it that there are at least (as I noted earlier) some nuances in and around this topic that might give one pause before dashing headlong in. arnon, I'd heard that story about Chaplin before (or rather, the b/c part of it) but from what I've read I don't think the connection the writer is sketching is to Irish Traveling people, or Tinkers, but to English Romanies (via his father). Irish Travellers are ethnically Irish, and have no origins in the Roma people.

- ironyroad

February 19, 2012 at 1:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

How influential is the Christian Right? Hmmm.... Jerry Falwell is dead, and Billy Graham on life-support, and Pat Robertson's Republican Primary campaign is 24 years into the rear-view mirror. There really hasn't been anyone since those 3 licked up the dust in the 1980's. Those men were in their 50's then with large followings that they could rally and bring resources into a political campaign. But they were fighting a lot of issues beyond politics. Primarily a southern institution, these Preachers were aligned with some prominent politicians who had seen the soutern issues ignored for years. Strom Thurmond & Jesse Helms railed against the Federeal Government and it's intrusions into State's Rights and the ability of these states to defend their way of life. Today's politicans lack the independence of a Strom Thrumond or Jesse Hlems to openly align themselves with any religous group. Imagine someone like Joe Biden openly agreeing with his Catholic Church, that just won't happen. These politicans these days believe they are above religion. Passing the plate for $5 Bills? They get a lot more from shaking down the local businesses. And I think the churches got smarter. They learned a lot from the 1960's when they were so famously wrong. They have become Cafeteria Party Members, picking up on the Republican Anti-Abortion issue, but looking for Demodcatic funding of their mission. Their criticism have become more specific and less emotional than in the past. But I would not dismiss these institutions or pick any fights with them. Thre are few institutions the public has left to voice their concerns and the church is in better shape than others. Perhaps they will gather their resources into a Superpac and select an issue to flex a little muscle in a timely fashion. Hmmm... A Labor Day ad blitz on healthcare to explain the issues to the Believers. Maybe a critical reading of the Budget and the impact on our lives. The Religous Right was from an era of Network Television and Big Daily newspapers. Today with the Internet and targeted advertisements on cable TV and the Internet, these large umbrella organizations just don't communicate the same way. I was a little amused this weekend by the 4 hour funeral service for Whitney Houston. Four hours of Homesending Gospel Time Entertainment on CNN, MSNBC & Others. They knew how to send Whitney home, but they never spoke out against her vices. Her Bodyguard had more good sense than these Preachers. Perhaps these churches are more about entertainment than morality.

- CRS9TNR

February 19, 2012 at 1:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"arnon, I'd heard that story about Chaplin before (or rather, the b/c part of it) but from what I've read I don't think the connection the writer is sketching is to Irish Traveling people, or Tinkers, but to English Romanies (via his father). Irish Travellers are ethnically Irish, and have no origins in the Roma people." I am told that there are Travelers in Great Britain that are distinct from both Gypsies and presumable Irish Travelers. Though some inter-mixture is not out of the question. Do you know anything about that? As for Chaplain I think he belongs to no one, he is sui generis, his own identity and ethnicity. His people are the character he portrayed.

- arnon

February 19, 2012 at 1:36pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I could be wrong but my guess is that that use of "Traveler" describes a sort of voluntary post-hippie "commune-on-the-move" phenomenon that you can find in the UK and Ireland and sometimes at odd places in Europe. There are people who move around from music festival to music festival during the summer and who make a living selling stuff, and groups like those have been also very active in some of the big environmental/development struggles in Britain, in particular the extended protests in the 1990s over building new highways through forests and areas of natural beauty.

- ironyroad

February 19, 2012 at 1:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Talking about Christians that hate Jews. We have the church of England http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4191509,00.html There are 80 million strong worldwide. Queen of England belongs.

- JAIMECHUCH

February 19, 2012 at 4:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

According to the archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, there is good and bad imperialism. Guess which is good and which is bad. Nothing new in Meotti's article. At least not to me: http://brockley.blogspot.com/2007/11/rowan-williams-on-good-and-bad.html As Martin Amis said: "... when you come up against this question, you can feel the intelligence and balance leaving the hall with a shriek, and people getting into this endocrinal state about Israel. I just don’t understand it. The Jews have a much, much worse history than the Palestinians, and in living memory. But there’s just no impulse of sympathy for that . . . I know we’re supposed to be grown up about it and not fling around accusations of anti-Semitism, but I don’t see any other explanation. It’s a secularised anti-Semitism."

- noga1

February 19, 2012 at 5:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

ironyroad, 1) You're quoting wikipedia to support your position. 2) UUism can be a "Christian theological movement" insomuch as it arose out of and bears many structural and cultural similarities to Protestant Christianity, without it being a "Christian church", which was the characterization that sparked this debate. 3) If a belief in the divinity of Jesus and the saving grace of the crucifixion defines being a Christian, then essentially no present-day Unitarians, clergy included, would identify themselves as such.

- AaronW

February 19, 2012 at 6:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I don't have a position, Aaron, other than saying that the very points you are quoting might lead one to favor a bit of nuance above flat declarations. The adjective "Christian" can be explained as you do above under 2) but it doesn't remove the word (or neutralize its ordinary meaning) from the sentence. In any case, that's about what I have to say on an issue more to do with rhetoric than anything else. I'm not trying to change anyone's opinion on Unitarianism, so I'll just let my previous comments stand for what they are worth.

- ironyroad

February 19, 2012 at 6:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Arnon - Thanks for the link on Chaplin. Very interesting and will keep me busy for a few days. I knew he was significant and interesting. I had no idea he was British or potentially Gypsy. Side note, My Great-Grandparents had a picture of relatives in front what looked like a Gypsie Wagon with Animals and Violins and peasant clothing. I made the mistake of asking my Grandmother if they were Gypsies. Heavens No, how could I say such an awful thing.

- CRS9TNR

February 19, 2012 at 6:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"If a belief in the divinity of Jesus and the saving grace of the crucifixion defines being a Christian, then essentially no present-day Unitarians, clergy included, would identify themselves as such." I have not doubt that most Unitarians are skeptics when it comes to religion but the above formula sounds like hyperbole. To say that no Unitarian would believe X is to say that if one does believe X one is not a "real Unitarian." iI am sure some Unitarians are as conflicted about religion as are some Jews (like Martin Peretz, btw) or mainstream Christians. Some are like Unamunos' San Manuel Bueno, mártir in reverse. Aaron is proof that any system of thought introduced to counter bigotry and orthodoxy can itself become a vehicle for orthodoxy and bigotry.

- arnon

February 19, 2012 at 7:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Malahat, I agree the man is the myth. And, CRS9TNR, you are most welcome.

- arnon

February 19, 2012 at 7:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

A bit of nostalgia. In TNR 1990's Bill Clinton was USA President. After Israel's Rabin was assassinated Bibi Netanyauh became Prime Minister of Israel. The liberal media demonized Bibi. Bill Clinton was nasty to Bibi. While at the same time treated Arafat with a golden glove. Arafat had a revolving door visiting the White House more than any other foreign visitor. Madeleine Albright, the Secretary of State, cooked lunch for Arafat, a vegetarian, as food goes. The Christian right, the late Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, were powerful, they demonized Bill Clinton. Bibi came for a USA visit, and met with Jerry Falwell among others, before meeting Bill Clinton. When they finally met, Bill Clinton told Bibi why do you meet with those people, don't you know what they are saying about me? Eventually Bibi was defeated on an election bid, partly was his strained Bill Clinton relations, partly there were economic problems in Israel. Bill Clinton and the liberal media (New York Times) gloated in their triumph. Move forward to present. Bibi is Israel's Prime Minister, Obama gets elected USA President. The liberal media demonizes Netanyauh , Obama is nasty towards Bibi, nasty towards Israel, goes to Cairo makes a speech, "I am one of yours look at my middle name Hussein". Obama ignores Israel. Israelis got pissed off. Obama is not popular in Israel. In the meantime Netanyauh becomes quite popular in Israel, and in the USA Congress. The liberal media reacts with much venom, Obama/Hillary Clinton failed into trying to chase out Bibi. And to show his failed vendetta , Bill Clinton declared a few months ago that failure to reach peace with the Palestinians is the fault of Netanyauh. And to quote ironyroad "it is a lie".

- JAIMECHUCH

February 20, 2012 at 5:12am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

JAIMECHUCH: A good comment. You forgot to mention that Clinton sent his own trusted friend and adviser, James Carville, to help coordinate Ehud Barak's campaign against Netanyahu in 2001. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Carville#Political_and_media_work When presidents state something, even if is a lie, their supporters will go out of their way to prove the lie a truth. and no matter what or who gets sacrificed in the process. Decency cannot really be expected to be a major value in politics. When Obama was caught schmoozing with the French president in bad mouthing Netanyahu, the American media and some posters around here were not embarrassed one little bit by this gaff. It is only to be expected, they gushed sympathetically. At least Sarkozy had the grace to blush, diplomatically. Not so President Obama who never makes mistakes and whose statements are always the unvarnished truth.

- noga1

February 20, 2012 at 6:48am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Quotes noga, "The Jews have a much, much worse history than the Palestinians, and in living memory. But there’s just no impulse of sympathy for that . . . I know we’re supposed to be grown up about it and not fling around accusations of anti-Semitism, but I don’t see any other explanation. It’s a secularised anti-Semitism." As the sun rises, eventually in any discussion, noga will get around to attributing criticism of Israel to anti-Semitism. However, even if the accusation were true, it does nothing to justify Israel colonizing the Palestinians in violation of international law and thereby making peace, if not impossible, vastly more difficult. After all, what people in history has happily allowed itself to be colonized without anger and violent resistance? One wonders, too, for just how long the history of the Jews is supposed to give Israel license to violate the human rights of the Palestinians, one generation, two, or is it forever? Does a reasonable person expect that this will conduce toward peace? No matter, Israel is not actually interested in any peace that does not legitimize its colonization of the Palestinians and fantasizes that it has sufficient power to maintain its little corner of hegemony indefinitely. That the power is borrowed from the United States seems to trouble few there, least of all Netanyahu. We can be grateful though that in Benjamin Netanyahu we have an honest politician with the grace to be diplomatically embarrassed by his considerable number of gaffes. He is a light unto the diplomatic world. Or, it may be that, no matter how preposterous and grave his errors and falsehoods, his supporters will always rise to his defense, and do their best to point our attention in some other direction. Anti-Semitism perhaps? ____________________ It is a perverse tribute to the dementia of Martin Peretz that hardly anyone can bear to talk about what he writes. Of course, it doesn't bear discussion. The ravings of a madman.

- roidubouloi

February 20, 2012 at 9:24am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

roidubloi. Here is the connection between hatred of Jews and hatred of Israel http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4191509,00.html I posted it early but you did not read it or ignored. However you have been reporting continuously the canard of "illegality of Israel holding to the liberated territories ". They were liberated when Israel defended itself from attacks by Egypt, Syria, Jordan. They belong to Israel fair and square. And you will burn yourself forever for it. Yes you are a virulent anti-Israel. Yes you are an anti-Semite . Yes you are a failed old man. Yes you are pedantic lost in the wilderness of your hatred. And to quote your own "fuck you damn old bastard" go and throw your vile where it belongs in the bathroom.

- JAIMECHUCH

February 20, 2012 at 10:06am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

roidubloi If Martin Peretz is demented what are you. If you demonize Netanyauh what are you. If you demonize Israel what are you. If you demonize the Jews what are you. Just a plain mediocre old man. Full of hatred. And virulent at that. roidubloi you are the street du stinking baloney. Follow ironyroad take your meds and go to sleep you old fart, and stinking at that.

- JAIMECHUCH

February 20, 2012 at 10:16am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

And here you are for the pro Israel crowd to celebrate and for the anti israel gangs to increase their hatred. Israel as the best place to invest http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-19/israel-safest-as-stock-investors-discount-threat-of-war.html Eat your guts mediocre roidubloi street du stinking baloney .

- JAIMECHUCH

February 20, 2012 at 11:23am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"President Obama who never makes mistakes and whose statements are always the unvarnished truth." ???? Another straw man. I know of no --- that is, not a single one -- poster on these boards who maintains such a childish position.

- ironyroad

February 20, 2012 at 11:52am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"No matter, Israel is not actually interested in any peace that does not legitimize its colonization of the Palestinians " You are correct. Here is Prof. AbuKhalil on the same issue: "3) Finkelstein keeps talking about the “law” and how international law supports the state of Israel. But Finkelstein talks about law as if it is fixed. Law changes and adapts quickly to changing conditions on the ground. At one point, international law supported colonialism and the League of Nations endorsed (in its preamble) the Balfour Declaration and the “trusteeship” over nations – all that in the name of self-determination. Finkelstein even invokes the International Court of Justice in the Hague. But if oppressed people in the world resorted to International law in their struggle for independence and freedom, more than half of the globe would still be under colonial rule. I am glad that Finkelstein was not around to advise the people of Africa on how to achieve their freedom through international law. Plus, there are elements of international law which are in favor of what Finkelstein fears: the UN Partition Plan (as unjust as it was) does not give Israel more than 56% of historic Palestine and it does provide for the establishment of a Palestinian state over much more than the West Bank and Gaza. Is that not international law too Finkelstein? Furthermore, the UN General Assembly resolution 194 is also a part of international law that guides Finkelstein’s views on finding a solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict. And the UN Partition Plan does not permit Israel to discriminate, confiscate lands, expel peoples, and commit war crimes. These essential ingredients of the state of Israel are not part of international law." And here is a comment to his article: "To me, you either support the dismantlement of the state of israel or your an enemy to justice. Its as simple as that. Anything else is hypocrisy. How can you be against settlements in the occupied westbank of palestine while support settlements in the occupied galilee of palestine, or in yafa or anywhere else in palestine? The biggest settlement does not lie in the westbank, it lies in yafa and is called tel aviv."

- noga1

February 20, 2012 at 12:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

ironyroad: "Another straw man" Another? What straw man is that, btw? When did you ever admit that Obama made any mistake about Israel*? As far as I recall, you are always ready with your "explanations' about how poor Obama had no choice vis a vis the ugly mean bear Netanyahu. Did you feel the slightest bit of discomfiture when he was caught gossiping about Netanyahu like some disgruntled employee enjoying a shared contempt with another about the evil boss? _________ * Yes, there is that one that sticks out: that he did not go to Jerusalem to address the Israeli people. You could only admit a "mistake" about something he did not do. Can it be a mistake, not to do something? The same view being shared by the likes of Brzeinski, you will excuse me if I don't consider it all that significant.

- noga1

February 20, 2012 at 12:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

ironyroad. You should stick to correct my spelling. About posters supporting Obama's equivocating none existent in this site (or is it on this site?). Well you may be ignore my posters just like K2K. In French they say tampy (too bad) . Again in public Obama is nasty towards Israel. Has to be nice to the Hussein middle name admirers. Btw the Muslims did not buy it. Mistrust of BHO is at all time high. However we have it from Ehud Barak, Israel's defense minister that BHO has been Israel's friendliest USA President ever. Btw in the old good days, when Barak was Israel's Prime Minister, the New York Times always referred to Barak ,As the most decorated Israeli soldier ever. I wonder what the NYT says lately, Now that the most adamant member of Netanyauh's cabinet wants to bomb Iran to stop it's nuclearization.

- JAIMECHUCH

February 20, 2012 at 1:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

ironyroad Where have you been lately and ignore Obama's favorite confidant Erdogan the Islamist president of Turkey, and a vile opponent of Israel. And where have you been when the dynamic duo Obama/Hillary Clinton said to the world that Syrian Bashar al Assad was going to be a reformer. Then the duo took time to condemn the Syrian massacre. And now they have been meek in their condemnation. Definitely ironyroad stick to correcting grammar .

- JAIMECHUCH

February 20, 2012 at 1:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

ironyroad Where have you been lately and ignore Obama's favorite confidant Erdogan the Islamist president of Turkey, and a vile opponent of Israel. And where have you been when the dynamic duo Obama/Hillary Clinton said to the world that Syrian Bashar al Assad was going to be a reformer. Then the duo took time to condemn the Syrian massacre. And now they have been meek in their condemnation. Definitely ironyroad stick to correcting grammar .

- JAIMECHUCH

February 20, 2012 at 1:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jaime, give it a rest. Noga, am I being patronizing if I point out that the meaning of "Obama never made a mistake" and the meaning of "Obama never made a mistake about Israel" are not identical? I was responding to the former comment, which is what you posted. You will forgive me not considering significant what other people do or don't consider significant. Especially when some of them considered something significant up until the moment they discovered I considered it significant too. And yes, it can be a mistake not to do something. It's called an error of omission, as opposed to an error of commission.

- ironyroad

February 20, 2012 at 1:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Well, well, well. At long last the public admission by noga that all of Israel's professed longing for peace is in fact subordinate to its greed for land in the West Bank. Since you are not a politician, who must perforce be dishonest, noga, perhaps you will also now acknowledge that the Palestinians have been right about Israel for years; its professions that the settlements were not a violation of international law because impermanent, able to be removed in exchange for peace, were (apart from being wrong on the law) a lie. Israel will be able to sustain its illegal position exactly as long as the United States enables it to do so and not a moment longer. We shall see when the day of reckoning comes and at what cost for Israel and for the rest of us. ___________________ You are as demented as Peretz, Jaime. Not worth bothering with.

- roidubouloi

February 20, 2012 at 1:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Obama's only mistake regarding Israel was not being prepared to follow through and force Netanyahu to give him what he wanted, suspension of settlement construction. If he wasn't willing to do so, he should never have picked the public fight. Other than Obama's failure to be more forceful with Israel, I have no criticism of his policies in the Middle East, including his unwillingness to leap to war with Iran because Israelis, or some of them, feel threatened, or to intervene in Syria, god knows what else that the usual right wingnuts want. The United States has no need to maintain the high public opinion of Israel and Israelis as Israel is utterly dependent on the goodwill of the United States. We are the patron. Israel is the client. It is, therefore, quite the opposite. Given the rather limited energy that Israel devotes to maintaining our goodwill, I have no idea why we should be the slightest bit concerned about Israel's opinion of us or of Obama. I'm not.

- roidubouloi

February 20, 2012 at 2:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

ironyroad Are we going to dwell about semantics on the behavior of a shrewd politician like Obama who uses maladroit demonization of Israel and of Netanyauh thinking he has a free hand because the leftists, including self hatred Jews, use the same tactics. BHO should know better, this is bigotry in high scale when the President of the USA takes this approach. He has been sleeping for too long a time with Islamist Erdogan endorsing anti Israel vitriolic . Under the circumstances BHO can be demonized accordingly, he does not respect he should not be respected. You should be answering to roidubloi anti Israel anti Semitic postings, what is wrong with you? By the same token, K2K should have confronted Triston and his anti USA Israel coalition madness, and his condoning of Muslims massacring Muslims. These vermin's do not deserve to be treated diplomatically, they are blunt enemies, and we should challenge them. It has gotten out of hand the free unjust demonization of Israel. The same for attacks against Netanyauh , the same for attacks against Martin Peretz.

- JAIMECHUCH

February 20, 2012 at 2:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

roidubloi And olde mediocre failure lacking intelligence. He repeats and repeats his old canard of the liberated territories. This old vermin should learn new tricks. But his brain is unable to function any longer. It was gone a long time. You are right you are a waste of time. The only thing remaining in this poor fellow is anti Israel anti Jewish hatred. I am sure his personal nurse do the typing, while cleaning his privy. roidubloi. Street du stinging baloney.

- JAIMECHUCH

February 20, 2012 at 2:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I can honestly report that this is the first time I have taken pleasure in being called an anti-Semite. It is important in life not only to make the right friends, but the right enemies. I'm having a very good day.

- roidubouloi

February 20, 2012 at 2:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Here old street du stinky baloney ,roidubloi http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-19/israel-safest-as-stock-investors-discount-threat-of-war.html I posted this before , have your nurse read it to you. Don't worry I will teach you new info.

- JAIMECHUCH

February 20, 2012 at 2:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Excerpted from that "old canard, Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949. Part III : Status and treatment of protected persons #Section III : Occupied territories ARTICLE 49 . . . The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies. ____________________ Among the signatories on 12 August 1949, the State of Israel.

- roidubouloi

February 20, 2012 at 2:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You are a delight, Jaime, truly. I don't know where else on the internet it is possible to have such fun.

- roidubouloi

February 20, 2012 at 2:34pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

roidubloi. (Street du stinky baloney.) I understand you are an old neglected ,except your nurse, jackass. I am giving you inordinate attention. If you have not realized up to now being anti Israel and anti Jew, confirms your brain is gone. Although denials come with brain damage. And now back to your song and dance, ...the liberated territories la la la la la la la. Correction you are an old camel's ass. Good I am keeping you awake. The liberated territories. La la la la la la la

- JAIMECHUCH

February 20, 2012 at 2:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

roidubloi (street du stinky baloney) And all for free Liberated territories. La la la la la la la

- JAIMECHUCH

February 20, 2012 at 2:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

roidubouloi Did you really pay 2,700 francs a month for the apartment which doesn't include utilities/Internet. But is close to the champs elyses http://www.book-a-flat.com/en/apartment-paris-450.html Although you use roi (king) instead of rue (street) Voila the king of camel manure will now sing the liberated territories song and dance Liberated territories .la la la la la la la

- JAIMECHUCH

February 20, 2012 at 2:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Well, well, well. At long last the public admission by noga that all of Israel's professed longing for peace is in fact subordinate to its greed for land in the West Bank. " Yawn. Big yawn. ________ Ironyroad: Thanks for the lesson. I humbly submit that I forgot to add those two little words ("about Israel") and which nobody would even guess given my record here criticizing Obama on all his other policies, of course. And btw, I think JAIMECHUCH and roisubouloi are well matched. What a swinging tango this duo can dance together!

- noga1

February 20, 2012 at 3:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

He's your pal, noga, not mine. Which makes perfect sense. You are almost mirror images of one another, saying essentially the same thing in different language. You are just somewhat better compensated, hence dangerous in way that Jaime is not. Coming from him, the pathology is clear. In your case, one has to observe for a while. Then it is clear.

- roidubouloi

February 20, 2012 at 3:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

By the way, never heard another word from you after you were caught lying, yet again, that time on the subject of the arrest and prosecution of haredi rioters.

- roidubouloi

February 20, 2012 at 3:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It is a lovely area, Jaime, the 1st Arrondissement, although not that close to the Champs Elysées. If you stroll down la rue du Bouloi a short distance, you can walk straight into the court carré of the Louvre.

- roidubouloi

February 20, 2012 at 3:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

noga1 oi bei you misspelled roidubouloi I wonder if at your old age you still consider yourself a Venus . You still have some of your wits. But do me a favor put down your grandchildren stop being an arrogant scheister. Remember at your age you can not be a JAP anymore. Not even a JIP. roidubouloi you are no roi just an arrogant camel ass. but I succeeded in stoping you from dealing and dealing about the liberated territories.

- JAIMECHUCH

February 20, 2012 at 3:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

roi: You have established your reputation here as a mob inciter and slanderer. Where exactly did I get caught lying about Haredis being arrested, ya schmuck? This I found after a two-second googling: http://failedmessiah.typepad.com/failed_messiahcom/2011/12/300-haredim-riot-attack-cops-234.html http://www.jta.org/news/article/2012/01/24/3091325/woman-assaulted-by-haredi-men-in-beit-shemesh http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=251347

- noga1

February 20, 2012 at 3:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

http://www.jta.org/news/article/2012/01/24/3091325/woman-assaulted-by-haredi-men-in-beit-shemesh http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=251347

- noga1

February 20, 2012 at 3:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

That's the spirit, noga! Give us your inner Jaime. According to you "all the spitters and rioters" were arrested. News accounts reported hundreds of rioters in multiple incidents and, literally, arrests of two, three, or four. I suppose you weren't really lying in the sense that you knew the facts and were reporting falsely. More typical for you is that you don't know the facts and simply fabricated whatever you think you need to make your point. I should have said "caught fabricating" again. So noga. Since you are lately of a mind to admit that which you have consistently denied, would you also like to acknowledge that the zeal of the Netanyahu government in pursuing haredi and rightwing extremist lawbreakers leaves something to be desired? I do understand that no matter what Netanyahu says or does, the lies he tells, that you are almost certainly going to rise to his defense and accuse someone somewhere of anti-Semitism, because you informed us up above that that's what fanatical supporters like you do. But you did let your propaganda veil slip briefly there. Could this be the start of something new? Living in the real world?

- roidubouloi

February 20, 2012 at 3:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

roidubouloi I had a scholarship to France in 1959. Stayed mainly in Lyons and Toulouse , catalysis and applied chemistry. But I visited Paris about five times. A lovely city. Disappointed with the metro and antisemitic writings on the walls. It was the time when de Gaulle was disengaging from Algeria. It was the time when Israel got all their planes from France the mirages. When Israel had the blitz in 1967, and liberated the territories and Jerusalem. De Gaulle was infuriated, may be jealousy, and cut off cooperation with Israel. Which produced the new alliance USA Israel. Well de Gaulle died in 1970 or so, fat of a heart attack while watching tv. However the French never came back to good friendship with Israel. Btw nuclear technology was the product of French Israel cooperation. The CEO of the mirage airplanes was Jewish. Those were the old days.

- JAIMECHUCH

February 20, 2012 at 3:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I see you found one of those news accounts yourself, after you took the few seconds it takes to find one. 300 haredi rioters, two, not three, arrested.

- roidubouloi

February 20, 2012 at 3:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Keep babbling, Jaime. You are a delight. People like noga do their best to hide their pathology. You lay it all out there. It's terrific not to have to parse copious, vaguely rational sounding bullshit in order to disclose the craziness. Would that everyone of your demented persuasion were so thoroughly self-refuting.

- roidubouloi

February 20, 2012 at 3:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jaime: There is something very mean-spirited about your kind of highly personal insults. As Disraeli said: He has to learn that petulance is no sarcasm, and that insolence is not invective. Here are a few suggestions for some really nice Jewish curses: May God call the tune, and may your enemies play the music. May you lose your faith and marry a pious woman. May all your teeth fall out except one which will remain for a toothache. May you grow like an onion with your head in the ground and your feet in the air. May you have a good long sleep and may your dreams only be of your troubles. May you be the proof that man can endure anything. May your wife eat Matzos in bed, and may you roll in the crumbs Your insults are just plain ugly. Like roi's dreams.

- noga1

February 20, 2012 at 3:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

roidubouloi Since you are anti Israel and a denier of your anti Jewish feelings. You will always claim that whatever Netanyauh says is a lie. Contemptible liberated territories scoundrel. Roi you are not a king admit it. You are just a camel's ass.

- JAIMECHUCH

February 20, 2012 at 3:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Where is the lie, roi the slanderer and mob inciter? I can't quite see them. Too many cows. Uberschmuck. Jaime could be your spiritual twin, with one difference. He can actually be quite kind, between bouts of bilious vomitions. You are all bile.

- noga1

February 20, 2012 at 3:58pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Gee whiz, Jaime. I never said that EVERYTHING Netanyahu says is a lie. But you have caught me out, Jaime. The truth is revealed. I am not in fact a king, or even related to royalty. My grandfather was a very poor tailor from Galicia. Perhaps your girlfriend, noga, who styles herself an expert on irony would care to instruct you. It would no doubt be fun for both of you.

- roidubouloi

February 20, 2012 at 3:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Noga, I take your point. At least in part, but I think the simplest way of looking at it is that you oppose Obama on the Middle East but are fairly neutral otherwise, whereas I think Obama has been 80% right on foreign policy in general but has made mistakes elsewhere. But I am très amused by the way in which Obama failing to go to Israel after Cairo and Istanbul was a big mistake until people you disagree with agreed that it was indeed a big mistake. Then you had to find it pretty unimportant, because you couldn't possibly agree with people you disagree with. It reminds me of Newt Gingrich attacking Obama for not imposing a no-fly zone over Libya and then attacking him for imposing a no-fly zone over Libya after Obama succeeded in imposing a no-fly zone over Libya.

- ironyroad

February 20, 2012 at 4:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Oh, you were fabricating alright, noga. You insisted, multiple times, that "all the spitters and rioters" were arrested, in order to demonstrate that my point of the lack of zeal of Israeli law enforcement was, in your words, "a lie." Now, caught red-handed as it were, you are constrained to pretend that you cannot tell the difference between "two" and "all" (when the riots repeatedly involved hundreds). This is almost as good a laugh as Jaime. But you cannot pin him on me. It is you two who are of the same demented persuasion. He is such a wonderful mirror for you that even you are squirming, although you are unable to observe that the only thing that distinguishes the two of you is his lack of inhibition.

- roidubouloi

February 20, 2012 at 4:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

noga1 You don't have the exclusive right to insult and put down people. Yes you are a nebeile. Yes you are a JAP, or JIP, nasty and despicable. But we have all kinds in our clan. Modesty and compassion will do wonders for you. I bet each time you put down people your face resembles the ugly witch of snow white and the seven dwarfs. And maybe you mist it , you should be like a lamp, on all night, off during the day.

- JAIMECHUCH

February 20, 2012 at 4:05pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What do you expect, irony? Intellectual consistency from a sociopath?

- roidubouloi

February 20, 2012 at 4:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

There you are quite right, Jaime. Noga does not have the exclusive right to insult and put down people, no matter how often and insistently she claims it.

- roidubouloi

February 20, 2012 at 4:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

roidubouloi You are using demented too often too much. It is clear you have lost control. Being stopped of talking again and again about the liberated territories. You now tried for attention to your poor persona about other anti Israel subjects. Well we can dispense of insignificant vermin like you. Au revoir camel ass. Come on dit merd cest un merd cest un merd. You fix it king of the rotten baloney.

- JAIMECHUCH

February 20, 2012 at 4:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Here is the thing, ironyroad. I never really made a big deal out of Obama not going to Israel. I may have expressed regret but I don't recall making too much of a fuss. And then I hear zbig making this suggestion as if it would cleanse him of having proposed that 1) American fighterjets should intercept Israeli ones on their way to Iran, and 2) that Israel's only purpose in attacking Iran's nuclear sites is to draw America into a total regional war in the Middle East. So you will pardon me if I look at his ostensibly benign proposal from his perspective and come to the conclusion that all he meant was to say: Obama should have gone there, if only to shut up all those Jewish critics (like Marty here); had he done that, he could have had a much easier time maligning Netanyahu with impunity and blaming Israel for all the ills in the Middle East. So it's not as simple and idiotic as you would like it to be, no matter how sarcastically and belittlingly you formulate your profound opinions about me.

- noga1

February 20, 2012 at 4:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

roidubouloi Now you added sociopath , I wonder if you now what it is. Anyhow if you were not such anti Israel anti Jewish deranged, we could dance together as noga1 pointed out. But you know the saying you can not teach new tricks to old dogs. Liberated territories blah blah blah. Maybe ,as I believe, when you die, and you reincarnate things will be different. But I am sure you will come back as a snake. I will be going to a higher level. I kid you not. Demented demented sociopath sociopath liberated territories liberated territories!!! I am so confused!!!!

- JAIMECHUCH

February 20, 2012 at 4:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Oh, you were fabricating alright, noga. You insisted, multiple times, that "all the spitters and rioters" were arrested, " Roi the liar, slanderer and mob-inciter speaks. Never allow any facts to stand in the way of his statements. When facts do not conform to his positions, facts become pliable and changeable. Roi, you have as much soul as a snake and the ethics of a mafioso.

- noga1

February 20, 2012 at 4:28pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

roidubouloi The galicianers are famous for being liars and double-crossers . I think also dishonest. but nobody like the ....liberated territories and anti Israel invective. And roi (king) if you are Jewish you qualify as a self hatred Jew. Nothing personal, you understand.

- JAIMECHUCH

February 20, 2012 at 4:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

My opinions are profound? Oh, the irony. Says irony. Well, you may be right about zbig and his motives, but surely you agree that an Obama visit to Israel could have had effects -- perhaps generally good but not all predictable -- going far beyond some justification for later discord between the president and the PM (who I believe thought Obama could be bullied). That seems a bit too cynical.

- ironyroad

February 20, 2012 at 4:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"... the PM (who I believe thought Obama could be bullied)" Really? Netanyahu, with the burden of navigating a country under existential threat from Iran and other kinds of threats from the "Arab Spring" and such, thought that the best way to navigate the people of Israel to security is to bully the President of the US? What, have you been reading and internalizing Walt&Mearsheimer's theories, as well as Tom Friedman's rancid formulations to say nothing of Obama's good pal Rashid Khalidi?

- noga1

February 20, 2012 at 5:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I think Netanyahu made a personal misjudgment about Obama, which I think may have come from being to close to the Bush administration. However, I haven't been reading and internalizing W&M, I occasionally agree with Friedman's formulations, and I honestly don't know much about Khalidi except that when you run out of arguments, you throw in his name. I don't think the threat of Iranian nuclear development is underestimated by anyone in this administration the way it was in the previous one, and there is plenty of evidence to support that contention. Finally -- and I think I've said this before, but just in case -- I don't believe that either Obama or Netanyahu are stupid enough to let their personal negative chemistry interfere with crucial decision-making. If there are disagreements on policy, they have grounds on both sides, not just subjective feeling. The PM of Israel does not have the responsibilities of the U.S. president, and vice versa. And finally finally, there is almost certainly a lot more going on than you or I are going to know about.

- ironyroad

February 20, 2012 at 6:58pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"I think Netanyahu made a personal misjudgment about Obama" Whether he did or didn't, this is a very different statement than ""... the PM (who I believe thought Obama could be bullied)".

- noga1

February 20, 2012 at 7:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"... and I honestly don't know much about Khalidi except that when you run out of arguments, you throw in his name." I seem to remember you expressing quite a bit of admiration towards Khalidi, his flowing unaccented English or something like that. So obviously you know a lot more about him than you are willing to concede here.

- noga1

February 20, 2012 at 9:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

noga says, "Oh, you were fabricating alright, noga. You insisted, multiple times, that "all the spitters and rioters" were arrested, " Roi the liar, slanderer and mob-inciter speaks. Never allow any facts to stand in the way of his statements. When facts do not conform to his positions, facts become pliable and changeable. Roi, you have as much soul as a snake and the ethics of a mafioso. __________________ This is fabulous, noga. So perfectly in character for you. Most of the time you are lying, when not lying, dissembling, and when not dissembling attempting misdirection. That's what propagandists like you do, and the only thing you do. But when you are trapped in a bald-faced lie, you respond with all the ferocity I expect from you. Do you want to deny saying precisely what I claim you said? Shall I go search for it and give you the date and time? I suspect you remember quite well and there is no need, but I am happy to do so if you want to attempt a denial. If not, are you then ready to accept the responsibility for fabricating your claims, in a typically inept effort to score a point? The facts ARE in your way, noga. Not mine, because I keep the straight and I keep putting them in your way. I don't expect that to result in any scruple on your part about abusing both the facts and anyone who will not accept your lies and fabrications. You have none and are not likely to develop any at this late date. But at least we can keep the facts firmly in your way. I look forward to the next bald-faced lie from you. Shouldn't be long in coming. Another opportunity to show the world what a nightmare you are. Your anti-fan club seems to be growing. I am not surprised. Once one gets to know you, the only rational response is to detest you. May the circle continue to widen.

- roidubouloi

February 20, 2012 at 9:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Wow, that's scraping the barrel! If he's the Columbia guy, I remember him from interviews some years ago on Charlie Rose where he seemed reasonable in his general tone but had difficulty squaring the circle of objective academic and Palestinian partisan. I haven't seen him interviewed for several years, nor have I read anything by him. So, accurately if imprecisely, I don't know much about him -- and I'm puzzled as to why it would make much difference if I did.

- ironyroad

February 20, 2012 at 9:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Interesting article in the Times today about the near technical impossibility of a successful Israeli air raid on Iran's nuclear capabilities. Confirms my suspicion that all the threats by Israel to bomb Iran have as their real purpose trying to intimidate the West into some action on Israel's behalf, preferably war. Obama continues to press forward with the only thing likely to work, tightening sanctions. If they do indeed eventually achieve their object, even in the absence of UNSC enforcement, that should be an object lesson for Israelis about the power they imagine themselves to have. Not much if they are not sheltered by the United States. All the rightwing bluster about enforcing its will through might is just that, bluster. If Israel none-the-less makes the attempt and the United States does not support it, we may finally be at the point where the world decides it cannot tolerate endless war in the Middle East and the UNSC moves to impose a settlement in Palestine, one that will not likely be favorable to Israel's territorial ambitions and perhaps not to its legitimate security concerns either. The occupation is a wasting asset for which the intransigent Netanyahu will in the end get nothing. He bids fair to go down in history as the Chamberlain of Israel, the man who utterly failed to understand the nature of the situation in which his country found itself.

- roidubouloi

February 20, 2012 at 9:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

And could I point out that as a very intelligent and knowledgeable individual, I don't always just, willy-nilly, embrace the opinions or positions of people I read, watch, or hear. Or indeed of those I engage in virtual discussions with.

- ironyroad

February 20, 2012 at 9:47pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Wonderful, Jaime. Keep up the great work. I cannot overstate the benefit of having you and noga ranting on the same page. At some point perhaps the posters will take up the question whether, if near everyone is either an anti-Semite or a self-hating Jew, as noga and Jaime would have it, the behavior of Israel is a rational self-protective response to that state of affairs. I would argue no, because Israel's government avoids seeking a stable, sustainable solution in favor of attempting to manipulate internal American politics to support its territorial aggrandizement. Not a stable, sustainable state of affairs. This, one would think, would give Israelis great concern if indeed almost the entire world, even Jews who are not right-wingnut toadies, is implacably hostile to Israel as the resident goon squad constantly insists.

- roidubouloi

February 20, 2012 at 10:07pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

ironyroad: Why so defensive? I remember very well that you expressed some unaccounted for admiration for Khalidi, without the qualifications you insist on here. You seemed impressed by his eloquence. You said nothing critical about him. You doubted my interpretation of his extreme politics. I remember Khalidi from the time when he was a favourite among some Canadian broadcasters (on "Counter spin", a TV programme geared towards an audience like Amy Goodman's "Democracy now". There he appeared, at the height of the murderous Palestinian intifada and insisted that Arafat should not act as Israel's police in apprehending the terrorists responsible for blowing up buses and pizzerias at the heart of the illegal Jewish settlements of Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. At the time he also had a pretty thick Arab accent. All this disappeared when he re-surfaced a few years later as Edward Said's protege on Charlie Rose. Miraculously, the Arab accent nearly vanished and he no longer made such explicit statements about supporting Palestinian terrorism. I accounted for my antipathy at the time but obviously it meant nothing to you. Perhaps you couldn't believe that such a person could be a friend of Obama's so you chose to simply ignore the record? Or is it that you just don't believe my account because I happen to not like Obama very much? Or for some other reason you have a good cause not to believe what I write?

- noga1

February 20, 2012 at 11:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Or for some other reason you have a good cause not to believe what I write?" That's really very funny. Is the irony intentional or inadvertent? Based on experience, there is never good cause to believe what you write. The a priori assumption should be disbelief as that will most likely be justified when the facts are known.

- roidubouloi

February 21, 2012 at 12:03am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

roidubouloi You did not answer if you agree with the characterization of the Galicianers. It is in their nature to be liars and dishonest. Since you fit the bill, you are not to be trusted. You always bring up the canard of the illegality of the liberated territories. But again are you Jewish? And if so a self hatred Jew, virulent anti Israel. Do not be shy, you have good company Thomas Friedman from the NYT, Gideon Levy from Haaretz, Ochs Schulberger owners of the NYT. So silly king du stinky baloney, answer the question.

- JAIMECHUCH

February 21, 2012 at 1:35am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Why so defensive?" I'm not being "defensive," unless making a point is being defensive. In that case, everyone around here is defensive all the time. I think I'll stand by what I wrote and let the caravan move on.

- ironyroad

February 21, 2012 at 3:09am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What exactly do you stand by? You repeatedly stated that you know next to nothing about this guy. I do wonder though why you still know next to nothing about Khalidi. He has been mentioned often enough to merit some curiosity on your part. No?

- noga1

February 21, 2012 at 6:45am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

So, Jaime, I see that you are an anti-Semite, attacking all Galicianers as you do. Not only are we all liars, we all have big noses, and horns. And we like our matzo with a little you-know-what in it. I am delighted with the company I am keeping. I am in the best possible company, those who are attacked by you. I would not wish to be anywhere else. You are a buffoon, as you have amply demonstrated here. Good for a laugh, good for poking for the hilarious responses it elicits, good for showing us what noga looks like with the restraints removed. Not good for anything else. Adieu.

- roidubouloi

February 21, 2012 at 7:13am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

There is noga, in her best propagandist style, doing her utmost to make Khalidi stick to ironyroad. But the smear by association isn't working. He is too slippery, that fellow, and just won't give her any purchase. Still, she keeps trying. Other than Jaime's utter lack of inhibition, what difference is there between him and noga? None, same points, except that his language is as fully unrestrained as her intentions. So, thank you again, Jaime. The juxtaposition has been marvelous.

- roidubouloi

February 21, 2012 at 7:18am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

roi the mob inciter and uberschmucky slanderer.

- noga1

February 21, 2012 at 12:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Before there was a JAIMECHUCH I ignored, there was a roid I finally chose to ignore. You guys have at it, with each other. I do usually read whatever is posted above the "view full comment", and always read the entirety of noga, amidut, malahat, and our long-MIA ginzy. Whether I respond is increasingly due to a passive interest in most topics as I am just here to kill time. however: 02/20/2012 - 2:10pm EDT | JAIMECHUCH "...By the same token, K2K should have confronted Triston and his anti USA Israel coalition madness, and his condoning of Muslims massacring Muslims. ..." I have no idea why JC singled me out for this specific failure. I do not consider Tristan a proponent of "anti USA Israel coalition madness" (I still think JC confuses Tristan with long-gone icarusr), and I always prefer muslims killing other muslims if it keeps them pre-occupied from killing Jews and Christians. The "humanitarians" of TNR seem to find my preference for muslim on muslim killing a defect. Let their hearts bleed for those who would kill them in a heartbeat.

- K2K

February 21, 2012 at 1:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Wow! The trifecta, Jaime, noga, and K2K. Doesn't get any better. Slanderer, noga? That's funny too. On my best day, I could not be even remotely in your league. You know everything about that black art that there is to know, and you practice it here all the time, as you were trying, trying, trying to do upon irony. He slipped your knot. Too bad. I enjoy being ignored by you K2K. Please continue, and I shall do likewise. I do miss icarusr. He was an outstanding contributor. And a few others whose monikers a cannot summon to mind at the moment.

- roidubouloi

February 21, 2012 at 3:36pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"I enjoy being ignored by you K2K. Please continue, and I shall do likewise. " The essence of irony: Don't you see I'm ignoring you? I'm ignoring you and what you say. I pay no attention whatsoever to what you write here. Your comments one way or another are like they are not even there. I don't even notice your name, that much I'm ignoring you. Get it? I AM IGNORING YOU! You are transparent. You are nonexistent as far as I'm concerned. Yes, yes, take that, you imbecile, don't you see that I'm really and truly and to all intents and purposes ignoring you? When will you get it through your thick skull: I'm ignoring you! Do I have to shout it from the roof tops?

- noga1

February 21, 2012 at 4:01pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

roi is a mob-inciter and a slanderer.

- noga1

February 21, 2012 at 4:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Well, noga, brevity is the soul of wit, even for a sociopathic propagandist like you. When the mob I have summoned gathers, I do hope it comes for you. I believe your comment at 4:01 should have been directed to K2K. Irony of ironies. :-)

- roidubouloi

February 21, 2012 at 4:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

roi, your comments are indeed the very exemplification of irony. Your lack of self awareness is the stuff of classical comedy, especially when it comes to your repeated reptilian attempts to sidle up to certain posters while slandering others, the mark of the true, rotten through and through, coward.

- noga1

February 21, 2012 at 4:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You think you are fooling or impressing someone, noga? Your reputation as a serial liar, fabricator and smear artist are long established here. It is not for nothing that you were so aptly dubbed "the gargoyle of the Spine." But above all you are incompetent, as we see from your ludicrous efforts above to tar ironyroad with Khalidi. And so, inevitably, you are reduced to sputtering, bilious frustration. Good. Drown in your own bile. It is exactly what a nauseating creature like you deserves. Calling you a coward would be a compliment as even that requires a level of self-awareness and self-regard that are far beyond you.

- roidubouloi

February 21, 2012 at 8:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Noga: "What exactly do you stand by?" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUVnfaA-kpI

- ironyroad

February 21, 2012 at 9:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

roidubouloi Still you did not answer the question are you a galicianer self hatred Jew yes or not.? Since you slander others. Since you slander Netanyauh, Matin Peretz, any actions taken by Israel. I will conclude you are a self hatred Jew. You have good company, Ochs Schulberger owners of the NYT, columnists Thomas Friedman, Roger Cohen, Gideon Levy of Haaretz, JJ Goldberg of the Atlantic , they are part of the anti Israel gang. All dishonest , lying , fabricating silliness . Demonizing Israel. The Arabs and Palestinians are never mentioned, their corruption oppression hatred violence are not part of the leftists conversations. How in the world can be any peace agreement using your canard roi of the liberated territories, when you talk only to one party, the Jews. Seriously, roi, you are into an imaginary world . Wake up.

- JAIMECHUCH

February 21, 2012 at 10:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

roidubouloi Got you you are a self hatred Jew. Fine. You will continue demonizing Israel. You will continue demonizing Netanyauh. You will continue demonizing Martin Peretz. You will never mention the Arabs, Palestinians, Iranians, their hatred and aggressiveness towards Israel. You will talk talk talk about the illegality of the liberated territories. You will insult your fellow bloggers. A sign that you have lost your arguments. I know it is difficult to recognize you were wrong. It is the same what happened to Thomas Friedman of the NYT. When he realized that demonization of Netanyauh had failed, and the USA Congress gave him multiple Standing ovations during his recent speech, he posted that the Israel lobby had paid off the entire USA Congress. Such a silly anti Semitic statement by a self hatred Jew is what is all about the failure of so called leftists on their anti Israel endeavors . Honestly roi I now feel sorry for you.

- JAIMECHUCH

February 21, 2012 at 10:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Think whatever you want, Jaime. Who gives a crap what you think? You are a nutcase. Noga with Tourette's.

- roidubouloi

February 22, 2012 at 2:45am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

roi, can I call you roi? Or do you prefer king? I definitely believe you have to have your mouth washed, and maybe maybe you will stop saying bad words. If you don't care about my deep thoughts about you, why do you answer my posts? Is this what is called an oxymoron? Poor roi, somewhere along the road he lost his way with his obsession on the blah blah blah illegality of the liberated territories. Other than demonizing Israel, demonizing Netanyahu , demonizing Martin Peretz, and attacking fellow bloggers, roi doesn't know what else to do. There is a galicianer for you. If he used Yidish he will say ich hove you indreerd. Pity and shame. How did he grow to be such a camel's ass ....please use fiddler in the roof music.

- JAIMECHUCH

February 22, 2012 at 5:02am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

ironyroad: That's a great coming of age film. Why are coming of age films and novels always about boys coming of age?

- noga1

February 22, 2012 at 6:07am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I answer you, Jaime, because I enjoy provoking you. Unlike your vicious doppelgänger, noga, you are pretty harmless. The sentiments are identical, but you just run in a rhetorical circle of excess, a balloon with a hole in it letting off steam. Noga on the other hand has the intention to destroy and devotes some serious intention to the task. If she were not incapable of logical thought, so completely devoid of the actual ability to sustain an argument, quickly driven to some lie, fabrication or smear that it is easy to puncture, who knows what damage she could do? As it is, she manages to bring Israel and Israelis into disrepute. That is how the mentally disturbed express their love, by destroying the objects of their affection. So, have at it. You can keep going until you run out of gas. I am enjoying the show.

- roidubouloi

February 22, 2012 at 10:24am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Why are coming of age films and novels always about boys coming of age?" I don't know if that's really so, but it does seem as if the notion of going off for an adventure is more of a boys' story (rightly or wrongly). There was quite a good movie in the early '90s that tried to replicate Stand By Me with four girls -- I can't remember the name or the cast but I can visualize some of the scenes -- the funny thing was that a couple of female friends of mine liked it but still liked SBM much much more.

- ironyroad

February 22, 2012 at 12:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The numbers are in of the 156 comments here 48% were made by three contributors noga1. 22%. Or 22 comments Myself 17%. Or 26 comments roidubouloi. 17%. Or 26 comments This comment is not included. I did not count the insults. That is up to roi , I am sure he had the most. Just a bunch of old timers venting frustrations. Our grandchildren would be ashamed of this behavior. Last night I watched PBS program NOVA about the intelligence of dolphins and whales. They demonstrate compassion and friendliness even with humans. These is because they have large amounts of Spindle cells, larger than we humans have. In other words they demonstrate empathy. Well it is recognized that problems of mental imbalanced humans are assigned to what is called empathy deficiency syndrome . Now there are humans that are not considered mentally ill, but are definitely empathy deficient. I don't want to start new comments that will carry us to the 200. skahn would be flabbergasted. But definitely roi look into it if you suffer from empathy deficiency, and you should do something about it. I am just kidding. Listen my late father in law was a Galicianer. I am a widower . My parents were Litvaks. My mother in law still alive at 98, came from Hungary/Romania, and I kid you not Transylvania. It is a small world.

- JAIMECHUCH

February 23, 2012 at 5:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close