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 It’s Funny How Barack Obama Can’t Bear To Utter The Word...

THE SPINE MAY 23, 2010

It’s Funny How Barack Obama Can’t Bear To Utter The Word “Jew” Or, For That Matter, “Muslim Extremist.”

BY MARTIN PERETZ

Maybe you missed it. But, earlier this week, President Obama signed into law the Daniel Pearl Press Freedom Act, a piece of legislation that will do nothing for anyone. And certainly not for freedom of the press.

In his tiny talk, Obama said almost nothing. “Obviously, the loss of Daniel Pearl was one of those moments that captured the world’s imagination because it reminded us of how valuable a free press is.” Pabulum.

Actually, the murder of Pearl did not remind me at all of the value of a free press. It reminded me of the precarious places in which Jews find themselves around the world. It also reminded me that the bloodlust for Jews festers among Muslim extremists, but not just among extremists. It festers among Muslims who are not extremists at all.

Apparently, the president doesn’t believe that this killing had anything to do with Pearl being a Jew ... and an American besides. What he also doesn’t seem to believe is that Pearl was a target—like thousands of other targets, named and nameless—of the Islamic jihad.

It is appalling to have to come to grips with the raw facts of Obama’s ignorance. Or with his feigning of ignorance. Disguising the enemy is... well, you finish the sentence.

I am always a bit wary when I cite Mark Steyn. Not because I don’t like his writing, wich, within measure, I do. But because my son gives me the cold shoulder for a few days after I cite him. So, here, Jesse, I court your coolness. I wouldn’t have had to do it if any liberal columnist had noticed this appalling performance by the president of the United States.

Mark Steyn: Lost in Obama’s Inagination

Barack Obama’s remarkable powers of oratory are well known...

Like a lot of guys who’ve been told they’re brilliant one time too often, President Obama gets a little lazy and doesn’t always choose his words with care. And so it was that he came to say a few words about Daniel Pearl upon signing the Daniel Pearl Press Freedom Act. Pearl was decapitated on video by jihadist Muslims in Karachi on Feb. 1, 2002. That’s how I’d put it. This is what the president of the United States said:

“Obviously, the loss of Daniel Pearl was one of those moments that captured the world’s imagination because it reminded us of how valuable a free press is.”

Now Mr. Obama’s off the prompter, when his silver-tongued rhetoric invariably turns to sludge. But he’s talking about a dead man here, a guy murdered in public for all the world to see. Furthermore, the deceased’s family is standing all around him. Even for a busy president, it’s the work of moments to come up with a sentence that would be respectful, moving and true. Indeed, for Mr. Obama, it’s the work of seconds because he has a taxpayer-funded staff sitting around all day with nothing to do but provide him with that sentence.

Instead, he delivered the one above, which, in its clumsiness and insipidness, is most revealing. First of all, note the passivity: “The loss of Daniel Pearl.” He wasn’t “lost.” He was kidnapped and beheaded. He was murdered on a snuff video. He was specifically targeted, seized as a trophy, a high-value scalp. And the circumstances of his “loss” merit some vigor in the prose. Yet Mr. Obama could muster none.

Even if Americans don’t get the message, the rest of the world does. This week’s pictures of the leaders of Brazil and Turkey clasping hands with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are also monuments to American passivity.

But what did the “loss” of Daniel Pearl mean? Well, says the president, it was “one of those moments that captured the world’s imagination.” Really? Evidently, it never captured Mr. Obama’s imagination, because if it had, he never could have uttered anything so fatuous. He seems literally unable to imagine Pearl’s fate, and so, cruising on autopilot, he reaches for the all-purpose bromides of therapeutic sedation: “one of those moments” - you know, like Princess Di’s wedding, Janet Jackson’s wardrobe malfunction, whatever - “that captured the world’s imagination.”

Notice how reflexively Mr. Obama lapses into sentimental one-worldism: Despite our many ZIP codes, we are one people, with a single imagination. In fact, the murder of Daniel Pearl teaches just the opposite - that we are many worlds, and worlds within worlds. Some of them don’t even need an “imagination.” Across the planet, the video of an American getting his head sawed off did brisk business in the bazaars and madrassas and Internet downloads. Excited young men e-mailed it to friends, from cell phone to cell phone, from Karachi, Pakistan, to Jakarta, Indonesia, to Khartoum, Sudan, to London to Toronto to Falls Church, Va. In the old days, you needed an “imagination” to conjure the juicy bits of a distant victory over the Great Satan. But in an age of high-tech barbarism, the sight of Pearl’s severed head is a mere click away.

And the rest of “the world”? Most gave a shrug of indifference. And far too many found the reality of Pearl’s death too uncomfortable and chose to take refuge in the same kind of delusional pap as Mr. Obama. The president is only the latest Western liberal to try to hammer Daniel Pearl’s box into a round hole. Before him, it was Michael Winterbottom in his film “A Mighty Heart.” As Pearl’s longtime colleague Asra Nomani wrote, “Danny himself had been cut from his own story.” Or as Paramount’s promotional department put it, “Nominate the most inspiring ordinary hero. Win a trip to the Bahamas!” Where you’re highly unlikely to be kidnapped and beheaded. (Although, in the event that you are, please check the liability-waiver box at the foot of the entry form.)

The latest appropriation is that his “loss” “reminded us of how valuable a free press is.” It was nothing to do with “freedom of the press.” By the standards of the Muslim world, Pakistan has a free-ish and very lively press. The problem is that about 80 percent of its people wish to live under the most extreme form of Shariah, and many of its youth are exported around the world in advance of that aim. The man convicted of Pearl’s murder was Omar Sheikh, a British subject, a London School of Economics student, and, like many jihadists, from Osama bin Laden to the panty bomber, a monument to the peculiar burdens of a non-deprived childhood in the Muslim world. The man who actually did the deed was Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who confessed in March 2007: “I decapitated with my blessed right hand the head of the American Jew Daniel Pearl, in the city of Karachi.” But Mr. Obama is not the kind to take “guilty” for an answer, so he’s arranging a hugely expensive trial for KSM amid the bright lights of Broadway.

Listen to his killer’s words: “The American Jew Daniel Pearl.” We hit the jackpot. And then we cut his head off. Before the body was found, the Independent’s Robert Fisk offered a familiar argument to Pearl’s kidnappers: Killing him would be “a major blunder ... the best way of ensuring that the suffering” - of Kashmiris, Afghans, Palestinians - “goes unrecorded.” Other journalists peddled a similar line: if you release Danny, he’ll be able to tell your story, get your message out, “bridge the misconceptions.” But the story did get out; the severed head is the message; the only misconception is that that’s a misconception.

Daniel Pearl was the prototype victim of a new kind of terror. In his wake came other victims, from Kenneth Bigley, whose last words were, “Tony Blair has not done enough for me,” to Fabrizzio Quattrocchi, who yanked off his hood, yelled “I will show you how an Italian dies,” and ruined the movie for his jihadist videographers. By that time, both men understood what it meant to be in a windowless room with a camera and a man holding a scimitar. But Daniel Pearl was the first, and in his calm, coherent final words, understood why he was there:

“My name is Daniel Pearl. I am a Jewish American from Encino, California, USA.”

He didn’t have a prompter. But he spoke the truth. That’s all President Obama owed him - to do the same.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 97 comments

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

97 comments

The JTA managed to juxtapose the smallness of , no, I can not finish the sentence either: "...Daniel Pearl was kidnapped and decapitated by terrorists in Pakistan in 2002 while investigating a story on the al-Qaida financial network. Among those on hand for the 15-minute ceremony in the White House Oval Office was Pearl's son, Adam, who received a yo-yo and M&M packet imprinted with the presidential seal. ..." a yo-yo and pack of M&Ms? THAT is so insulting. How about a pen? Adam is eight, and a nice pen would have been meaningful. Did the White House not yet figure out they have a gift problem? The Hindu reports this sentence, not that it makes any more sense with the second part: “Obviously, the loss of Daniel Pearl was one of those moments that captured the world’s imagination because it reminded us of how valuable a free press is, and it reminded us that there are those who would go to any length in order to silence journalists around the world.” Obama probably lacked enthusiasm for the whole thing because how can the U.S. do anything at this time to upset either Russia (all those journalists dead specifically to silence them) or China, or, for that matter, Pakistan?

- K2K

May 23, 2010 at 1:13am

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

Liberals can heed Mark Steyn's cogent and forceful warnings about Islam's danger to the West without agreeing with all the rest of his conservative positions on issues. I, too, am dismayed that Obama was so mealy-mouthed at the Daniel Pearl commemoration.

- amidut

May 23, 2010 at 7:30am

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

malahat: comments get cut off when a URL link is at the "view full comment" break in the Preview. It is possible the Pearl family, or Rep Adam Schiff who started the legistative process, wanted the emphasis of Obama's remarks to focus on press freedom, one of the goals of the Daniel Pearl Foundation. I am not an apologist, just an after thought, kind of confirmed by the May 19 Haaretz interview with Judea Pearl that starts with how the family explains his father's death to him, and how Schiff asked the family for permission to use Daniel Pearl's name to help get the law passed. Judea Pearl also explains the Foundation's "...program for journalists from Muslim countries. How does it work? It's a scholarship or fellowship for mid-career journalists from Muslim-dominated countries to come to the U.S. and work for six months at a major newspaper and go back to their countries and tell the readers what they have learned about the U.S. and the Jewish community in the U.S. They also work at least one week at a Jewish publication. ..." [No Palestinian journalists have applied so far] http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/features/judea-pearl-how-do-you-explain-the-murder-of-your-son-daniel-to-the-child-he-never-met-1.291141 Most of the media coverage also highlights the hypocrisy-or-irony that Obama refused to take questions from the press after the ceremony. The Los Angeles Jewish Journal made a point of Ruth Pearl being an Iraqi Jew whose family was expelled in 1951: "...While few people get even one White House invitation in their lifetimes, this was the third visit for the Pearls. In December 2007, President George W. Bush invited the couple for a Chanukah celebration. For the occasion, they brought along a menorah, which Judea’s grandfather, Chayim Pearl, had brought with him from Poland when he emigrated to Palestine in 1924 to found the strictly Orthodox community of B’nai Brak. A few days later, Ruth Pearl returned to the White House as a delegate to a conference on human rights and anti-Semitism, attended by Bush. Ruth Pearl, who was born in Baghdad and arrived in Israel with her parents in 1951, spoke then about the suffering and loss of property inflicted on Jews expelled from Arab countries. Bush showed a great deal of interest in the subject, asked numerous questions and took up the issue when he visited Israel shortly thereafter. Ruth Pearl, an electrical engineer and industry consultant, met her future husband when both were students at the Technion-Israel Institute of Technology in Haifa. Following their son’s murder, Judea and Ruth Pearl established the Daniel Pearl Foundation to further Daniel’s legacy of promoting cross-cultural understanding through a global program of journalism, music and innovative communication. " http://www.jewishjournal.com/nation/page2/pearls_at_white_house_as_obama_signs_freedom_of_the_press_act_20100518/

- K2K

May 23, 2010 at 11:51am

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

One of the things you have to do as president is not make inflammatory speeches that impugn a whole world religion, if you can possibly avoid it. Mark Steyn is paid to write inflammatory prose, so naturally it comes easier to him. In Steyn's hands, "Yes we can!" would have been followed by "fuck you!" Incidentally, a little while before Daniel Pearl, there was an Italian journalist who, just a moment prior to being beheaded by murdering Islamic bastards, ripped off the blindfold and said "I'll show you how an Italian dies!" I haven't noticed a particular enthusiasm for press freedom emerging from that story -- maybe he wasn't American enough?

- ironyroad

May 23, 2010 at 12:19pm

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

K2K -- Others have understood that Ha'aretz interview differently, e.g., here. If the Obamanoids didn't have a track record of pushing sanitized Orwellian terminology when dealing with terrorism ("man-caused disasters" is my favorite) or in obfuscating the fact that Israeli sits in a neighborhood where Islamists of all types and stripes have a penchant for killing Jews because they are Jews, I might be willing to say maybe to your charitable explication of Obama's bland platitudes. But given his history I find that hard to accept. For the record, in most that I have seen, of Judea Pearl's writing about the execution of his son, the Jewish aspect was mentioned if not outright emphasized. Maybe the problem was that Obama couldn't use a teleprompter with the Pearl family standing behind him & would see that the Great Orator is merely just a great teleprompter user (sort of like discovering that the Great and Terrible Wizard of Oz is but a humbug behind a curtain). So when in doubt, pontificate platitudes. Hershel Ginsburg Jerusalem / Efrata

- ginzy

May 23, 2010 at 12:25pm

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

Maybe Obama doesn't like Jews. Or, he is indifferent toward Jews but believes that an open break with Israel vis Palestinians would be destabilizing in a "neighborhood" that is anything but unstable. Finally, Obama may personally hold some negative racial stereotypes of Jews by African-Americans. I don't know why so many African-Americans lend tacit support to mischaracterizations and anti-semitic stereotypes by not (or weakly) objecting to hearing them in conversation.

- Tgossard

May 23, 2010 at 12:53pm

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

Correction: "Or, he is indifferent toward Jews but believes that an open break with Israel vis Palestinians would be destabilizing in a "neighborhood" that is anything but stable."

- Tgossard

May 23, 2010 at 12:54pm

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

"Maybe the problem was that Obama couldn't use a teleprompter with the Pearl family standing behind him & would see that the Great Orator is merely just a great teleprompter user (sort of like discovering that the Great and Terrible Wizard of Oz is but a humbug behind a curtain)." But also, ginzy, maybe not -- I've seen footage from many a town hall Q&A session in which the president fields unfiltered questions over lengths of time with an eloquence and intelligence (and, what is more unusal, a respect for the audience's intelligence) not often found in political leaders of any stripe.

- ironyroad

May 23, 2010 at 1:36pm

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

Irony is right about presidential speechmaking discretion, but Obama's newspeak is so in-your-face that it's hard not to be offended by it.

- NR114746

May 23, 2010 at 1:44pm

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

I must correct a mistake I made above. Daniel Pearl was killed two years before Enzo Baroni -- I transposed the two events in my head. I think it's also worth remembering that Pearl's eight-year-old son was standing next to the president when he was making his remarks, and that would be -- for me at least, I don't know about anyone else here -- a good reason for keeping it bland.

- ironyroad

May 23, 2010 at 2:16pm

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

The entire text of the Daniel Pearl Freedom of the Press Act of 2009 is here: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-3714 The words Jew and Muslim do not feature anywhere in the text of the bill because it is a bill designed: -- To amend the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to include in the Annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices information about freedom of the press in foreign countries, and for other purposes. The word extremist does appear because extremists come in all shapes and sizes - some of them are South American, some are African, some are Asian, some are American, and some are even Israeli. Indeed some extremists own magazines with names like The New Republic. This is not an act to defend Jews; this is not an act to attack Muslims. This is a bill to defend journalists and journalism. Islamophobic bigots like Mark Steyn, Martin Peretz (and Melanie Phillips who also approvingly quoted Mark Steyn) betray journalists and journalism when they turn the Daniel Pearl Freedom of the Press Act of 2009 into no more than another opportunity for yet another rehearsal of the Islamophobic propaganda that is central to their thoughts. In attacking President Obama's statement at this signing ceremony, Steyn, Peretz and Phillips have befouled the memory of a brave journalist who risked - and lost - his life for his journalism. The cowardice of their propaganda stands in opposition to the bravery of his journalism. Martin Peretz would gain a far better understanding of the world if he gave up reading charlatan propagandists like Mark Steyn and started reading the work of a real journalist like Daniel Pearl: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/pearlstories022202.htm

- ndmackenzie

May 23, 2010 at 2:39pm

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

Ginzy: I had read JRubin on Friday, but read the Haaretz interview she refers to only this morning, because of Peretz's post. My point was that perhaps the wisdom of having the President say "Daniel Pearl was beheaded by Pakistani terrorists because he was Jewish" in front of 8 year old Adam in the Oval Office might have been a consideration. I now think Rep Schiff was inappropriate in using Daniel Pearl's name to get this legislation passed, which may also speak to the Pearl family's silence. Obama was facing his private meeting with 37 Jewish members of congress the next day, so maybe he WAS working on his Jewish comfort zone :) which leads to my response to tgossard's question: "I don't know why so many African-Americans lend tacit support to mischaracterizations and anti-semitic stereotypes by not (or weakly) objecting to hearing them in conversation." Listen to Reverend Louis Farrakhan's radio 'sermons'. I have not done so, but lost a friend in the mid-90's because he started listening to Farrakhan, who, at that time, was stating that Jews were 100% responsible for the African slave trade. One of Obama's problems during the campaign was that "... In December 2007, the Trinity United Church of Christ (TUCC) bestowed its highest social achievement award upon Louis Farrakhan, the head of the Nation of Islam. This was facilitated through the church's publication Trumpet Magazine and presented at their end of the year awards gala. The award dubbed the Lifetime Achievement "Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr. Trumpet Award..." I could add some quotes from the Reverend's Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton that indicate an acceptance of antisemitic stereotypes in some parts of today's African-American community. otoh, Pearl WAS investigating Al Qaeda when he was kidnapped in Karachi. My memory of reading Bernard-Henri Levy's "Who Killed Daniel Pearl" is a bit hazy (movie version in the works), but Levy found strands of evidence leading directly to Pakistan's ISI. Maybe Obama was uncomfortable because he figured the Pearl family voted for McCain :) I suppose one can always invoke the memory of Richard Nixon, apparently fairly vocal in his anti-semitism, yet he delivered for Israel during the 1973 war, despite the threat of an oil embargo, which DID greatly impact the U.S. economy. "New Tapes Reveal Depth of Nixon's Anti-Semitism" http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/daily/oct99/nixon6.htm http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/thirty-six-years-ago-today--richard-nixon-saved-israel-but-got-no-credit-15254

- K2K

May 23, 2010 at 2:40pm

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

This obession with the teleprompter is so petty and irrelevant, it says nothing about Obama and everything about the person who bothers to bring it up. There are so many speeches, press conferences, the final health care debate with the entire Republican caucus, on and on and on where he had none. What exactly is the point? That Obama is dumb? Doesn't care? Its barely worth rebutting, its so stupid! I see both sides of the Daniel Pearl commemeration ceremony. Both of you make excellent points. Such a handsome, brilliant man from a wonderful family - brutally killed by ignorant thugs. I tend to support irony's position because of the little boy, but I get ginzy's too. Just got back from the Israel Day Parade here in New York, we love it and go every year. It is the biggest parade in the city. The kids are so cute with their routines, everyone waving blue and white flags, lots of great music. Despite a very few crazies (I counted four lunes huddled together under one tree) with signs attacking Israel, the entire experience is always joyous. My son has his flag up in his room. Watched Cuomo's press avail too, he sounded good if a bit trite ("tax cuts...govt for the people...clean up Albany...my fathers integrity...we'll do it differently, etc). A reporter from the New York Post interviewed me for some reason, I refered to the AG as "New York's last bad ass progressive." We'll see if they print it. BTW Tgossard - I attended the parade with the same Christian African American family that I've gone with for years. The parade was also filled with African Americans, both in the audience waving flags and in the parade itself in every capacity.

- WandreyCer

May 23, 2010 at 2:40pm

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

irony: I was writing my comment before I saw yours, so count me in on the consideration for 8-year old Adam Pearl, who still should have gotten a presidential pen instead of a yo-yo. if ndmack had been less bombastic, I would agree with his point at 2:39 pm about the intention of the Daniel Pearl Freedom of the Press Act. The real sadness is that it is going to be an ineffective instrument of America's soft power with Russia and China.

- K2K

May 23, 2010 at 2:47pm

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

In announcing his death, The Wall Street Journal described the impact of the killing of Daniel Pearl: -- The abduction and death mean the Journal has lost one of its premier foreign correspondents, who was noted for his lively eye for detail and his gift for explaining the human side of complex international problems. Paradoxically, though he appears to have suffered at the hands of Islamic militants angry at the West, he was particularly sensitive to sentiments in the Islamic world and committed to explaining them to his readers in the West. The final sentence shows the extent of our loss with the brutal slaying of Daniel Pearl. No matter how much Martin Peretz trumpets the Jewishness of Daniel Pearl we can be sure from historical experience that Martin Peretz would never allow into his magazine the journalism of a Daniel Pearl who was "sensitive to sentiments in the Islamic world." WSJ link: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/pearl-022102.htm

- ndmackenzie

May 23, 2010 at 2:56pm

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

K2K writes: -- The real sadness is that it is going to be an ineffective instrument of America's soft power with Russia and China. The intent of the act is to protect journalists not to be an instrument of soft power against Russia and China specifally - although Russian journalists do face significant threat. The Committee for the Protection of Journalists documents the murder of journalists. The list of countries with the most murders since 1992 is: 1.Iraq: 90 2.Philippines: 66 3.Algeria: 58 4.Colombia: 39 5.Russia: 32 6.Somalia: 18 7.Turkey: 18 8.Mexico: 18 9.Pakistan: 17 10.Brazil: 16 11.India: 16 12.Rwanda: 16 13.Tajikistan: 14 14.Afghanistan: 13 15.Bangladesh: 11 16.Sri Lanka: 10 17.Sierra Leone: 9 18.Cambodia: 7 19.Peru: 6 20.Angola: 6 Link: Committee for the Protection of Journalists http://cpj.org/killed/asia/philippines/murder.php

- ndmackenzie

May 23, 2010 at 3:32pm

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

malahat: "Now I'm going back to transplanting peonies..." NOOOO! do not transplant peonies before they have finished blooming. Unless you are in a climate zone where they have not yet formed their buds...peonies are very sensitive to transplant!

- K2K

May 23, 2010 at 4:02pm

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

Between what Obama could have said appropriately amd diplomatically as President, even with the 8 year old little boy beside him, and Steyn's journalistically punchy point--telling a little truth to a little power--Peretz and Steyn are right and Obama is wrong. His irrelevant vapidity and insenstivity here are inexcusably disgusting.

- basman

May 23, 2010 at 6:20pm

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

The problem, as I see it, with Obama's relationship to the Jewish community is that his affinity with it, and he does have a strong affinity with Jews, is purely intellectual while his affinity with Muslims is emotional. It’s the split between the cerebral and the emotive which explains his behavior towards Jews.

- jdyer

May 23, 2010 at 7:38pm

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

It's not hard to believe that Steyn has hardly ever expressed a thought that didn't have an ugly confrontational posture that Steyn himself, fighting for western civilization from his office swivel chair, will never have to bear the consequences of. I also am not prepared to second-guess Obama on this -- who knows what Pearl's son knows about his father's death? My assumption is the president was trying to keep it on a low volume. The other thing I fail to understand is the withering criticism of Obama in the actual operations area -- what exactly is it that these people want him to do that he isn't doing? More drone attacks in Afghanistan and Pakistan, with a higher kill ratio, have been launched by this White House against Al Qaeda and the Taliban since Feb 2009 than in six years of the Bush administration.

- ironyroad

May 23, 2010 at 7:52pm

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

malahat: if your peonies are in bloom, they are getting enough sun despite the laurel hedge. I found a peony thwarted by invasive poppies, did some research on transplanting, only to find a universal warning that peonies will not survive a transplant. which was odd, because nurseries dig them up to sell. I took the chance, and it survived, though the bloom cycle can take 2-3 years to recover. be tender, with mulch and regular moisture after transplant. not like a hosta, which will survive anything. I dug one up and discarded out of sight, yet it has thrived. simple rule of thumb is to always prune or transplant AFTER the blooms are finished. as to Obama's emotional affinity with Muslims? the downside is that was formed in Indonesia at a time when Indonesia's Islam, on Java, and in Jakarta, was still a synthesis with animism, Buddhism, and Hinduism, perhaps making the adult Obama too optimistic about today's Political Islam. I am unfamiliar with where he travelled in Pakistan, but their Sufi tradition of saint-worshipping Islam would have still predominated through the 1980's. (am still reeling from the simmering dispute over the Brit who believes she has found the tomb of historical Jesus at a Sufi shrine in Kashmir and wants to open it up to test the DNA to prove it is a Jew inside). Maybe Obama's no-drama style is incompatible with the cacophony of Jewish...

- K2K

May 23, 2010 at 8:07pm

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

I've just been thinking about this a little more. In his counter-terrorism policies and ops Obama is doing more to attack and take out the kind of people who killed Pearl than anyone else, including his predecessor. I'm not the first one to mention this, but it seems as if there's a certain kind of mentality out there which is primarily interested in what is SAID and little else. The president can commit 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan, increase the drone campaign by 300%, take out the AQ leadership cadre hiding in caves in Waziristan, but if he doesn't make every speech a confrontational clash-of-cultures finger-jab directed at Muslims worldwide, he's some kind of wuss. For me, I don't find it difficult choosing between "talk softly and carry a big stick" and "fall on your face while yelling 'bring it on!'"

- ironyroad

May 23, 2010 at 8:18pm

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

irony: "what exactly is it that these people want him to do that he isn't doing?" excellent question. one thing they want is for him to treat traditional strong allies like Britain, Canada, and Israel with more respect. mostly, they hate the UN and see diplomatic outreach as appeasement. one example is that the U.S. has stayed out of trying to massage Iraq's new government process. so, the screechers think Iran is the winner. After some thought, I think Obama is correct to keep U.S. fingerprints off the post-election process in Iraq. The U.S. has to stop clumsy regime change/molding. which is why some of us criticize his treatment of Netanyahu. it is an impossible world in which to be the sole superpower. I am unable to see who could do better with the complications of the economic crisis. but, it does seem other nations see Obama as spineless. what this script needed was Aaron Sorkin's Santos, former Marine fighter pilot as charismatic progressive Democrat.

- K2K

May 23, 2010 at 8:20pm

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

They want him to treat Canada with respect? Oh come on, K2K, that would be the Apocalypse, second only to saying that government works. You can imagine Marty's headlines if that happened!

- ironyroad

May 23, 2010 at 8:52pm

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

I didn't mean just that particular set of remarks, but more generally I'd say this language/action relationship is a problem for folks like Steyn, Marty Peretz, and the like. We've discussed this here more than once.

- ironyroad

May 23, 2010 at 9:33pm

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

ironyroad “I also am not prepared to second-guess Obama on this -- who knows what Pearl's son knows about his father's death? My assumption is the president was trying to keep it on a low volume.” You may not like Steyn’s style or Marty’s for that matter, but their point about why Daniel Pearl was murdered is accurate. Moreover, Obama didn’t have to talk about the sordid and disgusting way in which Daniel Pearl was murdered. He could have acknowledged that besides his being murdered because he was an American journalist (spy in their view) Daniel was also killed because of the ethno-religious group to which he belonged. One wonders if Obama omission of that fact doesn’t have something to do with his inability to face up to the medieval hatred Islamicists have for Jews. Perhaps that would interfere with the belief that Islam is a "religion of peace" mantra which the Mass Governor actuallyl believes. "‘Yours is a peaceful faith’ At Muslim forum, Patrick vows action to combat prejudice" http://www.boston.com/yourtown/cambridge/articles/2010/05/23/at_muslim_forum__patrick_vows_action_to_combat_prejudice/

- jdyer

May 23, 2010 at 10:21pm

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

ironyroad “I didn't mean just that particular set of remarks, but more generally I'd say this language/action relationship is a problem for folks like Steyn, Marty Peretz, and the like. We've discussed this here more than once.” Is this really true in a general sense? Yes, Obama has been actively prosecuting the war against the Taliban, but what has he done in other parts of the world? He speaks out against Syria’s support for Hezbollah, and against North Korea recent sinking of a South Korean vessel which was an act of war; but so far, no action. The language/action schism that Irony senses isn’t universally applicable. Let’s also remember that it’s easy to take action against Afghanistan and the frontier regions of Pakistan.

- jdyer

May 23, 2010 at 10:28pm

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

malahat, by "discussed here" I was referring to the issue about Obama administration language, and whether some people seem to value a more aggressive rhetoric above practical results even if the latter can be achieved in a more diplomatic and non-confrontational way. Obviously, in general, we are going to continue to discuss foreign policy as we did when Bush was president. Personally, I have nothing against Canada. Quite the opposite. Leonard Cohen and Neil Young are good reasons for loving the place.

- ironyroad

May 23, 2010 at 11:28pm

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

What basman, jackson and Ginzy said. I will repeat this, about Obama's seeming inclination to use perfumed words: 'Mal nommer les choses, c'est ajouter au malheur du monde' (Not to call things by their correct name is to add to the grief in of the world) - Albert Camus.

- noga1

May 23, 2010 at 11:33pm

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

Not "aggressive rhetoric". No. Just accurate terminology. Here is a Jewish man brutally murdered for being a Jew. The murderers cared nothing for the fact that Daniel Pearl was a journalist or that anything he would write would expose them to the world's criticism. He was targeted and murdered as a Jew. And here is your president re-casting the gruesome tale as a story of freedom of the press, a universal concern. His reformulation of the narrative adds nothing to the understanding of the world about Islamist antisemitism (elimintationist), while it seeks to persuade that the murder took place on political grounds (freedom of the press or lack thereof is a political issue and a universal right in polities). As Arendt put it, "When one is attacked as a Jew one must respond not as a German or a Frenchman or a world citizen, but as a Jew." Daniel Pearl was attacked as a Jew. Any sincere, meaningful commemoration is rendered meaningless and cynical without this simple truth factored in.

- noga1

May 23, 2010 at 11:51pm

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

with all due respect noga, it was Rep Adam Schiff's idea, before Obama was elected, to use Daniel Pearl's name on this Press Freedom Act. Pearl's kidnappers accused him alternatively of being CIA and/or Mossad. At the time, it is reasonable to assume the murderers would have followed the same action plan if Pearl had been a Christian or atheist or Hindu reporter for the Wall Street Journal investigating Al Qaeda in Karachi. not that I want to argue over this any more. Canada got added to the late March/early April list of close allies who are/were being treated worse than deserved because there was a flurry of outrage in the Canadian press at the end of March over SecState Clinton's public criticism of Canada's exclusion of indigenous groups, Sweden, Finland, and Iceland from the Arctic powers forum. She was also public in pressuring Canada on Afghanistan. Add in the trade issues (has the softwood lumber war ever been settled?), and It is even possible that Canada's superior support of Israel are a source of friction between PM Harper and President Obama. Just in case anyone thinks the Arctic nations forum is a sideshow, it is actually a very intense diplomatic wrestling match since Russia decided to claim most of the Arctic as Russian territory. The U.S. has the weakest geographic claim of the Arctic Five, so I guess Canada thought the U.S. should accept the role reversal and support Canada's leadership, instead of Sweden, Finland, and Canada's own indigenous peoples. http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/03/30/clinton_rebuke_overshadows_arctic_meeting could have been war if not for Sidney Crosbie winning goal.

- K2K

May 24, 2010 at 1:26am

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

I don't think "perfumed words" is in the remotest sense a good description of Obama's style. Almost any speech of his that has been slammed by the right has, if one looks at the parts they don't quote, plenty of clear language about the relationship between democratic rights and political legitimacy. No democratic politician can say exactly what he or she thinks -- that luxury is reserved for dictators -- but he's not an apologist for American values and attempts to portray him as such fail at the first fence of minimal evidence. For example, his Nobel Prize speech laid down for all with ears to hear the necessity of sometimes using military force in the cause of peace, irritating as that may be to those who make simplistic parallels between military readiness and war-mongering.

- ironyroad

May 24, 2010 at 2:34am

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

My gosh, some people really do have a perverse view of the world. Obama is weak because he has not yet taken action to retaliate for North Korea sinking a South Korean ship? Apparently, some people need to be told that South Korea is not an American state. It is an independent country. You can tell when a political unit is an independent country and not a state of the American union when it has its own navy. As an independent country, it's up to South Korea to set the terms of any response to aggression against it. Seoul has been building a careful response since the incident, first making the public case for the fact of North Korean involvement and now moving to impose retaliatory measures. The test for Obama is whether he backs South Korea's play on this, not whether he jumped in guns blazing on day one. So far, the American government has performed perfectly in this crisis, supporting an ally but letting the allied government take the lead.

- rhubarbs

May 24, 2010 at 7:32am

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

rhubarbs "My gosh, some people really do have a perverse view of the world. Obama is weak because he has not yet taken action to retaliate for North Korea sinking a South Korean ship? Apparently, some people need to be told that South Korea is not an American state. It is an independent country." And a very close ally. The US still has troops in South Korea and has a large stake in what goes there. North Korea knows that and knows that in provoking South Korea it is also provoking the US. Hillary think so to which is why she asked the Chinese to punish the North: Ignoring the typical sarcastic headline from AP the story does summarize what is going on: "WRAPUP 6-Two Koreas snarl at each other, tensions rise" http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTOE64N00Y20100524?type=marketsNews

- jdyer

May 24, 2010 at 8:56am

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

rhubarbs "My gosh, some people really do have a perverse view of the world. Obama is weak...." No one here said that Obama is "weak." People criticize Obama for not using the strength he does and for relying on "dialogue" instead of projecting US power in disputes. The preverse view of the world is held by people who think that every world crises can be talked away.

- jdyer

May 24, 2010 at 9:15am

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

"with all due respect noga, it was Rep Adam Schiff's idea, before Obama was elected," I suppose then that Adam Schiff is to also to blame for Obama's choice to inaugurate the law, two years later, by re-working the contents of the event "that captured the world’s imagination because it reminded us of how valuable a free press is.”. Obama, as we know him, is incapable of thinking for himself and coming up with words that are accurate and to the point, eh? ironyroad, nowhere in your response could I find in the remotest sense an attempt to explain Obama's omissions and change of emphasis in this . I ask you, why would the signing of a symbolic American bill named after Daniel Pearl be a difficult occasion for Obama to refer to the simple, recorded facts of the event? I genuinely do not understand and none of the comments in this thread has offered any plausible explanation for why he would choose not to mention that Pearl was targeted and murdered because he was a Jew by Nazi-style Islamists . Since when is the factual truth so repugnant that it cannot be repeated by a democratic leader? I don't recall Obama being struck by such difficulties when he chose to whip up a frenzy of indignation at Israel for daring to plan to build apartments in Jerusalem. What we see is amplification and minimization of the import of facts and contexts but to what end? Who stands to benefit and who stands to get harmed by ignoring recorded and verifiable facts? What about you, do you endorse and support Obama's way of representing Daniel Pearl's murder?

- noga1

May 24, 2010 at 9:33am

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

And another thing: What's with the "captured the world’s imagination" cliche? In what way does a gruesome scene of beheading a man capture anybody's imagination? If anything, it leaves nothing for the imagination. "capture someone's imagination" Fig. to intrigue someone; to interest someone in a lasting way; to stimulate someone's imagination. The story of the young wizard has captured the imagination of the world's children." A very pertinent figure of speech, indeed.

- noga1

May 24, 2010 at 9:57am

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

The Korean Armistice Agreement of July 27, 1953, signed by "the Commander-in-Chief, United Nations Command, on the one hand, and the Supreme Commander of the Korean People's Army and the Commander of the Chinese People's volunteers, on the other hand, ..." is still in effect, BUT South Korea never signed, and "North Korea unilaterally withdrew from the armistice on May 27, 2009, thus returning to a de jure state of war." http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Korean_Armistice_Agreement This is more than the U.S. standing by ally South Korea. The role of the United States is as part of the United Nations Command (the U.S. never declared war) 60 years later. Is this the real test for the idea known as the United Nations? If only the Koreans were Jews, then we would see the world's focus on finding a two-state solution (sarcasm).

- K2K

May 24, 2010 at 10:06am

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

jd, what would constitute "projecting US power" in the Korean crisis mean to you? I'm honestly curious.

- rhubarbs

May 24, 2010 at 10:17am

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

noga: "I suppose then that Adam Schiff is to also to blame for Obama's choice to inaugurate the law, two years later, by re-working the contents of the event "that captured the world’s imagination because it reminded us of how valuable a free press is.”." Considering that Obama was meeting with the 37 members of the Congressional Democratic Jewish caucus the very next day (closed to the press), it is possible that there WAS consultation on what Obama would say. I do not know what would have been gained last week by highlighting that Daniel Pearl was Jewish. He was kidnapped and murdered for being an American journalist. The Senate had finally passed the law, which was a big part of the delay. yes, Obama's words were a failure.

- K2K

May 24, 2010 at 10:25am

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

I think it would have been nice if Steyn or TNR actually reached out to the family of Daniel Pearl for their reactions to the speech and the signing ceremony. Here is a Haaretz article: WASHINGTON - Daniel Pearl's 8-year-old son Adam, who was born after his father's murder, was among the six family members of the slain Wall Street Journal reporter present when U.S. President Barack Obama signed the Daniel Pearl Freedom of the Press Act at the White House. Also present was Daniel's father, Judea Pearl. How do you - as Daniel's father - explain to your grandson what happened? It's hard, but we are doing our best not to traumatize him. He knows that his dad was killed by bad people, he doesn't understand the background and occasionally he asks questions. Yesterday we went to the Lincoln Memorial, and there was a woman in the crowd who asked, "Are you Judea Pearl?" I said, "Yes. I am." She said, "I remember your son." And Adam asked, "How come people know you?" And I told him, "They were very upset by the death of your father." He asked why. And I tried to explain him that his father was something unique because usually they don't touch journalists. And here they did it, and it upsets many, many people. He understands it, and ultimately he will get the information. But I hope by that time, he will be strong enough and mature enough.... The law is supposed to give the State Department the ability to work more energetically to protect journalists and promote freedom of the press. Do you believe this will improve the situation? I wasn't really involved in it. It was the initiative of Congressman Adam Schiff, whom we met in Pasadena a few years ago. At the beginning of this year, he contacted us and asked if we agree to this initiative. He is in the caucus for freedom of the press and thought it would be good to tie it to the name of Daniel Pearl to get wider support in Congress, and he was successful. He passed it through the House, then it went to the Senate - we didn't push for it, and recently we got a phone call that the president is going to sign it, we had three or four hours to decide if we are going to go or not. And we decided, correctly, I think, that we should all be there. Whether it will work depends on how vigorously the State Department pursues it. But even if they don't, and it stays on the books, it will still have a positive effect on journalists, who will feel that someone is paying attention. There has been a great deal of controversy recently over the question of where the trial should be held of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who is suspected of planning the September 11 bombings and also admitted murdering your son. I think it should be held behind closed doors. That's based upon a very simple realization there is nothing more enticing for would-be terrorists than the idea they will get a stage in a New York court. It's more enticing, I believe, than 72 virgins. - What do you think about the recent calls to deny terrorist suspects Miranda rights, even if they are American citizens? Throughout history society has found new legal instruments to deal with new threats. Terrorism is a new threat; it needs to be dealt with newly invented legal instruments. And it's a job of the attorney general to invent new legal regimes to deal with that problem. Terrorists should not be tried as soldiers nor as criminals. There should be a new category to deal with this particular threat. That's my opinion. The international community has this mandate. If the United Nations cannot decide on the definition of a terrorist, it doesn't mean that each country should be likewise inhibited. [He did like borrowing from analogies related to the Geneva Conventions.] This phenomenon didn't exist on such a scale back then, and it exists now. You participate in a dialogue for Muslim-Jewish understanding in America with Dr. Akbar Ahmed, chair of Islamic Studies at the American University in Washington, D.C, and you probably know how sensitive this community is to discrimination. Aren't you afraid such laws might be abused when you have trials behind closed doors? It could be, but we must devise ways to eliminate or reduce this likelihood. However, we did have special treatment of pirates in the 1840s - they invented a new instrument - a pirate caught on his ship wasn't dealt with in his country of origin. He was tried in the country that owned the ship, and within 12 years, they got rid of piracy. It was a new legal trick and it worked, and we should deal in a new way with the terrorism problem. It deserves its own legal framework. Have you been following events in Israel regarding freedom of the press and freedom of movement? I just saw on "London and Kirschenbaum" that they refused to let Noam Chomsky enter Israel. It was ridiculous. It was very strange to me, I don't know who gave this order. Maybe it was a statement by Shas, so people know they are still in the coalition. Yesterday I visited Newseum [the D.C. museum of journalism], and they proudly told me that Israel moved from a yellow color to a blue color. Which means that in 2009 there were no complaints of persecuting journalists in the West Bank, so I was happy to see Israel is back in the blue. The foundation you established in you son's name has a program for journalists from Muslim countries. How does it work? It's a scholarship or fellowship for mid-career journalists from Muslim-dominated countries to come to the U.S. and work for six months at a major newspaper and go back to their countries and tell the readers what they have learned about the U.S. and the Jewish community in the U.S. They also work at least one week at a Jewish publication. Won't it put them at risk in some countries? Can they actually apply it at home? The whole point is that those who are ready to take this fellowship are already willing to make a statement. And there are other people who need encouragement, and these are the people whom we are sponsoring. Our feedback is terrific. We had people who went back to Yemen and demanded freedom of speech. And conducted seminars on how to report news objectively. Now we have about 14 journalists who keep in touch and tell us about their continuing efforts. They get the idea that freedom of the press is a norm in certain societies and got to see how it operates and they understand the situation in their country, and that one day they should be entitled to it. Have any Palestinian journalists participated yet? Not yet. It's open, it's been advertised there, I think, but they have to apply for it. Some people take it as an important item on their resume, and some people ask us not to put it there, so we don't bring them. It's something you have to be proud of. Recently we've seen experiments with computers writing news articles. What is going to happen to this field? I certainly don't think [the newspaper industry] is dying as some suggest. It might be transformed into different electronic forms. But people like to read materials written by human beings, not computers. I like to read specific people, and I think it's universal. So I don't join in this line of speculation. We've been seeing a great deal of anti-Israel foment by critics on California campuses. As a lecturer at UCLA, how much does this disturb you? The first assessment is what's going on - there is no doubt that it's a nationally orchestrated movement. In the beginning the aim was divestment but they learned very quickly that no one will go on with divestment, and they say now the aim is putting Israel on the defensive. So now it's the control of the student government and resolutions. The idea is to have resolutions that condemn the occupation and to put Israel on the defensive. And it gives them a possibility to jump to the next step - continuing to treat pro-Israel voices as unwelcome on campus, something out of the norm, to establish the norm of being anti-Israel and verbally harass pro-Israel voices on campus. It's well-funded and well-orchestrated. Behind it is the coalition of several anti-Israel organizations, Students for Justice in Palestine, which is trying to get together with the Jewish Voice for Peace [a grassroots Bay area organization]. How involved are you in this? I didn't get an e-mail to support divestment - I think people know it would be a waste of an e-mail. I do get an e-mail once in a while asking me to express my opinion against it, but unfortunately, I didn't get such a message from Hillel. It didn't come from a major Jewish organization, which saddens me. It means we are not prepared to counteract in a timely matter. Only small organizations, individuals, take on the burden of countering it. Many campuses still operate under the illusion that they have a way to pacify anti-Israel sentiments locally, and they will make friends locally and stand in the way of an international opposition movement. It's an illusion, which I don't think is going to work, because students stay here only four years, and these anti-Israeli organizations are stable and training new cadres every year and send them to the campuses. They act quickly and uniformly all over the campuses. And Hillel thinks it can act locally, so they don't have a national program to train people, send them to campuses and teach them how to respond. There is Scholars for Peace in the Middle East, but they are faculty members, and there is a huge gap between faculty and students. Students go first to Hillel to seek contacts. I am very worried because this is the future of Israel. Israel relies on the support of the U.S., and the future support in the U.S. relies on what is going on now in campuses, and now it's not in the right direction. There are students from Korea, for example, who might be having their first exposure to the Middle East and all the information they get is from these shouting voices of protest. There are also history professors who teach from anti-Israel books. At UCLA we have two history professors who are vehemently anti-Israel, anti-Zionists. And they teach huge classes every year. And these are students who put on their resume "I took a class in Middle East history" and they get jobs at the State Department and other organizations that will determine the future American attitude toward Israel. To me, it's very worrying. There is no counter voice. An Israel studies program has been established, but this is unbalanced in the sense that it's under the Israeli studies program, and anti-Israel teaching is under the auspices of the history department. To hear the voice for coexistence you have to take a class in the Israel studies program, while if you are interested in a general Middle East program, you get the anti-Israel voices. It's unfair and asymmetric. We should fight but we don't have an organization to fight. As we know, two Jews - three opinions. So we have two Jewish organizations and five opinions on how to deal with it. We do not have the leadership that will put all our resources to countering this horrible threat to the future.

- blackton

May 24, 2010 at 10:31am

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

"He was kidnapped and murdered for being an American journalist." If he had, we do not see much evidence for that in the video of his last moments in life: "My name is Daniel Pearl. I am a Jewish American from Encino, California USA. I come from, uh, on my father's side the family is Zionist. My father's Jewish, my mother's Jewish, I'm Jewish. My family follows Judaism. We've made numerous family visits to Israel. Back in the town of Bnei Brak there is a street named after my great grandfather Chaim Pearl who is one of the founders of the town." Perhaps he got it wrong.

- noga1

May 24, 2010 at 10:36am

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

Just to re-iterate, here is a key graf: How do you - as Daniel's father - explain to your grandson what happened? It's hard, but we are doing our best not to traumatize him. He knows that his dad was killed by bad people, he doesn't understand the background and occasionally he asks questions. If the Pearl family had expressed any disappointment in the speech of Obama, then I say, fine, have at Obama, but I find it a bit unsettling that people presume to take righteous indignation in the name of the family without knowing how they themselves feel. For all we know there were discussions with the family about the type of language to be used (and again, we are presuming to know otherwise). Looking at what Daniel Pearl's father said, that this child doesn't understand the background, we are now going to presume to say that Obama should have been more graphic? I am not going to defend Obama or insult him over the speech because I simply don't have the facts and Mark Steyn and Marty Peretz are too lazy to get off their asses and do some real investigative research. I had to go to Haaretz to get some information. This is simply disgraceful.

- blackton

May 24, 2010 at 10:40am

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

"...to take righteous indignation in the name of the family " Has anyone done that, blackton? Where? To me it seems that Judea Pearl is being extreme circumspect in what he says, hardly even mentioning Obama, except here: "He passed it through the House, then it went to the Senate - we didn't push for it, and recently we got a phone call that the president is going to sign it, we had three or four hours to decide if we are going to go or not. And we decided, correctly, I think, that we should all be there." Not exactly a resounding endorsement of the whole initiative, is it? And what do you think he means by this: "And here they did it, and it upsets many, many people. He understands it, and ultimately he will get the information. But I hope by that time, he will be strong enough and mature enough...."

- noga1

May 24, 2010 at 10:50am

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

K2K, sorry I was posting and didn't mean to repeat what you said. I truly do want to know the reactions of the Pearl family, but I, alas, possess no opportunity to find out. I have no reason not to believe that Judea Pearl would not be honest in his reactions. He might express it politely but I am sure he can get his true feelings known and understood. Their opinions matter to me and if, as is possible, there was consultations about the wording (out of a desire to spare the child) does anyone anywhere imagine there would be an apology from Steyn or Peretz? Of course, I could be wrong, maybe the Pearl family is angry, and wouldn't it be nice to get that on the record before we all spout out our venom? At least I, not knowing the facts, withhold judgment about the speech. So how about it Marty, are you going to get off your ass and put someone on this? Or is journalism too much to ask?

- blackton

May 24, 2010 at 10:53am

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

"On August 11, 2002, Daniel was buried in Mount Sinai Memorial Park in Los Angeles, California. His gravestone reads: "Journalist. Musician. Humanist. He lost his life in pursuit of the truth."" http://marriage.about.com/od/thearts/p/danielpearl.htm Mariane is a Buddhist, although her father was a Dutch Jew. It is unclear if Adam Pearl is being raised as a Jew.

- K2K

May 24, 2010 at 10:57am

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

K2K, I don't see the relevance of your last comment (well known information) if it was meant as a rebuttal to my own position. Obama must know the circumstances of Daniel Pearl's murder. I'm sure he could have found the correct formula to represent the event more truthfully without harming the young boy. "“Obviously, the loss of Daniel Pearl was one of those moments that captured the world’s imagination because it reminded us of how valuable a free press is.” One gets the impression that Daniel Pearl lost his life during one of those inevitable man-caused disasters, for which no one can be held accountable.

- noga1

May 24, 2010 at 11:12am

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

noga1 I am not saying you are wrong, just that for the love of God, why hasn't anyone gotten the family's reaction first before they (Marty and Steyn) condemned the speech? Or to at least know the full backstory. I think Haaretz is to be commended for the interview and since they did not take a condemnatory attitude towards what Obama said then I can't possibly criticize Haaretz for their questions. "we didn't push for it, and recently we got a phone call that the president is going to sign it, we had three or four hours to decide if we are going to go or not." Yes, but we have no idea what the time frame of this is, did this happen a few weeks ago or longer, and that the White House asked for a yes or no later on in the day? I am sure that in the morning the White House looked at the docket and said, oh hey, we have a signing ceremony today, lets invite the Pearls. It doesn't work that way. Look, personally, I wish Obama would have been a helluva lot more forceful, but he had a 7 year old child standing next to him, one who by his Grandfathers own admission doesn't really understand what happened. It is very likely that this event will have a lasting impact on the child, so in my mind, he comes first. Now, granted, I know full well I might be completely wrong about this, that maybe Obama was being mealy mouthed, and I think if Obama had been far more condemnatory of Islamic extremism it would likely have gone over the boys head. As I said, I wish I knew the backstory. All I ask for is journalism first, then analysis. Why the hell am I paying a subscription for otherwise? If I want someones uninformed opinion, there are millions of free blogs out there.

- blackton

May 24, 2010 at 11:12am

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

blackton: there does seem to be a strong reaction to what Obama says when a Jew is involved :) Peretz is more likely spasming over Hezbollah's embrace of the "Righteous Jew" after reading this in today's New York Times "No Worries, Israel Insists, Defense Drill Is Just a Drill" By ISABEL KERSHNER and FARES AKRAM: "...Hezbollah’s deputy head, Nabil Qaouk, said Friday that the military exercise was a sign of Israel’s aggressive intentions and that Hezbollah had gone on alert. Mr. Qaouk was speaking during a meeting at his home in southern Lebanon with the Jewish American intellectual Noam Chomsky, a fierce critic of both American and Israeli policy who was barred by Israel from entering the occupied West Bank from Jordan last week. ..."

- K2K

May 24, 2010 at 11:13am

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

by the way, I am not saying I disagree with a lot of the posters here, we lack the access so all we can have is our own opinion, which frankly doesn't amount to a hill of beans so I kind of misspoke above, there is zero reason for any poster to withhold judgment. I am just really annoyed that all the people who have connections couldn't be bothered to f-ing do their jobs and provide a valuable service by doing what Haaretz did, picking up the phone, and doing their damn job. It is a disgrace that I had to go to an Israeli newspaper to find what should have been part of the story, a followup from the family as to the days events. Unf-ingbelievable.

- blackton

May 24, 2010 at 11:18am

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

malahat: Pearl was murdered because he was an American and because he was a Jew, not because he was a journalist as per Obama's remarks. That is what is disgraceful to me. And that is a fair criticism, except that telling a child his father was killed because he was a jew which being Jewish himself would likely instill a huge amount of fear in the child, as opposed to a journalist, which the boy is not is a different matter. Think of it this way. "your father was killed because he was a jew, you are a jew too right? you better be careful or you are next" not to be snide, but a 7 year olds imagination can easily run away with them. Look, if it were cleared beforehand, that the 7 year old knew his father was killed because he was jewish, but that it was in another country far away and the people who did it are either dead or in prison, then I would have expected Obama to state it that way. Again, I don't have the backstory to what happened so I can only speculate.

- blackton

May 24, 2010 at 11:27am

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

It would be nice to see once, just once, the American President take a clear position that does not compromise Jewish history in the service of God only knows who. Here is what Judea Pearl wrote in 2009: "Those around the world who mourned for Danny in 2002 genuinely hoped that Danny's murder would be a turning point in the history of man's inhumanity to man, and that the targeting of innocents to transmit political messages would quickly become, like slavery and human sacrifice, an embarrassing relic of a bygone era. But somehow, barbarism, often cloaked in the language of "resistance," has gained acceptance in the most elite circles of our society. The words "war on terror" cannot be uttered today without fear of offense. Civilized society, so it seems, is so numbed by violence that it has lost its gift to be disgusted by evil." "Civilization is not self-supporting. It is artificial. If you are not prepared to concern yourself with the upholding of civilization -- you are done." (Ortega y Gasset)

- noga1

May 24, 2010 at 11:32am

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

"Not exactly a resounding endorsement of the whole initiative, is it?" True, and it wasn't Obama's initiative -- maybe he and the Pearl family actually share some misgivings about it? We don't know. Maybe Pearl's widow, for her son's sake, doesn't want too much public emphasis on Pearl's having been murdered because he was a Jew. We don't know. A little awareness of factors we can't be sure about -- which I don't expect from Steyn, of course -- might be appropriate here.

- ironyroad

May 24, 2010 at 11:41am

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

We are all working with whatever material is available, ironyroads. Steyn is as much entitled to interpret from what IS PRESENT AND SEEN as you are from what is CONCEALED AND ABSENT. I agree that sometimes, in a noise to signal formula, one can actually infer a lot from the feebleness, or absence, of the signal in relation to the abundance of noise. But can you in all honesty claim that Steyn's, and Marty's, case is all noise and very little signal? Aren't you relying too much on silence as bearing most of the onus of significance?

- noga1

May 24, 2010 at 11:53am

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

Jackson, some crises are better talked away and some are not. The crisis in question with North Korea is better talked away so long as the talking can get China to clamp down on trade and communications with the North, so it would further pressure Kim Jong-Il's regime. What would be a really bad idea would be for the US to assert an aggressive posture toward North Korea that would invite a barrage of rockets on Seoul, followed by a North Korean invasion across the DMZ. The humanitarian impact would be devastating, and the impact on the global economy not insignificant either. It's likely that such a war would end badly for North Korea, but not before tens of thousands of Koreans and thousands of GI's would have perished, even without another global economic crisis. Even President Bush was aware of this, which is why his Administration barked a lot at North Korea but never bit them. This President is also obviously aware of it. If Marty, Mark Steyn and the other usual suspects are not, that's because they have the luxury of not having to think too hard about it.

- wildboy

May 24, 2010 at 12:09pm

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

I have no strong feelings about Obama's speech about the Daniel Pearl Freedom Act, but do have a question about the narrative that Pearl died while proudly proclaiming his Jewishness to his captors. Having seen the execution video and read transcripts of his final remarks, I get the sense that he was essentially cooperating with his captors in making statements about how he was "Jew" and his family were "Zionists" with a connection to Israel. Given their murderous animosity toward Israel, Jews and "Zionists", that was the kind of stuff they wanted him to say. And how many journalists, even Jewish or Israeli ones, would volunteer to their Muslim interlocutors that they are "Zionists"? It's possible to interpret the transcript as a cry of defiance by Pearl at anti-Semites, but the video does not suggest a hint of it -- merely a bound and disoriented man, rightly fearful for his life, making statements that his captors want him to make in the obvious hope that doing so can cause him to be released. That he died with a proclamation of Jewishness on his lips seems to be either a coincidence or, more likely, his captors' design to murder a man who had just implicated himself of his guilt as a Jew and a Zionist. I seriously doubt that it was Pearl's design to invite death by invoking his devotion to Judaism and Jewishness. Either way, he died as a kiddush hashem and should be remembered as such by Jews and others (in addition to all the other things he was). But elevating his final words into some sort of religious or political testament seems to be at odds with recorded reality.

- wildboy

May 24, 2010 at 12:19pm

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

No one could possibly presume that "Pearl died while proudly proclaiming his Jewishness to his captors. " If that had been the case, his last words would never have been allowed to be heard. It was a confession of guilt, as far as his tormentors were concerned. It was a video meant to recruit jihadists, not to serve as the last brave standing of a Jewish American confronting his captors. You should read some of the Arab bloggers, the 'moderate' ones, and see how they treat Jewish identity, in order to understand that as far as the Arab-Islamic street is concerned, there is nothing to be proud of in being Jewish.

- noga1

May 24, 2010 at 12:29pm

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

I'm kind of wondering what the real issue is, in this discussion. If everyone basically agrees that Obama's words were not the appropriate words to say on this occasion, what then is the reason for 70+ comments accumulating within 15 hours after the posting of this article by Marty?

- noga1

May 24, 2010 at 12:36pm

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

I found Obama's remark perfectly appropriate. He was paying tribute. Pearl did not, presumably, go to Pakistan as a Jewish reporter but as a reporter seeking a truth and risking his life doing so. His family and surviving wife (I believe a muslim, not sure) emphasize Pearl as being a universalist not a Jew. Peretz/Steyn and idiots alike always want the Pres to say "look, its because he is a Jew, this happens. See, this justifies settlements and brutality in Israel and the expense to US taxpayers and troops that come with it." I have read enough of these posts to not imagine otherwise. Actually, for any national leader to acknowledge importance of freedom of press, whether democratic or otherwise, is, these days, most remarkable in itself.

- NR027810

May 24, 2010 at 12:36pm

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

"I'm kind of wondering what the real issue is" I thought I was kind of clear in my postings above that neither Marty or Steyn could be bothered to do the slightest bit of journalism to find out the back story, whether or not the contents of the speech was discussed with the family, etc. that, for me, the real issue is not a lot of venting but lack of journalism. Why am I paying money to TNR? For Marty Peretz's opinions? It ain't worth it. Do you honestly mean to tell me with his connections he could not have gotten the information? Not one staffer could have made one phone call? In all the world Haaretz is the only news organization that thought to interview the family of Daniel Pearl after the signing ceremony? Honest to God, where is the real news? Is everything going to be reduced to opinion?

- blackton

May 24, 2010 at 12:58pm

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

"I'm kind of wondering what the real issue is, in this discussion." Noga, surely you know by now that commentator tangents are what Marty's posts are practically designed to ensure. If you want a set of comments that stick squarely to the subject matter of the original post, go to Chait's blog.

- wildboy

May 24, 2010 at 1:03pm

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

Who is right here? The reverend Jeremiah Wright (anti-Semite, and former Pastor of the President), who claims (based upon direct observation and a census) that the President is surrounded by Jews; or this article, which strongly suggests that the President, and his administration are, from a foreign policy standpoint, anti-Israel, probably anti-Semitic and are trying their best to undermine Israel, by failing to sufficiently endorse and champion Zionism, and a democratic state in the Middle East? But these dichotomies are each wrong in their proposition. Yes the President is surrounded organizationally and intellectually by American Jews, who are the origin and authors of his foreign and domestic policies. And the Reverend Wright is correct in his condemnation of the President, which asserts essentially that by no stretch of the imagination, could any Obama Administration policy; approach the independence of viewpoint, of say Secretary of State George Marshall in 1947/48. But we must understand this drumbeat decrying this Administration as being anti-Zionist and anti-Israel, it is a smoke screen, it is a false witness. It is a tactic designed to “keep the pressure on” a politically immature, inexperienced, and weak President. It is designed to ensure two things: (1) It insures that the Administration remains insecure in its affections with American Jews and their pro-Israel lobby; and (2) By reason of (1), any Administration policy option that is suggested by anyone, that is not an idea which is written and pre-cleared by the Israeli foreign ministry in Jerusalem, never sees the light of public discussion; and is immediately attacked, and continuously attacked, until public repudiation (by the Administration and the Congress) liquidates the idea. This article is part of that tactic. It posits the implication that the President has the political gravitas and cohunes (the family newspaper term) to initiate within his Administration, his Party, and his Party in Congress, a foreign, Middle East, or national policy of the US that is not pre-cleared in its staffing by the Israeli PACs of the US; and the Israeli government. The President simply has not the constitution (i.e., guts) for this. That is not who he is. So in order for him to be the advocate of an any anti-Israeli policy position, it would have to be a position that comes out of his Administration, his Party, and or his Party in the Congress. This of course is not, and can not be the case, given the make-up of his Administration, his Party, and his Party in the Congress. And furthermore, since “they is us”; it would be an absurdity for the pro-Israeli/pro-Zionist propaganda machine to attempt to argue that there was, within themselves (American pro Israeli opinion) a source of an anti-Israeli/anti-Zionist policy advocacy. It’s just absurd. America’s Israeli and Zionist policies are in good hands; their own.

- 12alainu

May 24, 2010 at 1:07pm

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

Once again, obama is a fool to think that mere words count for anything. And his choice of words is so vital and crucial and can bring about the destruction of the american empire.

- miceelf

May 24, 2010 at 1:26pm

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

"His family and surviving wife (I believe a muslim, not sure) emphasize Pearl as being a universalist not a Jew. " Indeed. Based on this statement alone, I'd wonder why anyone would ever take NR027810 seriously. But it does prove my point, in quoting Hannah Arendt earlier. Let's not hear what Daniel's last words were. Let's not pay attention to his murderers' ideology. Let's listen to Obama, who tries to cleanse this atrocity of the religious undertones that support its happening. Let's listen to the only non-idiot in this thread who knows for a fact what Daniel Pearl died for.

- noga1

May 24, 2010 at 1:44pm

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

wildboy: I was not complaining about the meandering discussion. I was genuinely asking a question. I thought it was clear from the context.

- noga1

May 24, 2010 at 1:46pm

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

Have now seen a number of these pieces from Marty Peretz excoriating Obama for not understanding the nature of radical Islam, and/or for the general ineptness and weakness of his approach to Iran and others. Below are just several recent spine postings in this vein. Unless my memory escapes me though, just a couple of years ago during the Democratic primaries Marty was assiduously promoting Obama vs. Hillary and assuring us, his readers, that we could trust Obama on issues related to Israel and the Middle East. First of all, whatever issues Marty has had with Hillary, there is absolutely no question that her instincts on Iran and other foreign policy issues are substantially stronger and more realistic then Obama’s. More to the point, will Marty at any point be considering admitting to his readers that his judgment and reassurances about Obama two years ago may have been wrong?? It’s Funny How Barack Obama Can’t Bear To Utter The Word “Jew” Or, For That Matter, “Muslim Extremist.” “These Sanctions Are Neither 'Crippling' nor 'Biting.' They Are Feeble and Flaccid, Truly Obama's Sanctions” “And It Seems You Can’t Trust The President On Missile Defense Either” “The Congress vs. Barack Obama: The U.S. vs. Iran” “Turkey Slaps Obama In The Face … Again. And He Takes It.”

- jcohentnr

May 24, 2010 at 2:01pm

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

Pearl's family never did emphasize that Pearl was a Jew and that he in fact loved all cultures. He was a reporter and truth seeker. (Again, I believe his wife was a French muslim but not sure) He would have been at risk whatever he was, esp. being with WSJ. For Obama to say that Pearl was a Jew at this point, with family, would have been in the kind of bad taste you would expect from types like Peretz. Do Jews expect some special kind of special due from WH every time???? Does Obama have to recognize every dead Jew as some kind of martyr? Should Pres present a separate religious ceremony for each faith of people killed in 911? I cannot think of any other Head of State where this would be expected, anytime anywhere. THis is total idiocy, and had Obama made mention of Pearl's born faith I would have been, as a Jew, grossly offended.

- NR027810

May 24, 2010 at 2:05pm

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

"(Again, I believe his wife was a French muslim but not sure) ' I would have presumed that you would have found out by now without having to rely on rumour, especially since Marianne's religious beliefs have already been mentioned in this thread. "For Obama to say that Pearl was a Jew at this point, with family, would have been in the kind of bad taste you would expect from types like Peretz. " Yes, it would have been in very bad taste to mention that Daniel Pearl was a Jew. Being Jewish is not something to be talked about or mentioned in polite society, when universal rights are being trumpeted, eh?

- noga1

May 24, 2010 at 2:16pm

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

Oh, sorry, I haven't noticed that NR027810 speaks asajew. Too too funny.

- noga1

May 24, 2010 at 2:24pm

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

The fact that Daniel Pearl was killed for being a reporter (definitely), an American (probably), and a Jew (definitely) doesn't say a damn thing about what would be the appropriate comments for the president to make at a public event at which Pearl's family including a small boy is present. As I don't comb through the White House's daily event record in order to find something to get annoyed at, I'm prepared to say that it seems to me that Obama was going for bland -- as I wasn't there, and I don't know what kind of discussions may have gone on earlier, I'm not prepared to just assume that this was a wrong decision or a sign of some ideological tic of his. Other reporters have been killed too, who weren't Jewish, and it's not so obvious to me that Pearl would have wanted his death to be considered separate from those of his colleagues. More broadly, what we are arguing about is, I think, Marty's embedding of Steyn's article in his blog entry, which amounts to an endorsement. Steyn runs with the tired right-wing non-joke about the teleprompters to mount an explicit accusation that Obama is soft on Islamic terrorism because it doesn't conform with the "delusional pap" of his liberal worldview. My own question is, why obsess over what Obama says if he has been carrying the fight to the very people who captured and killed Daniel Pearl with a lot more energy and focus over the last 15 months than his predecessor did over several years? Doesn't action count too?

- ironyroad

May 24, 2010 at 2:40pm

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

Well put ironyroad

- NR027810

May 24, 2010 at 2:52pm

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

"it's not so obvious to me that Pearl would have wanted his death to be considered separate from those of his colleagues." So you agree with NR027810 (who praises your comment) that speaking of Pearl's being targeted as a Jew would be in "bad taste"?

- noga1

May 24, 2010 at 3:51pm

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

noga1 writes: -- I'm kind of wondering what the real issue is, in this discussion. If everyone basically agrees that Obama's words were not the appropriate words to say on this occasion, what then is the reason for 70+ comments accumulating within 15 hours after the posting of this article by Marty? Mark Steyn, Martin Peretz and noga1 does not comprise "everyone" in any book. The United States Congress decided to honor the most famous American journalist killed in recent years by naming the Freedom of the Press Act for him. The act was not named after him because he was a dead Jew but because he was a dead American journalist. The President correctly focussed his brief signing speech on freedom of the press and the dangers journalists face in ensuring that freedom. It dishonors the memory of Daniel Pearl to convert an action designed to aid press freedom into one focussed solely on the ethnicity of one among many victims of attacks on the press.

- ndmackenzie

May 24, 2010 at 3:51pm

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

"Mark Steyn, Martin Peretz and noga1 does not comprise "everyone" in any book." If you are making such a claim you cannot have read the comment thread. Which should alert anyone who wishes to attribute to anything coming out of your pen any value whatsoever. " The act was not named after him because he was a dead Jew " I once read a few statements about Jews either alive or dead, made by David Irving, and this would not have felt out of place on that roster.

- noga1

May 24, 2010 at 4:26pm

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

No. I just meant that it's not so obvious to me that Pearl would have wanted his death to be considered as something separate from the deaths of colleagues such as Enzo Baldoni and Steven Vincent, also press people murdered by Islamic militants for being westerners, reporters, and whatever else they decided was the crime of the day. Perhaps he would have. I don't know. It just doesn't quite seem that way to me from the things I've read about him, and I've been surprised by the number of people on this thread who know stuff and know it with such utter certainty.

- ironyroad

May 24, 2010 at 4:38pm

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

"I've been surprised by the number of people on this thread who know stuff and know it with such utter certainty." If you want to say something it is better to just say it and not resort to this sort of obfuscation. What stuff? What people?

- noga1

May 24, 2010 at 5:07pm

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

noga1 writes: -- If you are making such a claim you cannot have read the comment thread. Which should alert anyone who wishes to attribute to anything coming out of your pen any value whatsoever. Not so much whatsoever as whaterver. noga1's "everyone" is the small set of people for whom every statement and every action must be parsed solely in terms of its effect on Jews. The United States Congress honored Daniel Pearl by naming the Freedom of the Press Act for him because he was an American journalist killed while performing his work. Indeed, the Wall Street Journal story announcing his death makes no mention of his religion/ethnicity. The ridiculous ethnic complaints we have seen on this thread and from other usual sources dishonors Daniel Pearl and all the journalists who have been killed trying to bring us the news of day. I find it disgusting that people who own magazine and write for a living would so disgrace themselves with such pathetic disrespect for journalsits who have been killed in action. noga1 then descends into some insane piece of logic with: -- "The act was not named after him because he was a dead Jew " -- I once read a few statements about Jews either alive or dead, made by David Irving, and this would not have felt out of place on that roster. Regardless of noga1's ability to read and understand plain English the following is certainly true: -- The act was not named after him because he was a dead Jew but because he was a dead American journalist. As to her riposte about David Irving. Talk about losing the plot with an insane argument. noga1 is running out of lies to hang her fantasies on. And in doing so she dishonors those she pretends to honor. Wall Street Journal link: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/pearl-022102.htm

- ndmackenzie

May 24, 2010 at 5:12pm

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

For example, what Pearl would have thought about being identified more as a Jew than as a journalist at the White House event. Marty, Steyn embedded in Marty, basman, malahat, JD, Noga, NR114 (on p. 1 at least).

- ironyroad

May 24, 2010 at 5:23pm

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

"irony, nope re: me. I never said anything about what Pearl would have wanted. " Exactly. Same here. I believe it was you, ironyroad, who first presumed to know, tentatively, what Pearl would or would not have wanted: "it's not so obvious to me that Pearl would have wanted his death to be considered separate from those of his colleagues."

- noga1

May 24, 2010 at 5:37pm

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

malahat writes: -- Pearl was murdered because he was an American and because he was a Jew, not because he was a journalist as per Obama's remarks. Daniel Pearl would not have been murdered had he not been a Wall Street Journal reporter on assignment in a dangerous part of the World. Furthermore, his association with the Daniel Pearl Freedom of the Press Act is entirely predicated on his being a journalist.

- ndmackenzie

May 24, 2010 at 5:40pm

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

-- Gawd, it was a terrorist act, not the wrong guy in the wrong place at the wrong time fercryinaoutloud. I never said it was not a terrorist act fercryinoutloud. However, Daniel Pearl was not on assignment as a Jew he was on assignment as a journalist. In naming the Freedom of the Press Act after him he was not being honored as a Jew he was being honored as a journalist. It dishonors Daniel Pearl and the many other journalists who have been killed in action to criticize President Obama for not mentioning Pearl's ethnicity/religion.

- ndmackenzie

May 24, 2010 at 6:07pm

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

Noga, malahat, if that's the case then I'm happy to see that you both -- if I'm not reading something other than what you meant into your responses -- agree with me at least so far as this: that we have little to no idea how Pearl himself would describe his story in this context or what he would regard as the most appropriate way for the president remember his sacrifice at the WH event. Presumably of course he'd rather be alive than be remembered in any particular way -- there's something a little morbid about this whole thread.

- ironyroad

May 24, 2010 at 7:34pm

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

But that was not any argument I brought up or disputed, ironyroad. In my initial response I registered my alarm that Obama persists in recasting events in terms which do not reflect their veracity or historical record. The quarrel that ensued, with NR's asajew hyprbolic about it being in bad taste to mention Pearl's Jewishness, and the mckenzies ' rancid "dead Jew' and your own bizarre claim that Pearl himself might not have endorsed his Jewishness being part of the atrocity visited upon him, supports Albert Camus when he said: 'Mal nommer les choses, c'est ajouter au malheur du monde' (Not to call things by their correct name is to add to the grief in of the world)

- noga1

May 24, 2010 at 7:51pm

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

". . .your own bizarre claim that Pearl himself might not have endorsed his Jewishness being part of the atrocity visited upon him" I didn't make that claim, Noga, and I wish you'd devote the attention to reading my posts that you insist -- rightly -- that I devote to yours before typing away and hitting submit. Quoting Camus on correctness doesn't relieve you (or me) of any responsibility in that way. malahat -- it wasn't specifically at issue, but it was a point I brought up in the context of the discussion as it developed. One is permitted to do that, I think, no? Other people bring up other points, and sometimes I feel like joining in the fun. And I also find it peculiar, as I said before, that the provable fact that Obama is doing more than anyone has done (and certainly more than his predecessor in the job) to bring the fight directly to the people who organize and carry out killings and mayhem on the lines of Pearl's murder seems to completely escape people like Marty and Mark Steyn who trawl through a five-minute speech looking for something to carp about without even taking the particular context into account.

- ironyroad

May 24, 2010 at 8:24pm

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

"I didn't make that claim" 5/24/2010 - 2:40pm EDT | ironyroad "Other reporters have been killed too, who weren't Jewish, and it's not so obvious to me that Pearl would have wanted his death to be considered separate from those of his colleagues." Not a claim. As I noted earlier, tentative claim. That "it's not so obvious to me" suggests the tentativity but since you were the first to insert this .. tentative claim into the discussion, to you belongs the authorship. tentatively speaking.

- noga1

May 24, 2010 at 8:33pm

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

I did not make any claim that "Pearl himself might not have endorsed his Jewishness being part of the atrocity visited upon him" and no amount of twisting will make it so. In fact, I'm unsure as to what "endorsed his Jewishness" really means, so I certainly didn't make it part of any asssertion on my part. What I said was that it's not so obvious to me -- as it seems to be obvious to you, which is precisely what I thought you were denying a couple of posts ago -- that in the context of a White House event to do with a law on press freedom at which his family including his young son were standing next to Obama, he (assuming he could return to express an opinion) would have wanted the emphasis to be on his Jewishness as opposed to his professional status of journalist as the trigger for his fate. That's all. Again, I don't know. Maybe that's all cockeyed, and maybe you're right and he would have wanted the Jewish aspect of his murder emphasized. But just a sense I've gotten from reading about Pearl suggests to me that, well, we don't know for sure. In any case, I stand by the tentative claim that we should not dismiss the possibility that Marty and Mark Steyn are far from being fonts of unchallenged wisdom. Just tentatively -- maybe they could be . . . wrong?

- ironyroad

May 24, 2010 at 8:54pm

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

"Pearl himself might not have endorsed his Jewishness being part of the atrocity visited upon him" "I'm unsure as to what "endorsed his Jewishness"" Not "endorsed his Jewishness". But: endorsed his Jewishness being part of... Let me try again: Pearl himself might not have endorsed [the fact that] his Jewishness [was] part of the atrocity visited upon him" You see, it was just a re-phrasing of what you said here: ".. it's not so obvious to me that Pearl would have wanted his death to be considered separate from those of his colleagues." Note please that I used "might' to suggest it was a tentative claim. I don't need to do any "twisting". If I misread your comment I will admit it as soon as I realize I did. I don't think I did. But it seems that you misread what I'd written. Now why is that, I wonder? It was awkwardly done but someone like you with your experience in reading could have got it straight upon a second reading, no? Instead, you pounced, all aggrieved. I have been consistent throughout this discussion and I never even once thought of bringing Pearl's own wishes into it. That was your doing. My criticism is directed at Obama's rewriting historical events, with all due respect to the argument you keep repeating here. As for "Marty and Mark Steyn are far from being fonts of unchallenged wisdom." No one here suggested they were. You are seeing things.

- noga1

May 24, 2010 at 9:17pm

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

"I'm off to watch the body count on 24..." Is it still going on? I watched the first two seasons, mesmerized, but then I couldn't bother to continue to follow it. The same happened to me with The Sopranos. Only recently have I discovered "Deadwood". I'm still under the hypnotic influence of Al Swearengen.

- noga1

May 24, 2010 at 9:22pm

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

Ok. If anyone out there who's not watching "24" -- please, don't all rush! -- has the time or interest, could they tell me if they believe honestly that Noga's "your own bizarre claim that Pearl himself might not have endorsed his Jewishness being part of the atrocity visited upon him" is a fair and in-context reading of anything I've written on this thread? If yes -- and there are quite a few people whose opinion I would respect -- then I'll have to withdraw the relevant comments, as it's not a claim I want to be making. I just don't see it, but maybe I'm now too close to the exchange to judge.

- ironyroad

May 24, 2010 at 9:52pm

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

amazing what can happen when one signs off for 13 hours. I never watched 24, but did know tonight was the final episode. irony: I did manage to read the 40+ comments since I was last here. but not much has stuck in my memory banks, and a repeat of "MI-5" just started where an Israeli attack in Gaza is actually done by Islamo-fascist AKA "El LOBO". just wanted to say that I tend to go with your view, irony. I do recall from Levy's book that, while Pearl was kidnapped because he was a WSJ journalist, once his captors discovered Israeli visas in his passport, they accused him of being Mossad AND CIA. One should realize the context in Karachi in 2002. btw, I read Musharraf is thinking of re-entering Pakistani politics. The current Pakistani Army CoS Kiyani's term expires end of year. I actually think Obama's blandness was IN PART also due to the current fragility of all things Pakistan with the onset of the Kandahar initiative (am away from my notes) will rejoin the conversation on another thread. doctor week for me..

- K2K

May 24, 2010 at 10:16pm

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

K2K, that's a good point -- I hadn't really thought so clearly about what the Pakistan desk (or even Pakistan) might look like in May 2010 -- a chaotic mess surrounded by spring-loaded mousetraps? May your doctor week go well (I'm assuming you mean medical treatment of some kind?)

- ironyroad

May 24, 2010 at 10:42pm

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

"If yes -- and there are quite a few people whose opinion I would respect -- then I'll have to withdraw the relevant comments, as it's not a claim I want to be making." "What I said was that it's not so obvious to me... he (assuming he could return to express an opinion) would have wanted the emphasis to be on his Jewishness as opposed to his professional status of journalist as the trigger for his fate." This statement has the same meaning as: "Pearl himself might not have endorsed his Jewishness being part of the atrocity visited upon him" Yet you insist they do not mean the same. How do they differ? _____________ "-- as it seems to be obvious to you," No it isn't. I never presumed to speak for Pearl, any Pearl, in any way, shape or form, whereas you - did. That's why I called it bizarre.

- noga1

May 24, 2010 at 11:06pm

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

I didn't presume to speak for him. Quite the opposite.

- ironyroad

May 24, 2010 at 11:32pm

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

irony: another current controversy is that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is NOT being tried for the murder of Daniel Pearl, 'only' for being the mastermind of 9/11, because of jurisdiction. so many reasons Obama would want to keep this signing low-key bland. However, after a dose of quadruple esponiage on "MI5", I do now agree that Daniel Pearl was murdered because he was Jewish, even though I still think he was originally kidnapped because he was an American journalist. Noga made an impression that took a while to percolate. I am not speaking to what HE thought, but a view that his life choices, even including working for the WSJ, were the choices of a Jew who believed in assimilation. Yet, in the end, all that may have mattered in the final decision (kill or release?) was that he was a Jew. Herman Wouk's character Professor Aaron Jastrow comes to mind... No, no actual treatment. My doctors are all in the NYC area, and I still have a hovel here, just getting hard to make the trip. I am a medical puzzle, apparently worthy of an episode of "House" :)

- K2K

May 25, 2010 at 12:02am

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

-- I am not speaking to what HE thought, but a view that his life choices, even including working for the WSJ, were the choices of a Jew who believed in assimilation. (my emphasis) whisky tango foxtrot

- ndmackenzie

May 25, 2010 at 12:14am

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

"Yet, in the end, all that may have mattered in the final decision (kill or release?) was that he was a Jew." I agree, and with the proviso of "may" although I think it's 85/15 or something like that -- I think (again from a position of speculating outsider) that they may have weaseled that fact out of him, or gleaned it from other sources, and suddenly the thrill of slaughtering an American Jew on the world wide web was too much to resist. Anyone remember the Achille Lauro?

- ironyroad

May 25, 2010 at 12:50am

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

"But also, ginzy, maybe not -- I've seen footage from many a town hall Q&A session in which the president fields unfiltered questions over lengths of time with an eloquence and intelligence (and, what is more unusal, a respect for the audience's intelligence) not often found in political leaders of any stripe." Ginzy doesn't watch those. The man has myths to peddle and is not about to let reality get in his way -- ever. As well, it stands to reason that people stupid enough to elect a certified clod like Benjamin Netanyahu would like everyone to believe that Americans are just as stupid and unthinking as they are.

- roidubouloi

May 26, 2010 at 11:12pm

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

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close