Gaza is hardly a model of the failure of spin. On the contrary, Hamas succeeded admirably in getting the media to ignore the context of the tragic deaths of children, namely its own culpability in conducting a rocket war from within residential neighborhoods and using hospitals and schools as headquarters and weapons depots. Many a correspondent spent days at the Gaza hospital showing us kids on stretchers but never thought to ask whether the Hamas commanders in the basement of the same hospital were also worth showing. If Israel suffered a PR defeat, maybe it was in fact spin that achieved it.
I agree that if Jews torched a mosque, it is appalling and deserves severe criminal punishment. BUT -- has anyone noticed that it appears that the last letter of the first word was initially written as a zayin instead of a gimel (the two are written the same, except one curves to the right and the other to the left) before being overwritten by the “editor”? And the last letter in Kahane is supposed to be an alef. It was written here with a heh. So it may be that this is no more than an attempt, by people for whom Hebrew is a second language, falsely to accuse Jews of torching a mosque. President Rivlin’s condemnation of the assault was right on – but only if he got his facts straight.
I am prepared to assume that most members of JVP were genuinely horrified by the attack on Mr. Petlakh. But this is a perfect example of what is often called the “useful idiot”. JVP’s motives may be pure, if grossly misguided. But they give cover to those whose motives, and means, are the opposite of pure. So get used to it, O noble JVPers. As your ideological allies get more brazen, thanks in part to the legitimacy you give them as Jewish sympathizers, there will be more opportunities to express your horror.
Just guessing here, but could it be different because this collection is directed at adults, and because it is a statement against terrorism and against the very indoctrination of children that the Hamas program was trying to accomplish?
You're not the only one. Couldn't be the content -- even saying someone was "directly responsible for murder" didn't prevent a comment from being shown.
Just imagine how the Forward would have reacted if Fox News had interviewed, say, Debbie Wasserman Schultz in the same Rabelaisian style.
The other problem is that even if one accepts that the "science is settled" (which it isn't), it doesn't follow that the "policy is settled". But so often those who throw around terms like "liar", or accuse people of being in the pocket of the Koch brothers, etc, etc., ask us to accept that what is needed is to increase the role of government, to rely on and subsidize unproven and uneconomical technologies, and generally to slow down economic growth. So you have an attitude to science that sounds less like Galileo and more like the Catholic Church that opposed him, coupled with a political ideology (the left wing of the Democratic Party) that attracts less than half of Americans. What a surprise that there are doubters.
Hobby Lobby and Conestoga are family businesses. That they are structured as corporations should be beside the point. Partnerships are not people either, even if the partners are. So what? Our law should accommodate conscientious objectors, even when we don't agree with them. And do you really equate preventing an employee from obtaining a blood transfusion with refusing to pay for birth control pills (which are within the ability of most employees to afford in any case)? The law should be able to draw distinctions, and that is one that even the Supreme Court should be able to figure out.
Don't flatter yourself, JA. You haven't exactly attracted an onslaught of critics. And my craw is clear. To me, it's not that you're identifying yourself with the young man, it's that you're identifying his father with your late friend's father. And if that sticks in YOUR craw, so be it.
End of chat. Be well.
We "let Caleb speak (publicly)" or we make him speak? Other than your animus towards Mr. Jacoby, on what basis do you write that his son is "under his thumb" and prevented from speaking publicly?