Political Correctness run amok

Posted by: pdx rick

Political Correctness run amok - 02/02/19 08:26 PM


I'm getting tired of the blow-back the Liz Warran is getting regarding her Native American ancestry.

Both the Cherokee and Delaware tribes have denounced her ancestry because she is not a Native American culturally.

Warren never claimed to be a Native American culturally, only through ancestry. Both the Cherokee and Delaware tribes never address the ancestry aspect, only the cultural aspect and denounce what they deem as "racial science."

Facts are facts, if your DNA shows that you're related to a particular group of people, cultural affiliation is not the point and to only identify as a group through culture is rather elitist.

Secondly, Ralph Northam was racist and bigot 35 years ago, or at the very minimum joked about racism and bigotry. Today, thirty-five years later, his views are quite different.

Same with Al Franken, different person in 2018 than in 2002.

Do people have to be held accountable for their past sins of decades ago? When does rehabilitation factor in - if ever? Hmm
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Political Correctness wrong amok - 02/03/19 12:53 AM

Rick, you beat me to the punch. I was about to post a query about a "reality check" for me. I think that there has been an overreaction to both the Warren and Northam situations. I listened to Northam's press conference today, and I think he did a good job of acquitting himself. Warren has been a very strong advocate for tribal interests her entire career (perhaps because she has native American ancestry). Northam, from what I understand, has been a strong advocate for minority interests throughout his career.

I raised this issue with my son, who thinks it is simple and I am using a double standard. I strongly disagree. But, that's where the "reality check" comes into play. I distinguished Kavanaugh's situation from Northam's and Warren's (in part because his is a lifetime appointment - no take-backsies).

So, here's my question: Is it a double standard, on my part, because I am a Democrat? Because I am white? Male? Liberal?

Or, in my defense, is there an appropriate distinction to be made? Robert Byrd and Hugo Black were both members of the Klan in their 20's and 30's, yet both became champions of racial causes later in their careers. People can change. Northam denied that the picture in the yearbook is of him, but admitted that on another occasion in 1984 he had "darkened his skin" during a dance imitating Michael Jackson (so much to say about that, but not here). He denied harboring racist thoughts and history, and asked that his whole career be examined to determine if the allegations were fair. Yet, everyone is calling for his resignation.

I have three arguments that convince me that these complaints (against Northam, Warren, and even Al Franken) have gone too far: First, people do change, and it is important to take a "whole career" approach to evaluating their "guilt" or "innocence" - and value; second, are they sincerely remorseful?; and third, are we really supposed to be the party of forgiveness, second chances, and reason, or do we adopt the "purity" tests so popular in conservative circles? At the same time, is it fair to judge Kavanaugh differently that Franken? Is it a matter of party?

I roundly condemned Bill Clinton's behavior at the time, and still do. I did not, however, think it rose to the level of impeachment, and still don't. Censure, yes, but not removal. In today's world, he'd have been hounded out by his own party.

I thought that Kavanaugh's defense, like Thomas's before him, was offensive and insincere. It, frankly, made me doubt his veracity - on top of which, he was (and continues to be) a terrible choice for the Supreme Court. Maybe, however, he can change (Thomas never has). The worst part of that process though, is that they were both confirmed without an adequate investigation of their fitness, or the underlying behavior that came up. In the case of Supreme Court Justices, doubts MUST be resolved before confirmation, and both will have careers clouded by that issue being unresolved.

Warren has never claimed to be a member of a tribe, and the leadership of those tribes have not condemned her for her, admittedly awkward, reveal - only particularly strident lesser officials and advocates. She needed to address the issue, though, before he candidacy, and her method was not irrational at all. Moreover, her record speaks for herself (which is why tribal leaders have supported her). She has always advocated for minorities and tribes in particular.

Franken was an outstanding advocate for women. Indeed, Gillibrand's swift condemnation of him and advocacy for his removal is why I cannot support her candidacy right now, although I like her positions on issues and think she is a quality candidate. Northam, as far as I can find, has always been an advocate for minority interests. I think, like Kavanaugh, he should not be forced to resign until a more thorough vetting process has occurred.

Finally, I follow the advice that Barack Obama gave with regard to Northam following the Charlottesville events: "That's how we rise. We don't rise up by repeating the past. We rise up by learning from the past and by listening to each other and knowing that we're all flawed. But we still try to preserve some baseline measure of goodness and decency and patriotism and we look for the good in other people, not the worst." That, I think, is the better standard for Democratic values than "Caesar's wife" purity.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: Political Correctness wrong amok - 02/03/19 12:57 AM

Franken was a one hundred percent setup by Roger Stone.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: Political Correctness wrong amok - 02/03/19 01:33 AM



Republicans never resign - only Democrats do.

Republicans stay in political races and sometimes win that race even after negative Access Hollywood tapes are released. Democrats always leave the race.

This is politics in America. Hmm
Posted by: Greger

Re: Political Correctness wrong amok - 02/03/19 01:47 AM

Well, yeah, are Democrats supposed to be free from all sin?
Are we that pure and intolerant?

I thought we were the party of tolerance?

Maybe not so much anymore.

Donald Trump is the Presdient for F*cks sake! The first lady of the United States of America posed nude for magaziness.

And Democrats are insisting on Victorian era morality among themselves.
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: Political Correctness wrong amok - 02/03/19 02:20 AM

Not really, or at least only recently. Look at Bill Clinton: He got a BJ from an intern yet still managed to keep his office. Now Newt was getting LOTS of BJs at the same time, apparently, so that might have made some difference.

We have a very long history of politicians getting some strange on the side, so I don't think it makes much sense for people to resign over it. It was pretty stupid for Democrats to demand Franken's head. I think it just takes a little humility, a confession of stupidity caused by testosterone poisoning, and we should let it go.

BTW, the expression is "run amok".
Posted by: Ken Condon

Re: Political Correctness wrong amok - 02/03/19 02:53 AM

Some random thoughts:

yet both became champions of racial causes later in their careers.

So did George Wallace-to an extent. “Funny” thing about claiming Native American heritage. Back in the day people would try to hide such a thing at all costs. A n--r in the woodpile.” No! Or---I ain’t no Injun".

Then later on for some it became fashionable to have “the other” as an ancestor. And many would proudly proclaim such even if it were mostly an exaggerated smidgin..... Years ago my wife and I while living in Corvallis had a Mexican couple with us for 3 1/2 years (it was to have been only one--long story) while they attended Oregon State University. Abel getting his PhD in mechanical engineering and his wife Rita getting her Masters in food science. Which they both managed to accomplish.

Abel and Rita were both very brown. In other words a “typical" Mexican looking couple. When I helped them move back to central Mexico-driving- in the early 1990’s Abel would look at some likely pure blooded Mexican natives along the way and proclaim them “Los Indios” with a wave of his hand. Never picking up on the irony as I saw it.

My guess is that both Abel and Rita were about half Native and half Euro. As are the majority of Mexican nationals. (Don’t quote me on that). Yet Abel never
saw that--assuming I suppose that he was “Mexican” and not “Indio”.

People mostly see what they want to see. And assign themselves to a certain tribe. Methinks a large part of that is coded into our DNA as well as affected by culture and upbringing.


Posted by: pdx rick

Re: Political Correctness wrong amok - 02/03/19 06:33 AM

Originally Posted By: Ken Condon
“Funny” thing about claiming Native American heritage.

Now-a-days, you can't claim Native American heritage unless you're currently culturally immersed in the culture.

Claiming to have polynucleotides of Native American in your chromosomes is simply "racial science" now-a-days by elitists who don't want you a part of their club, based upon if the Tribe feels that you have been sufficiently immersed into the Native American culture enough. coffee

After you've been deemed not culturally adequate enough, you'll be deemed a race-baiter for exposing the elitist cultural membership criteria. Hmm
Posted by: jgw

Re: Political Correctness wrong amok - 02/03/19 07:37 PM

Welcome to the Righteous Left! The latest victim is the current governor of Virginia. Whatever good he has accomplished, in the last 20 years are for naught - he is obviously a bad person doing the work of the devil. Just get rid of him, take any utterance as a sign of demonic possession, etc.

Republicans can rest peacefully, they only have Jackass - not these fake lefties who are appropriately outed for acts done 35 years ago. I know, there was also that horrendous statement about killing babies! Just terrible <sigh>

The Dems, I suspect, have proven that they can eat their own with the best of them.

Anybody who has not fully embraced the desires, wishes, beliefs of the righteous left just have to be gone and any good works must be disavowed or you will be visited, demonized, and attacked.

Too much??
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: Political Correctness wrong amok - 02/04/19 02:47 AM

Tribes with casinos have a financial motive for attacking DNA tests. The more people they can kick out of the tribe, the bigger their checks are. A lot of those cases are about paternity and such, and DNA testing can sometimes proves somebody has the right Native American progenitors. In the past, there was a simple fraction qualification, but with DNA testing you might discover your fraction is not what you thought.

The value of that fraction is shockingly low: 25% Native American in most cases. Some tribes demand as low as 6.25%!
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Political Correctness wrong amok - 02/04/19 03:10 PM

There is a strong political current underlying the sturm und drang here:

First, the Lieutenant Governor is black, and could well be the next Governor. Black leaders eye his elevation as a coup, revenge for Stacy Abrams' and Gillum's losses. Moreover, if he rises to the governorship, he can run again as an incumbent, which can't otherwise happen in Virginia because it has a one-term limit on governors. Kind of a political two-fer.

Second, there is a movement of better-than-thou-ism in the Democratic party that is deathly afraid of the "they're equally bad" argument usually floated in conservative/reactionary circles to excuse abhorrent behavior. They do have a point. Hypocrisy is a threat to aspiration, but there is a pile of wet babies that have been discarded under that mantra. They are still stinging from Bill Clinton's peccadilloes. It's the same instinct, though, that causes the silly criticism of anyone who describes a black candidate as "articulate". IT'S A COMPLIMENT, PEOPLE,!!

Third, racial stereotyping is an insidious disease, and blackface is is most virulent legacy. The deliberate offense in its modern use is as offensive as confederate monuments, the stars and bars, and nooses. In today's world is a declaration of white solidarity and brown otherism. It is a hate crime. But in 1984, at frats, in the south, it was commonplace and unthinking. Those who say, "This wasn't the thirties, forties, fifties or sixties" forget how backward Virginia has been, and how recently it has been woke. How recently we've all been woke.

And, finally, the left is in a hurry to fix what's wrong and get progressive leaders in place now. North is a centrist. Fairfax is everything progressives want: Eyes On Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax To Heal Va. As Northam Resists Calls To Resign
(npr).
Quote:
Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax is a lot of things Virginia's current governor is not: young, charismatic and part of a multicultural wave sweeping through the commonwealth's Democratic party.
He's principled, charismatic, articulate, and young - in short, an ideal leader of the future. They just can't wait for him to be king.
Posted by: Ujest Shurly

Re: Political Correctness wrong amok - 02/04/19 08:09 PM

In the 80's blackface was frowned upon almost as much as it is now. The only difference is people are now being called on it. I remember it being brought up in race relations classes.
Posted by: Greger

Re: Political Correctness wrong amok - 02/04/19 08:59 PM

The governor never wore the sort of blackface in the year book.
Apparently he was quite the dancer in his day though, and once darkened his face for a Michael Jackson dance routine.

Michael Jackeson lightened his face for the same routine.
Posted by: jgw

Re: Political Correctness wrong amok - 02/04/19 11:50 PM

I was told by both my grandmother and my father that we had Indian (feather) blood running in our veins. Everybody was very proud of that (except for my grandmother as my grandfather tended to have friends of the opposite sex that were Indian). Anyway, my wife had my DNA tested and it turns out that I am PURE WHITE! Northern European and Irish.

Broke my heart <sigh>
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Political Correctness wrong amok - 02/05/19 12:30 AM

Has anyone noticed the active disinformation campaign going on on Faux News against Fairfax? Three times just today I've read misleading, even false, headlines (based upon the story) trying to gin up a scandal about a previously discredited 15 years ago claim that could not be substantiated as credible.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Political Correctness wrong amok - 02/05/19 12:56 AM

Originally Posted By: jgw
I was told by both my grandmother and my father that we had Indian (feather) blood running in our veins. Everybody was very proud of that (except for my grandmother as my grandfather tended to have friends of the opposite sex that were Indian). Anyway, my wife had my DNA tested and it turns out that I am PURE WHITE! Northern European and Irish.

Broke my heart <sigh>
If I may unbreak your heart. I've been doing a lot of DNA genealogical study and it would not be unusual for a particular line of DNA to go missing after a few generations. While some traits may continue, others may disappear. I can demonstrate it imprecisely, and only generally, but mathematically and statistically:

Assume for the moment that you get 100% of your DNA from your parents, but the ratio is not 50:50. For each "trait" you have a 50% chance of passing it along. By the 2nd generation, there is only a 25% chance of a particular marker being passed along. 12.5% in the next generation. By the time you get to great grandparents, it is far more likely that a particular trait NOT be passed on, than that you receive it. Of course, that does not take into account dominant and recessive genes, but it makes the point. I have 4th cousins that I share 6 "centiMorgans"* with that my sister shares 30 with, as a direct example. It may be you just didn't get those feathery genes. I've got an Irish name and multiple relatives on that line with similar migration patterns, most of the rest from Germany - on both sides - yet AncestryDNA says I'm less than 4% "Irish", and 84% "English".

* A centiMorgan (cM) is a unit of measure for DNA. It tells you how much DNA you share with another match. In general, the more DNA you share with a match the higher the cM number will be and the more closely related you are. Your DNA Guide.
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: Political Correctness wrong amok - 02/05/19 01:47 AM

Even if you have a dominant gene for something, your other copy of that gene may be recessive. Any of your children have a 50% chance of getting the dominant copy and a 50% chance of getting the recessive copy. All gene transmission works this way. Dominant versus recessive is just about your phenotype, meaning how that gene is expressed. With some genes a dominant version will make some protein and it doesn't matter if the recessive copy doesn't make it or makes an ineffective version. In other genes. a dominant gene will make some protein that blocks a normal pathway, even if a recessive copy makes the right protein. And in some cases, both copies can make something different. That's the case with blood type where each gene copy can be A, B, or O. So you can be AA, AO, BB, BO, AB, or OO. But AO and BO just look like A and B, respectively.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Political Correctness wrong amok - 02/05/19 02:20 AM

I don't know...BO always bothered me...

True story, my twin brother and I have different blood types. My dad was O, mom AB, so each kid is unique. Blood banks love us.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Political Correctness wrong amok - 02/05/19 02:30 PM

What do you get when BO is combined with B?

BOB... who is yer Uncle.
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: Political Correctness wrong amok - 02/06/19 09:12 AM

O is the absence of A or B, so you twins must be AO and BO. My sympathy to the BO twin. grin
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Political Correctness wrong amok - 02/06/19 08:04 PM

I'm A+.... actually, he's AB, same as mom.
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: Political Correctness wrong amok - 02/07/19 09:23 AM

>Brother is AB

Oh oh. Hate to tell you this but for dad to test as O, he had to be OO. To make you, mom contributed an A and dad contributed an O, so you are AO. To make your brother, mom contributed either A or B and somebody contributed B or A. Somebody who did not have a blood type of O. Are you sure about those blood types? Maybe they used a sperm donor.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Political Correctness wrong amok - 02/11/19 06:22 PM

I could be wrong about blood types. Fertility was not an issue in my family. I have 5 siblings. I don't remember everyone's blood types, only that I am A+ and he's something else. Although, we always joked that he looked so different...
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: Political Correctness wrong amok - 02/11/19 08:03 PM

Quote:
I could be wrong about blood types.


I'm sure that's the case. He's probably BO. Didn't mean to cast doubt about you sibling's parenthood.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: Political Correctness wrong amok - 02/11/19 08:30 PM

Originally Posted By: Ujest Shurly
In the 80's blackface was frowned upon almost as much as it is now. The only difference is people are now being called on it. I remember it being brought up in race relations classes.


True but in Virginia frat boy world, they didn't give two feces who frowned, and they didn't care about race relations classes either, especially if the "frat" (or equivalent) was a military academy in Virginia.
Personal firsthand experience from the late 60's and early 70's because I was in that world for a while, and I doubt that frats and the military schools changed all that much a few years later.

Blackface, n***ger jokes, all that stuff was indeed a rite of passage if you wanted to be accepted into certain elite circles.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: Political Correctness wrong amok - 02/11/19 09:09 PM

Originally Posted By: Greger
The governor never wore the sort of blackface in the year book.
Apparently he was quite the dancer in his day though, and once darkened his face for a Michael Jackson dance routine.

Michael Jackeson lightened his face for the same routine.


MJ had vitiligo, compounded by a profound case of body dysmorphia which triggered an addiction to plastic surgery.

Much more complex than just lightening his skin for his routine.
His skin was cow-patched in quite a few areas.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Political Correctness wrong amok - 02/11/19 09:14 PM

the thin line between criticizing Israel and being labeled anti-Semitic (WaPo, subscription, opinion). I, frankly, see nothing wrong, inaccurate, or anti-semitic about her tweets, and those making the accusations are the worst offenders (and are probably being racists themselves in doing so). AIPAC has spent MILLIONS in aggressive lobbying of Congress, and imposing a Jewish purity test, yet there is strong opposition in Israel itself to the policies promoted by the Netanyahu government, such as expropriation of Palestinian property to build illegal settlements. It IS about the Benjamins... including Netanyahu.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Political Correctness run amok - 02/12/19 03:38 PM

In the past I've been attacked for breathing criticism of Israel, or, more precisely, the Israeli government. I've asserted that its use of chemicals could be war crimes, or not. I've complained about oppressive tactics, walls, economic tyranny, and continuous violations of international law. I'm sympathetic to the plight of Palestinians. I'm also sympathetic to the tension between democratic principles, and the demographic realities that threaten Israel's status as a "Jewish state" - you can guess which side of that particular equation I fall on. And, I understand the tropes and stereotypes that are offensive to the Jewish diaspora, as, literally, "many of my friends are Jewish." But...

I think the harsh condemnation of Representative Omar has an obvious, racial, ethnic, and political source. She's Somali, has dark skin, wears a hijab as a faithful Muslim, and is liberal. The condemnation is overwhelmingly coming from white, conservative, Christian (and Jewish) quarters. How is this so? Because she mentioned the influence of money. She's not wrong, by the way. But you can't mention money in any discussion that also includes anything remotely touching anything Jewish, especially if you happen to be Muslim. Or non-white.

Let me ask this, though: does anyone not think that Sheldon Adelson has an outsized influence in conservative politics? Is it because he is Jewish, or because of his Benjamins?
Posted by: Greger

Re: Political Correctness run amok - 02/12/19 07:04 PM

Israel sucks, okay? I think we can all agree on that.

The Israelites elected Netanyahu and have kept him in power. Far as I'm concerned he's just another Donald Trump and the Israelis are Yiddish MAGA hat wearing dupes, racist, bigots, and generally assh*les. Some of them are probably good people.

I see too little difference between Nazi Germany and Modern Israel for it to make a difference to me. The regime is racist, apartheid, and practicing genocide.

But seriously, I got nothing against Jews.
Posted by: Greger

Re: Political Correctness run amok - 02/12/19 07:17 PM

Oh...the Adelson question. It's the money. It's always about the money.

That disgusting old fart will be gone in just a few years along with a bunch of his mega-donor cronies.
Posted by: jgw

Re: Political Correctness run amok - 02/12/19 08:30 PM

As far as I can tell anybody who is not a fan of Israel is now being painted, by the media, as being anti-jew. I think the two are not that inextricably entwined and I know several Jews in that camp (anti Israel). I couldn't care less if somebody is a Jew or not. I do not have the same attitude about Israel. Felt that way ever since they sunk one of ours and then machine gunned the survivors in the water, gun down a man who was protecting his child from Israeli soldiers killing everything in sight and then there was the bulldozing of an American lefty trying to stop the destruction of somebody's home.
Posted by: Greger

Re: Political Correctness run amok - 02/13/19 03:56 AM

Quote:
As far as I can tell anybody who is not a fan of Israel is now being painted, by the media, as being anti-jew.


That dog won't hunt. There's too many liberal Jews that think Netanyahu is a tin pot dictator.

The neo-nazi wing of the Republican party is really about the only real anti-Jew group.
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: Political Correctness run amok - 02/13/19 08:25 AM

There's a big difference between being anti-Zionist and being anti-Semitic. One is about Israel's foreign policy and the other is about Jews and Arabs. Israel's foreign policy sucks and plenty of Jews all over the world believe that. Zionists want you to believe their cause is religious, but it's not.

I'm not a Jew, but I have been to Passover Seders and read from the Torah along with every other adult there.
Posted by: jgw

Re: Political Correctness run amok - 02/13/19 06:57 PM

I am no longer sure that anti-Zionist and anti-Israel are the same thing. The first, I think, is a religious thing and the other thing not. Could be wrong though....................
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: Political Correctness run amok - 02/17/19 07:51 PM

Borrowed from elsewhere, I couldn't say it better myself:

Quote:
"The tribalism of American politics has turned any and all debate about Israel into a dogmatic nightmare.

1)The prime mover for Republican support for Israel is the end-times prophecy of the Dominionist movement, who view the Jewish people themselves as "unperfected Christians", and therefore, for them, this is really about real estate and ultimately about their own professed dreams of ethnic cleansing.

2)Israel's problems in handling the Palestian issue are doomed. Their policy on this matter is indefensible, and is a solid reason why much criticism on that front is merited and fair.

3)Largely the same for the Palestinians, who are themselves indefensible.

4)Israel is nevertheless still the most stable democracy in the entire middle east and a worthy regional ally in spite of #2.

5)Democrats have, thanks to their own tribalism, allowed themselves to unwittingly align with anti-semitics causes and to use anti-semitic language.

6)Omar Ilhan's initial statements were absolutely anti-semitic.

But if you're an American in support of either major party, you're forced to choose between two extremist and indefensible positions.
If you say that you support an Israeli state, you're accused of standing behind the most anti-Palestinian positions possible.

If instead you say that Palestinians should have their own state, you're now accused of supporting those who want the Jews driven into the sea and killed."
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: Political Correctness run amok - 02/17/19 08:18 PM

Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer

Let me ask this, though: does anyone not think that Sheldon Adelson has an outsized influence in conservative politics? Is it because he is Jewish, or because of his Benjamins?


Jewish DNA? Yes. Jewish from a faith or cultural perspective?
He's about as Jewish, in that regard, as a bacon wrapped Hebrew National chili cheese dog.

Hatred of Adelson's agenda has nothing to do with his being a Jew.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Political Correctness run amok - 02/17/19 08:51 PM

I beg to quibble, my friend, about the non-Jewish agenda of Adelson. Yes, his OTHER agenda items are also reprehensible, but he is a fervent advocate for the most extreme policies of Israel. Because I am not Jewish, I was, perhaps, as ignorant of "Jewish tropes" as Omar, because I did not, and do not, see them as anti-Semitic. It is, I think, because she is Muslim that they are given that presumption.

Now, I will admit, that I presume the right wing attacks on Tom Steyer and George Soros are anti-Semitic, but mostly because of the verbiage and follow-through by alt-right fanatics. Similarly, I do not give Trump the benefit of the doubt because of his other racist views and demagoguery.
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: Political Correctness run amok - 02/18/19 03:53 AM

We all need to be more careful with the language here. Semites include most Jews and Arabs, so "anti-Semitism" is about hating both sides of the Israel-Palestine conflict. That's why I have been using Zionist to describe the Jewish-state side and Palestinian to describe the other.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Political Correctness run amok - 02/18/19 12:11 PM

I fear, my friend, "You fell victim to one of the classic blunders - The most famous of which is 'never get involved in a land war in Asia'". The use of the term antisemitism has, as far as I am aware, always applied to Judaism exclusively. It was, according to the source cited above (Wikipedia), deliberately misused by the Third Reich to confuse its meaning, a confusion compounded by its modern linguistic use - referring to the speakers of "semitic" languages. I don't think it is intended to express language-hate.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Political Correctness run amok - 02/18/19 12:21 PM

I think another trap we have all fallen into is the "lack of context" trap. Agitators of all stripes like this one for its efficacy. Take a statement "out of context" and it can be twisted in all kinds of ways (just ask James O'Keefe). Twitter, of course, is the perfect medium to exploit this attack. (Apparently, so are yearbooks.)
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: Political Correctness run amok - 02/19/19 05:58 AM

I think almost all Jew-haters in America, hate Arabs as well. Other Muslims, too. If anti-Semitism applies only to Jews, then there must be a similar term for Arabs. But I don't know of any that can be used in polite company like anti-Semitism.

Arab and Muslim-Americans being the obvious exception, of course.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Political Correctness run amok - 02/20/19 04:46 PM

Originally Posted By: pondering_it_all
I think almost all Jew-haters in America, hate Arabs as well. Other Muslims, too.
I couldn't agree more. And anyone whose skin color doesn't match theirs - at least in their minds.

I spent a tiny bit of time in Panama, and the separation by color is as rampant there as in the South in the 1900s. Dominica and Colombia, too. White America would see them all as "dark" skinned, but Panamanians make distinctions, and they can be deadly.
Posted by: Greger

Re: Political Correctness run amok - 02/20/19 06:07 PM

The whole thing kind of reminds me of the half white/half black episode of Star Trek.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Political Correctness run amok - 03/05/19 12:50 AM

House Dems will take floor action to confront Omar’s latest Israel comments (Politico). This disturbs me.
Quote:
At a Washington bookstore event last Thursday, Omar argued that critics labeling her as an anti-Semite looked to silence a necessary conversation.

"I want to talk about the political influence in this country that says it is OK for people to push for allegiance to a foreign country," said the Minnesota Democrat, according to The New York Times.

I think the people complaining about this are looking for an opportunity to call "anti-semitism" exactly as she claimed - to shut down the conversation. It's an important conversation and Omar's rhetoric is NOT overblown. It is an accurate representation of what AIPAC is doing. As if on cue, Representative Vargas :“Questioning support for the U.S.-Israel relationship is unacceptable,” Vargas wrote, proving Omar's point that it's about the politics, not religious faith. And her critics know it.
As she said in the parts not quoted, before
Quote:
“What I'm fearful of is that, because Rashida and I are Muslim, that a lot of our Jewish colleagues, a lot of our constituents, a lot of our allies, go to thinking that everything we say about Israel to be anti-Semitic because we are Muslim.”
and after the out-of-context quote
Quote:
Ms. Omar questioned why it was acceptable for her to speak critically about the political influence of the National Rifle Association, fossil fuel industries and “big pharma,” but not the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.
Context matters. I'm getting pretty heated about this and the disingenuity of her critics (Dem and GOP alike). At least the supremacists are honest about it. Trump campaign adviser calls llhan Omar 'filth' amid anti-Semitism controversy (The Hill).
Posted by: Greger

Re: Political Correctness run amok - 03/05/19 02:44 AM

If the conversation is allowed, then discussion of apartheid and genocide are going to enter into it.

Probably best not to allow it.

Perhaps this is a case of Geopolitical Correctness?
Posted by: Greger

Re: Political Correctness run amok - 03/05/19 03:41 AM

An antisemitic statement from the UN...

Quote:
A United Nations inquiry has found Israeli forces may have committed war crimes and crimes against humanity by targeting unarmed children, journalists and the disabled in Gaza.
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: Political Correctness run amok - 03/05/19 04:02 AM

I doubt they did that purposefully. They probably just shot into a rock-throwing crowd, but there were children, journalists, and disabled people in the front of the crowd.

Still, I am not antisemitic at all. I have attended Passover Seders and read from the Torah. But I think the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory is genocidal. And I suspect a lot of Jews both in Israel and elsewhere think so too. I think the UN statement was anti-Israel, but not necessarily antisemitic. Conservatives would like you to think every criticism of Israel is antisemitic, but that's not true.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Political Correctness run amok - 03/05/19 02:14 PM

I had a good, conservative friend on this very site and we engaged in many a great discussion, but, the issue of Israel was a hot button to be assiduously avoided. He brooked NO criticism and any discussion of Palestine was anathema. He's like two different people.
Posted by: rporter314

Re: Political Correctness run amok - 03/05/19 02:59 PM

Sorry I don't see that statement as anything other than criticism of a government. It would be equivalent to saying

"A United Nations inquiry has found {British} forces may have committed war crimes and crimes against humanity by targeting unarmed children, journalists and the disabled in {Northern Ireland}."

That statement is not saying anything about the English people or the Anglican denomination. or

"A United Nations inquiry has found {Saudi} forces may have committed war crimes and crimes against humanity by targeting unarmed children, journalists and the disabled in {Yemen}."

Does that sound anti-Islamic?
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Political Correctness run amok - 03/05/19 03:06 PM

Ilhan Omar Has A Point (Slate). Can "we" discuss the underlying issue without asserting bad motives? Some of the responses (Reps. Vargas, Lowey, Engel) were more inflammatory than her statement ever was. THEY should be ashamed - but I bet they're not. Did they talk to Omar before tweeting off? Again, I bet not.
Posted by: rporter314

Re: Political Correctness run amok - 03/05/19 03:08 PM

This is akin to the "Benjamins" comment. Maybe the people who complained that the statement was anti-Semitic have never seen a $100 dollar bill, but right on the obverse, in plain view, with modern bug eyes is an image of ... wait for it .... wait for it .... Benjamin FRANKLIN. Not Netanyahu or not the "righteous one", Benjamin, son of Jacob.

Of course when I was young, the hillbillys where I lived referred to them as double ring bills.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Political Correctness run amok - 03/06/19 03:46 PM

Ilhan Omar has admitted to being ignorant of the "loaded" nature of her choice of words and apologized for them (both times), and I believe her. I have, myself, been ignorant of sensitivities of others. The first one might have been more widely known, although the context of her statement was deliberately ignored, but the second one? I'd never heard that. Moreover she obviously was not talking about "Jews," but legislators, most of whom are not Jewish. Where these objections are going is to insulate any discussion of money with regard to Israel, whether reasonable, germane, or not, and that is dangerous. Money in politics is big problem, but I understand politicians wanting to gag members wanting to talk about it. I just don't accept it. Its a pretext, pure and simple.
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: Political Correctness run amok - 03/07/19 07:10 AM

And it's a very real thing that Republicans felt more loyalty to BiBi, when Beaner invited him to address Congress without notifying President Obama, than to our actual President at the time. That fealty to a foreign nation is pretty close to treason and it really happened. Was it because our Congressmen love Jews so much? I don't think so. It's because they love the money they get for supporting Israel.
Posted by: rporter314

Re: Political Correctness run amok - 03/07/19 03:01 PM

Quote:
It's because they love the money they get for supporting Israel.

I have thought about this for some time and I have never come to any definitive conclusion.

Sure they like the money, but would they take $M from say the KKK? (bad analogy but meant to make a point)

I used to think it was guilt from the holocaust, but we are 70 years from that.

I used to think it was some religious end of time fulfill some prophesy thing, but can that really motivate congressmen to continue to support Israel?

Pres Truman once said it was the worst decision he made when he supported the unilateral declaration of statehood by the Israelis. I concur but go even further. It was the worst decision of the League of Nations to declare nationhood for a group of people who had not occupied a particular piece of land for 1800 years. This was even worse than the already ongoing sub-division of nations following WW I.

Is the support because congressmen have an inherent hatred/dislike of Muslim nations? Because Israel is a US supporter? etc

And this goes on.

If America really stands for certain values then it probably has a responsibility to criticize other nations when they see those values abused, even allies. I am very critical of Israel policies because for me it is clear what the strategy is i.e. to eventually claim all land from West Bank to Mediterranean as Israeli and to disenfranchise native Palestinians in the West Bank in order to maintain control of land.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: Political Correctness run amok - 03/07/19 08:31 PM

Originally Posted By: rporter314

I used to think it was some religious end of time fulfill some prophesy thing, but can that really motivate congressmen to continue to support Israel?



Political Dominionism is real, it's well funded and it is a destructive force to any Republican politician who does not bow to it.
Religious Dominionism is real, it's well funded and it is an end times prophesy that involves a certain small piece of real estate in the Middle East which is supposed to become the seat of global biblical government in the End Times, a sort of Christiban Caliphate...once all those Jews have "been perfected" and become Christians, of course.
Posted by: rporter314

Re: Political Correctness run amok - 03/07/19 09:04 PM

Quote:
Political Dominionism

Yes for a few but it still doesn't explain it.

Consider examples like Sen Graham or Rep Boehner.
Posted by: rporter314

Re: Political Correctness run amok - 03/07/19 09:23 PM

OK i just heard part of an interview of Gov Kasich and it occurred to me he has a phony indignation. Let me explain.

He said she should have said something about which policies she wanted to criticize. OK ... I can see that but I think when one criticizes a country's policies one does it by criticizing the country. For example if I were to criticize apartheid ... I am against it. OK .. now what? How about if I criticize SA (yes the government of SA) for having a policy of apartheid.

Turn it around and suppose I say ... I criticize Israel (does that sound like I am criticizing the people of Israel? or a religion? No it sounds like I mean precisely the government of Israel which implies (since I obviously do not object to any one person in government) I criticize governmental policies.

But that is not what is happening. A citation is necessary.
Minnesota Congresswoman Ignites Debate On Israel And Anti-Semitism

Apparently Rep McCarthy was upset about Rep Omar's criticism of Israel. This suggests Republicans by virtue of idiot-ology can not criticize Israel (which goes back to reason for the unconditional support of Israel). Her response was their unconditional support was predicated on the financial support from AIPAC. "It's all about the Benjamins baby" if that doesn't mean it's all about the money, I don't know what does. I suppose if she said "It's all about the [shekels] baby" they may have a case. But since we know for Republicans it is "In the rich man's world
Money, money, money"

So My question is, how does one properly criticize Israel without being anti-Semitic?
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: Political Correctness run amok - 03/07/19 09:47 PM

Maybe you have to preface it with a bit of "I love Jews", BUT...

You know, Israel actually has some citizens who are Christian, some who are Muslim, and some who are Atheists. In fact, I think the Orthodox who seems to drive all the settlement problems are in a distinct minority. Most Israeli Jews I have met are just cultural Jews and not really religious. That's actually the main beef the Muslims have, because they are pretty devout. Some Ashkenazi Jews who immigrated from Russia actually have hog farms, which drive the Orthodox and Muslims crazy!

This "religious" dispute (that is actually all about conservatism) may morph quite a bit when Bibi gets indicted for corruption. That's supposed to happen Real Soon Now.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: Political Correctness run amok - 03/07/19 10:41 PM

Originally Posted By: rporter314
Quote:
Political Dominionism

Yes for a few but it still doesn't explain it.

Consider examples like Sen Graham or Rep Boehner.

I have.
I'm trying to point out that political Dominionism represents 90% of the Trump Republican base in Congress.
Posted by: rporter314

Re: Political Correctness run amok - 03/08/19 02:53 AM

So let's examine your claim. I'll start by using these surveys.

An examination of the 2016 electorate, based on validated voters

Faith on the Hill The religious composition of the 116th Congress [quote][/quote]

I am unsure what you mean by Republican base n Congress so I will use two different meanings. First, the actual Trump supporters, or his base if you will, and second, Dominionists in Congress.

From the first citation we see evangelicals represent 20% of electorate and of those 77% voted for Mr Trump. Or 15.4% of his base are evangelicals.

From the second citation we have to calculate the number and it is a bit ambiguous. If we assume all Baptists are evangelicals and all people from the unspecified group are evangelicals we get 39% of Republicans are possibly Dominionists.

To further complicate the numbers consider that not all evangelicals are Dominionists, in fact Baptists, while fundamentally conservative religiously, believe in separation of church and state. I would venture to speculate Dominionist are a small number of people in either group.

While I agree these religious nuts are trying to legislate me from the pulpit and not from Congress. It's bad enough Congress can't write decent legislation and it gets even worse when preachers infringe on my free will. I think the bigotry of Trumpian nativism is far more insidious at this time than Dominionism, and I suspect bigotry motivates the Base more than religion. And second, fear of the base of Trump bigots instill fear in the remaining Republicans.

This is complicated and doesn't reside on a single plane.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Political Correctness run amok - 03/08/19 02:03 PM

House Votes To Condemn Anti-Semitism After Rep. Omar's Comments (npr). Even Representative Omar voted for it. Only the rabid bigot caucus voted against (I'm looking at you, Liz Cheney).
Posted by: jgw

Re: Political Correctness run amok - 03/08/19 08:17 PM

I have already mentioned my antipathy towards Israel and listed some of the reasons. I forgot to mention, however, that they are constantly borrowing money from us and have never, over the years, paid back a single dime (that debt is now in the billions)

Anyway, Omar has, as far as I can tell, never attacked individual or even groups of Jews - Israel, however, is another matter. If you google "jews against israel" there is a lot of info on that one> Then there is AIPAC which represents the state of Israel. That one is bothersome because they are using the money we give them to lobby our congress. I have never understood their power. We used to have a larger Jewish community than we have now. We actually took our tax dollars to actually move Jews from New Jersey, and other states, to Israel (years ago). This being the case those in congress, unconditionally supporting Israel, confuse me as they are unlikely to have many American Jew voters supporting them. This means that AIPAC is doing that. I can go on but .........

The simple fact is that the Republicans are doing what they have vast experience doing - demonizing. The Shame is that sitting Democrats have joined in that Republican effort and THAT is disturbing. One can only wonder?
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: Political Correctness run amok - 03/08/19 08:44 PM

Thomas Friedman weighs in on the Ilhan Omar issue:

Quote:
I’ve been watching with more than a little interest the controversial statements about Israel and the Israel lobby by Ilhan Omar, a freshman Democratic congresswoman from the Fifth District of Minnesota, because it turns out that we have a lot in common — up to a point.


NYT Link
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: Political Correctness run amok - 03/08/19 09:52 PM

Again, the problem is that criticism of Bibi and the Likud Party does not equal antisemitism, much as some conservatives would like you to believe that. It's hogwash meant to make people afraid to say anything for fear they will be labelled as antisemitic.

There are really two solutions possible. A One-State solution, or a Two-State solution. The problem with a One-State solution is you have to make all the Palestinians and other non-Jews living there equal voting citizens of Israel. And Jews might not always be in the majority. The problem with the Two-State solution is that Israel has to give back all the occupied territory and get the settlements out of the West Bank and Golan Heights. Bibi's strategy is to never choose! So we end up with no peace in the Middle East for as long as he is in charge.

That's about to change next week when he gets indicted for corruption. A common end for a conservative politician.
Posted by: jgw

Re: Political Correctness run amok - 03/09/19 07:34 PM

Last night I watched a CNN Show (fareed Zakaria special) on Saudi Arabia (Sunni). It was not kind to the Saudis. The interesting thing was that Israel is in bed, against Iran (Shia). Basically, the Saudis are not really pals with America nor, I think, the rest of the non Sunni world. We are, basically, on the wrong side of a thousand year old Muslim war. I'm not real enthused about even being involved in that.

I also believe that we shouldn't be on anybody's side in the middle east. I remember Obama trying to get along, with some difficulty, with anybody in the middle east, ANYBODY! (I also remember that he also tried to get along with the Republicans and we all know how that one worked out).

I am not sure what this actually has to do with anything, other than we keep pouring treasure into stuff that we simply should not be messing with as far as I am concerned. Its time we stopped spending billions on the middle east, including Israel and start taking care of little stuff, like highways, dams, schools, healthcare, etc.

Seems reasonable, to me, to spend our money on ourselves and our friends and I don't consider any of the above to be our friends.

Just saying.........
Posted by: rporter314

Re: Political Correctness run amok - 03/09/19 11:44 PM

We chose Sunni SA because they had oil first. Imagine if we chose Russia first for their oil and supported a communist country. Does it make sense?
Posted by: rporter314

Re: Political Correctness run amok - 03/09/19 11:49 PM

Just listened to someone who condemned the Democrats and especially Rep Omar for what she said and they said about specifically allegiance to Israel. He failed to address the substance and rather deflected to the superficial trope.

So my question has been, why does anyone (and let me say this is not directed to Jews in Congress but to conservatives in general, in fact it never crossed my mind that Jews would have a greater allegiance to Israel for religious reasons much as I never thought Pres Kennedy would have any allegiance to the Pope) immediately, unconditionally support Israel for every policy?

So my question remains unanswered by every person who has been on TV in the past few weeks.
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: Political Correctness run amok - 03/10/19 01:16 AM

I'm a lot more supportive of Israeli policies when the Likud Party is not running the country. Calling someone antisemitic for not supporting everything BiBi does, is like calling them unAmerican for not supporting everything Trump does.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: Political Correctness run amok - 03/10/19 02:30 AM

Originally Posted By: pondering_it_all
I'm a lot more supportive of Israeli policies when the Likud Party is not running the country. Calling someone antisemitic for not supporting everything BiBi does, is like calling them unAmerican for not supporting everything Trump does.


Israel has very nearly made it a criminal offense to criticize Likud policy, we're still a few millimeters away from criminalizing it here, but we might actually beat Israel to it.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Political Correctness run amok - 03/10/19 04:06 PM

I can tell that we're all a bunch of anti-semites, here, because we've expressed concern about the state of Israel and its policies. Well, y'all are, anyway. I'm insulated because "some of my friends are Jews." Isn't that how it works?

I'm concerned about real anti-Semitism, rather than the faux or excessive outrage being expressed. I'm not sure I believe Engel or Lowey or the others were really all THAT upset, rather, I think it was political gamesmanship, and that, frankly, really and truly pisses me off. They like their leadership perks and don't like all this attention being given to upstarts. They got their heads handed to themselves, didn't they? The final resolution was actually not all that bad, but... Here's the rub... it didn't make anti-Semitism "special".

I think this is an historical inflection point - the next generation of leaders is coming into its own sooner rather than later. A LOT of damage has been done, and they have their work cut out for them, but I feel a genuine change in the weather. They're not into this whole "political correctness" argument - on either side. They're far more just about "correctness". Hate is hate no matter who it is directed at. Look at the sin, not the sinner - or sinnee. I don't for a second believe that Omar had hate in her heart when she said what she said. And, frankly, neither do I believe do any of those wailing about it.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Political Correctness run amok - 03/11/19 02:36 PM

Some recent background that provides substance to Omar's inartfully-expressed concerns (from NBC):

Israel 'nation-state' law prompts criticism around the world, including from U.S. Jewish groups
Quote:
The law, which narrowly passed early Thursday, declared among other provisions that only Jews have the right of self-determination in Israel. It was backed by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s right-wing government.

It was enacted just after the 70th anniversary of the birth of the state of Israel and, among other things, strips Arabic of its designation as an official language alongside Hebrew.

Netanyahu went on to clarify his stance in a social media fight with Israeli television and film star, Rotem Sela:
Quote:
Israel is not a state of all its citizens. According to the nation-state law we passed, Israel is the nation-state of the Jewish people — and not anyone else.
Times of Israel.

Which then prompted a response from Gal Gadot, Israeli film star of Wonder Woman fame:
Quote:
"Love thy neighbor," the Israeli actress said Sunday on Instagram, where she has 28.3 million followers.

"It is not a matter of right or left, Arabs or Jews, secular or religious," Gadot added. "It is a matter of dialogue, of dialogue for peace, and of our tolerance for each other. It is our responsibility to shine hope and light for a better future for our children."
Gal Gadot hits out at Netanyahu over 'Jewish people' comment (NBC). OMG! GAL GADOT is an anti-Semite too!

Meanwhile, Netanyahu strikes election deal with far-right parties; challengers respond with own alliance; Israel 'nation-state' law prompts criticism around the world, including from U.S. Jewish groups (Israel is just full of anti-Semitism). Yet in Minnesota, the response is, "meh" (in the nicest way, of course): Far from Washington, Rep. Omar's constituents see the Israel controversy in a different light (NBC).
Posted by: rporter314

Re: Political Correctness run amok - 03/11/19 09:24 PM

How can anyone not criticize Israel for a law like this???????

Wuoldn't this be the equivalent of Mr Trump signing a law which says only whites have a right to US citizenship? or makeup your own equally disgusting racist law attacking anyone and everyone one hates or thinks of as inferiors.

Republicans ... speak up ... I want to hear your voices on this!!!!!!