Re-thinking secret service protection for nutcases

Of Hugh Chavez’s disgraceful exhibition at the UN, Mike Gallagher had this to say:

Once more, Americans are treated to the ugly spectacle of the United Nations hosting some crackpot, U.S.-hating leader. One day, it’s the lunatic president of Iran; the next, it’s the vermin from Venezuela. Adding insult to injury, we apparently provided U.S. Secret Service protection to these creeps. It makes me think that if the U.N. managed to find Osama Bin Laden, they’d invite him to be the keynote speaker and throw him a ticker tape parade down Fifth Avenue.

I got sidetracked by the point about the U.S. Secret Service protection.  It reminded me of an old, and almost certainly apocryphal story about Teddy Roosevelt’s tenure as Governor of New York.  Apparently a famously vitriolic German anti-Semite was coming to visit New York.  Roosevelt was tasked with providing necessary protection for this vile little man, and did so:  Every body guard that Roosevelt assigned him was Jewish.  The bodyguards carried out their jobs perfectly, and the anti-Semite left American shores in one piece, but he was considerably shaken by the experience.

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

  1. says

    Teddy Roosevelt, the epitome of “gunboat diplomacy”. Intimidation and subtlety, all in one package.

    Btw, what kind of “devil” provides protection for people who scorn and laugh at him? This must be a place where devils are angels, and angels devil, dontcha think?

    Back to the Teddy Roosevelt thing, if you knew Theodore’s basic personality matrix, it would be quite consistent with the actions described. Combined with no mention in Snopes and a mention in the New York Times, and it is enough of a reason to believe it was true.

    My deductive logic ended up determining that this behavior would be consistent and expected of Theodore Roosevelt, so when you said it was apocryphal, I tried looking it up. This was what I got.

    http://www.shinesforall.com/archives/2006/09/tyrants_not_wel.html

    You are correct in thinking that the story has changed, Roosevelt was the police chief, not the Governor. So you cannot really say that it wasn’t true, that it did not occur.

    Another source, PhD is this.

    A friend of mine took a new position as the rabbi of a historic congregation in Philadelphia. Going through the building, he noticed that one of their largest stained glass windows was dedicated to the memory of Theodore Roosevelt, the 26th president of the United States. He was surprised. Franklin Deleanor Roosevelt might be more easily understood. Though today many are critical of FDR’s failure to bomb the death camps and the rail lines leading to the camps during the Holocaust, for Jews like my grandparents who lived through the Great Depression and World Was II, FDR was an almost Moses like figure, viewed as a great friend of the Jewish community. But the window dedicated in 1919 was a memorial to Teddy Roosevelt and so raises the question: Why would a Reform congregation feel so close to this particular president?

    Fortunately my friend Rabbi Lance Sussman also has a PhD in American Jewish history and was well equipped to solve this mystery. This being July 4th weekend, a good time for Americana, and since Teddy Roosevelt recently made the front cover of a popular news weekly magazine recently, I thought I would share with you some of what my friend learned.

    Teddy Roosevelt’s relations with the Jewish community began when he was president of the New York City’s Board of Police Commissioners. In that role he opened the police department to Jews and incidentally also to women. During that time, he became involved in an incident, that almost sounds like an old Jewish joke. First, the old Jewish joke: a very genteel Southern woman calls the local army base offering hospitality for dinner to some of the local soldiers, but she says, “Please don’t send any Jewish soldiers. I can’t abide that type.” That evening when a platoon of African American soldiers arrive at her door for dinner, she says, “Excuse me but there must be some mistake”. The soldiers respond: “We don’t think so. Sergeant Levine, doesn’t make any mistakes.”

    Now back to the true story. In 1895 a well known anti-Semitic speaker from Germany, Pastor Herman Ahlwardt was scheduled to speak in New York City. The Jewish community was alarmed and asked Roosevelt to prevent him from speaking. Meanwhile in his role as head of the police commissioners he was asked to provide protection to the speaker. What did he do? He appointed a Jewish sergeant and asked him to recruit 30-40 Jewish police officers to provide protection. Listen to this description of the event: “The silence was ominous. The speaker was ill at ease. He could not hold, much less influence, his audience. The much advertised propaganda against the Jews came to an ignominious end that very night. Ahlwardt disappeared and was heard of no more.”

    Roosevelt also showed warm ties to the Jewish community during his service with the First U.S. Volunteer Regiment in Cuba. About 5,000 American Jewish soldiers served in Cuba and 15 Jewish Rough Riders were killed or wounded in the attack on San Juan Hill. At one point there was a Jewish service in Cuba, lead by the rabbi at the time of Congregation Knesset Israel of Philadelphia, my friend’s congregation. Teddy Roosevelt came with his soldiers and spoke with the rabbi developing a relationship that would continue over the years.
    be sure to read the rest for the … rest.

    http://www.shirhadash.org/rabbi/show.cgi?id=060701-roosevelt

    So as you see, Bookworm. There is quite a lot of benefit to using deductive logic when your premises – like about the character and psychology of your subjects – are correct.

    The funny thing is, a lot of Democrats try to quote Teddy Roosevelt about speaking softly while walking with a big stick. They seem to think that this means you have to be “subtle” like the Democrats, who subtly talk and talk and talk until the end of time. No, the point really is that you can intimidate someone without actively killing him or using brute force. You can accomplish your goals by subtlety, and also have plasubile deniability.

    This is all part of the package of deception or cloak and daggers as it is popularly refered. Since Bush won’t touch the stuff, it leaves him – and thereby us in the US – at a severe, and I mean severe disadvantage in the propaganda and public opinion fields of battle.

  2. says

    It’s not just that too, it also puts holes in our defensive net, our war offensive because war is primarily about using deception to achieve victory. If you don’t use deception, you won’t achieve victory as easily, you’ll have to use a battering ram of force and many will die because of that.

    Diplomacy should always hold a bit of menace, don’t you think? A subtle unspoken threat, and a malice steeped in ruthlessness. It makes for great leverage and pressure, when speaking to a person from a much weaker position. You’re speaking softly, but people never forget that you have a bit stick ready to be used. People never forget, because you never let them forget. You keep using it, or waving it around, or smashing things beside you. Unpredictable. Bush’s basic psychology profile can be predicted by me, it is very likely that foreign governments’ intel agencies have made the same analysis. Amanie might have walked on eggshells around Teddy, but with Bush he feels safe in the knowledge that Bush is a compassionate conservative that says what he means and means what he says when he labels himself a compassionate conservative. Did not Hugo Chavez openly taunt the President by appearing on American soil at our mercy, and calling Bush a devil? Chavez isn’t brave, there was no threat that he would be executed. With Teddy, you never would know, you know.

  3. says

    This morning’s Orange County Register has a picture of Danny Glover with his arm around Chavez. Chavez met with Harlem’s underprivileged to tout his discount heating-oil program. During his remarks, he called Bush “an alcoholic and a sick man.”

    I choke at the thought of my tax money going to provide protection for people like this. Once he leaves the U.N. and steps onto U.S. soil, he should be on his own, safety-wise. (Although I don’t mind the idea of restricting his movements in our country, and keeping an eye on him. But that would be for our protection, not his.)

    Another bit of information from the Register article: During his speech at the U.N., Chavez held up a copy of Noam Chomsky’s book “Hegemony or Survival: America’s Quest for Global Dominance,” and recommended it to everyone in the Assembly and to the American people. As of Thursday, it has jumped into the top 10 of Amazon, where it ranked 20,664 the day before.

  4. says

    You know what Troutsky said over at neo neocon’s post about the same subject? he said that typical of the neo-cons and conservatives, we go clucking about the non-PCness (weird I know) instead of actually challenging anyone of the Chavez’s points.

    Right….

    One thing, the Left thinks non-PC means “whatever the Right seeks to censor”. Nu uh.

    Last thing, some people are wack, and it’s not just Chavez.

  5. jg says

    “..book “Hegemony or Survival: America’s Quest for Global Dominance,” and recommended it to everyone in the Assembly and to the American people. As of Thursday, it has jumped into the top 10 of Amazon, where it ranked 20,664 the day before.”

    Good info, JR. As Y notes, I doubt many thinking Americans are choosing Hugo Chavez as an authoritative book reviewer. I wonder how well HE reads? –Good question to research.

    Better yet, I wonder HOW MANY OF his people CAN READ?

    Keep ‘em deprived and illiterate, with the carrot of tinpot nationalism held in front..
    Not a new message.

  6. says

    if you knew Theodore’s basic personality matrix, it would be quite consistent with the actions

    OK, what is “Theodore’s” basic personality matrix and how did you arrive at that conclusion (i.e. how about some proof or are you expecting me to take that at face value?)

    My deductive logic ended up determining that this behavior would be consistent and expected of Theodore Roosevelt

    Deductive logic doesn’t determines anything–it is a tool upon which one can form a conclusion (i.e. premise + premise = conclusion) Please, pray tell; educate me as to how you arrived at your conclusion?

    So as you see, Bookworm. There is quite a lot of benefit to using deductive logic when your premises – like about the character and psychology of your subjects – are correct.

    1) Statement of an obvious fact–deductive logic is beneficial.
    2) Condescending as hell–I going out on a limb but I’ll assume Bookworm is cognizant of 1 supra.
    3) Again, what is your basis for your knowledge of psychology (i.e. what expertise do you possess upon which you base your assertions?) If you’re only an amateur enthusiast, it would be ethical to state as much instead of trying to sound like an authority.
    4) In hindsight anyone can claim to be right. A good theory will enable one to make predictions—care to give it a shot?

    Bush’s basic psychology profile can be predicted by me

    Braggadocio malarkey–can you please give it a break because I’m not buying it.

  7. says

    Eventually you are just going to have to accept that you don’t like me Kevin, and you don’t like my positions. Whether this is because the former causes the latter or the latter causes the former, is something you can decide.

    When someone argues more with one person on more or less the same political side than they do with people like Dagon and Ravina, on the opposite political side, at the same point in cyberspace, is indicative of a fixation. I don’t have time to cater to your likes and dislikes, kevin. If you disagree, fine, but don’t start whinning about how you are not buying it, because I honestly don’t care to waste time even reading such comments let alone validating them. If you want to start a fight with me, you may want to throw down the challenge at my blog.

    If there’s some subject that I can elaborate on or clarify for those who are not just being disagreeable because disagreeability brings them joy, then I’m sure I’ll get to it when I may.

    Please, pray tell; educate me as to how you arrived at your conclusion?

    Could you like not waste my time by trying to be aggressively confrontational? You think I don’t know when someone is acting passively aggressive because they can’t deal with their emotions? I assure you, I try very hard to avoid dealing with other people’s emotions. I’m not a psychologist nor a psychiatrist, I don’t get paid either fictionally nor in reality for helping people like you out with their problems.

    I was quite polite with kevin, but it looks like politeness is taken as a position of weakness and guillibility.

    For the benefit of Bookworm. I’m not going into a psychological analysis of Kevin, perhaps because it would start and end without limitations. Suffice it to say, condescension to me is if I tell Bookworm that something is good, when I knew Bookworm already disagreed with that subject being good. Neo Neocon has said she has reasons for not writing about everything under the sun, so if a troll comes to her site and talks about “how it would be good, you see, to write about so and so”. This would be condescending since Neo made it quite clear her reasons for why and how she writes. Someone telling Neo what is “good” when Neo has already stated her position that it is “not good”, is not exactly agreeable.

    When I make the comment to Bookworm, that deductive logic is a good thing, I am simply restating a position I have already explained and described here in this point in cyberspace. I am not taunting Bookworm’s refusal to see that deductive logic is right, because she obviously either hasn’t taken a position or her position is more or less a positive one given her focus on logical arguments instead of emotional ones. Why would I be showing condescension when I find nothing logically wrong with Bookworm’s logic?

    I make this argument for clarification, simply because Bookworm and the readers of Bookworm deserve to hear both sides, preferably without the accussations, venom, and general disagreeable unpleasantness that mars many other arguments on the internet.

    Things like “Braggadocio malarkey” and implications that I’m boasting about my intelligence, comes to mind. There’s only so much abuse I’ll tolerate. It is true that a year ago I could only tolerate some of it, before going off on the attack, but a year of emotional training has given me a higher genkai. A cool down period is still beneficial, as everyone who wrote a crazy email knows.

    Kevin, you so remind me of trolls at Neo-Neocon’s site that it is not very funny. I don’t say that lightly after all. This isn’t the first time you’ve tried to get me into a mud slinging contest, I’m not reacting out of prejudice or reflexual angst. The same confrontational attitude and demanding rhetoric that you have here, came from Neoneoconned and confudeforeigner. People on the opposite political side of me. It proves one of my premises correct, humans are humans, regardless of what politics they have chosen. Any psychologist or psychiatrist that does not start from that premise on the human condition, is not a source of wisdom I would be willing to recommend. You also remind me of Kheldar at FantasyEssentials. He was a Christian as well. There was another guy, too, that didn’t like me, and it wasn’t because of my politics. He was also Christian. I can only assume I rub some Christians the wrong way, sort of like Christopher Hitchins rubbing the Iraqis the wrong way when he said he would not allow them to go Shia extremist. That was a funny Michael Totten episode, although Totten had not seen the humour in it, regretably.

    We’re not at the English Ton Kevin, you can say you dislike me without all the please and pray tells that polite society uses to hide the direct cut.

  8. says

    you don’t like my positions

    Nope, I actually agree with your positions more often than not and some are actually well written. What I object to is when someone, who is obviously not an expert (as evidenced by their writing), tries to pass themselves off as one while constantly trying to correct everyone. It’s not because I’m Christian as you assert but that observation shows you really don’t have a clue. Constant psycho-babble by someone who self-admits, “I’m not a psychologist nor (sic) a psychiatrist” proves my point but I am impressed that you admitted it. But this begs the question, as a non-professional, why would anyone want to hear your psychoanalysis of people since that’s not your field of expertise?

    don’t start whinning (sic) about how you are not buying it, because I honestly don’t care to waste time even reading such comments let alone validating them

    Not very original, that’s almost the identical quote used by Ward Churchill, saying that he doesn’t have to prove he is an Indian—he’s doesn’t have to justify it. It sounds to me like you got caught with your hand in the cookie jar and a verbal retreat is your only available option.

    you so remind me of trolls at Neo-Neocon’s site

    My website is linked for you (or anyone) to see with a rather in-depth overview of who I am, my education, and my experience while you on the other hand, choose to hide behind anonymity and play games with your profile (I still believe your 22 but the last time I looked you had removed it after briefly posting 114) so who again is the troll? And while we are on the point, what is it exactly that you do?

    Well, I do have to admit you are right on one thing–you got me with the rope a dope strategy. Your incessant posts have finally led me to expose a weakness–I can quietly suffer fools for only so long before I begin to point out their foolishness. Just think of my engaging you as a poker game–you’ve been bluffing and I’m calling. We’ll just have to leave it to the jury to decide who presents the better argument.

    P.S. The definition of condescension is displaying a patronizingly superior behavior or attitude; the examples you provided are incorrect.

  9. says

    If you want to start a fight with me, you may want to throw down the challenge at my blog.

    Well, having seen it, I would say that I assume the “Light” is for the number of comments (because it sure isn’t the word count.) I notice about 7 comments of which you are about half and of the rest, the best contained this particular bit, “Most of your post, of course, says nothing. It’s merely you saying the same thing in a bunch of different ways. So I’ll focus on the rare nuggets of substance.”

    Bravo, ain’t that the truth.

    I would think the number of comments you receive would maybe give you a clue that your writing is neither compelling nor very good but then again, I guess you know that because you have to go to other (significantly more popular) blogs and comment on absolutely everything posted in order to get anyone to read it.

    I honestly don’t expect you to tell us anything of your education/experience because there are those who are and there are posers and I’m claiming you’re the latter. It is quite possible to maintain your anonymity while still stating what your job is and I offer Bookworm as proof. This would just enable people to judge your expertise while filtering through your verbose meandering banter. I mentioned your age because it brings the comment made by Robin Williams to Matt Damon in “Good Will Hunting” to mind (and I’m paraphrasing here), “you’re nothing but a punk kid who has read a lot of books but hasn’t experienced life.” Combine your age with your education/experience and I think that about sums it up.

    As I stated previously, a theory enables one to make predictions so here’s mine–I’m sure you’ll give some rambling, bombastic reply without answering my question as to what your education is or what you do. I’ll accept that (or your lack of reply entirely) as your way of saying, I’m right; so what’ll it be?

Trackbacks

Leave a Reply