Monday afternoon mini round-up (and Open Thread)

Victorian posy of pansiesThoughtful Jews are increasingly thinking one thought:  the notion of a two-state solution is ridiculous.  Moshe Philips and Benyamin Korn explain why it’s ridiculous.  And in a superior interview on the Glenn Beck show, Caroline Glick offers a single-state alternative.

***

When I was on vacation a few years ago, I met an extremely nice man who had retired from being a (very) high-powered executive and, instead, had become an Episcopalian minister.  He did not have a congregation but, instead, spent his energy furthering “social justice.” I, being a curious type, tried to elicit from him what this meant in practical terms. He was unable to answer my questions.  I have wondered since then whether his reticence was because he didn’t want to admit what he was doing or because he couldn’t admit what he was doing. After all, as Jonah Goldberg explains in this video, social justice is a very amorphous concept at best. And at worst, when boiled down to its essence, it demands that Big Government redistribute all wealth — something I don’t think this former high-powered executive, who lived an expensive life, was willing to admit even to himself:

***

I’ve seen several articles about the English Law Society’s decision to accommodate sharia law officially in the courts. All decry it. Tom Wilson, I think, has the best analysis of why it’s such an appallingly dreadful thing to happen in the land that gave us the Magna Carta and that seeded in America the ideas of liberty and equality.

***

Here’s something that is totally weird: I agree completely with Bill Clinton. When it comes to the internet, he makes good sense: “I understand in theory why we would like to have a multi-stakeholder process. I favor that. I just know that a lot of these so-called multi-stakeholders are really governments that want to gag people and restrict access to the Internet.” Part of Obama’s post-election flexibility, though, means he no longer need make obeisance to the Clintons, so he can ignore Bill’s sound advice.

***

Obama’s feminization of the American military continues apace. The latest goal is to use special forces not to engage in high-level military activity (guns, grenades, 20 different ways to kill with a ballpoint pen) but, instead, to turn them into a cutting-edge coffee-klatch. No wonder Obama is getting rid of the Tomahawk and Hellfire missiles. The new military will no longer shoot weapons; instead, it will kill the enemy with vicious girly gossip.

***

The far-Left is a comfortable resting place for angry, insane people. And no, those are not pejoratives. They accurately, almost clinically describe women who claim that Ronald Reagan is responsible for any stigma that fat people suffer in today’s society.

***

Sultan Knish has an excellent comparison between Vlad Putin’s old-fashioned hunger for land and power (so 19th century!) versus Barack Obama’s cool, modern hunger for pop culture fame, especially when it comes to selling the all-important Obamacare. Daniel Greenfield’s important point is that, while the two men intentionally project very different images, they are both totalitarians at heart, doing what they need to seize absolute power in their own countries.

***

Too many Jewish families fail to realize how antisemitic American college campuses have become. Nor is this antisemitism confined to fringe departments. Instead, it’s front and center, and increasingly enforced with physical threats and actual violence.

***

“Never before has our nation seen corruption on this scale.” John Hinderaker’s Obamacare epitaph, after reading one liberal woman’s description of her Obamacare travails — and what it finally took to fix the problem.

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

  1. Mike Devx says

    ok, so i tried to attack the statement, “social justice when boiled down to its essence demands that Big Government distribute all wealth.”
     
    At first I thought, well, I could work for “social justice” by trying to convince and persuade people to change.  But then I stepped back at that as a concept, and I realized it didn’t mean “social justice”.  It meant, “cultural persuasion”, not JUSTICE.
     
    So I realized at that point, that “social JUSTICE” required government force.  Otherwise, it would be called *persuasion” of some sort.  The *JUSTICE* part requires government power.
     
    So then I thought, can you use government power to achieve social “justice” without redistributing wealth.  The answer is, yes, it’s possible, for some measures such as gay “rights”.  Illegal immigration amnesty need not require actual redistribution of wealth (although implicitly the economic ripple effect may result in a sort-of redistribution… but it would be an effect.)
     
    But there aren’t *many* ways to achieve “social justice” without forced redistribution of wealth.  Nearly all leftist campaigns for social justice require equality of RESULT, not equality of opportunity.  And most of those equalities of RESULT are based on giving people money to achieve that levelling equality of result.  And if you’re going to use government force to give some people money for free, you’re going to have to take that money from soneone else.
     
    So I ended up agreeing.  Except for a few smallish quibbles, yes, *at its essence* someone who believes in “working for Social Justice” will believe in Big Government Power being used to forcibly redistribute the wealth.  Ouch.
     

  2. Mike Devx says

    It’s dismaying to me that so many Jews are failing to realize the increasing level of anti-Semitism.  Especially alarming is the rise of leftist violence within the universities.
     
    And things are so much worse over in Europe than they are here.
     
    There is a rising tide of anti-Semitism across the entire West, and all Jews ought to be discussing it in very alarmed tones.  Yet too many of them are not.  And it’s not just your fellow Jews, Book – we *all* should be discussing the rising tide of anti-Semitism.  The world has been here before, and we’ve seen where it leads.
     
    There won’t be concentration camps and gas chambers this time.  The world, essentially, allowed those, then, in the 30s.  What will the world allow this time?  One likely possibility is nuclear mushroom clouds over major Israeli cities.  We all may not launch the bombs; but we didn’t build the concentration camps and gas chambers, either.
     
    One of Iran’s explicit goals is to “wipe Israel off the face of the Earth”.  Do people think that won’t be accomplished without genocide?  Our leaders have decided to engage Iran in “constructive dialogue”, their words, rather than anything more confrontational.  At what point does your country become complicit in a genocide?

  3. Matt_SE says

    “Never before has our nation seen corruption on this scale.”
    I disagree. This is only the most visible eruption of the rot. The stealing by citizens from citizens started a while back, and many older conservatives in good standing have bought into the fantasy that “they paid for their Social Security benefits.” My parents are among them.
    They refuse to acknowledge that SS is running dry. They refuse to acknowledge that the benefits they’ve drawn far outweigh what they paid in, usually even if one includes a modest return from interest. Of course, government produces almost nothing of value, so relying on it to create any “return on investment” is an exercise in sophistry.
     
    Government doesn’t just distort the market, which represents present behavior. It distorts future behavior and planning, so that citizens are left defenseless if the world turns hostile. ALL CITIZEN ON THE DOLE will need a hard kick upside the head to expose this fantasy. When the collapse comes and people ask “how did this happen” you can repeat the statements above.

    • says

      SS was used to pay for Democrat loot, in order to buy votes. This happened for several decades, resulting in SS merely being a slush fund for Democrat wealth redistributors, prostitution ring self business starters, and so forth. Money laundering is a solid Democrat profession in gov.
       
      It’s a good side hand trick. Get white people to pay for SS, use the money for black welfare to break up black families, destroying black economies. Then instead of using SS funding for whites, use SS funding to create a permanent black sexual slavery economy. With abortion as a way to keep the numbers of rats down in the colony.
       
      Then when the WHITIES WANT THEIR RETIREMENT, you just raise taxes, talk about welfare, and increase welfare for whites.

  4. erisguy says

    In the past the English people foolishly made their own laws without proper guidance from the divine.
     
    England transforms itself by adopting Sharia law because infidels bow to the power and majesty of Allah. How much longer can English resist such an enemy?

  5. SADIE says

    Does your life flash before your eyes right  before you die?
    I never really gave the question any thought for the obvious reasons: I never died and never heard from anyone who died and returned to tell me otherwise. However, lately after reading one article after another, I am firmly convinced there are those that would like to see us: dead, destroyed, mutilated, incapacitated, ill and unable to function, fight back and thrive. It’s history redux. The world is watching one flash after another, but they’re so blinded by the bullshit they think it’s a glitch that can be repaired or replaced by more legislation, another social justice meme or the newest iphone. It’s not paranoia if they are really out to get you – any they are!

     

Leave a Reply