Illustrated by Art Spiegelman, of course.
I loved the quote of Stein’s writing Mr. Moto choose. Yes a bit maudlin, but there is no question he means it, he is sincere and it is his truth. For Jews the Holocaust will never be completely behind them. Frankly it is a bigger part of the story of Jews than Exodus or Abraham. It is there all the time.
What I don’t get about Stein is his serving Nixon, a man who never missed an opportunity to slur a jew in private, especially to their faces if he knew they would cover. Nor do I get how a man with such a marvelous education would not understand the difference between religion and science. He pretty clearly thinks evolution is a load of bunk, otherwise he would not have made that movie of his. And as far as I know, Jews of no sect are required to choose between Darwin and the Garden of Eden. Does anyone know why? Anyone?
Bueller?
No, no wait! Pogo, the Movie. Bill Pullman as Pogo, Wilford Brimley as Porky Pine, Ben Stein as Molestor Mole.
Stein excuses this in two ways - first, that Nixon said things most people said about Jews when others weren’t listening, and that in his public actions Nixon was extremely supportive of Israel.
Frankly, I can’t find fault with this particular line of reasoning. Even the anti-Semitic things Nixon said were rather mild imprecations compared to many things spoken at the time.
There were lots of other reasons not to work for Nixon, especially since many of Nixon’s enemies harbored those same prejudices.
I don’t know either.
I really thought the Toulouse Lautrec label was gonna be something Stein tossed at Robert Reich.
Just me, huh?
I did not know that Stein had been part of the black panthers. The other reactionary conservative writer Horowitz (David?) who is actually far weirder than Stein had the same thing happen. Horowitz did a complete and permanent 180 when he found out that the panthers had murdered a friend and colleague volunteer. His venomous spittle for all the left is pretty much the same, ignoring that virtually all the left in this country abhor and denounce violence. The ones that don’t or didn’t (weather underground, panthers, earth first, various animal rights nutjobs) are disowned. What did they really expect from an organization that had lots and lots of guns? I’m very sorry that they were naive and taken in and hurt and some killed by this, but there were plenty of warnings. Their “atonement” seems bordering on psychotic, not that the panthers weren’t much worse. It must be truly horrible to be duped that way.
There’s a question I’d love to ask the people who will vote for a candidate they don’t otherwise support just because he’s pro-life. It runs like this: Think back to Romania at the end of the 1980s. Imagine that a revolutionary movement is building, one that promises free and fair elections, safeguards for human rights, free market reforms, and a lifting of Ceauşescu’s bans on birth control and abortion. If they fail, abortion will remain (for all practical purposes) illegal, but in an impoverished, repressive communist dictatorship. Which side do you want to see win?
No, I’m certainly not comparing John McCain to Nicolae Ceauşescu. I’m exagerrating for a reason. Basically I’m wondering how much a person with this way of thinking has to disagree with a pro-life candidate before he or she will consider voting for a pro-choice candidate.
Yikes. A lot of economists believe that he is an embarrassment.
http://delong.typepad.com/egregious_moderation/2008/06/felix-salmon-be.html
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2007/05/would_somebody_.html
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2007/12/felix-salmon-sh.html
Yeah, the links are to a single academic blogger, but he’s basically presenting the work of others in 2 of the posts.
Probably not a question you can address to me this particular year - I was an early supporter of Rudy Giuliani.
I am pro-life, and overall I am happy that the Republican Party is a congenial fit for pro-life candidates - but I would feel uncomfortable were it to be closed off to the opposing viewpoint to the degree that the Democratic Party was to the pro-life viewpoint for close to twenty years.
You could easily ask the same question you posed about pro-choicers - there are people who wouldn’t support otherwise enlightened reformers because those reformers are pro-life.
There’s a Holocaust museum in Orlando?
Worst rides ever.
Hmm. http://www.holocaustedu.org/
It looks just like that big building where the crew of the ST:TNG Enterprise discover that Data’s brother Lore has subverted a portion of the Borg collective and…
Ahem.
It’s a good location, really. The local Jewry can spend a day out at the Holocaust museum honoring the dead and remembering their suffering, and then visit the Holy Land Experience the next day and feel guilty about killing Jesus.
Then on to Universal Studios to celebrate their takeover of Hollywood.
PS- Not to make lite of a Holocaust site, but that midi of the Schindler’s List theme is obnoxious and sounds like a much longer version of the PSYCHO shower theme.
If only we could get UN HQ moved down here. There are, unfortunately, no powerful symbols of their creeping one-world government around.
Except a Coke bottling plant.
Yep. Straight to Hell. CYA.
Look I’m pro-choice but even I can see why a person feeling strongly about a certain issue would vote on only that issue.
If I had a choice upon picking a candidate that was an economic wiz, international relations super star and trusted with the government and protecting my basic rights but proposed bringing back slavery, I’d have to go with whoever the other guy is.
There are two "P"s in whipped.
Is this really so? Given the ages of some of those more likely to uphold Roe v. Wade and the division of the courts, I thought it was a much closer issue. (Yes, I know a federal ban on abortion would be unlikely, but we’d end up effectively making it illegal in many states). I’d assumed it would be likely, not “very slim”, but I’m probably not as up to speed on this issue and the likely outcomes as most.
Some of those more likely to uphold it appear to be putting off their retirements to ensure that the balance of the court remains more or less as it is- and nobody on the Court appears to be likely to die anytime soon.
Anyway, when new Justices are appointed, they tend to become a bit more centrist than they were before- and they’re mostly centrists anyway. You can’t sneak a really [del]crazy[/del] extreme viewpoint past Congress very often.