The Hypocrisy Needs to Stop

You may also like...

156 Responses

  1. Yosef Levy says:

    Rabbi Gordimer ,  I enjoyed your article emantsly, I also agree with you 100%, I wish Mr. Trump much success and trust he will be a good friend to Jews here,  in our homeland, and all around the world .

    Wishing you much success,

    Yosef Levy

  2. Wolf says:

    This issue seems symptomatic of a larger issue the left faces: They seem incapable of understanding how anyone can possibly think differently from them if they aren’t a racist or worse. Reading editorial after editorial in the left wing media blaming racism for Trump’s victory and none acknowledging that maybe the people who voted for Trump/against Clinton have valid concerns and issue to be addressed it makes me more and more understanding why Trump won.

  3. R.B. says:

    Excellent post, Rabbi Gordimer.

    My view is that many on the Left will overlook Mr. Ellison’s candidacy, and the statement you cited above from Democrats, because for some on the Left, as long as your policies and agenda to enact those policies are “progressive”, they don’t care what you have to say. In other words, if you are pro-choice, pro full LGBQT rights, supportive of BLM, etc. than even if you would say racist things about President Obama, it doesn’t matter. However, if you have racist views and your platform is viewed as regressive, racist, Islamophobic, than you should be condemned. Obviously, not all of the Left holds this, but many do.

    Further, in the case of Mr. X Ellison, it has become clear for some time that the Left has a soft spot for Islam, or more specifically, political Islam. The Left ignores the views of Islamists, and organizations that hold that view, such as CAIR, Muslim Brotherhood, because for them, the greater sins are committed by “Zionists”, and Muslim radicalism is looked upon as justifiable in the fact of Western colonialism and Apartheid Israel with its aggressive racist Zionist policies.

  4. Jake says:

    Rabbi Weider also labeled Trump a racist … just saying.

    • Steve Brizel says:

      I recall reading R Weider’s response to the police response to a criminal who resisted arrest. WADr, I think that hakaras hatov to the thin blue line who protect all of us and are called on to  respond to acts of violent crime, no matter what ethnic group is in order . One looks in vein for an act of nichum aveilim for the members of the NYPD and elsewhere who have died as a result of the criminal acts of those who resist arrest.

    • Steve brizel says:

      Race and gender are two factors and/or issues that deserve benign neglect .we need to focus on the dysfunctional family structure and alternatives to inner city public schools that are captive to the teachers unions and which have been recently described as dropout academies

       

      • Jake says:

        No I mean he just said explicitly Trump was racist  (in a shmooze at YU.) [I am not saying I agree with that or not — just quoting]

        My take is that the US allows for dissent; that’s its hallmark, actually. Put aside Ellison – we are allowed to call out Trump for his ethical shortcomings, even while acknowledging him as our President. We are not in Communist Russia where we have to be afraid of retribution for critique of a public figure. In fact, as I have posited before, I think Trump does not actually mind criticism — he dishes it and expects it in return. He might even develop more (hidden) respect for a dissenter than a “yes man”.  That’s what I take up with RAG.

  5. dr. bill says:

    Supporters of our president-elect talk about his intentions while discounting/excusing his rhetoric and behavior.  detractors discount his intentions and emphasize his rhetoric and behavior.  i will leave it for you to decide which has a stronger halakhic base.

    • Chochom b'mah nishtanah says:

      Nonsense.

      For the most part, the frum people who voted fro Mr. Trump felt that the intentions AND the rhetoric and behavior of Hillary were far more distasteful than those of Mr. Trump.

      It is the liberals who championed Hillary  that ignored not just her rhetoric and behavior, but also her intentions. (or perhaps they actually liked them, which is truly mind-boggling to any sane individual)

      • dr. bill says:

        non-sequitur

        i avoided discussion of hillary clinton.  people with ethical issues with both did not have to vote.  i also don’t fault people voting either way, with a level of disgust for the choice they had.  only those with a perverted sense of yashrut/ehlichkeit could celebrate either candidate.

         

  6. Yisroel L says:

    Another side of the story.  Keith Ellison co-sponsored a bill with Brad Sherman designed to protect the rights of parents who opt to circumcise their babies.  It was in response to legislation proposed by the San Francisco city council to ban all circumcision.

    In a climate of growing opposition towards bris milah, Ellison’s support should not be dismissed.

    Pardon the cynicism, but if anyone raises their voice against circumcision, it is now much easier to stifle their words with accusations of racism and Isalmophobia since Keith Ellison backs the rights of those who choose it.

    It’s all too easy to cavalierly dismiss the San Francisco proposal as an outlier which will never gain traction. But were similar sentiments expressed about Roe v Wade, LGBT and other issues which are gaining ground and slowly corroding America’s moral fiber?

    The main point here is that perhaps other factors should be considered about politicians besides their stance on ZOA’s single issue and jump to making political hay.

    We are still in galus, the existence of the medina does not change that truism,  and even if it did the ZOA decided to remain there.

    • Steve Brizel says:

      Ellison’s sponsorship of such a bill may be based on the fact that Moslems also practice ritual circumcision-that does not necessarily  mean that the rest of his agenda can be viewed as palatable by the Torah observant community and supporters of Israel.

      • Yisroel L says:

        “Ellison’s sponsorship of such a bill may be based on the fact that Moslems also practice ritual circumcision”

        That doesn’t detract from the reality of a high-profile politician aligned with an interest and basic right that is increasingly under fire and that it runs counter to our interests to take that for granted

        “does not necessarily  mean that the rest of his agenda can be viewed as palatable by the Torah observant community and supporters of Israel”

        Perhaps, but there are several possible rejoinders:

        Maybe the Israel card is being overplayed, especially from those who have no plans to make Aliyah

        Are we as equally concerned about other areas not palatable to the Torah observant community?  Ona’as Devarim is a lav d’oraisah and we know about gratuitously nasty comments directed towards handicapped journalists, John McCain and others ad infinitum.

        Or do we just dismiss them with glib comments about how we are not voting for Morality-in-Chief or “that’s politics”?

        BTW, Trump’s victory, in all fairness, will likely mean a Supreme Court more aligned with Torah interests.  It’s the moral finger pointing towards one side which could prove problematic and myopic.

  7. Aaron says:

    The hypocrisy cuts both ways.

    1) Where was your righteous indignation and protest about “kavod malchus”when President Obama was treated with lack of respect by so many in our community?

    2) Why is Donald Trump’s inability to immediately distance himself from a racist like David Duke ignored, while Hillary’s embrace of Suha Arafat (in the middle of the peace process) harped on again and again?

    3) Why is the fact that Donald Trump has a Jewish daughter and son in law considered “proof” that he is not an “anti Semite” but the fact that Hillary has a Jewish son-in-law is completely irrelevant to so many people?

    4) Why are the racist headlines of Steve Bannon’s Breitbart discounted because they were written by a Jew, but the anti-Israel emails written and sent by a Jewish Sidney Blumenthal to Hillary considered to be indicative of deep biases?

    5) Why were so many people morally outraged by Bill Clinton’s behavior but appear indifferent to Donald Trump’s behavior?

    6) Why is Jeff Sessions’s past history of racist comments unimportant, but Keith Ellinson’s past affiliation with the Nation of Islam of grave concern?

    7) Why are the Clinton Foundation dealings with Qatar are so troubling, while Rudy Giuliani’s paid work and lobbying for that same government considered to be totally fine?

    8) Why are Huma Abedin’s connection to Saudi Businesses indicative of tolerance for “terrorists” while Trump’s registering of 8 companies in Saudi Arabia during the campaign are of no grave concern?

    9) Why are the Clinton Foundation’s conflicts of interest so terrifying while the Trump Corporation’s apparent conflicts generally ignored? (As in Trump meeting with Indian Hotel investors post election and Invanka sitting it on a meeting with Japan PM)

    10) Why does the President elect’s petty twitter fights not trouble those that would like to see a world leader who can stay focused and on task?

     

     

     

    • Reb Yid says:

      Kol Hakavod to you, Aaron.  The author of this post is the last person who should be kvetching about hypocrisy.  All he has done for the past 8 years (when not lashing out at YCT) is disrespect and take pot shots at our President.  A positive blog post about Barack Obama would be his first.

      Furthermore, who is he kidding?  Does the author of this post truly believe that the only folks who have been raising a stink about DT are on the progressive end of the political spectrum?  I could cite 50 times the number of quotes he did from Republican and conservative leaders over the past year+ who have condemned him and otherwise launched a massive musar schmooz against him.  The Arizona Republican for the first time in its long history endorsed a Democrat, and it was not alone.

       

       

      • Avrohom Gordimer says:

        Reb Yid: When did I take pot shots at the President? And did I deny that some Republicans are also upset with DT? I did not write about this either way.

    • Avrohom Gordimer says:

      I did write an article several months ago protesting disrespect for both candidates as well as for the President. It is a chillul Hashem when people act that way. And no, I am not denying points of legitimate criticism on either side. Those who raised issues with the Clinton side were not (or should not have been) doing so in order to paint a rosy picture of their own side, but were (or should have been) doing so in order to underscore that a double standard seemed to be at play.

    • Chochom b'mah nishtanah says:

      1) The level of disrespect cannot be compared.  I heard these “Jewish Protesters” screaming yesterday at a protest that Mr. Trump is a Nazi.  No one called Mr. Obama that.  Perhaps he was called a Muslim, do you think the two terms are the same?

      2) His denouncement was a lot sooner than Mr. Obama’s denouncement of His Reverend Wright.  And it says a lot more about a person when you see who he follows, rather than someone who says he supports you.  Dees Mr. Trump have to respond to every yokel with an idiotic opinion?

      3) Did Chelsea convert?  There is nothing identifiably Jewish about Chelsea or her husband, quite the contrary to Mr. Trump’s daughter and son-in-law.  There is a reason why they say difference between Mr. Trump and liberal Jews are that the Mr. Trump has Jewish grandchildren.

      4) Are you really comparing what Blumenthal wrote to what Bannon wrote? There are many reliable reports that Bannon displays no anti-Semitism to many who work with him.  You cannot say the same about Blumenthal.  And you know that Blumenthal was part of Hillary’s unholy email cache.  And that he advocated constantly to Hillary against the Jews.

      5) Did Trump take advantage by using the office?  There is no proof of anything other than foul; language, Clinton admitted, after lying publicly while he was in office about his actions with Monica Lewinsky.  The real question is why you seem to think there is nothing wrong with Clinton’s actions.

      6) Thirty years does make a difference, wouldn’t you say?

      7) Really, is that your question?  SO you think it is appropriate for the Secretary of State to a) act as a lobbyist and b) use a tax exempt foundation as a shield to do so?

      8) That was not the issue with Huma Abedin, and Mr. Trump was entitled to engage in business while a citizen, Ms.Abedin did so while employed in official capacity.

      9) See 7 & 8 above.

      10) I guess you prefer Hillary’s barking like a dog.

      Now I understand what it means “Pnei Hador K’pnei Hakelev”

      And I say all this not as a fan of Mr. Trump.  He is not at all what I would hope for  in a candidate, but it should explain why people voted for him, when presented with Hillary as the alternative.

       

      • Lawrence M. Reisman says:

        Re no. 6 – Does thirty years make a difference?  Back in 2008, when Obama was running for his first term, many on the right sounded the alarm at his supposed friendship with William Ayres.  Ayres was a member of the Weather Underground, which advocated violent revolution in the 1970s, and was guilty of several bombings.  Ayres had renounced the violence of the Weathermen, but Obama was still tarred with his supposed friendship, and the concern that he would bring this “mad bomber” into the White House.  Of course, the friendship never existed, but thirty years hadn’t made a difference there, either.

        Personally, I believe that Trump has the right to appoint whomever he wants, and apart from what happened 30 years ago, Sessions is exceedingly qualified to be attorney general.  That said, I would let 30 years be bygones.  After all, FDR appointed a Ku Klux Klansman to the Supreme Court, and we know how that worked out.

        That having been said, I’m a bit annoyed at the right-wing hypocrisy.  Anything that matters when a Democrat is concerned is of no matter when a Republican is involved.

    • Steve Brizel says:

      Try looking at it this way:

      1)President Obama disdained bipartisanship domestically , viewed past alliances as the past and not essential to the US and especially criticized Israel in a harsh manner

      2)Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State went out of her way to faithfully execute Obama’s foreign policy which viewed Iran as a possible ally and Israel as a stragetic liability without ever publicly or privately dissenting from the same

      3)Hillary’s SIL is not known for any connections to the Jewish community

      4)Hillary never rejected Blumenthal or his rabidly anti Israel son’s views Take a look at the WSJ’s interview with Bannon before you label him anti Semitic,

      5)Noone ever said that either Bill Clinton or Donald Trump were paragons of morality. Clinton’s meeting with the AG at an airport struck me as a classical exercise in influence peddling.

      6)Sessions made one off hand comment but strongly enforced civil rights laws as a US Attorney.

      7)The question is the degree of access. The Clintons marketed themselves as selling their name in return for access. So far, Giulani has never been accused of such conduct

      8) Ms Abedin viewed herself as a conduit of political influence

      9)Trump considers his family part of his inner circle of advisors

      10)Trump uses social media as a means of getting his message across, and bypassing the mainstream media, many of whose members don’t realize that their bias created many votes for Trump, especially among those who don’t accept political cultural and moral dictates from the mainstream media.

      • Aaron says:

        Reply to Steve Brizel and Chochom Bmah Nishtanah

        I believe that the original point is just strengthened. Conservatives ignore and downplay their issues while Liberals do the same to theirs. There is equal opportunity hypocrisy.

        1The level of disrespect cannot be compared. Really? I have heard people refer to President Obama with the N word or the yiddish variant of it, call him a Monkey, say that he is cursed because he is from cham and like the president elect claim propagate the birthirism nonsense.

        Sessions made one comment? There are several. One comment wouldn’t get a person rejected by a Senate committee because of concerns about his racist views.

        Bannon has played to the alt-right. He has called Breitbart a mouthpiece of the alt-right. He refers to himself as a nationalist and just as some claim that he is not racist many have reason to fear that he is. Calling Bill Kristol a Renegade Jew, referring to Anne Appelbaum as a Jewish elitist and allowing anti semitic comments to populate the comment section of Breitbart should give people cause for concern even if he favors Israeli settelment construction.

        Trump has mary nary a peep condemning his alt-right, neo-nazi and KKK supporters. He has spent far more time using his twitter account to go after Hamilton and SNL then the racist supporters who meet in public to laud his presidency.

        Bottom line these points can be argued again and again in a never ending circle. Just recognize that just as liberals excuse and look away from the hate on their side Conservatives (even frum ones) do the same thing on their side. Lets be honest we are all guilty of the same thing. “Kshot atzmacha vacher kach kshot acheirim”.

        • Lawrence M. Reisman says:

          An example of what Aaron is talking about from the December, 2015 Country Yossi Family Magazine:  Barack Hussein Obama is a Muslim and a stone cold anti-Semite.  He hates Jews and he hates America.  He will not be satisfied until the flag of Islam hangs over the White House.  I’m sure we can find countless more examples.

          • Choch b'mah nishtaneh says:

            The rankings of one individual is not the same as a mass protest with many hundreds screaming such in the streets.

            Think of the Neturie Karta who send 12 people to yell on cornered and how much disdain they rouse, multiply that by 100 for what is happening in Manhattan.

          • Lawrence M. Reisman says:

            Coch b’mah nishtaneh: The rantings of one individual can be more important, depending on who the demonstrator is.  Street demonstrators calling Trump a Nazi have the same effect as street demonstrators shouting “Jew S A!”  A rant printed in a widely-circulated magazine can have far more effect.  The rants published by both HaModia and Yated Ne’eman have more affect.  The comments of the speaker of the Kansas House of Representatives urging Republicans to say Psalm 109 for President Obama (let his wife be a widow and his children orphans) will have more effect than street demonstrators with sings saying “Save mother earth – kill President Bush.”

            You talk of Naturei Karta sending 12 demonstrators.  The only ones in whom they rouse disdain are those of us who disagree with them.  Most of the world couldn’t care.

        • Steve brizel says:

          Obamas supporters when they  cannot defend his record on domestic and foreign issues resort to the race card as a means of deligitimizing their opponents as opposed to talking about the issues .

          • mycroft says:

            Obama so far has not had a coordinated major terrorist attack on his watch on US soil, his policies did not change US from a surplus to deficit , he did not refuse major weapon systems needed by Israel as in Israels request for bunker busters.

        • Steve brizel says:

          It is unfair to accuse those who are conservative of harboring racist or sexist biases. To the contrary many would vote for African American or female candidates whose qualifications did not rest entirely upon the guilt based argument that solely race and gender are sufficient job descriptions for any job let alone President of the United States

          • Aaron says:

            Steve – Nobody in this tread is accusing Conservatives of being more racist or sexist than liberals. Nobody in this thread is playing the race card to defend President Obama’s record (Halving the unemployment rate, record stock market highs, rebounding of the housing markets, no overseas adventurism and a pretty much safe and secure 8 years of governance is a record that can defend itself) The issue at hand is that while many conservatives like to complain about the hypocrisy of the left they tend to ignore the hypocrisy of the right (as has been pretty clearly demonstrated above). The reality is that people bend and ignore inconvenient facts in order to justify their preconceived notions and belief. To call out that type of hypocrisy on the left, and to basically ignore it on the the right, is an act of hypocrisy itself.

          • mycroft says:

            I am not accusing conservatives of being racist or sexist biases- certainly not people like Will, Krauthammer, Sowell who I read often.

        • R.B. says:

          Aaron,

          I get your point about hypocrisy on both sides. However, which “wing” on the political spectrum announces that it faithfully represents anti-racism, anti-anti-Semitism, anti-misogyny, anti-LBGQT etc.? Its the Left? The Right is always looked at as the wing that houses the conspiracy kooks, the Klan, racists, anti-abortion, etc. So what is more egregious – the Left, as the standard-bearer of the above-noted values being hypocrites about the fact that many of its own are racist, xenophobic, and especially anti-Semitic (through BDS and aggressive anti-Zionism), or the Right, which is seen to not represent these values?

          • Aaron says:

            I think that what is worse, is when we fail to see our own hypocrisy and just look for fault in others. Nobody is perfect. If we recognize that all sides have faults perhaps we will stop seeing sinister and evil motivations in others and begin to hear what they have to say. But if everything that  CNN, NPR and NY Times says is passed off as hypocritical and biased, while FOX News, talk radio and Yated are considered unvarnished truth, we end up closing our minds to intelligent discourse. A wise man once said that “if you can only afford to buy one paper buy the oppositions”

    • Steve brizel says:

      How many times did All Sharpton meet with Obama and why did Obama have Sharpton on speed dial despite Sharptons sole experience and expertise consist of being an anti Semitic agitator and racial provocateur?

  8. Bob Miller says:

    Failure to properly weigh one thing or person against another is a hallmark of today’s aggressive liberalism.   Too many of us have taken some potion (who knows, it may have a hechsher!) to blind themselves to reality, to convince themselves that treason and venality can be excused for their higher cause .   Mere events can’t correct this.   It’s only a short step from righteousness to self-righteousness.

  9. Steve brizel says:

    The bottom line IMO is the response by the liberal left which still can’t imagine why Trump won.

  10. Steve brizel says:

    mycroft Obama refused to provide the bombs Israel requested and instead peddled a new fighter that has had major production difficulties all of the assaults on American soil in various locales were claimed to be acts of terror which Obama did nothing but act as the Concoler in Chief

    • mycroft says:

      Bush 43 REFUSED Israels request when it was believable that Israel could have done something against Iran militarily. Obama refused when no power except the US and that would have to be sustained attack could take on Iran.

      BTW unless one believes US would go to war against Iran , tearing up agreement would be a negative. Certainly Trump is considering appointing as Secretary of Defense a general who has spoken about the disadvantages of Israel to US.

      life is complex, simplistic explanations are usually incorrect.

      • Steve Brizel says:

        The Iran deal was never submitted to the Senate-it may very well have no legal binding effect on the US as an “agreement.”  The Iran deal in its present posture is an act of appeasement to terror and is a disgrace. Such a deal strikes me as akin to supplying scrap metal to Japan pre WW2 so that Japan could build its naval and air forces.

  11. Steve Brizel says:

    Mycroft wrote:

    “Obama so far has not had a coordinated major terrorist attack on his watch on US soil, his policies did not change US from a surplus to deficit , he did not refuse major weapon systems needed by Israel as in Israels request for bunker busters.”

    One can certainly contend that the President acted as the Consoler, as opposed to a Commander in Chief , in his responses to Isis inspired attacks in the US which were dismissed as random acts of workplace violence or acts of homophobic violence by the “JV team” , has emphasized increasing public spending and taxes on the middle class while private sector job creation continues to lag, agreed to supply Israel with a new generation fighter that has been plagued by numerous production delays and difficulties and almost threatened to not resupply the IDF during the 2014 war in Gaza.  I think that you are mistaken in contending that Obama agreed to furnish Israel bunker busters . Now that we see the true costs of Obamacare,  the proof is in that the cost of the same is astronomical.

    • mycroft says:

      The Affordable Care Act decreased the number of people who are not insured in the US. It has a lot of problems- clearly the only solution is a single payer. OECD Countries that have a single payer spend much less than the US does on health care but have greater life expectancies than the US . Examples are Canada, Israel and Europe all spend much less per capita than we do, but have higher life expectancies.

      obviously, there is a cost to giving no health care to those who can’t afford it. My value judgement is that I believe I should pay taxes to ensure that people are not dying in the street from lack of medical care. Others may have a different value system.

      • Steve brizel says:

        They all are a dead end for someone who does not want to wait on line to have a serious medical condition treated in their lifetime by the best medical professionals. Your value system will have the concomitant result of decreasing  who goes into medicine with the expectation of being paid for their expertise. Don’t even try to compare

      • Steve brizel says:

        Don’t ever compare the quality of care in single payer medical systems with the American medical system.

      • Steve brizel says:

        If you knew or heard of a friend or relative who was mugged or a victim of a violent crime would you agree that after being convicted by a jury and exhausting all remedies that any medical care should be rendered by any physicians employed by a correctional facility as opposed to the best doctor in the field ?

      • Steve brizel says:

        OECD stats have been shown to be quite biased in their orientation and conclusions. A good case can be made that the premises underlying the same especially with respect to the demonstrably poorer quality of Canadian UK and Israeli medicine simply is junk science

    • Lawrence M. Reisman says:

      Taxes on the middle class?  For anyone with a taxable income of $450,000 or less, the income tax rates were exactly what they were under GW Bush.  The additional medicare tax and the tax onexcise tax on investment income only applied to taxpayers with more than $250,000 of adjusted gross income.  Where exactly does the middle class end the the upper income class begin?

  12. Steve Brizel says:

    Aaron wrote in part:

    “Halving the unemployment rate, record stock market highs, rebounding of the housing markets, no overseas adventurism and a pretty much safe and secure 8 years of governance is a record that can defend itself.”

    The record of job creation in the private sector remains low. The absence of “overseas adventurism” means that the US under Obama’s watch abdicated its role as a world power, especially as Syria engaged in butchering dissidents , ISIS launched acts of terror around the world, China remains engaged in industrial and high tech espionage and threatening freedom of movement in the Pacific and N Korea acquires missiles that can reach the continental US, and an Iraq that is now in the throes of a civil war due to a premature withdrawal after the surge suggested by General Petraeus turned the tide,

    • mycroft says:

      During the Obama administration who prevented him from even basic help against Syria-Congress. The basic fact is that theIraq War which had nothing to do with 9/11 but everything to do with retribution against a head of state who tried to get after a Presidents father has caused the US to be gunshy and not have a credible threat to foreign countries.

      i am doubtful, that a Trump administration which probably owes a lot of its ideas to Patrick Buchanan will be one looking to interfere overseas.

      • Steve brizel says:

        What a complete misreading of current events.Obama pulled out of Iraq after the success of the surge , refused to even consider applying American military support in Syria in the sane manner as Clinton did in the Balkans and has let our military decline in size and capacity to face a variety of threats

      • Steve Brizel says:

        Mycroft wrote in part:

        “The basic fact is that theIraq War which had nothing to do with 9/11 but everything to do with retribution against a head of state who tried to get after a Presidents father has caused the US to be gunshy and not have a credible threat to foreign countries.
        i am doubtful, that a Trump administration which probably owes a lot of its ideas to Patrick Buchanan will be one looking to interfere overseas”

        Yet, the Senate voted overwhelmingly to authorize Bush 43 to conduct military operations against Iraq and IIRC, Clinton had a no fly zone over Iraq, based on the intelligence that was provided to him by the CIA.

      • Steve Brizel says:

        Myrcroft wrote in part:

        “i am doubtful, that a Trump administration which probably owes a lot of its ideas to Patrick Buchanan will be one looking to interfere overseas.”

        Buchanan was declared persona non grata within the conservative movement by W F Buckley in about 1992 because of his anti Semitic views. Once in a while, Buchanan is on Sean Hannity, which I admit that I find highly problematic, but Trump has never been accused of having any affinity for Buchanan’s POV. I do note that the ZOA came out against General Mattis for SOD because of some public statements that were similar to that of Petraeus about Israel.

  13. Steve Brizel says:

    I fully concur with Mycroft and his references to Will, Sowell and Krauthammer, all of whom were very critical of Obama’s record on a wide variety of issues.

    • Aaron says:

      Exactly. Trump condemns the alt-r racists when ASKED about it by NY Times. (Just like he only disavowed David Duke when pressured to by the media) He did not make a public statement or attack them in one of his twitter rants. If this is the best you can marshal in his defense then there is grave room for concern,

      • R.B. says:

        Meanwhile, Keith X cancelled a NYT interview when they were going to ask him about his support of Farrakhan and the NOI. Go figure!

        • mycroft says:

          The Representative from Minnesota is not the President elect. The more important issue for our country is how any President will act. A President has to know how to act politely without obvious petty vindicetiveness.

          • R.B. says:

            Who cares? Keith X is a symbol of the further left-ward swing of the Democrats, which shows that the days of pro-Israel Democrats are numbered. If the Democrats are moving closer to the positions taken by Jill Stein, than if I am a Jew who is not a J-Streeter, Pro-BDSer, I am out of there!

          • Steve Brizel says:

            No one said that Ellison was the President elect. Ellison , despite his well documented anti Semitic and anti Israel  views as well as his defense and membership of the NOI, remains a leading candidate for the chairmanship of the DNC , and has the support of Schumer, who claims to be a “Shomer’, voting by himself and not mobilizing support against the Iran deal, while voting for Israel and always available for a sound bite, and a speaking engagement within the Orthodox community.

  14. Steve Brizel says:

    Aaron wrote in part:

    “The level of disrespect cannot be compared. Really? I have heard people refer to President Obama with the N word or the yiddish variant of it, call him a Monkey, say that he is cursed because he is from cham and like the president elect claim propagate the birthirism nonsense.”

    I saw and have heard the same comments-they do not mean that a community or that all critics of Obama are racist. IMO, anyone cites such comments and attempts to camouflage what has happened in the last eight years as positive really should try to understand where conservative critics of Obama are coming from in their POV rather than raise the race card.

     

    • Aaron says:

      Who is trying to camouflage anything? Please do not misrepresent what was written. The point being made is that this article was upset at the disrespect shown to Trump and the office of the Presidency. The point being made is that where was the author and others who now rightfully demand  a level of respect for the office of the president when so many showed no respect and worse for President Obama.

      • Steve brizel says:

        You intimated that many conservatives were racist. Why make such a claim if you refuse to discuss the merits or lack thereof?

        • Aaron says:

          Steve – Nobody in this tread is accusing Conservatives of being more racist or sexist than liberals. Nobody in this thread is playing the race card to defend President Obama’s record (Halving the unemployment rate, record stock market highs, rebounding of the housing markets, no overseas adventurism and a pretty much safe and secure 8 years of governance is a record that can defend itself) The issue at hand is that while many conservatives like to complain about the hypocrisy of the left they tend to ignore the hypocrisy of the right (as has been pretty clearly demonstrated above). The reality is that people bend and ignore inconvenient facts in order to justify their preconceived notions and belief. To call out that type of hypocrisy on the left, and to basically ignore it on the the right, is an act of hypocrisy itself.

        • Aaron says:

          Steve – It is clear that you believe that President Obama’s policies were  a failure. Fine, you are entitled to your opinion and there are many that would agree with you. However, this article and thread is not about if Obama was a good president or not. The issue is that of hypocrisy. I will fully defend the merits of my point. It is that it is hypocritical to ignore the many hateful, disrespectful and racist comments directed at President Obama. That does not mean that many conservatives are racist, what it does mean is  that many conservatives ignore and look away from the racist comments made by people on their side.

          • Steve Brizel says:

            ask the families of the victims of Islamic terror in Orlando, Foot Hood, San Bernardino and Columbus whether they feel safer today than in 2008.

          • Aaron says:

            Steve – Of course the families of victims of terrorist attacks and those that  suffer directly from terrorism might  feel less safe but so do families of people who were killed by gun violence and those whose relatives died in car accidents. Feelings are not facts. The  reality is that America is as  safe today as it ever was. Violent crime is down and the chances of dying in a terror attack is minuscule.  It is those that wrongfully whip up hysteria and paranoia that make people feel unsafe.

      • Steve brizel says:

        Apologizing and whitewashing Castro a communist totalitarian butcher should be seen as yet another piece in the substantial evidence that Obama ignores history.

        • Reb Yid says:

          The majority of Americans agree with the decision to improve relations.  And just about everyone else in the world has moved on with this.

          Ask yourself this:  How would you feel if a enemy foreign power had a military complex in your tiny island nation?  Who exactly is threatening whom here?  We’re no longer in the 1960s–that era has come and gone.

          • Steve brizel says:

            Castro was the leader of a communist totalitarian state that almost served voluntarily as the launching pad for a world war and never ceased exporting and promoting his road to servitude. Ask any refugee from Cuba about their experiences under that regime and you will see that  Castro was a butcher

          • Reb Yid says:

            To Steve Brizel below:

            The Cold War is over.  We won.  Communism lost.  Castro is dead.  Time to move on.  Yes, some of the old-timer Cuban refugees are still bitter, but the younger generation wishes for a reapproachment.

            To be sure, Castro’s legacy is extremely mixed–his negative acts were truly brutal and horrific.  And I know some Cuban Jews myself whose parents were among those who left in the late 50s.

            By the way, if you really want to talk about a “Communist totalitarian state”, head to North Korea.  That’s the real deal, not Cuba.

          • mycroft says:

            Not stating an opinion one way or the other on Castro-  but obviously relying on refugees by definition are people who want to leave.

          • mycroft says:

            Cuba has a lower infant mortality rate than US. Google it and you’ll find source CIA fact book.

             

          • Steve brizel says:

            A Cuban dissident interviewed by Brett Stevens described Guantanamo as a kindergarten when compared to the conditions in Castro’s prison for political prisoners

          • R.B. says:

            mycroft – the CIA relies on information provided by communist Cuban government. Take those stats on infant mortality with a grain of salt. From what I have read, Cuban hospitals are filthy, dirty, and there are too many doctors without proper training. Actually, under Bautista, Cuban healthcare was better (as was the economy and there was a middle class), but I am sure those who swallow Cuban propaganda without questioning will dispute this.

          • Steve Brizel says:

            Most Americans opposed entering WW2 until Pearl Harbor. Isolationism, including the concomitant POV of the appeasement of evil , has a long and sordid history in the US.  When Trump uses the term “America First”, it has nothing to do with acting like we live on an unsinkable aircraft carrier, but rather insuring that America projects its interests first , as opposed to being subject to the tyranny of the majority of the General Assembly of the UN or any other group of third world dictatorships that trumpet their allegiance to  the “international order”, and whose leaders have failed woefully in providing for the needs of their own citizens.  FWIW,  Trump’s pressure on Carrier has a strong precedent-during the Kennedy Administration, when “Big Steel” threatened to raise the cost of steel, JFK personally and successfully jawboned the leaders of big Steel to not do so . That is called using the Presidency as a bully pulpit. I think that we will see more instances of similar conduct in the next four years instead of prattle about globalization, tribalism and nationalism

      • Steve Brizel says:

        Take a look at how Obama told Republicans that it was “his way or the highhway” with respect to the passage of Obamacare and that he was not interested in negotiating because he won the election . Obama has assiduously avoided using military force in response to ISIS ,created ISIS by  stating publicly when and prematurely withdrawing from Iraq which wound up creating a civil war., and enabled and paid ransom to a state that supports terror around the world . All of the above is based on his well documented view that the US is not the leader of the free world but simply one nation among the “global community.” Obama’s response to the election ( blaming it on Fox News as an arm of the Republican Party when CBS, NBC, ABC, PBS , CNN and NPR all espouse the Democratic line) sounds like Nixon blaming the NYT and the WP for Watergate and is remisnescent of Pauline Kael wondering why McGovern lost because she did not know anyone who had voted for Nixon despite the fact that McGovern only carried the DC and Massachusetts

        • Steve Brizel says:

          One would have thought that a two term Democratic president would have engaged in some introspection after losing the House and Senate in the midterm elections and state legislatures and gubernatorial offices increasingly turning Republican.

        • Reb Yid says:

          Steve Brizel wrote:

          Take a look at how Obama told Republicans that it was “his way or the highhway” with respect to the passage of Obamacare and that he was not interested in negotiating because he won the election 

          Stop parroting whatever fake or Fox News drivel this came from.  The #1 goal of the Republicans in Congress, even before Obama took office, was to refuse to work with him.  They did not want him to get credit for ANYTHING so that, so they erroneously believed, this would make him a one term President.  There are plenty of quotes on the subject from and about McConnell and Cantor and Republican leadership in general.

          If you think that Obama’s original ACA looked like its final passage, you’d be dead wrong.  It was far, far more expansive and progressive in the beginning.  He kept on whittling it down, in vein, in the hopes that it would attract a bipartisan consensus but the Republicans (like just about anything else he proposed) wanted nothing do to with it.

        • Aaron says:

          Steve – Come on. Don’t rewrite history to make it out as if the Republicans were honestly willing to work together with President Obama. Washington is hostage to partisan politics. Any Republican who would work  with, or compromise with, those across the aisle would be labeled a RINO by the Hannity and his ilk on talk radio and threatened with a Tea Party or Freedom Caucus primary challenger.

    • mycroft says:

      one can legitimately disagree with Obamas policies- but as Rabbi Wieder certainly suggests and I will state openly there is certainly an undercurrent of racism in much of the anti Obama criticism in the past 8 years. There are many who are not racists who disagree with him.

      certainly, one can be a leading  Republican politician and not be racist. The late Jack Kemp would be a classic example of such a  person.

      • Steve brizel says:

        I respectfully disagree. The failures of Obamas domestic and foreign policy initiatives and his resorting to lectures predicated on the race card speak for themselves.

    • Bob Miller says:

      Obama was a massive negative force because of his sorry personal qualities and radical attitudes.   His racial identity got him elected because Americans as a group are far from racist and wanted to demonstrate that.  What we got in return after 2008 was the most viciously racist President and Administration of modern times, who incited racial conflict in every conceivable way and continue to do so ’til the bitter end.   But that was OK with our fawning media and academia, not to mention his party.   Racists, antisemites, and racist antisemites gained free access to the White House and key positions in the government.  Suddenly, law enforcement was made bad and lawbreaking good.   Laws, even his new ones, were violated at his whim and pleasure.   This has been bad for the Jews and bad for every race.

      • Reb Yid says:

        Funny, because Barack Obama will be exiting office with perhaps the highest approval ratings of any President in US history.

        You can continue to rant and rave about his every move, but most Americans don’t agree with you.

        • Steve Brizel says:

          “Most Americans”-where were the polls taken and who was polled? Hard to believe that polls, which were erroneous throughout the campaign and assured us that Trump had no chance, are correct here as well.

          • Aaron says:

            National polling was pretty accurate and very close to the margin of error. Clinton won the popular vote by more than 2 million votes and the polls accurately  reflected that. National polling also shows that Obama is leaving office with a historically high approval rating.

            Americans view his presidency as a success. He inherited a recession and has left the country in a much better financial situation. He inherited wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He leaves the country strong and safe with only minimal US forces deployed abroad. He has killed more terrorists with drone strikes and special ops then any other president and he has managed to get ISIS to the brink of losing their “caliphate” without deploying US soldiers into another Mideast quagmire. ISIS has lost close to 75% of their territory. Syria is a mess but that is more of a Arab issue than a US issue. The chances of dying from a terrorist attack in the US is about a quarter of the chance of dying from drowning in a bathtub.

          • Reb Yid says:

            Reputable non-partisan polling agencies like Gallup have shown this.  In fact, it’s on you to find me a single poll that showed the opposite.

            Here’s the coup de grace–if there’s anywhere in the country where you might think there was opposition, it would be in south Florida.  But even there, as the Cuban Poll sponsored by the Cuban Center at Florida International University showed, majorities backed improving relations with Cuba at all different levelsh

            Link to poll:

            http://cri.fiu.edu/research/cuba-poll/2016-cuba-poll.pdf

          • mycroft says:

            The polls were closer in percentage terms of the percentage that Clinton received in 2016 than they were to what Obama received in 2012. Nate Silver of fivethirtyeight gave Trump a 30 percent chance of winning.

            The polls have been usually quite accurate within the margin of error as they were this time. Here for the second time in five elections we have a non democratic result the person with the fewest votes wins. What of course is unique is the claim when fewer people voted for you that it is a mandate.

    • mycroft says:

      Certainly one can be anti Obama without being racist , one can also be anti-Israel without being anti-semitic. It is the nature and the tone of the arguments which determine the answer to racism and anti-semitic charges.

  15. Steve Brizel says:

    For those interested in OCED stats and why they are not sacrosanct seei am doubtful, that a Trump administration which probably owes a lot of its ideas to Patrick Buchanan will be one looking to interfere overseas.

    • mycroft says:

      Which of course is bad for Israel.

      • Steve Brizel says:

        Buchanan has not been an ideological factor in Republican politics since the early 1990s. Petraeus and the prospective DOD both made similar comments about Israel-the jury is out whether they are anti Israel as opposed to the Arabists in the State Department

  16. Steve Brizel says:

    For those interested in why OECD stats are not sacrosanct and can be problematic see http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/03/08/some-government-statistics-you-can-believe-and-others-you-really-shouldnt/2/#40959eb14825. For those interested in an evaluation of Obamacare and why it is a flop see https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/cleaning-obamas-health-care-mess/

    • mycroft says:

      Commentary half a century ago was a serious publication, discussing issues often of Jewish concern. Today it is just another Conservative publication with Jewish founders.

      Trivia around thirty. Years ago or so, John Podhoretz was a contestant on Jeopardy. He did very well, especially on Russian issues, but about the only area he did not do well on the Bible.

      • Steve brizel says:

        One can argue that the NYT was once a serious newspaper that now is just an expensive version of the Village Voice. You might learn something if you read Commentary which carries many articles of Jewish concern and interest . you’re just biased against Commentary because it is conservative. I grew up on the NYT and gave it up because the news culture and editorial pages simply are a poor imitation of its once impressive past

         

         

         

         

         

         

         

      • Steve Brizel says:

        Mycroft wrote in relevant part:

        “Commentary half a century ago was a serious publication, discussing issues often of Jewish concern. Today it is just another Conservative publication with Jewish founder.”

        I guess you haven’t seen too many of the issues since the 1970s, many of which discussed issues of Jewish concern, ranging from post Zionism to Oslo to Chabad Messianism to ecumenical theological discussions to a synposium on the future of the Jewish People as well as  its critiques of American domestic and foreign policies under the Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush 41 , Clinton ,Bush 43 and Obama Presidencies and the excellent letters and reviews of culture and books, many of which illustrate the decline of what passes for culture and books today.

        • mycroft says:

          i read Conservative publications and have read articles in a publication edited by five time Jeopardy winner John Podhoretz. I remember seeing it, I recognized the last name. . He was especially strong in popular culture and subjects that neocons would be interested in. Weak in Bible.

          i read from varied sources, I have less of a canon than many do. I tend to be more varied and like to challenge both sides.one should read from both sides and test the logic and facts.

          People have their agendas- nothing new just recognize that.

          • Steve Brizel says:

            John Podhoretz is also the son of Norman Podhoretz,  and one of the fathers of neo conservatism.

        • mycroft says:

          Obviously I was aware John Podhoretz was the son of Norman, I wouldn’t have remembered the categories of Jeopardy that he was good at otherwise. It is precisely his relationship which makes his great knowledge of Russia, and not that great knowledge of Bible in Jeopardy so interesting.

  17. Steve Brizel says:

    Mycrpoft wrote:

    “Obama so far has not had a coordinated major terrorist attack on his watch on US soil, his policies did not change US from a surplus to deficit , he did not refuse major weapon systems needed by Israel as in Israels request for bunker buster”

    That is no consolation for the victims of Islamofascism in Orlando, Fort Hood, San Bernardino, and Columbus. Ask the families of the victims if they feel more secure today than in 2008. I reject the idea voiced in the mainstream media ( i.e. The New Yorker) that acts of terror are a “fact of life” that we must get accustomed to. That attitude is an abdication of the role of the President to ensure the safety of the citizens of the United States.

    • Reb Yid says:

      Don’t you mean the victims of the NRA?  The absence of any gun control legislation in the US has more to do with this than anything else.   We are an embarrassment to the world.   There is absolutely no reason why anyone in this country should be allowed to buy and own an assault weapon.  Fix that issue, and then you won’t see nearly as many folks threatening innocents in schools, movie theaters and churches.

      • Steve brizel says:

        Chicago has the most restrictive gun control laws and the highest homicide rate of any major city. Most of the non terror related mass homicides are the product of latchkey families where parents have no idea or knowledge of the pathology of the serious mental illness of the perpetrator in their midst

        • Reb Yid says:

          Those local laws mean nothing when you can cross the city limits into Indiana when the laws are more lax. Only nationwide standards will make this work.

          How many more Newtowns, Charlestons and Auroras (mass murders all committed by white Christian males, by the way) must we needlessly suffer through?

          • Steve Brizel says:

            Reb Yid wrote on part:

            “Those local laws mean nothing when you can cross the city limits into Indiana when the laws are more lax. Only nationwide standards will make this work”

            The Chicago laws prove that very restrictive gun laws have absolutely no effect on the level of violent homicides within the city limits.

            Perhaps, when we realize that latchkey parenting is a failure and that allowing the mentally ill to live their lives with no supervision until they commit acts of murder will lower the crime rate. Like it or not, guns do not kill people-people kill people no matter what and how weapon of choice is used.

          • Reb Yid says:

            To Steve Brizel below:

            Like it or not, guns do not kill people-people kill people no matter what and how weapon of choice is used.

            Well, no, but let’s play along with this NRA-inspired charade and see where it takes us.  By your logic, cars don’t kill people but people do.  And that’s precisely why we don’t let anyone just walk into an auto dealership, fork down some cash, and be allowed to drive away with it.  Cars can be very dangerous instruments–so we have to take written and road tests, have our car registered and licensed and buy car insurance.

            We should expect at least this much, for goodness sake, for a loaded gun.  And that’s for a handgun, mind you.  Why in the world someone needs an assault weapon (other than to cause mass casualties, as has too often been the case), is totally beyond any rationale explanation.

            People are people.  Yet the US sticks out like a sore thumb when it comes to these kinds of attacks with assault weapons, as well as other acts that involve guns.  That’s because the rest of the world has much tougher restrictions and guidelines on the ownership and purchase of weapons, let alone on the type of weapon that can be purchased.

          • Steve Brizel says:

            IIRC, Weimar Germany also had tight gun control laws, and the absence of any capable armed resistance to the Nazis can be seen as one factor in the rise of the Nazis and the absence of any resistance whatsoever by the so-called ordinary German populace.

            The right to bear arms aside from being part of an organized militia was viewed by the Founding Fathers as having been one major factor that helped in resisting the oppressive acts of King George and leading to our independence as a nation. The Torah tells us that when Am Yisrael was at the shore of the Yam Suf, they panicked because as Ibn Ezra [points out that they had no tradition of armed self defense. There is no doubt that the right to bear arms produced such heroes as Alvin York, Audy Murphy and the Chris Kyle immortal “American Sniper”. I would note that even in Israel, soldiers on and off duty carry their arms, with no indicia that the same has contributed to mass homicides , inner city gang warfare and assassination of police officers-all of which have root causes that defy the PC panacea of gun control- the breakdown in the family or the nonexistence of a two parent family and the alliance between the NEA and those who the mainstream media view as civil rights leaders while bemoaning, belittling and fighting charter schools which have given the dropout academies in every city in the US known as “public schools” which have failed their mission (despite being provided with millions of dollars of federal and state funds)  sorely needed competition.

          • Reb Yid says:

            To Steve Brizel below:

            The Weimar anecdote is a non-sequitir.  The question is why, today, in 2016, the US has so many more incidents involving mass casualties, proportionately, than any other country.  For that, the fault clearly lies in the vastly different approach our federal government has taken to guns and assault than any other country.

            But since you raise the Nazis, it’s worth remembering that despite the horrible atrocities committed by Germany against the Jewish people Israel ultimately did accept reparations and the reestablishment of ties.  Sure, in the beginning there were protests  by some, but ultimately this has proven to be a very beneficial approach.  Keep that mind the next time you’re thinking about lashing out against Cuban-American relations.

        • Charles Hall says:

          Both false statements. Chicago’s homicide rate was at a 50 year low and then its restrictive gun laws were overturned by the courts; New York City now has far more restrictive gun laws (and one of the lowest homicide rates of any large city in the US). And while Chicago has a high homicide rate relative to other US cities, in 2015 Washington, Baltimore, Detroit, New Orleans, and St. Louis  were all higher, some dramatically so.

  18. Steve brizel says:

    Mycroft-those who left Cuba do so because they opposed Communism and wanted freedom in the same way as our forefathers who fled from Czarist Russia and who rebuilt their lives here and in Israel after the Holocaust. Since when is the CIA a reliable source of intelligence especially on the oppression of a country by Communism?

     

    • Aaron says:

      What is a “reliable source” in your book? Is it the National Enquirer that Trump quoted as evidence that Cruz’s father was involved in the Kennedy assassination and that President Obama was born in Kenya

      • Steve Brizel says:

        Aaron-the CIA is part of the swamp that needs to be drained to better provide Americans with security from terror. Its failures re 9-11 need no further elaboration. Have you ever seen anything that was written by President Obama either in Harvard LS or the U of Chicago LS? Why , as opposed to anything else written for a law journal at any law school, were the articles not available to anyone interested?

        • Lawrence M. Reisman says:

          Obama’s article can be found on page 823 of Volume 103 of the Harvard Law Review.  It is available, just like everyone else’s.  Of course, like all articles written by Harvard Law students, it’s unsigned.  But it is his.

        • mycroft says:

          Bush’s people were warned by Clinton’s in transition about Al Qaeda threat. Bush was only worried about avenging his fathers disgrace in Iraq rather than other bigger threats see eg Iran

  19. Steve brizel says:

    Mycroft are you implying that freedom of expression and the liberties enshrined in the bill of rights are inferior goals and are unimportant when compared with inflated statistics of a self serving nature as to child mortality ? Perhaps you should talk with some descendants of those fled the socialist paradise of Cuba or died when they dissented or drowned while trying to escape.you might realize that some things I’m life such as liberty are priceless

     

  20. Jill Schaeffer says:

    Hi, there

    Wow!  You guys really go at it!   Just returned from the American Academy of Religion and was pleased to be a part of the Academe that applauded Rabbi Jonathan Sack’s reception of the Templeton Award.  I was most privileged to hear him off script engage his audience, mostly by discussing the merits of pushing your students to prove you wrong, ennobling the role of dissidence and dissent.  Debate is holy ground, it seems, and a measure of liberty we need to protect, left or right.  To the extent that the left designates victims as helpless products of a cruel and unjust society and totally acquitted from responsibility, is also to the extent that I leave off the left. To the extent that the right ignores context as a contributory cause of violence against persons by word or by deed, is the extent to which I consider the right, wrong.   Actually, neither left or right interests me as such.  Just more labels to efface actions we try to describe and change because they harm persons, no matter who these persons happen to be.  I go with Hillel, here.   Thank you all for your thoughts

     

  21. Steve Brizel says:

    Mycroft wrote in part:

    “Cuba has a lower infant mortality rate than US.”

    Apologists for fascism and Communism ( some of whom won Pulitzer Prizes for the NYT) always praise and  mourn the most oppressive human beings in the world-Mussolini was praised for making the trains run on the time, and the Ivy League  schools, all of which then had anti Jewish quotas spearheaded by anti Semitic presidents, welcomed aides to Hitler and supporters of Nazism such as Lindberg  to their campuses in the 1930s. The apologists for Communism raved about  the “social reforms” of Stalin, Mao, Castro and Ho Chi Min despite the brutal oppression of their peoples  under their respective “socialist paradises.” Such apologists similarly ignore and belittle well documented claims of oppression by dissidents as disturbing their view  that only socialism , which is the road to serfom in all of its manifestations, can improve the lot of mankind. That is why commenting that refugees from Cuba are just refugees strikes me as highly problematic  in nature-especially when we know why and what circumstances caused so many of Acheinu Bnei Yisrael to leave Czarist Russia and to rebuild their lives after the  Holocaust. That same motive of rebuilding their lives and trying to fulfill the American dream unfortunately cannot be found among the perpetrators of Islamic terror who have arrived in the US.

    History teaches us that Communism, cannot maintain itself when it attempts to simultaneously welcome Western investment, and brutally  suppress human rights. Like or not, some things in life, such as human rights and freedom to speak, publish and worship are priceless.

    • mycroft says:

      It is a disgrace that an economy like ours that is far more productive than Cubas treats our non wealthy so poorly that we have a worse infant mortality rate than Cba. It is not that Cuba is so good, it is ours which treats our non wealthy so poorly. Cuba is not better than Europe, it is better than our system.

      • Steve brizel says:

        Not responsive-you obviously think that the need for universal health care is a value that warrants praise regardless of whether the society that is served has no human rights. Why are you so enamored with the dreams of the socialist paradise that has produced the most oppressive regimes on the planet?

         

         

        • mycroft says:

          I am not maintaining that Cuba is a better society than the US, just pointing out that they believe that all should be covered for health  care, the USsadly in my viewpoint does not believe that all should be covered. For an advanced society this lack of basic universal coverage shows bad results.

          i believe as those who believe in the Torah and a God that believes in improving the world- vchibshua- it is disastorous to ignore the plight of the less fortunate.

          • Steve brizel says:

            I  don’t think the t Torah mandates either socialism or capitalism of any variety or the documented inferior quality of socialized medicine. I think that we as a society have made a value judgment that compensation in any field depends on ones level of expertise as opposed to mandating that the incompetent be paid as much as the competent subject to the demand of the marketplace

          • mycroft says:

            So you are maintaining that people should be paid like the marketplace. Thus, where is the marketplace,there is almost no place where there is free competition. There are guilds that are part of conspiracy against the comma man. See  Adam Smith. Among guilds are professional societies, whichincludes health care professionals, attorneys, accountants, religious workers etc.

          • Steve brizel says:

            Saw your 5:36 post from yesterday. Spoken like a true believer in the dictatorship of the proletariat.

          • mycroft says:

            Quoting Adam Smith and his classic makes one a Marxist.Dont know where to begin.

          • Steve brizel says:

            Look at today’s WSJ. I trust that your open minded POV  allows you that luxury. The Cuban medical system is rooted in large part of mandatory abortion of any fetus that might even remotely have a possibible challenge such as a downs syndrome child regardless of the parents desire to raise such a child. A health care system that is predicated on such a policy is not reducing infant mortality but rather engaging I’m forced euthanasia. Obviously Cuba would never tolerate the existence of the parents campers and staff of Camp HASC since the same would obviously pose a threat to the values on which the Cuban infant mortality rate is predicated

          • Steve brizel says:

            Improvement does not mean forced euthanasia or abortions to generate inflated WHO statistics

        • Steve Brizel says:

          It is not a value in a any form that is worth adoption when small businesses cannot afford the cost of enrollment in the same.

          • mycroft says:

            What small business can afford is always an interesting question? Hiring children for more than market value whil non related get paid peanuts.

            Basically agree that medical expense should not be a business responsibility, it should be a government responsibility.Government should not be picking winners or losers in business, they should be neutral, tax neutrally. BTW the reason why medical insurance started  to be a perk of employment was a way of evading wage and price controls. We would save a lot of money in administrative costs if we went to a single payer.

        • Steve brizel says:

          Forced euthanasia and abortion can lead to inflated statistics about infant mortality. I shudder at even thinking about if we applied that policy to the parents if campers at Camp HASC. FYI when Castro needed surgery for diverticulitis a few years ago a surgeon from Spain had to be flown in because there was no one competent in Cuba to do the job. So much for the vaunted medical system of Cuba

          • Lawrence M. Reisman says:

            Since we can throw Cuba out of the equation, let’s look at the WHO infant mortality statistics.  Among the countries that the US lags behind are Poland, Greece, Spain, Portugal, Ireland, and Slovenia.  There are quite a bit more as well.

             

          • mycroft says:

            As Lawrence Reisman mentions it is not Cuba that is being mentioned as an example of a society to emulate but  there are practically other Western Countries and more that have better health statistics than the US.

             

            The US lags behind not only infant health statistics but  practically all other health statistics of western counties. One can always give anecdotal evidence of people consulting famous US doctors and the wealthy may well have a decent system in US, but IMO society takes care of all its citizens and has a responsibility of al taamod al dam reecha.Others may disagree with my assumption-BTW the US figures would be bad even if we only paid the same per capita for health care than those countries do but we pay much more. Greater inputs into system and lesser outputs not something to be proud of.

  22. R.B. says:

    Great opinion piece from Deborah Lipstadt in the Forward (of all places – with its extreme leftwing bent) about the hypocrisy of the Left: http://forward.com/opinion/355293/didnt-slam-anti-semitism-on-the-left-dont-expect-credibility-when-you-slam/?attribution=articles-article-listing-3-headline.

     

    • Aaron says:

      Great. Nice to see some integrity on the left. Now it would be nice to see that same honest integrity on the right. Lets see a piece on right wing hypocrisy in a newspaper or journal with “an extreme right wing bent”.

      • Steve Brizel says:

        Have you ever read Commentary or the Weekly Standard or the columns of George Will and Charles Krauthammer? All were critical of the excesses of the alt right andTthe campaign of the president elect.

        • mycroft says:

          Both the Weekly Standard and Commentary were founded by Jews and ave great Jewish Influence, Krauthammer is Jewish. Of course they wouldn’t traffic in anti semitism.

          To deny that there is not anti semitism in a de ent percentage of the right is a form of denial. Similarly, there is also some antisemitism in the left.

          • Steve brizel says:

            The issue is where is anti Semitism more prevalent. BDS and it’d academic enablers are all affiliated with or supporters of the left. the Kkk occupies an extraordinarily small influence but still draws the untoward attention of ADL and the like which have done nothing to prevent or combat the spread of BDS in the Us

          • Reb Yid says:

            To Steve Brizel:

            867 hate crimes were documented within the first 10 days after the election by the Southern Poverty Law Center.  100 of them were classified as anti-Semitic.

            This is hate and anti-Semitism on the right.  Ignore it at your own peril.

             

          • R.B. says:

            Reply to Reb Yid: the Southern Poverty Law Centre claims that Steve Emerson, who exposes the many Islamist connections in NA, is an anti-Muslim bigot. It has as much “credibility” as Greenblatt, former Obama special assistant.

            This Tablet article shows how low the SPLC has sunk, so I wouldn’t cite them as authoritative if I were you.

            A New Blacklist From the Southern Poverty Law Center Marks the Demise of a Once-Vital Organization

             

  23. Steve Brizel says:

    Reb Yid wrote in part:

    “867 hate crimes were documented within the first 10 days after the election by the Southern Poverty Law Center.  100 of them were classified as anti-Semitic.”

    SPLC viewed Dr Ben Carson a pediatric neurosurgeon who the SPLC branded an extremist and who even the FBI has had skepticism about the accuracy of its claims. I suspect that R Adlerstein’s organization can tell us far more objectively where the real danger of anti Semitism lies as opposed to the SPLC which sued the KKK but clearly now has gone beyond the pale in labelling a candidate such as Dr. Carson an extremist.

    • Reb Yid says:

      Carson is indeed a kook, and a dangerous one.  We can devote a new post to all of his outrageous statements.

      But that’s besides the point because you must be living in a cave if you haven’t noticed all of the hate crime incidents happening in this country.  Other organizations including the ADL are also on board saying they haven’t seen it this bad since the 1930s.  And that’s just for Jews.  Many other groups have it far worse than us.

      • Steve Brizel says:

        Carson is an African American conservative who supports the traditional concept of a family and is a great supporter of Israel. Carson has been pillloried because he, like Thomas Sowell, is an African American conservative.

      • Steve Brizel says:

        ADL is now headed by a former Obama staffer who until recently was unwilling to criticize the DNC for considering Keith Ellison as its possible chair. ADL has also been looking for evidence of anti Semitism among evangelicals and in bathroom stalls when it really has done nothing about BDS and the intimidation of Jewish students on campuses by professors who have openly anti Israel sentiments.

        • Reb Yid says:

          So are you denying that the incidents against minorities, immigrants, those who are LGBT, Arabs, Jews and others have gone up?

          Are you going to deny any positive statistics from out Federal government just because you despise the current President?  Ad matai?  You really need to cool it.

          • Steve Brizel says:

            I wrote that SPLC’s claims need to be taken with a lot of salt. If you want to accept such claims which have been treated with skepticism, that is your prerogative. I would note that BLM is the subject of extensive analysis in the latest issue of Commentary by Joshua Moravchik and is basically the reincarnation of the Black Panthers and the even more radical Black Liberation Army, both of which were strongly devoted to the abolition, peaceful or otherwise of the criminal justice system, despite the fact that most violent inner city crime involves the perpetration of the same upon another minority group member for basic reasons that I mentioned that have nothing to with racial profiling by police, or access to guns.

          • Steve Brizel says:

            See the article from Tablet-obviously SPLC, like many on the left,  is interested in blacklisting and silencing  anyone who possesses a conservative POV. That makes me very wary of relying on any statistics disseminated by SPLC.

      • Steve Brizel says:

        Yup-lots of hate crime reported ( see Ohio State ) while the peoples republics of the UWS, UES , Boston and the academic world wallow in self pity when they are not encouraging and aiding and abetting students from accepting the results of the election and viewing the same as post election stress disorder-a new entry for the next edition of the DSM.

        • mycroft says:

          One can always attack hypothetical opponents, academics, media etc. it is the President elect who has claimed the system is rigged, without any evidence that the popular vote was stolen from him. He can appoint to a major cabinet position one who has made non pro Israel statements- but all. Is forgiven he is not a liberal democrat. There is something to fear from both right and left.

          Pat Buchanan is the closest to anyone in the ideas that Donald Trump campaigned on. Having said that he will probably act like a typical person take from the poor and give to the rich.

          • Steve brizel says:

            Try your hypothesis out on the employees of Carrier I’m Indianapolis. They won’t be the only jobs saved on the  US by the jawboning of the president

          • mycroft says:

            “Try your hypothesis out on the employees of Carrier I’m Indianapolis. ”
            The test for good policy is not if it will benefit any individual it is a cost benefit analysis subject to constraints of ethics. We in the US have always believed that we are a country of laws that attempt to treat people equally we are not one where the President is supposed to get involved in individual decisions-as opposed to policy decisions.

            If one really wants to discourage companies moving their operations abroad-it is easy. Repeal our deferral regime that in general does not tax the earnings of foreign affiliates until repatriated and follow JFKs 1962 proposal to currently tax foreign affiliates earnings. Repeal current Subpart F regime-it would simplify the tax code and BTW make the whole Transfer Pricing Issue obsolete.

            Re tax holidays in repatriating income see the results of IRC 965 which about a decade ago permitted companies to repatriate dividends from abroad with an 85 per cent dividend received deduction, to no ones surprise it did not increase investment just a gift to companies.

             

            “They won’t be the only jobs saved on the  US by the jawboning of the president”

            Look at society as a whole for job losses and gains.

             

          • Lawrence M. Reisman says:

            “Try your hypothesis out on the employees of Carrier I’m Indianapolis. They won’t be the only jobs saved on the  US by the jawboning of the president”  Donald Trump will have to repeat Carrier 205 times to equal what President Obama did with the GM bailout.

          • Reb Yid says:

            To add to Lawrence Reisman:

            It’s not comparable to what Barack Obama did, let alone in scope.  What Trump did came at the expense of the state coffers of Indiana.  Meanwhile some jobs were saved while others were still slashed.  So the “winners” were corporations.  The losers were the people of Indiana who are losing vital social services

          • Steve Brizel says:

            Pat Buchanan has been considered well beyond the pale of the conservative world since 1992 when WF Buckley wrote that Buckley was so because of his anti Semitic views.

    • Reb Yid says:

      New York City Police Department:  “Huge Spike” in hate crimes after the election.  At some point, you have to stop critiquing the messenger, as it’s blinding you to the message staring at you in the face:

      NYPD sees ‘huge spike’ in hate crimes post-election — Jews targeted most

      • Steve brizel says:

        Read the article. No major uptake in NYC and the usual screaming by ADL in the wrong places and questionable reliance on SPLC which views anyone with a conservative POV as advocating or participating in hate crimes

        Still looking for any effort by ADL or SPLc against BDS

  24. Steve Brizel says:

    Reb Yid wrote in part:

    “The question is why, today, in 2016, the US has so many more incidents involving mass casualties, proportionately, than any other country.  For that, the fault clearly lies in the vastly different approach our federal government has taken to guns and assault than any other country.But since you raise the Nazis, it’s worth remembering that despite the horrible atrocities committed by Germany against the Jewish people Israel ultimately did accept reparations and the reestablishment of ties.  Sure, in the beginning there were protests  by some, but ultimately this has proven to be a very beneficial approach.  Keep that mind the next time you’re thinking about lashing out against Cuban-American relations.”

    Root causes, that I identified, which have been around at least since they were identified in the Moynihan Report are responsible for inner city crime. Mass killings , more often than not,, are perpetrated by people whose internet access was unsupervised and whose underlying mental illness was never treated in a proper manner or rendered capable of being criminalized thanks to the refusal of the courts to criminalize the same. (“Progressive” policies have resulted in a return of the homeless to the streets and subways of NYC. When you see a car occupied by one person only, the safe bet is that the occupant is a mentally disturbed homeless person.  Neither gun controls nor a “war on poverty” that has failed abysmally and which required racial quotas can overshadow the root causes of crime that begin in the analysis of the family structure. )

    Reparations were accepted by Israel, and the establishment of diplomatic relations as well,  after much debate, but certainly with no forgiveness of the Holocaust. The irony is that left wing anti Semitism in Europe began in West Germany in the late 1960s and now has reached the level where the descendants of the perpetrators of the Holocaust deem themselves on a moral level whereby they can lecture Israelis on how to defend themselves.

     

  25. Steve Brizel says:

    Mycroft wrote:

    “So you are maintaining that people should be paid like the marketplace. Thus, where is the marketplace,there is almost no place where there is free competition. There are guilds that are part of conspiracy against the comman man. See  Adam Smith. Among guilds are professional societies, whichincludes health care professionals, attorneys, accountants, religious workers etc.”

    I never knew that holding a professional degree constituted a violation of the anti trust laws. Rather, I always have thought and still do think that the same is commensurate with reaching a specialized occupation for which my compensation is rooted in my expertise and the fee that I can charge for my services. That is what happens when you have the combination of free minds and free markets at work-what you call a conspiracy against the common man is really the recognition that a person’s expertise in a profession and his or her ability has far more value to their society than someone who either earns less , or someone who is  uneducated or a criminal.

    Society views the education of such professionals which you call a guild as a necessary element in producing further professionals, and  views their compensation as a necessary reward. IOW, the notion that you can be your own lawyer , doctor or other professional simply is a grievous mistake. (That view , in a very interesting way, can also be found in the fact that Torah observant Jews view or should view the successful transmission of their commitment to Torah Avodah and Gmilus Chasadim to the next generation with such importance that in the US  K-Kollel/seminary education whether in the MO and Charedi worlds ( and coupled with a year or more in Israel to realize that Torah study is not just a course in which you take tests or go thru the motions in your life) together with the emphasis of the above values in the family setting as the key elements in this transmission belt from past to the present to the future.

  26. Steve brizel says:

    Looking forward to the reaction to Trumps next exercise in jawboning from the usual suspects here

    Didn’t know that saving jobs for Americans wasn’t part of a presidents job description

    • mycroft says:

      see Henry Mankiw’s comments on Trump’s getting involved in individual companies activities. He was GWB s Chairman of his Economic Advisers. Mankiw’s who generally advocates policies benefiting the 1 percent also does not believe Trump is acting appropriately.

  27. Steve brizel says:

    Any society whose mortality statistics are even partially based on euthanasia even if such stats are “superior” to the USA deserves contempt as opposed to emulation

    • mycroft says:

      There are US states that allow assisting suicide. There are democracies that permit Euthenasia-BTW euthanasia if practiced would lower life expectancies of the country involved.

Pin It on Pinterest