There is some "linkie love" headed your way.

"Neo-con" is a code word for "Jew?" My goodness that cuts right to the chase doesn't it?

I guess it's better than a yellow star.

By the way, it ain't just the Lefties who talk like this. Your guy Marvin Olasky is infamous for this kind of crap as well.

Remember what Frank Rich wrote about Olasky last year?:

Now Mr. Olasky [has written a piece] for the Austin American-Statesman implying that journalists who are critical of Mr. Bush have "holes in their souls," practice "the religion of Zeus" and are therefore hostile to the Texas governor's Christianity.

The only three journalists he cites by name happen by total coincidence to be Jewish (Bill Kristol and David Brooks of The Weekly Standard are the other two).

I'm sure it's also a coincidence that Mr. Olasky, a former Jew who converted to Christianity over twenty years ago, has spun this theory at a moment when Pat Robertson is targeting Mr. Rudman, the most visible Jew in the McCain campaign.

Mr. Olasky phoned me -- but only after his column prompted embarrassing national press calls to the Bush campaign to reassure me that of course he's not an anti-Semite.

Whew!

He still hasn't told me whether the religion of Zeus goes in for Bar Mitzvahs. BTW, I went back and re-read your earlier post.

So (for the benefit of your newer readers) allow me to link to numerous articles I've written on this topic too. Since I'm nominally a lefty and also Jewish, you all might want to read my take on this topic.

You might find it surprising to read what I've written:

here,

and here,

and here.

I continue to believe that the (Jewish) Olasky does not qualify as an anti-semite simply because of the quoted remarks I've read so far. Indeed, I'm more suspicious of Frank Rich than I am of Olasky. I remain agnostic but highly skeptical on the matter.

I freely admit that I may be influenced by the fact that I like Olasky, and that I have come to believe that certain people tend to be quick on the draw with the "anti-semite" (or "self-hating jew") accusation, but tend to get all huffy and defensive when someone points out that their house is not--and never has been--any cleaner.

[shrug]

In any case, I find myself wondering why this is even being brought up. Is there some respectable and accepted group of campus and media intellectual right-wingers who're saying the Jews control the media and are running the war for the benefit of Sharon and his baby-killer soldiers?

You'll get no argument from me about the anti-Semitic nature of left-wing apologists for terrorism whether they're on campus, in Hollywood or on the op-ed staff of a major newspaper.

I've written extensively on the topic (links in my previous post).

But if anti-Semitism is wrong on the Left, it is equally wrong on the Right. And that includes Marvin Olasky.

So...I'll make you a deal.

You go ahead and be suspicious of Frank Rich, I'll be suspicious of Marvin Olasky.

BTW, I'm suspicious of Olasky because I believe he's an anti-Semite.

Why are you suspicious of Frank Rich?

Do you think he's un-patriotic?

I'm suspicious of Rich because he comes from a breed that loves to trot out "anti-semite," "racist," "anti-woman," or "homophobe" whenever they're bored and have nothing else to write about. Lying In Ponds lists Frank Rich as one of the most negative of Democratic partisan pundits. I frankly wonder if he's capable of seeing anything but a raging hate-monster in any Republican whose name isn't John McCain.

Given attitudes you've expressed here in the past about evangelical Christians, I'm not surprised that you're quick to accept Rich's accusations. But I've seen only the one Rich column, and searches I've made for more material turn up nothing. [shrug] In any case, Olasky's a Jew, a defender of Israel, and a former Bush associate, so I would expect him to be part of the "neo-con" Zionist plot, if anything.

Allow me to re-iterate: anti-Semitism is vile and repugnant whether on the Right or the Left. And make no mistake, no one has a lock on it.

As for Marvin Olasky, I have one word for him:

"Feh!"

Olasky wrote what he wrote. I don't need Frank Rich (or you, thanks) to tell me what it means.

And it's OK; first amendment and all that. More power to him. In fact, the more he talks about this the better I like it; at least it makes him easy to spot (and avoid).

re: Lying in Ponds' ranking of Frank Rich...

Rich ranks right up there with Daniel Heninger and Linda Chavez. Does that put them among the most negative Republican partisan pundits? Just asking.

What problem are you referring to, Ara?

Real Jews -- the tough ones who survive -- don't let a little criticism bother them. They have a good descriptive word in Hebrew that covers what I'm talking about:

"M'apilim" -- stormers of obstacles.

These are the folks, who, when the going gets hard, build a country out of the desert sands, write a 14-minute piano rhapsody, cop all the Nobel prizes for science, arrange for an empire to buy up a canal across the Suez isthmus, lead the 3rd Armored Division across Europe at Patton's side, and invent nuclear and thermonuclear science within a few years of each other.

Maybe -- just maybe -- anti-semitism contributes to their overachievement like any other spur to greatness. Think it over and stop whining.

Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI

Arnold:

Real Jews -- the tough ones who survive -- don't let a little criticism bother them....Maybe -- just maybe -- anti-semitism contributes to their overachievement like any other spur to greatness. Think it over and stop whining.

So all along you were doing me a favor, right?

BwaHAHaHAHAHAhahahahahaha...hahaha...ha..ha..ahem.

"Real Jews?" Hooha!

You crack me up Arnold.

"...the tough ones who survive?"

Heeheeheehee...hee..hee....Goodness gracious.

So...the camps were full of phony Jews?

Well.

You've got a sense of humor, Arnold, why don't you check this out and get back to me.

No, Ara, the camps were filled with people waiting to become victims; and whether they were real or unreal Jews became irrelevant the moment got into the custody of those who shipped them there to be murdered. But I don't identify with victims, victimology, or victimism, and the whole Holocaust industry leaves me cold.

The Jews I identify with were the much smaller number who got hold of guns and killed to STAY OUT out of the camps. Most of these people died fighting, which, in such a situation, is the best way to check out. Some survived, alongside Russian, Byelo-Russian, Jugoslav, French, Italian and other partisans. Some got deep into the Soviet Union and took part in the Red Army's conquest of eastern Europe after Operation Barbarossa was halted in the suburbs of Moscow. Some got into the Middle East and joined the British-organized Palestinian units that became the core of the army of Israel after 1948. Some remained cold, hardened killers. Some reverted to normality. When the war was over, and there were no more armed Nazis loose in Europe, these Jews got the hell out of there and went to the Middle East. There, they tore out a patch of land for themselves, with apologies neither to the Arabs nor the British, and made a country.

I respect everyone who stays the hell out of my way. Jews, Christians, Moslems, unbelievers, whatever. But these very special people were and are the Jews whom I salute. The Jews with guns and no whining apologetics. And if Israel survives, it will because their spirit lives on in the outposts, villages and growing cities of Judea, Samaria, Golan, Gaza and eastern Jerusalem where a whole new kind of Jewish nation is taking shape. These are the M'apilim.

Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI

Arnold:

Please shut up, chill out and stop talking to me like I'm someone else.

Listen to what I going to say now and you might actually learn something...

FIRST OFF, if you've read anything I've written here or elsewhere on the topic of Israel, gun ownership and/or the war on terror, you'll know instantly that we probably share a lot of views in common.

Do I have to have Dean send you a letter of recommendation or what? Jeez! You really are insufferable. And I'm sure I'm not the first one to tell you that. Hell, you're probably proud of it!

SECOND, are you acquainted with Aaron Zelman? If so, then we have at least one friend in common. If not, check it out -- you'll find you probably have a lot in common with him. And me.

For the rest of you who are not familiar with Mr. Zelman's organization and life's work, he is the Executive Director of Jews for the Protection of Firearm Ownership.

His message? The "Final Solution" began with gun control. And if you happen to be Jewish, and you think it couldn't happen here, then hang on because guys like Chuck Schumer just don't seem to "get it."

But I digress...

I had the pleasure of bringing Zelman to my synagogue to deliver a lecture on, shall we say, "firearm ownership amongst Jewish people."

Originally, I had slated the event to be a debate between him and Lana Pollack who was, at the time, the incumbent Democrat liberal state senator for our district. She is predictably pro-gun-control. Fine. Let the games begin!

That she was also Jewish was really beside the point...or was it?

I'll never know because after accepting the invitation, her handlers cancelled when they realized it was Zelman who was going to show up.

This was probably at least ten years ago, and it was the last time I ever had any second thoughts about the Constitutionality of gun ownership.

LAST, BUT NOT LEAST, my opinions on this have always been skewed by the fact that my grandfather and his/my family survived the Armenian genocide in spite of (because of?) the fact that he was a gunsmith.

When the Turks came for his guns, he slyly played dumb, having buried them deep in a mountain cave. They came in handy later.

He died peacefully in bed, fifty years later. Need I say more?

So save the swagger for someone else -- I'm with you in more ways than you realize.

Thank you for reading down this far.

Ara,

1) I don't know anything about you or your background except for what you have written on Dean's site during the past few months. Unlike some of you folks, I have a business to run and I don't have time to haunt every blogsite on the web.

2) I'm insufferable in spades, and I have been ever since I learned how to spell that word correctly. Some folks call it blunt honesty.

3) I've been reading Aaron Zalman's stuff since 1994, and I have spoken to him via telephone twice, briefly. He is a sort of living icon to Gun Owners of America (GOA) and, to a lesser extent, the National Rifle Association's Institute of Legislative Affairs (NRA-ILA), in whose name I serve as election volunteer coordinator (EVC) for the Wisconsin 2nd congressional district. I guess he supposedly makes some Jewish liberals feel guilty about supporting gun control, which is good. Guilt is a particular type of Jewish disease, so it's about time it was put to some useful purpose.

4) I haven't figured out your dual connection to the Jews and Armenians. When my wife and I lived in Jerusalem in 1973-1974, most of the local Armenians kept to themselves, peddled rugs in the Arab part of the old city, and gave us the idea they were still trying to figure out who was going to win the long conflict, the Arabs or the Jews. That way they would know whom to side with, which is smart.

5) Your grandfather's experiences as an Armenian gunsmith, presumably living in eastern Turkey in 1915, bears out the opinion that I formed about the Jews who survived the Nazis. So I guess I would have regarded your grandfather as an Armenian m'apil, or stormer of obstacles. After all, he fought and survived didn't he? And that is my sole criteria.

6) Unlike what I know or surmise about your political culture, I don't give a damn about diversity, democracy or equality. This country was set up as a constitutional republic, with real equality reserved for those who can pay for it. I aim to help keep it that way, because it suits my self-interest.

7) I can't say I feel any more sorrowful about the Armenian massacres than I do about the Jews of Europe, the American Indians, the Japs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Germans in Hamburg and Dresden, the Hutus/Tutsis in Uganda (never did learn how to sort them out!), the Albanians, the Serbs, the AIDS victims, etc, etc, etc. After all, I didn't kill them or give them their disease. You can emotionally suffer for all these good folk in my place, if that's how you get your jollies.

Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI

When my wife and I lived in Jerusalem in 1973-1974,

Now see? Another connection. I happened to be living in Beirut during that period.

most of the local Armenians kept to themselves, peddled rugs in the Arab part of the old city, and gave us the idea they were still trying to figure out who was going to win the long conflict, the Arabs or the Jews.

I love it! "Gave you the idea..." sounds about right. God gave us two ears, two eyes but only one mouth -- that way we would listen and watch twice as much as we spoke.

That way they would know whom to side with, which is smart.

It worked, insofar as the Armenian Quarter of Jerusalem has managed to survive intact for countless hundreds of years.

I haven't figured out your dual connection to the Jews and Armenians.

someday when I'm in Wisconsin I'll look you up, we'll have a beer and we'll trade life stories.

Okay, Ara, you're on. Come around here on one of our local machinegun match days, and we'll let you shoot the real McCoy. But you pay for your own ammo, and there's no beer until the guns are locked up. We keep our range rules a hell of a lot better than the UN keeps the peace.

Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI

Insufferable = blunt honesty? Is that like the idea of an "objective fan?"

>>>I'm suspicious of Rich because he comes from a breed that loves to trot out "anti-semite," "racist," "anti-woman," or "homophobe" whenever they're bored and have nothing else to write about.
>>.... But I've seen only the one Rich column.

On this bashing of Rich, your credibility ended there, Dean.

I'm someone who really hasn't given the history of Jews in America or how America treats them, much direct thought. So maybe my credibilitity ends there.

But I don't see a right/left any kind of partisan hatred/dislike/persecution of Jews in America today.

Some on the left point out that the fact that Israel has also violated UN resolutions. The reasons they do so, vary. Could it be just to point out hypocrisy and not an anti-semite statement?

There are some very visible Jews who are Democrats. Should they be considered the same as gays on the right? I'm not saying they are because, as inferred above, I don't think anti-semitism is a D/R thing.

Anti-semitism used to be very a right-wing thing, however, It seems odd that it is now being framed/pushed toward being a left-wing tenet.

This is a very bad start on the article you linked to: Not long ago I was chatting with a prominent Washington figure in a green room. "You people have infested everywhere," he said in what I thought was a clumsy but good-hearted manner. He listed a few of "us": "Wolfowitz, Feith, Frum, Perle." I've never met Doug Feith in my life and Wolfowitz and Perle I've barely met. Yet he assumed we were tight as thieves.

Is the author really that stupid as to avoid the obvious point that the speaker was talking about ideas and not physical proximity

And if the guy "shot back" He's a shabbas goy. He's got a lot of Jewish money supporting that school then I'd be the first to say, the speaker here is very likely a Jew himself and "you people" referred to something else. I only base that idea on the fact that I can't think of too many non-Jews who would use the phrase "shabbas goy" although Hebrew may be used much more frequently in daily conversation on the East Coast.

>>A Vietnam vet got up to rail against U.S. policy on Iraq, which he said was engineered by "Paul Wolfowitz and Daniel Pearl." He got the wrong Pearl. He accidentally mentioned somebody who was beheaded for being American and Jewish. But the crowd didn't seem to notice. They roared with approval and slapped him on the back as he made his way from microphone. Why didn't he say Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, and Powell were organizing the Bush administration policy? They're higher ranking officials than Wolfowitz and actually members of the administration, unlike Perle. Would the crowd have roared as wildly if he'd mentioned Rice and Powell, I wondered, or did the words Wolfowitz and Perle somehow get their juices flowing?

So, instead of wondering, he couldn't have asked. If he's going to write a column, he really should ask some of these people he "wonders" about.

And then the blogger's comment immediately afterward: As I look at this op-ed, I cannot help but thinking that the American Left is committing suicide by adopting anti-Semitism as its organizing principle.

Organizing principle. Is that a !@#$% leap of reason or what? Answer. Yes.

>>The Democrats are going to have to visibly cast out anti-Semites in their party caucus at the 2004 national convention to be creditable on the subject

The blogger also made the above statement. To which my reply is, "And when was the last time you beat your wife." He/she doesn't offer any names to "cast out." And don't say Jesse Jackson - he's not a powerful force in the Democrat party. Neither is Al Sharpton.

The blogger also seems to gloss over the fact that Lieberman IS a big force in the party. So is Kerry for that matter (no Kerry debate here please, that whole thing is silly)

Lastly, the fact that Republicans jetison Buchanan for his anti-semitism seems to me to be proof that 1) Republicans don't like him and 2) They don't like him, at least in part, because he's a liability when "the other side" will shred the party for supporting such a man.

Dean, what was your point in posting this?
(sorry for the partial fisking in your comments)

Dimn,
You speak contemptuously of the Republicans jettisoning Buchanan for his anti-Semitism. At least they jettisoned him. The Democrats are fawning over their anti-Semites. And Sharpton has a lot more influence in the Democratic Party than Buchanan ever did among Republicans. Just look at Lieberman kissing his ring in 2000. Sharpton is a kingmaker in New York Dem poitics.

that's just not true michael. Buchanan had a period of being a speaker at every Republican cnvention for a few year. He was a speechwriter (?) for Richard Nixon. He's been much more of a political player than Al Sharpton will ever hope to be.

Why do you think Rep and Democrats are entirely dismissive of his chances for the presidency.

Besides, I wasn't contemptuous. I thought I was presentig quite a reasonable case. I was just just citing more likely reason why he was kicked out.

Lieberman kissing his ring?

Fawning over who? Still no names. I reject Al Sharpton as a viable "name."

>>Lastly, the fact that Republicans jetison Buchanan for his anti-semitism seems to me...

Dimn,

Am I missing something? I was not aware that Buchanan was anti-semitic. What did he say that was anti-semitic? I thought that Pat Buchanan left the Republican party because he disagreed with the party's stance on immigration and the rejected protectionist trade policies Buchanan thought the party should adopt.

Kevin, I was quoting the article. Hey, is that why Michael L. complained, because he didn't read the piece either and thought I was saying that?

>> I'm suspicious of Rich because he comes from a breed that loves to trot out "anti-semite," "racist," "anti-woman," or "homophobe" whenever they're bored and have nothing else to write about.

Dean,

Perhaps what you mention is just another example of vapid, liberal, Democratic name calling. Democrats cannot debate anybody any more without calling his/her opponent some pejorative, you know.

>> I'm suspicious of Rich because he comes from a breed that loves to trot out "anti-semite," "racist," "anti-woman," or "homophobe" whenever they're bored and have nothing else to write about.

Dean,

Perhaps what you mention is just another example of vapid, liberal, Democratic name calling. Democrats cannot debate anybody any more without calling his/her opponent some pejorative, you know.

>>Kevin, I was quoting the article. Hey, is that why Michael L. complained, because he didn't read the piece either and thought I was saying that?
Dimn,

I finally got time to answer to your reply. I DID read the article and David Brooks’ column. Nowhere did either mention what Buchanan said that caused NR to expel him. The article did however; mention that NR WARNED Pat Buchanan that his NR writings might be misinterpreted as anti-Semitic. That does not make anything he said or wrote anti-Semitic. I remember I big debate about Pat Buchanan during the 1990’s where people falsely accused Buchanan of anti-Semitism. I still do not know anything he personally said that was anti-Semitic. If I remember correctly, this was the beginning of Democrats’ publicly name calling people with whom they disagreed. Pat Buchanan is always an easy target for any liberal for his outspoken opinions. His campaigning made him an even easier target. Democrats incorrectly made him the poster child for the entire Republican Party. That is easier after you demonize somebody.

>>Kevin, I was quoting the article. Hey, is that why Michael L. complained, because he didn't read the piece either and thought I was saying that?
Dimn,

I finally got time to answer to your reply. I DID read the article and David Brooks’ column. Nowhere did either mention what Buchanan said that caused NR to expel him. The article did however; mention that NR WARNED Pat Buchanan that his NR writings might be misinterpreted as anti-Semitic. That does not make anything he said or wrote anti-Semitic. I remember I big debate about Pat Buchanan during the 1990’s where people falsely accused Buchanan of anti-Semitism. I still do not know anything he personally said that was anti-Semitic. If I remember correctly, this was the beginning of Democrats’ publicly name calling people with whom they disagreed. Pat Buchanan is always an easy target for any liberal for his outspoken opinions. His campaigning made him an even easier target. Democrats incorrectly made him the poster child for the entire Republican Party. That is easier after you demonize somebody.