re: #57 Obdicut

Okay. Here is the article. Long story short was that Adbusters literally Jew-counted and implied that the Jewish neoconservatives may have been serving Israel’s interests, not the US’s, in pushing for war with Iraq. Given that, to me, it’s very clear that Bush needed no push whatsoever for the war, the odious nature of Jew-counting, and the ugly history of the ‘double loyalty’ charge, I find that article ridiculous and foolish.

Hadn’t read it before (thanks for linking to it), but appreciate both their rather gutsy attempt to have the conversation (the last two grafs seem to be key) and your response in rebutting it and/or condemning it. Democracy ‘n’ stuff. :-)

And yes, I do think that many neo-cons — Jewish or otherwise (I’ve often argued with relatives that many Christian supporters of Israel have no love at all for the Jews, and do so only because they hate A-rabs even more) often put Israel’s interests, for whatever reason, over the good of this nation. For example, giving Israel a pass for behavior they’d not tolerate from a Muslim country does not, ultimately, help either Israel *or* the U.S. as I see it.

Adbusters, as one of the ‘organizers’— or at least the people who put out a call to action— for Occupy is one of the main reasons a lot of people, myself included, are leery about antisemitism.

Be leery all you like. I don’t know enough about Adbusters background (above and beyond the one article you linked to, which I don’t find as troubling as you do, from a 1st Amendment perspective — though I think they’re Canadian, right?) to share the same feeling. Also, given Adbusters initial call for folks to come to OWS, and nothing much since then, as I understand it, it seems particularly thin gruel to use in somehow making the case that OWS, which is pretty clear about what it actually stands for, is some kind of mask for anti-Semitism. From what I’ve seen, one would have to be pretty cynical and/or desperate to try and make that case (hence the abhorrent ad from Kristol and friends at ECI.)

Really? It doesn’t matter what that opinion is, you’d be happy to see them express their opinion?

Really? You’re troubled my use of the word “happy” there? Allow me to amend, so as not to trouble you: I am very pleased, very happy, in fact, to live in a country where folks can say whatever they wish, no matter how offensive it may be to me or you or anybody else. The alternative REALLY sucks. Is that better?

You know that the first amendment doesn’t say “The freedom of speech shall not be abridged, and by the way, saying whatever crazy shit pops into your head totally rules. Go for it, man!”

Um, yeah, that’s pretty much what it says. Literally: “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

If someone expresses the opinion that, say, blacks are inferior to whites and should be re-enslaved, I’m not happy to see them express that opinion. If someone says that abortion should be disallowed in all cases, I’m not happy to see them express that.

I am happy to live in a country that allows both statements, yes.

Did I misunderstand you?

Don’t know. Now that I’ve tried to clarify, a touch, by expanding my initial wording, you’ll let me know if you misunderstood me. :-)