SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: 2MAR$ who wrote (701256)2/27/2013 1:10:27 AM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 1576387
 
Pink Anti-Semitism Is No Different from Brown Anti-Semitism

by Alan M. Dershowitz
February 26, 2013 at 3:30 pm

gatestoneinstitute.org

This burlesque of an argument first surfaced in a New York Times op-ed that claimed that Israel's positive approach to gay rights is "a deliberate strategy to conceal the continuing violation of Palestinians' human rights behind an image of modernity signified by Israeli gay life." In other words, the Jew among nations is now being accused of feigning concern over the rights of gay people in order to whitewash – or in this case pinkwash – its lack of concern for Palestinian people.
The core characteristic of anti-Semitism is the assertion that everything the Jews do is wrong, and everything that is wrong is done by the Jews. For the anti-Semite every rich Jew is exploitive, every poor Jew a burden on society. For the anti-Semite, both capitalism and communism are Jewish plots. For the anti-Semite, Jews are both too docile, allowing themselves to be led to the slaughter like sheep, and too militant, having won too many wars against the Arabs. For the anti-Semite, Jews are too liberal and too conservative, too artsy and too bourgeois, too stingy and too charitable, too insular and too cosmopolitan, too moralistic and too conniving.

To the anti-Semite, every depression, war, social problem, plague must have been the fault of the Jews. Whenever the Jews appear to be doing something good – giving charity, helping the less fortunate, curing the sick – there must be a malevolent motive, a hidden agenda, a conspiratorial explanation beneath the surface of the benevolent act.

Now the very twisted illogic that has characterized classic anti-Semitism is being directed at the Jewish state, which for the anti-Semite has become "the Jew" among nations. When Israel sent help to tsunami and hurricane victims, the Jewish state was accused of merely trying to garner positive publicity calculated to offset its mistreatment of Palestinians. When Israeli medical teams save the lives of Palestinian children, they must be up to no good. When it was disclosed that the Israeli army has the lowest rate of rape against enemy civilians, radical anti-Zionists argued that this was because Israeli soldiers were so racist that they did not find Palestinian women attractive enough to rape! Nothing the Jew or the Jew among nations does can be praised, because its purpose is always to "manipulate," to "conceal," to "divert attention away from" or to "distort" the evil that inheres in all Jewish actions and inactions.

That is the bigoted thesis of a new anti-Israel campaign being conducted by some radical gay activists who absurdly claim that Israel is engaging in "pinkwashing." This burlesque of an argument first surfaced in a New York Times op-ed that claimed that Israel's positive approach to gay rights is "a deliberate strategy to conceal the continuing violation of Palestinians human rights behind an image of modernity signified by Israeli gay life." In other words, the Jew among nations is now being accused of feigning concern over the rights of gay people in order to whitewash – or in this case pinkwash – its lack of concern for Palestinian people.

How this pinkwashing is supposed to work, we aren't told. Is the media supposed to be so obsessed with Israel's positive policies toward gays that it will no longer cover the Palestinian issue? If so, that certainly hasn't worked. Are gays around the world supposed to feel so indebted to Israel that they will no longer criticize the Jewish nation? That surely hasn't worked, as evidenced by increasingly rabid anti-Israel advocacy by several gay organizations.

Well, to the unthinking anti-Semite, it doesn't matter how the Jewish manipulation works. The anti-Semite just knows that there must be something sinister at work if Jews do anything positive. The same is now true for the unthinking anti-Israel bigot.

In Israel, openly gay soldiers have long served in the military and in high positions in both government and the private sector. Gay pride parades are frequent. Israel is, without a doubt, the most gay friendly country in the Middle East and among the most supportive of gay rights anywhere in the world. This, despite efforts by some fundamentalist Jews, Muslims and Christians to ban gay pride parades and legal equality for gays. In contrast to Israel are the West Bank and Gaza, where gays are murdered, tortured and forced to seek asylum – often in Israel. In every Arab and Muslim country, homosexual acts among consenting adults are criminal, often punishable by death. But all this doesn't matter to the "growing global gay movement" against Israel, which according to The New York Times op-ed, regards these positive steps as nothing more than a cover for malevolent Israeli actions.

The pinkwash bigots would apparently prefer to see Israel treat gays the way Israel's enemies do, because they hate Israel more than they care about gay rights. Nor do these pink anti-Semites speak for the majority of gay people, who appreciate Israel's positive steps with regard to gay rights, even if they don't agree with all of Israel's policies. Decent gay people who have themselves been subjected to stereotyping, recognize bigotry when they see it, even – perhaps especially – among other gay people. That's why so many prominent gay leaders and public officials have denounced this "pinkwashing" nonsense.

Now this pinkwashing campaign is coming to the City University of New York. A pinkwashing conference is being sponsored by the Gay and Lesbian Studies Center at The Graduate Center on April 10-11, 2013. It will be yet another hate-fest against Israel, but this time it will cross the line into classic anti-Semitic tropes. Don't be fooled by its benign pink hue, or its academic pretext. At its core, the newly-fashioned charge of pinkwashing is little different from the old-fashioned charges leveled by brown-shirted anti-Semites – namely, that neither the Jews nor the Jewish state ever does good things without bad motives. And this time, the hate conference is being co-sponsored by the Philosophy and Psychology Departments and The Graduate Center of the City University of New York, as well as by the Center for The Study of Gender and Sexuality at New York University.

Shame on anyone who exploits his or her sexual orientation to promote anti-Semitic bigotry. And shame on anyone who sponsors those who practice pink anti-Semitism.

credit fubho




To: 2MAR$ who wrote (701256)2/27/2013 1:14:22 AM
From: joseffy2 Recommendations  Respond to of 1576387
 
Lefty moron 2mars loves his Michelle.




To: 2MAR$ who wrote (701256)2/27/2013 1:26:14 AM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 1576387
 
ABC defends editing Michelle Obama’s ‘automatic weapon’ claim
February 26, 2013 Michal Conger


ABC is defending its decision to edit out an apparently erroneous claim by Michelle Obama in its broadcast of the first lady’s interview on Good Morning America today, saying it made the changes “solely” for the sake of time.

As The Washington Examiner reported this morning, the first lady claimed during an interview with Good Morning America’s Robin Roberts that 15-year-old Hadiya Pendleton, who was killed in Chicago shortly after performing during the President’s Inauguration, was shot because “some kids had some automatic weapons they didn’t need.”

In fact, Chicago Police reported Pendleton was shot by a man who “opened fire with a handgun before fleeing in a waiting car,” according to the Associated Press.

For the broadcast, ABC’s Good Morning America producers edited out the first lady’s “automatic weapon” line.

“She was standing out in a park with her friends in a neighborhood blocks away from where my kids grow – grew – up, where our house is. And she was caught in the line of fire. I just don’t want to keep disappointing our kids in this country. I want them to know that we put them first.”

In the web edition of the story, however, Michelle Obama appears to be quoted in full:

“She was standing out in a park with her friends in a neighborhood blocks away from where my kids…grew up, where our house is. She had just taken a chemistry test. And she was caught in the line of fire because some kids had some automatic weapons they didn’t need,” she said. “I just don’t want to keep disappointing our kids in this country. I want them to know that we put them first.”

washingtonexaminer.com



To: 2MAR$ who wrote (701256)2/27/2013 1:28:03 AM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 1576387
 
ABC insists edit of Michelle Obama gun gaffe was 'for time'

By Emily Miller - The Washington Times February 26, 2013
washingtontimes.com


ABC News edited out First Lady Michelle Obama saying that a Chicago teenager was killed with an “automatic weapon.

Hadiya Pendleton was allegedly shot by a gang member on probation for a weapons charge with a handgun, not a rifle, which would be semi-automatic (unless it was a revolver.)

Robin Roberts got the first interview with Mrs. Obama since the inauguration in January, which she used to ask about gun-control efforts by President Obama.

A spokesman for ABC News, Heather Riley,
emailed me that, “The full story was posted to our website in advance of the interview being broadcast. The edits made to Robin’s interview with the First Lady were made solely for time.”

I read the missing words out loud, and it took me seven seconds.

The transcript of the interview shows that Mrs. Obama said this of Miss Pendleton (italics mine):

“She was standing out in a park with her friends in a neighborhood blocks away from where my kids grew up, where our house is. She had just taken a chemistry test. And she was caught in the line of fire because some kids had some automatic weapons they didn’t need,” she said. “I just don’t want to keep disappointing our kids in this country. I want them to know that we put them first.”

However, when the interview aired on “Good Morning America” on Tuesday, viewers heard the first lady said this:

“She was absolutely right. She did everything she was supposed to do. She was standing in a park, with her friends, in a neighborhood blocks away from where my kids grew up, where our house is. And she was caught in the line of fire. I just don’t want to keep disappointing our kids in this country. I want them to know that we put them first.”

ABC edited the response visually by using a cutaway in the middle of the answer of Ms. Roberts listening.


Automatic weapons function such that ammunition fires as long as the trigger is pulled. Semi-automatic guns fire once per trigger pull.

Automatic weapons have been highly regulated for civilian owners since the National Firearms Act of 1934. Owning one means going through an extensive process and background checks with the ATF. It is hard to believe that Mrs. Obama, a Harvard Law School grad, is not aware of the national firearms laws.

They have been banned from manufacture and import since 1986, so the low demand has made them very expensive, often more than $20,000. The last known crimes from automatic firearms were by law enforcement in the 1980s. Street criminals can’t get them, but confusing the public into believing that gang members are using weapons of war helps perpetuate myths to push a gun-control agenda.

Read more: washingtontimes.com



To: 2MAR$ who wrote (701256)2/27/2013 7:01:16 AM
From: Brumar893 Recommendations  Respond to of 1576387
 
Imagine how outraged liberals would be if a confidant, articulate and beautiful Ann Romney or Laura Bush were in the same place. Conservatives are actually pretty restrained compared to how liberals would react.



To: 2MAR$ who wrote (701256)2/27/2013 11:11:11 AM
From: longnshort  Respond to of 1576387
 
Donny Deutsch on Michelle Obama at the Oscars: "As far as I'm concerned, she was an uninvited guest"
With the ice having melted at the famed Vanity Fair after-party, and Hollywood's biggest winners likely still nursing celebratory hangovers, on Monday evening "Piers Morgan Tonight" reviewed the night that was in Hollywood, including the hosts more than 30 Red Carpet interviews.

Although Piers Morgan did chat with everyone from Sally Field to Amy Adams, there was one stunning woman whom he wasn't able to chat with: Michelle Obama.

As the 85th Academy Awards drew to a close, the First Lady shocked viewers and celebrities alike, appearing from Washington, D.C. via satellite to crown "Argo" the year's top film. But did Mrs. Barack Obama have a place at the Oscars?

Guest Donny Deutsch didn't think so:

"From my vantage point, absolutely not," said the advertising executive and television personality. "As far as I'm concerned, she was an uninvited guest. Now what I mean by that is, you have to give the consumer, the viewer, the ultimate respect. They have tuned in to watch movie stars, to watch movies. And all of a sudden, politics is thrown at them."

Joining Deutsch and Morgan live, "The New York Times" correspondent Jodi Kantor surmised that the First Lady's Academy Award cameo is a sign she's playing the proverbial long game:

"It's almost like this sort of Michelle Obama charm offensive strategy," said the author of the best-selling book "The Obamas." "What they're trying to do is portray this woman who's disconnected from politics because of course the paradox of being First Lady is that you are most politically powerful when you appear in some way non-political."

Watch the clips, and listen to the interviews, and draw your own conclusion about Michelle Obama presenting an Oscar. Was she, as Deutsch said, "an univited guets?" Or, as Kantor claimed, thinking long term?



To: 2MAR$ who wrote (701256)2/27/2013 11:57:32 AM
From: longnshort6 Recommendations  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 1576387
 
BOB WOODWARD: Obama Is Showing 'A Kind Of Madness I Haven't Seen In A Long Time'

Read more: businessinsider.com

The Washington Post's Bob Woodward ripped into President Barack Obama on " Morning Joe" today, saying he's exhibiting a "kind of madness I haven't seen in a long time" for a decision not to deploy an aircraft carrier to the Persian Gulf because of budget concerns.

"Can you imagine Ronald Reagan sitting there and saying, 'Oh, by the way, I can't do this because of some budget document?'" Woodward said.

"Or George W. Bush saying, 'You know, I'm not going to invade Iraq because I can't get the aircraft carriers I need?'" Or even Bill Clinton saying, 'You know, I'm not going to attack Saddam Hussein's intelligence headquarters,' ... because of some budget document?"

The Defense Department said in early February that it would not deploy the U.S.S. Harry Truman to the Persian Gulf, citing budget concerns relating to the looming cuts known as the sequester.

"Under the Constitution, the President is commander-in-chief and employs the force. And so we now have the President going out because of this piece of paper and this agreement. 'I can’t do what I need to do to protect the country,'" Woodward said.

"That’s a kind of madness that I haven't seen in a long time," he said.

Woodward's harsh criticism came after he stirred controversy last weekend by calling out Obama for what he said was "moving the goal posts" on the sequester by requesting that revenue be part of a deal to avert it.

Read more: businessinsider.com