A group of Jews endeavors towards total domination of the blogosphere.

Saturday, December 21, 2002  

Reader Jen sends a link to Divine Interventions.

posted by Steven I. Weiss | 11:20 PM |

Response to Elder StevenI's response to my previous post:
First, Instapundit seems right on this one. Even NYT admits that he has reconciled with Black leaders in Tennesee over the statement in question as well as his former membership in the all-white Belle Meade Country Club in Nashville, which he resigned from before seeking office (the fact that they still have those says more about this issue than anything else, by the way).

Second, I'm just curious about how this sort of thing plays out with Elder I's call for a new McCarthyism. As I read history, McCarthyism is mostly about trumped up charges and spreading a net wide enough to catch lots of innocent people as well as any guilty ones. By that standard, we should grill Frist over the NYT's sketchy evidence until he can demonstrably prove he's not a racist, and not really believe him even then. I mean, he did join that country club in the late 1980s, even when he knew it was exclusionary, and maybe only quit to make himself more electable. What do you think, Elder I?

posted by Voice From The Hinterlands | 9:33 PM |

Drudge on Hillary '04, runs a picture of Hillary with two Orthodox we control the Clintons, too...

posted by Steven I. Weiss | 7:14 PM |

Let the firestorm begin: WorldNetDaily, those loveable Christian Conservatives, apparantly discovered that Bill Frist, of all people, invests heavily in a for-profit hospital chain that reportedly provides abortions, of all things (Of course, WND doesn't point out, as WP does, that the chain is going to finish paying the government the $1.7 billion that they owe in Medicare fraud, among other things - I guess we all have our own push-button issues). NYT reports that he's apparantly not immune to racially insensitive comments. So why does Bush think he's worth politically assassinating Tent Lott for, especially since they vote together 90% of the time anyway? Could it be related to the $66.4 million in soft money he raised the for 2001-2002 election cycle?[His "racial insensitivity" is contested by Bill Hobbs, cited by InstaPundit here. -- SIW]

posted by Voice From The Hinterlands | 6:52 PM |

Friday, December 20, 2002  

New McCarthyism Watch #2: Alabama Senator Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III. TNR's Sarah Wildman has the dish, including:

It got worse. Another damaging witness--a black former assistant U.S. Attorney in Alabama named Thomas Figures--testified that, during a 1981 murder investigation involving the Ku Klux Klan, Sessions was heard by several colleagues commenting that he "used to think they [the Klan] were OK" until he found out some of them were "pot smokers." Sessions claimed the comment was clearly said in jest. Figures didn't see it that way. Sessions, he said, had called him "boy" and, after overhearing him chastise a secretary, warned him to "be careful what you say to white folks."


posted by Steven I. Weiss | 1:29 PM |

New McCarthyism Watch, #1: North Carolina Rep. Cass Ballenger:

Ballenger, a North Carolina Republican, said former Rep. Cynthia McKinney, D-Ga., so provoked him that "I must I admit I had segregationist feelings." "If I had to listen to her, I probably would have developed a little bit of a segregationist feeling," Ballenger told The Charlotte Observer in Friday's editions. "But I think everybody can look at my life and what I've done and say that's not true.
It's an interesting thing...the Lott situation has provoked a discussion on race, and the racists can't keep their mouths shut...they're just falling right into the trap. If we keep the dialogue going, maybe we can get the job done.
(link via &c)

posted by Steven I. Weiss | 1:13 PM |

In JRR Tolkien's own foreword to The Lord of The Rings, he specifically criticizes those who saw the book as an allegory for World War Two. Of course that doesn't stop Worldnetdaily's movie reviewer as seeing the cinematic release of The Two Towers as just that - translated into more modern terms. The saliant lines:

The battle wages on and on – violent indeed, but without any actual head- or limb-lopping or undue blood being shown on screen.
And a good thing, too. If we could see the savage butchering that the noble warriors had to do to vanquish the Great Evil, we might lose morale. We might even see one of the Good Guys go down. We might even start questioning the righteousness of our cause. Look what happened during Vietnam. Fortunately, the viewing public never has to consider any of this.
There's a lot of the king worrying about the women and children being kept from harm – and much of his regretting the end of "civilization as we know it" as his castle finally falls to the monster invaders. But Aragorn is there to raise his courage. "We ride out to meet them." "If we die, it is with honor and dignity." Brave words, and actor Mortensen delivers them with the proper gallant and courageous flair they merit. He talks the way we want a brave and noble warrior to speak and act.
You know where this is going. Thank God (or The Gods, as the local case might be) that Aragorn has "moral clarity." Of course, we never even get to wonder why, as David Brin notes, all the various dark-skinned human groups, as well as all of the lower races, are fighting for the Forces of Evil. What made the evil Sauron appeal to them more than the valiant, pure, totally good Aragorn and Theoden? The Leaders of The Forces of Good don't try to understand it. They just try to eradicate it, and them, even though the only way they'd be able to do that is with Divine Intervention of some sort. Maybe that explains all the modern crusade rhetoric.
On the eve of war with a potential enemy who indeed threatens civilization as we know it, "Two Towers" is more than an expensive movie version of a cult classic – it is a reminder that courage and loyalty are still meaningful. Not the worst thought to bear in mind when you're going to the movies over the holiday season.
I think she's confused LOTR with Gulf War II: The Vengence, frankly. But then again, as a scholar of ancient works whose authors have been long forgotten, Tolkien himself was forced to maintain that an author's intention has nothing to do with the meaning of the words he wrote. If only he knew what he actually meant...

posted by Voice From The Hinterlands | 12:40 PM |

Me weighing in on Lott: There's a lot more work to be done here. What about John Ashcroft's statements to Southern Partisan Magazine? What about every single politician who's supported the Confederate flag? What about W and others at Bob Jones University? There's more dirt is time for a new McCarthyism...let's run these racists out of town.

posted by Steven I. Weiss | 11:30 AM |

Since it now appears official that Trent Lott is toast, its time to take a step back in awe and wonderment. Never before as someone self-immolated himself politically as quickly and as thoroughly as Lott did, and it will stand as a testament to how seriously millenial America takes race issues. Then again, the fact that the man who popped out of the woodwork to replace him, Bill Frist is a "close ally of the president." And, oh, wait. It wasn't completely a self-immolation after all. Lott may have started the fire, but our completely a-political, ideals-driven President contributed too, by throwing a grenade his way last week. And, remember, Jessie Jackson and even James Carville publicly forgave him. Kinda makes you wonder if Lott once forgot to hold the door open for Dick Cheany or something, no? You have to say this for the current administration. Their brand of assassination is as swift, clean, business-like, and as brutal as anything the Corleones' ever cooked up.

posted by Voice From The Hinterlands | 11:19 AM |

Note: Apparently, we're having archive issues here at Protocols, so I've reformatted the page to include all posts for the time being...if anyone can figure out why it's all gefukt, please let me know.

posted by Steven I. Weiss | 7:54 AM |

"Arab Beats Up Jewish Girl in Brooklyn School". Interesting how the Post can all of a sudden decide that hate crime legislation is a good thing when it fits their stereotype of uncontrollable Arab violence against Jewish innocents. This story likely is important and should be investigated -- but the sensationalist Post and the moronic Dov Hikind are the last ones I'd choose to lead the charge. (link via InstaPundit)

posted by Steven I. Weiss | 7:44 AM |

Just in case we weren't sure if our President truly understood the high costs of war, he reassures us...

posted by Voice From The Hinterlands | 12:15 AM |

In response to my last post, a concerned fellow Yid, albeit not one out to take over the world, pointed out that I should refrain from calling Donald Rumsfeld by the nickname "Rummy," since that moniker is reserved for Maureen Dowd's use alone.
I stand corrected...

Yo Ho Ho and a bottle of Rumsfeld!

posted by Sam | 12:12 AM |

In response to Steven I's last post, its just interesting to note, as does an informed Fray poster, that the burning (or "lit") cross is actually the official symbol of the United Methodist Church. Not quite sure what to make of it, except that its purpose apparantly wasn't always intimidation. [But it was always intimidation in the United States, an argument that I highlighted in an earlier post...currently unavailable...BTW: ever hear of a Divided Methodist? -- SIW]

posted by Voice From The Hinterlands | 12:08 AM |

Thursday, December 19, 2002  

So, the medical community is not drinking the Bushian Kool-Aid, thank God. It's a good thing, you see, since the experts (those pesky fellows at the New England Journal of Medicine - liberal east coast Harvard types, goddam 'em) seem to advocate a response to the smallpox threat far more measured than whichever idiot is running HHS nowadays.
In all seriousness, I just finished reading this special early release by NEJM on Smallpox, and all of the articles questioned the necessity of large scale vaccinations even among hospital staffers - never mind the general public. So I have one question: If we accept (and I tend to trust the guys with lots of letters after their names, since one day I hope to be one of them) the theses put forth in these papers - especially Tom Mack's particularly convincing one - that the major vector of Smallpox infection is close contact between health care workers and infected patients, and that furthermore, there is almost nothing to suggest that there is any devastatingly successful way to spread the disease in a large and spread out population, we really have to wonder why our concerned Commander-in-Chief and his cronies are putting the lives of our men and women overseas at risk needlessly, with his uncalled for "vaccinate the soldiers in the high risk areas" policy. Hospital workers, I understand, but combat troops? What for? Further, why are Rummy and his boss rolling up their own sleeves? Presumably, the chance of their contracting the dreaded pox is smaller than that of the Jets winning Superbowl this year. Unless, that is, the compassionate conservatives secretly donate their time working in low-income urban area health centers...
Hey, you never know, I guess. It is the holiday season, right?

posted by Sam | 11:57 PM |

Hear hear. Though I detect a note of irony in Steve's last post - I nevertheless stand by my principles: Shelby remains my buddy, at least ideologically. Whether that makes him an Uncle Tom, and myself an Uncle Trent (or perhaps Great Granddad Strom) is open to your opinions, I guess. But I still srongly believe that Affirmative Action - at least as an across-the-board policy - is causing far more harm than good to the African American Community. It's courageous (and wonderfully eloquent, at least in print) writers like Shel who are making this point time and again within the camp of Black America. Alas, this point seems to fall on deaf liberal ears.

posted by Sam | 11:43 PM |

Why Does the Ku Klux Klan Burn Crosses? By Brendan I. Koerner

posted by Steven I. Weiss | 11:25 PM |

Sam's buddy, Shelby Steele, in the WSJ.

posted by Steven I. Weiss | 9:27 PM |

this isn't really relevent to much, but...
If anyone could figure out what this quote from the Larry King - Mariah Carey interview means, well, you should be helping the government figure out the esoteric meaning behind al Jazeera's broadcasts.
The quote, please:
"I'm not wacko. But my point is already made. I mean, we're all a little wacko sometimes, and if we think we're not, maybe we are more than we know," Carey said.

"But my point was, these things are personal sort of messages to my fans, and they understand it. I don't expect, you know, whatever talk show host to understand my little lingo with my fans, you know what I mean?"

On second thought, maybe someone already cracked the code. In fact, that could be how Colin Powell knows what Iraq left out of its report even while the dudes running the investigation argued that "it would take some time before inspectors came to a conclusion about Iraq's declaration."

posted by Voice From The Hinterlands | 7:00 PM |

Reader Avraham is now Acolyte Avraham, joining us on a test basis for a week, with the potential to join the ranks of the elders.
We'll proceed with elder introduction Qs when the time comes; in the meantime, you can read his letters to Protocols here and here. You can read a review of his in the Commentator here.

posted by Steven I. Weiss | 5:47 PM |

Some time ago, Kraut e-mailed me about human rights & Iraq. We'd been discussing the issue a few days before, essentially along the lines taken in this Jonah Goldberg column, with Kraut backing up Goldberg and me backing up, err, Amnesty International.
Regretfully, I still haven't read the British dossier, though I intend to.
But the argument that Kraut/Goldberg make is essentially this: if Saddam is a brutal dictator who violates human rights, and the Bush administration is committing to removing Saddam, isn't this a good thing as far as human rights is concerned?
Well, yes & no. Obviously, from a human rights perspective, Saddam not being in power is a good thing. However, because the Bush administration is not removing Saddam because of his human rights record, it can claim victory overall without achieving any victory for human rights. And here is where a human rights activist will point to the record of the Bush/Reagan/Nixon administrations and those with whom they associate and say: well, Saddam was kept in power and received arms assistance; our record on similar dictatorships is similarly poor. The Bush administration is making no commitment -- in fact, expressly avoiding talk of a commitment -- to a long-term stay that would guarantee that human rights there would be assured.
Take a look at two posts on OxBlog, both by David Adesnik:
1) This one says that basic rights for women is still a problem in Afghanistan and that Al Qaeda is regrouping there. There was a basic idea in attacking Afghanistan: destroy the Taliban and Al Qaeda leadership. Bush did that, but didn't go in with a plan -- and has not since created a plan -- for how to ensure a proper future for the country. Thusly, only months later, it's heading back in the wrong direction.
2) This one indicates how far Bush is from a decent plan about what to do with Iraq.
Using these two examples (if necessary, I can provide more, but I think they suffice), we can see how the Bush plan of removing Saddam is not planned to be, and cannot be counted upon as, a remedy for the human rights situation under Saddam's rulership.
So now, the question becomes, even if there's a slight chance that we can have a spontaneous outburst of respect for human rights in post-Saddam Iraq, shouldn't human rights activists be cheering for that?
No, because then they lose all legitimacy when the post-Saddam Iraq doesn't achieve that. This is typical of how a political leader will seek to exploit a certain constituency: get them on-board for an agenda that doesn't really do what they want, but pay lip-service to it to win their trust, get done what you want done, and then they can't complain later because then they just look stupid for complaining about a cause that they joined in the first place.

BTW: Yes, this is a belated response, but I'd given it a shot twice before and had it taken away by the evil lord Gigabyte...the third time was, thankfully, a charm.

posted by Steven I. Weiss | 12:54 PM |

NYT, at least on first glance, appears to get the Fifth Commandment down right.

posted by Steven I. Weiss | 11:36 AM |

Wednesday, December 18, 2002  

Solomonic Settlement. The disputed Barry Bonds home run ball must be sold, with the two claimants splitting the money.
Of course, this brings to mind the press conference that Patrick Hayashi held in response to claims that he stole the ball from Alex Popov, and hit him to get it...his comment went something like this: "I didn't steal the ball, I didn't throw any punches...and I didn't bite anybody."
UPDATE: Just received an e-mail on a listserv about this referring to it as "Shnayim Ochazin"...sure, why not.

posted by Steven I. Weiss | 9:00 PM |

Hadn't seen this yet: In last week's issue of the Forward there's a "Letter from Sosua", the Dominican Jewish outpost.

posted by Steven I. Weiss | 12:33 PM |

Leader of Goya Food Empire Dies.

posted by Steven I. Weiss | 12:26 PM |

NYT's Fourth Commandment.
BTW: There's now an index.

posted by Steven I. Weiss | 12:12 PM |

Tuesday, December 17, 2002  

Reader Avraham takes on Sam's post, saying:

the really heretical lamm quote is - from the commie/observer joint issue
'At the RIETS Board meeting, Rabbi Lamm reversed his call for a unified Presidency and rebuffed claims that a President who was not the Rosh HaYeshiva would present any significant problems. “Halachic absolutism – the idea that everything is halachic - is cute, but it’s not real,” said Rabbi Lamm.'

posted by Steven I. Weiss | 5:26 PM |

The Second and Third articles in NYT's series on the Ten Commandments are posted.
UPDATE: Reader Avraham wonders if the NYT has conflated the Third Commandment with the Ninth (thou shalt not bear false witness)...indeed, it appears to. One wonders what they will do with the Ninth, then. And couldn't they come up with a better way to depict using God's name in vain? Jim Bakker, maybe?

posted by Steven I. Weiss | 12:10 PM |

Continuing with the Bangitout list commentary, ideas for Jewish porn titles: "Shmiel's Schmeckel"; "Pinky's Pinky"; "Steven's I"...

posted by Steven I. Weiss | 11:15 AM |

Monday, December 16, 2002  

Who names their kid Pinchas? One of the many charming anecdotes at Bangitout's latest Top Ten list.
Reader Ephraim chimes in:

Who names their kid Pinchas?
My parents. When I was 3, they had a kid and named him Pinchas. I called it Minchas.
Thanks, Ephraim. Unfortunately, we're not allowed to print what we call you...keep it good.

posted by Steven I. Weiss | 5:18 PM |

At last! Rabbi Lamm finally admits it, in the august pages of The Forward, no less:
"We don't work on the concept of da'as Torah," said Lamm, a noted Judaics scholar, philosopher and former pulpit rabbi.

Does this mean I can finally start hanging my tzitzis on the wall like a good Karaite? Oh frabjous day, calloo, callay!

posted by Sam | 12:15 AM |
previous endorsements
founding elder
guest bloggers
former elders
former guest bloggers
Support Protocols
posts on big stories
book discussions
jews who blog
past protocols