Uncategorized

AJCommittee: Despite Republican Efforts, Jews Still Voting Democratic

A note to Micah Ghertner, who I’m just sure will adore this piece: Take a cue from your beloved Bill O’Reilly on this one, and “Shut up, shut up, shut up!” before you even start.

If anything in life makes me wary of my association with American Jewry, in this day and age, more than anything else, it is the Republicanizing of the Jewish community. As Israel faces more and more challenges, garnering harsher criticism from the international community with each coming day, in order to bolster support for the fledgling nation, American Jewry has come to ally itself with the strange bedfellows of the Republican right, who favor a U.S. alliance with Israel, if only for their interest in Christian evangelicalism and the belief that a safe Israel means a safe return of Jesus Christ.

Further enamored by the favoring of Israel in the Bush administration’s policy towards terrorism, American Jewry have filed quietly behind Republican idealogues who have advanced policy positions that are, quite frankly, out of step with traditionally liberal American Jewish values. Thus, Israel has become a hot button issue in the 2004 presidential race, with Democratic contenders already being lambasted by Republican pundits for being allegedly weak on Israel.

In order to further cement their success in the Jewish demographic, over the last year, the Bush campaign has gone ballistic in its attempts to draw in the Jewish vote. And they’ve been successful. Thus far, Bush has gotten more money from Jewish donors than any other candidate, and apparently has the Orthodox community and Jewish communal leadership in his pocket. Rambunctious young Republicans are even gearing up to conquer New York’s Upper West Side, a long-time stronghold of progressive liberal politics, and a bastion of Jewish wealth and affluence.

There’s just one thing—the majority of American Jews are still liberal, not Orthodox, not Jewish communal leaders, and hate Republicans. Praised be Hashem! A new survey released by the American Jewish Committee shows that, despite his successes with the more prominent members of the Jewish community this year, Bush would still only garner roughly 30% of the Jewish vote against any Democratic contender. The study also shows that over 50% of Jews still identify as Democrats, while only 16% identify as Republicans. Here’s a related story from the Associated Press.

God bless America. And God bless no one else… I kid, I kid!

27 thoughts on “AJCommittee: Despite Republican Efforts, Jews Still Voting Democratic

  1. I chime in too with thanks for bringing this up!
    I find most of the statements and ideals of the G.O.P. to be against Jewish ethics and values.
    Looking forward to reading more from you,
    Leah

  2. the establishment, any establishment, seeks one thing and one thing only: the perpetuation of the status quo, and therefore their own standing. Let’s not forget, either, the influence fear can have on rational thought. We live in a time where fear is the nation’s number one cash crop.

  3. Regardless of what you folks want to believe, there are many conservative Jews out there who are not orthodox and support Bush, warts and all. Personal responsibility, strong families, education, free markets, and and the willingness to defend oneself in the face of attackers should not be seen as owned by the Neo-Cons and friends of GW. These are convervative values that have served Jews well throughout history. It has been the inability to spot and ignorance of threats that has led to much of the tragedy that has fallen on Jews throughout history.

  4. I disagree. The inability to spot threats hasn’t been the main issue. And any ignorance of a threat, given our cumulative history (3000 years), must be by choice. The decision to ignore threats, or placate the root of the threat, or to remove ourselves in fear…these things have played a part, but let’s never forget the roots of the tragedies of the past were not with the Jewish people, but rather with those who sought to destroy us.
    “Personal responsibility, strong families, education, free markets, and and the willingness to defend oneself in the face of attackers should not be seen as owned by the Neo-Cons and friends of GW.”
    Agreed. They’re not. The right has engaged in a nearly thirty-year old misinformation campaign to attach those values to the GOP, and they’ve been wildly succesful. Those are human values Dave (with the exception of free markets), neither liberal nor conservative.

  5. in fact, free markets are neoliberal, not neoconservative. and once upon a time, conservatives were exceptionally protectionist. now the liberals are the protectionists and the conservatives the free-traders. but the conservatives have only adopted that position because, well, they’re mostly wealthy. and free markets (with an emphasis on deregulation) make them wealthier.

  6. Mobius, did you bother to actually read my Jewsweek article before listing me as a fan of O’Reilly? If you did, you would know that I was not arguing in favor of Jews voting for Republicans; instead, I was criticizing the deplorable idea that Judaism favors left-wing values over right-wing values (it contains elements of both), and that even if Judaism did contain more of one than the other, Jews shouldn’t base their political decisions on their religion, unless of course, we are comfortable with Christians doing the same thing. As a religious minority, doesn’t it make more sense for Jews to disavow the connection between religious ideology and political ideology, rather than to encourage it?
    And “in fact,” free markets are not “neoliberal” (whatever the hell that means), but classically liberal, following in the tradition of Adam Smith, David Ricardo, and John Stuart Mill, among others.
    Nor are conservatives especially strong on free-trade. Clinton was much better on free-trade than Bush, and similarly, leftist economists like Paul Krugman are much better on free-trade than most of the economists you will find writing in publications like the National Review and the Weekly Standard.
    But it never surprises me when the mindless left opposes free trade, even when the people who have the most to gain from it – the working poor in third-world countries – continue to support it (see: http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=1934 ). Chalk it up to “false consciousness.” [see: http://www.catallarchy.net/blog/cgi-bin/archives/000354.html ]
    At least it makes sense when anti-immigration conservatives like Pat Buchannen oppose free trade, because they could care less if the third-world poor remain poor. What’s the protectionist-left’s excuse? Nothing but a visceral hatred of market capitalism, even at the expense of the poor who suffer under the weight of protectionism.
    Socialism failed, Mobius. Get over it.

  7. George W Bush is Israel’s best friend. There is no candidate that is better for Jews than George W Bush. Of course, for some reason Jews tend prefer the candidate that totally doesn’t serve their interests one bit.

  8. yes, the grandson of the primary american funder of the nazi party and co-founder of the american eugenics movement (which exported its race-based ‘science’ to nazi germany in the 1940s) is israel’s beeeeest friend.
    the man who believes that anyone who doesn’t accept jesus as his lord & savior is going to burn in hell–he serves jewish interests.
    that he’s only interested in helping israel because 1) it’s a great market for arms and the arms industry paid for his election and 2) because he believes that if all the jews move to israel, jesus will come back and kill them all; is apparently lost on you.
    lou, you’re a putz, and george w. bush is an evil fuckwad.

  9. So, Mo, you want to hold people responsible for the (supposed) actions of their ancestors? Then I guess you don’t have any problem with Christians who wish to hold the current generation of Jews responsible for the death of Jesus, hmm?
    And I’ve never understood your argument against Christian fundamentalists. Who cares why they support Israel? Do you yourself believe that Jesus will come back and destroy all of the Jews? If not, why do you care whether some loony Christians believe in strange fairy tales as long as they are helping you achieve your desired ends?

  10. micha–there’s a difference between being held responsible for something that never happened (ie., the jews killing jesus), and being the child or grandchild of a nazi who brought you up into their ideology. huuuuge difference.
    also, when you take advatange of evil to achieve your ends, you taint those ends with evil. if your vision of jews and israel is one filled with light and beauty, you should want to keep darkness and ugliness as far away from your vision as possible; not embrace it.

  11. So you deny the legitimacy of the Talmudic tracts which state that we killed Jesus? And I still don’t understand why anyone should be held responsible for their ancestor’s actions, even if their ancestors “brought them up into their ideology.” (Incidentally, I wrote an article for Jewsweek on this very topic, “Jews, Jesus, and German Cars”)
    As for the Bush/Nazi connection, why don’t you provide some evidence that a) Bush’s parents and grandparents are Nazis and b) Bush was brough up under Nazi ideology. Note: anonymous posts from indymedia do not count as “evidence”.
    also, when you take advatange of evil to achieve your ends, you taint those ends with evil.
    Um, no. This is called politics. Politics is a matter of compromising one’s principles in order to gain power. Which is one reason why libertarians like myself suck at achieving political power, because we are unwilling to compromise. But for those who do hold Israel out as the most important value to protect and defend, it is certainly reasonable from their perspective to accept the support of Christian fundamentalists. It seems like these days, with leftist anti-Semitism resurgent, fundamentalists Christians are one of the few friends Israel has left.
    Your co-blogger and friend Benyamin Cohen just recently got married, as you probably know since you designed his wedding website. I am good friends with his wife. She has a few Christian relatives and her grandmother is a fundamentalist. She was shepping much nachus at the wedding, and I hardly think it is reasonable to call someone like her evil.
    On a completely unrelated topic, why do you have a hammer-and-sickle as part of your title graphic? Don’t you want to keep darkness and ugliness as far away from your vision of Jews as possible?

  12. So you deny the legitimacy of the Talmudic tracts which state that we killed Jesus?
    how many hundreds of years after jesus’ alleged death was that written? and who was it written by? a generation of jews who’d been told for several hundred years that they killed jesus? it’s a fucking midrash, and no more.
    And I still don’t understand why anyone should be held responsible for their ancestor’s actions, even if their ancestors “brought them up into their ideology.” (Incidentally, I wrote an article for Jewsweek on this very topic, “Jews, Jesus, and German Cars”)
    micha, if your father pushed my uncle into a gas chamber, you can go fuck yourself–you dig?
    As for the Bush/Nazi connection, why don’t you provide some evidence that a) Bush’s parents and grandparents are Nazis and b) Bush was brough up under Nazi ideology. Note: anonymous posts from indymedia do not count as “evidence”.
    here’s a newspaper article from 1941 detailing bush’s grandfather’s nazi ties.
    evidence he was raised by a white-supremacist ideology is, of course, harder to substantiate; but thus far every time he’s opened his mouth on matters of race and religion, he’s pretty much shoved his foot right up in there.
    Um, no. This is called politics. Politics is a matter of compromising one’s principles in order to gain power.
    no–that’s not politics. that politics CORRUPTED.
    But for those who do hold Israel out as the most important value to protect and defend, it is certainly reasonable from their perspective to accept the support of Christian fundamentalists.
    yes, accept support from the same people who announce on national television that the antichrist is a jewish male. the same people who tell their congregants that we killed jesus and that we need to be saved or we’re going to fry when armageddon comes. it is sooooo reasonable. just like when we worked with the nazis on asset transfers that delayed an international boycott that would’ve cracked germany in its first year of hostility towards jews.
    It seems like these days, with leftist anti-Semitism resurgent, fundamentalists Christians are one of the few friends Israel has left.
    leftist anti-semitism? hah! when tibetan independence was the cause celebre, where were all the people complaining about rank anti-chinaism? the term “leftist anti-semitism” is some orwellian bullshit devised to dismiss any valid criticism of israel with the greatest ease. and you have just proven to me how full of shit you are by invoking it.
    Your co-blogger and friend Benyamin Cohen just recently got married, as you probably know since you designed his wedding website. I am good friends with his wife. She has a few Christian relatives and her grandmother is a fundamentalist. She was shepping much nachus at the wedding, and I hardly think it is reasonable to call someone like her evil.
    there is a HUGE difference between being christian and having christian friends, and being a fundamentalist who believes every word of the new testament and believes that jews are evil. don’t you twist my words around you little scumbag.
    On a completely unrelated topic, why do you have a hammer-and-sickle as part of your title graphic? Don’t you want to keep darkness and ugliness as far away from your vision of Jews as possible?
    jews were the primary founders and developers of communist philosophy, and all i’m doing is invoking a reference to the red diaper babies and other secular commie jews that are a very prominent and well-known part of our culture.

  13. Interesting. So you reject the legitimacy of the Talmud as well as the New Testament. I’m wondering exactly what evidence you might have that the Jews did not kill Jesus. And assuming we did, would you still support the idea that children should be held responsible for the “sins” of their parents?
    micha, if your father pushed my uncle into a gas chamber, you can go fuck yourself–you dig?
    Not really, no. I don’t “dig”. I think the concept of inhertiable guilt is disgusting, as well as illiberal and anti-Jewish.
    As for the newspaper article, I think its a pretty tenuous connection at best to say that the current President was brought up under Nazi ideology based on the fact that his grandfather was a member of a board of directors loosely associated with someone who may have given money to the Nazis. With that line of logic, the vast majority of the left anti-war movement should be held responsible for associating with the marxist, anti-Semitic group International A.N.S.W.E.R., who refused to let your beloved Rabbi Michael Lerner speak at its events simply because he believes Israel has a right to exist.
    Politics always entails compromise (of one’s principles) in order to gain power. One cannot be successful in politics without compromise. Which is partly why I am an anarchist and reject politics altogether.
    the term “leftist anti-semitism” is some orwellian bullshit devised to dismiss any valid criticism of israel with the greatest ease. and you have just proven to me how full of shit you are by invoking it.
    I guess you haven’t been to too many leftist anti-war rallies and seen the kinds of signs they display. Equating Israel with Nazi Germany is not a valid criticism, as Brad Pilcher demostrated well in his debate with you.
    there is a HUGE difference between being christian and having christian friends, and being a fundamentalist who believes every word of the new testament and believes that jews are evil. don’t you twist my words around you little scumbag.
    Scumbag? Nice demonstration of Seenas Chinam there, Mo. That will certainly bring the next Beis Hamikdash right quick. Regardless, it is you who are generalizing here and lumping all fundamentalist Christians together. Elizabeth’s grandmother is a fundamentalist Christian (ask her of you don’t believe me). You claimed that all fundamentalists are evil. Therefore, by way of the transitive property, you are claiming that Elizabeth’s grandmother is evil.
    jews were the primary founders and developers of communist philosophy, and all i’m doing is invoking a reference to the red diaper babies and other secular commie jews that are a very prominent and well-known part of our culture.
    I’m curious, though: if it can be demonstrated that many (self-hating) Jews helped found and develop Nazism, would you include a swastika with your graphic? Communism led to the deaths of far more innocents (and perhaps far more Jews) than Nazism, yet Jews such as yourself continue to subtly defend this attrocious ideology. Communism is nothing to be proud of, and for someone who argues that darkness and ugliness should be kept as far away from Judaism as possible, your inclusion of the hammer and sickle smells of rank hypocrisy.

  14. By the way, this thread has moved away from the original point I was trying to make: I don’t appreciate you posting my name on your website in association with Bill O’Reilly. You clearly did not read my article to which you linked, because if you had, you would have realized that I was in no way arguing that Jews should vote Republican. I am probably further from conservativism than you are.

  15. By the way, this thread has moved away from the original point I was trying to make: I don’t appreciate you posting my name on your website in association with Bill O’Reilly. You clearly did not read my article to which you linked, because if you had, you would have realized that I was in no way arguing that Jews should vote Republican. I am probably further from conservativism than you are.

  16. Interesting. So you reject the legitimacy of the Talmud as well as the New Testament. I’m wondering exactly what evidence you might have that the Jews did not kill Jesus. And assuming we did, would you still support the idea that children should be held responsible for the “sins” of their parents?
    how does disputing the origins of a portion of talmud translate into rejecting the legitimacy of the entire talmud? (tho, i might add, i am incredibly wary of talmud; not because i question its legitimacy, as so much as a i question trapping ourselves in the legalese and “technicalities” it presents us with). as for “evidence”–nostra atete, part of vatican ii, issued by the pope in 1965, clears the jews of any complicity or wrongdoing in the death of jesus. but regardless of that fact, it is not that i need evidence to prove the jews did not kill jesus, it is that we have no real evidence that jesus actually ever existed as the man portrayed in the new testament. further, a simple reading of “constantine’s sword” or of “who killed jesus” will reveal that the doctrine of christianity was altered to portray the jews as jesus’ killers to promote a culture of fear that ensured jewish conversion to catholocism.
    I think the concept of inhertiable guilt is disgusting, as well as illiberal and anti-Jewish.
    it’s not a matter of inheritable guilt–it’s a matter of common sense. we jews sing from the trees “never again!” and then entrust our future to the sons of the same men who pushed us into ovens. it’s retarded.
    As for the newspaper article, I think its a pretty tenuous connection at best to say that the current President was brought up under Nazi ideology based on the fact that his grandfather was a member of a board of directors loosely associated with someone who may have given money to the Nazis. With that line of logic, the vast majority of the left anti-war movement should be held responsible for associating with the marxist, anti-Semitic group International A.N.S.W.E.R., who refused to let your beloved Rabbi Michael Lerner speak at its events simply because he believes Israel has a right to exist.
    the board of the harriman corp. and the union banking corp. were not loosley-connected with fritz thyssen–they were his american backers. further evidence exists, in the book “war against the weak” (authored by edwin black, the same man who wrote “the transfer agreement” and “ibm and the holocaust”) directly connecting prescott bush to the financing of the american eugenics movement (white, racial superiority) which exported its “science” to nazi germany. research in this area was also done by john loftus, a former d.o.j. prosecutor, who wrote “the secret war against the jews”, and who is incredibly well-respected in his field. see http://www.john-loftus.com/bushharriman.asp.
    that’s not to say bush was brought up in a nazi ideology, but rather that i will not support a man whose family fortune was made killing jews. he went to harvard on money that was earned pushing my family into ovens. fuck him, and fuck you for defending him.
    as for your cute little a.n.s.w.e.r. invocation, i was one of the first demonstrators to come out against a.n.s.w.e.r. the moment i learned about their connection to the workers world party i renounced all ties to the group and urged all of my friends to do the same–which they did. i worked for students for a free tibet for three years and i was not about to lend support to an organization that justifies chinese occupation of tibet–just as i will not support an organization which justifies israeli occupation of palestinian territory. also, keep in mind that once news about a.n.s.w.e.r.’s ties to the w.w.p. became mainstream, a new coalition was formed called united for peace and justice, which took the helm of the anti-war movement away from a.n.s.w.e.r. over night. i have attended but one a.n.s.w.e.r. rally, the one in central park at the beginning of the build-up to war in iraq. after that, the only rallies i attended were organized by u.f.p.j., or small networks of affinity groups such as those that my friends and i participated in and organized.
    also, michael lerner is in no way beloved by me and it’s arrogant of you to assume so.
    Politics always entails compromise (of one’s principles) in order to gain power. One cannot be successful in politics without compromise.
    tell that to martin luther king and ghandi.
    Which is partly why I am an anarchist and reject politics altogether.
    if you are an anarchist, than you are a disgrace to anarchist philosophies. i am curious–what does anarchism mean to you? because anarchism is in by no way a rejection of ‘politics’–it is a rejection of hierarchical establishments and power structures. tell me–have you read bakunin, kropotkin, rocker, goldman, berkman–etc.? anarchism and socialism are of the same breed of political ideology, hence why anarchism is also commonly referred to as “libertarian socialism”. it is a form of utopianism that may not manifest a perfect society, but which, for now, provides people with the tools they need to work together sans-power structures. it’s a tool for consensus-based organizing and which allows for the manifestation of “temporary autonomous zones” in which people can seek their fulfillment outside the conventions of normative mainstream society. anarchism is a social experiment rooted in the interest of mutual aid and mutual social benefit.
    anarcho-capitalism, on the other hand, is a far right movement, which is far more darwinian than idealistic, and also encourages a cut-throat lifestyle that social anarchists reject on principle. anarcho-capitalism is “survival of the fittest” without the rule of law protecting those who are at a disadvantage, whereas capitalism necessitates that you fuck people over in order to get ahead. socialism espouses that we get ahead by helping each other.
    I guess you haven’t been to too many leftist anti-war rallies and seen the kinds of signs they display. Equating Israel with Nazi Germany is not a valid criticism, as Brad Pilcher demostrated well in his debate with you.
    the more i come to see israelis policies in action, the more i come to realize that it is, in effect, a valid criticism. the israelis may not be pushing arabs into ovens, but they are pushing the same racist, supremacist, nationalistic ideologies that drove nazi germany, and they are using their military to enact a policy of ethnic cleansing, which may not be genocide, but is still abhorrent in the same manner. while some leftists may carry this to an extreme, and others may cross the line into antisemitism wittingly or unwittingly, you can not demonize the entire left for the idiocy of a few.
    i do not demonize the entire right for the idiocy of a few, i demonize those idiots, and try to make the people who buy into their shit aware that it’s shit they’re buying into.
    Scumbag? Nice demonstration of Seenas Chinam there, Mo. That will certainly bring the next Beis Hamikdash right quick.
    when you play little games, like you do here, twisting my words around to make me look bad, rather than really addressing the points i raise, you are being a scumbag. in politics, it’s called ‘spin’. and what you’re doing is spinning things to your advantage. you’re not debating these points for our edification, our mutual education, and our fulfillment, you’re trying to win an argument for the sake of being right. so you’re dipping into a bag of dirty political tricks, in the meanwhile claiming to reject politics. well, that makes you full of shit. you don’t like my coarse language? i could care less. see, i don’t compromise my position in order to appease others. i reject politics by your definition, while you practice them.
    Regardless, it is you who are generalizing here and lumping all fundamentalist Christians together. Elizabeth’s grandmother is a fundamentalist Christian (ask her of you don’t believe me). You claimed that all fundamentalists are evil. Therefore, by way of the transitive property, you are claiming that Elizabeth’s grandmother is evil.
    anyone who tells me i’m going to burn in hell because i reject their religious and political beliefs is evil, wittingly or unwittingly, because they give credence to ethnocentrism, religious supremacism, and other forms of racism that have, for thousands of years, killed millions of people without just cause. i’m not saying the elizabeth’s grandmother is a bad person per se; what i’m saying is, what she believes in is evil, whether she recognizes it or not. if the woman believes that all jews need to move to israel so that jesus can come and kill us all, then the woman is looking forward to the day on which i die. that is evil. tell me otherwise.
    I’m curious, though: if it can be demonstrated that many (self-hating) Jews helped found and develop Nazism, would you include a swastika with your graphic? Communism led to the deaths of far more innocents (and perhaps far more Jews) than Nazism, yet Jews such as yourself continue to subtly defend this attrocious ideology. Communism is nothing to be proud of, and for someone who argues that darkness and ugliness should be kept as far away from Judaism as possible, your inclusion of the hammer and sickle smells of rank hypocrisy.
    there is nothing wrong with socialism as a political ideology whatsoever. nor is there anything wrong with communism. kibbutzim, which were the cornerstone of israeli society until the modern era, are, in effect, communist entities. and, in fact, israeli society was driven by socialist ideology until the modern era as well (hence the prominence of the israeli labor party). communist dictatorships, on the other hand, are contrary to true communist ideology, because they are driven by the whims of dictators, as opposed to the will of the people. if socialism intended to benefit all participants within a society, communist dictatorships deviate from that goal, as they intend only to benefit the party and its leaders. thus, it was not communism nor socialism as an ideology that killed jews in the soviet union, it was evil dictators who merely paid lip service to communism, as dictators in the middle east merely pay lip service to islam, as opposed to living in accordance with the faith.
    so take your rank hypocrisy and shove it. and lemme quote your little saint dubya for ya, who said, “this would all be a whole lot easier if america were a dictatorship. but only so long as i’m the dictator.”
    By the way, this thread has moved away from the original point I was trying to make: I don’t appreciate you posting my name on your website in association with Bill O’Reilly. You clearly did not read my article to which you linked, because if you had, you would have realized that I was in no way arguing that Jews should vote Republican. I am probably further from conservativism than you are.
    your article states that “Republicans better represent Jewish values than Democrats” — a point which, despite your “evidence”, i disagree with. but more importantly, you have publically derided me on this website for stating positions on this subject previously which you disagree with. knowing full well what to expect from you, i thought i’d jokingly pre-empt your response. so much for your sense of humor.

  17. how does disputing the origins of a portion of talmud translate into rejecting the legitimacy of the entire talmud?
    Because you do not get to pick and choose. If you claim to be an observant Jew, you must accept the Oral Torah in toto, along with the interpretation of the contemporary Rabbinate. If you cannot accept the whole Torah, but feel like picking and choosing, then don’t call yourself observant.
    nostra atete, part of vatican ii, issued by the pope in 1965, clears the jews of any complicity or wrongdoing in the death of jesus.
    This is not accurate. While the declaration cleared modern Jews of any wrongdoing, I do not believe it ever contradicted the New Testament itself; that is, the declaration never claimed that some Jews had no role in Jesus’ death.
    it’s not a matter of inheritable guilt–it’s a matter of common sense. we jews sing from the trees “never again!” and then entrust our future to the sons of the same men who pushed us into ovens. it’s retarded.
    So now you have gone from claiming that a man who was a member of a board of directors loosely associated with someone who may have given money to the Nazis is the same as a man who pushed Jews into ovens. Nice logic there, mo. And even if Bush’s grandfather actually did push Jews into ovens, that still wouldn’t justify holding this against Bush himself. There is nothing common sensical about inheritable guilt.
    directly connecting prescott bush to the financing of the american eugenics movement (white, racial superiority) which exported its “science” to nazi germany
    Let’s see here: Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood and an outspoken abortion advocate, was also deeply involved in the American Eugenics movement as well (she saw abortion as a way to control population and immigration, and weed out other undesireables). So by your logic (sic), anyone who supports abortion is really supporting eugenics, and the children of those who support abortion should be held responsible for their parent’s views. Completely insane.
    also, michael lerner is in no way beloved by me and it’s arrogant of you to assume so.
    Is that so? Why don’t you take a look at your original blog post, in which you state: “Take a cue from your beloved Bill O’Reilly”. Hmm. Is it not arrogant of you to assume this as well?
    tell that to martin luther king and ghandi.
    True, both influenced political change through activism, but did either become actual politicians? My point about compromise was specific to the actual political process; not outside activists.
    if you are an anarchist, than you are a disgrace to anarchist philosophies. i am curious–what does anarchism mean to you? because anarchism is in by no way a rejection of ‘politics’–it is a rejection of hierarchical establishments and power structures.
    Nope, that’s just your own personal definition of anarchism and you have no claim of ownership (how could you as a socialist?) on the term. Anarchism is simply the absence of government, defined as an organization which claims a monopoly on the legitimate use of force within a limited geographical area. Any ideology which claims to be anarchist must necessarily reject politics, at least insofar as politics is defined as the way a society chooses its government. Of course, if you are using politics to describe the way private organizations like schools, businesses, and religious organizations might choose their leadership, then politics and anarchism are compatable.
    tell me–have you read bakunin, kropotkin, rocker, goldman, berkman–etc.?
    No. Tell me, have you read Benjamin Tucker, Lysander Spooner, Albert Jay Nock, Murray Rothbard, David Friedman, Anthony De Jasay, etc.?
    anarchism and socialism are of the same breed of political ideology
    Impossible. For socialism to exist, there must be some mechanism by which the socialists can prevent people from trading freely with each other (even if socialists ban private ownership of objects, people can still trade their own labor) In order to prevent free trade on such a wide scale, a state must exist. An anarchist society (while remaining true to its anarchist roots) could never prevent people from trading with each other if they wanted to and therefore could never be socialist.
    you can not demonize the entire left for the idiocy of a few.
    I don’t. I am merely defending my claim that there is a rise in leftist anti-Semitism. This is not the fault of the entire left, just as right-wing anti-Semitism is not the fault of the entire right.
    if socialism intended to benefit all participants within a society, communist dictatorships deviate from that goal, as they intend only to benefit the party and its leaders.
    You would think that after numerous attempts at implementing socialism and communism as a state ideology and achieving the same result, you might realize that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Socialism and communism, if they are not universally adopted by all of their participants, require force in order to maintain, and this force requires power.
    Regardless, though, you are changing the subject. I asked why you had a hammer and sickle on your masthead. I did not ask whether you thought that socialism or communism are any good. The hammer and sickle represents a tyrannical state, just as the swastkia represents nazi germany. The fact that you are ok with that reveals your underlying interests. You seem to have no problem with evil and tyranny as long as it is leftists evil and leftist tyranny.
    so take your rank hypocrisy and shove it. and lemme quote your little saint dubya for ya,
    Didn’t you just get finished telling me that it is arrogant of me to assume that Lerner is beloved to you? And now Bush is my saint? What a hypocrite.
    your article states that “Republicans better represent Jewish values than Democrats”
    You are either a liar or did not bother reading. I said,
    “So, if we accept the conclusion that Republicans better represent Jewish values than Democrats, should Jews vote Republican? Not necessarily. Similarly, if we reject this conclusion and instead agree with Pilcher that Democrats better represent Jewish values, should Jews vote Democratic? Not necessarily.”
    I never said that Republicans better represent Jewish values than Democrats.
    you have publically derided me on this website
    Arguing with you on your comment board is not publically deriding you. For someone who just finished complaining about being associated with Lerner, you seem to have no problem doing to others what you do not want done to yourself.

  18. Because you do not get to pick and choose. If you claim to be an observant Jew, you must accept the Oral Torah in toto, along with the interpretation of the contemporary Rabbinate. If you cannot accept the whole Torah, but feel like picking and choosing, then don’t call yourself observant.
    first of all, show me where i’ve ever claimed to be observant. next, tell me there aren’t dozens and dozens of places where sephardim differ from ashkenazim on certain practices. then, tell me there aren’t dozens more places where say, ethiopians and yemenites differ from ashkenazim and sephardim on certain practices. tell me there aren’t dozens of sects of chasidim who practice judaism somewhat differently from one another.
    look at the talmud itself–it is an argument between rabbis about “well, is this the right answer, or is it this one”? picking and choosing is the very nature of talmud itself. and there are hundreds of loopholes to get around different biblical commandments all throughout it.
    further, i know plenty of reform and conservative jews who are, in essence, more observant and care more about their yiddishkeit than a great number of orthodox people i’ve met in my life.
    i love how this “anarchist” is telling me that in order to be a jew i have to follow man’s interpretation of god’s alleged word.
    This is not accurate. While the declaration cleared modern Jews of any wrongdoing, I do not believe it ever contradicted the New Testament itself; that is, the declaration never claimed that some Jews had no role in Jesus’ death.
    i didn’t say “some jews” had no role, what i said was “the jews as a whole” are not to blame.
    So now you have gone from claiming that a man who was a member of a board of directors loosely associated with someone who may have given money to the Nazis is the same as a man who pushed Jews into ovens. Nice logic there, mo. And even if Bush’s grandfather actually did push Jews into ovens, that still wouldn’t justify holding this against Bush himself. There is nothing common sensical about inheritable guilt.
    so micha, would you have been okay with kurt waldheim being the head of the u.n.?
    Let’s see here: Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood and an outspoken abortion advocate, was also deeply involved in the American Eugenics movement as well (she saw abortion as a way to control population and immigration, and weed out other undesireables). So by your logic (sic), anyone who supports abortion is really supporting eugenics, and the children of those who support abortion should be held responsible for their parent’s views. Completely insane.
    lothrop stoddard was a member of the eugenics movement and sat on sanger’s board for planned parenthood; sanger herself was not openly a eugenecist. regardless of that point, what gives you this impression that i’m a supporter of planned parenthood? simply that i’m a liberal? talk about lumping people together and making cold-ass generalizations…
    Is that so? Why don’t you take a look at your original blog post, in which you state: “Take a cue from your beloved Bill O’Reilly”. Hmm. Is it not arrogant of you to assume this as well?
    again, i was joking around! the whole nature of the comment was humorous!
    True, both influenced political change through activism, but did either become actual politicians? My point about compromise was specific to the actual political process; not outside activists.
    blah blah blah — can’t you just accept when you’re wrong about something?
    Nope, that’s just your own personal definition of anarchism and you have no claim of ownership (how could you as a socialist?) on the term. Anarchism is simply the absence of government, defined as an organization which claims a monopoly on the legitimate use of force within a limited geographical area. Any ideology which claims to be anarchist must necessarily reject politics, at least insofar as politics is defined as the way a society chooses its government. Of course, if you are using politics to describe the way private organizations like schools, businesses, and religious organizations might choose their leadership, then politics and anarchism are compatable.
    anarchism rejects party politics. that doesn’t mean it rejects politics.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism
    No. Tell me, have you read Benjamin Tucker, Lysander Spooner, Albert Jay Nock, Murray Rothbard, David Friedman, Anthony De Jasay, etc.?
    yes, i’ve read tucker and spooner. and they are “rugged individualist” anarchists who believe in “natural law” and “darwinism”. they believe in “survival of the fittest” anarchism, which is, essentially, antithetical to libertarian socialism, aka the anarchism as it is most commonly known and practiced today.
    Impossible. For socialism to exist, there must be some mechanism by which the socialists can prevent people from trading freely with each other (even if socialists ban private ownership of objects, people can still trade their own labor) In order to prevent free trade on such a wide scale, a state must exist. An anarchist society (while remaining true to its anarchist roots) could never prevent people from trading with each other if they wanted to and therefore could never be socialist.
    this is all horseshit. libertarian socialism is of free will, not of force or coercion. libertarian socialist communes or other social configurations can coexist with neighboring capitalist societies, or even within them. there is no need to set up conditions of force.
    I don’t. I am merely defending my claim that there is a rise in leftist anti-Semitism. This is not the fault of the entire left, just as right-wing anti-Semitism is not the fault of the entire right.
    just so long as you recognize that right-wing antisemitism has grown in parallel to modern left-wing antisemitism, and that when it boils down to it, it doesn’t matter whether its on the left or right, antisemitism is antisemitism, and bigots will always be bigots, regardless of their politics.
    You would think that after numerous attempts at implementing socialism and communism as a state ideology and achieving the same result, you might realize that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Socialism and communism, if they are not universally adopted by all of their participants, require force in order to maintain, and this force requires power.
    hence why i don’t support the existence of a socialist state. hello? are you even listening? living ideal anarchism has to be of one’s free will. and it works all the time. how do you think our protests get organized? how do you think people manage to live and survive as squatters? how do you think anarchist bookstores are run? it’s not for everyone–and rightly, it shouldn’t be. i don’t run around espousing bloody revolution as a means of instituting an anarcho-socialist society. i prefer meher baba’s approach:
    “Love and coercion can never go together; but, though love cannot be forced on anyone, it can be awakened through love itself. Love is essentially self-communicative: those who do not have it catch it from those who have it. Those who receive love from others cannot be its recipients without giving a response which, in itself, is of the nature of love. True love is unconquerable and irresistible and goes on gathering power and spreading itself, until eventually it transforms everyone whom it touches. Humanity will attain to a new mode of being through the free and unhampered interplay of pure love from heart to heart.”
    Regardless, though, you are changing the subject. I asked why you had a hammer and sickle on your masthead. I did not ask whether you thought that socialism or communism are any good. The hammer and sickle represents a tyrannical state, just as the swastkia represents nazi germany. The fact that you are ok with that reveals your underlying interests. You seem to have no problem with evil and tyranny as long as it is leftists evil and leftist tyranny.
    this is presumptuous horseshit too. i also have a picture of a yellow star and a string of barbedwire. does that mean i think jews should be in concentration camps? it’s simply a collage illustrating parts of our history and culture. you’re reading waaaaaaaay too into it and you know it.
    Didn’t you just get finished telling me that it is arrogant of me to assume that Lerner is beloved to you? And now Bush is my saint? What a hypocrite.
    you’re going ballistic defending him here. i haven’t defended michael lerner once. clearly you’re a fan of george bush.
    You are either a liar or did not bother reading. […] I never said that Republicans better represent Jewish values than Democrats.
    the majority of your article was written to counter pilcher’s points as to why the democratic platform more closely coincides with jewish ideology. it was to show, “hey, republicans can be more jewish than dems.” that your closing points was, “vote your conscience” is commendable, but you were still justifying jewish support of republican ideology.
    Arguing with you on your comment board is not publically deriding you. For someone who just finished complaining about being associated with Lerner, you seem to have no problem doing to others what you do not want done to yourself.
    your aunt, her neck, and all her personal effects. like i said, you don’t want to get anything out of this other than being right. even tho you’re not, and the majority of your position is based on assumptions, distortions, and fabrications. all underhanded, dirty politics. mudslinging. but not fact and fairness.

  19. first of all, show me where i’ve ever claimed to be observant.
    I recall that you previously claimed this. If I am wrong, I apologize.
    next, tell me there aren’t dozens and dozens of places where sephardim differ from ashkenazim on certain practices.
    Sure, but they, as individuals are not picking and choosing. They are following in the tradition handed down from their parents. At some poing many years ago, certain customs diverged. But this doesn’t make observant Judaism depend upon nothing more than the mere whims of the individual practicing Jew.
    picking and choosing is the very nature of talmud itself.
    True enough, but it is done in the proper format, with the proper authorities and rules and so on. I can certainly understand why you don’t like this system, as I have similar objections, but I don’t call myself observant nor do I claim that I am true to my faith when I reject these traditions.
    i love how this “anarchist” is telling me that in order to be a jew i have to follow man’s interpretation of god’s alleged word.
    That is the nature of being an observant Jew. I’m not saying you have to be one, just that if you claim to be one, you must follow their rules.
    i didn’t say “some jews” had no role, what i said was “the jews as a whole” are not to blame.
    Very well. Then let us return to my original argument. If it could be demonstrated that a certain Jew alive today is the direct descendant of a Jew who killed Jesus, would you hold him responsible for the actions of his ancestors?
    so micha, would you have been okay with kurt waldheim being the head of the u.n.?
    Other than the fact that I deny the legitimacy of the U.N., not really. He was cleared from allegations of having been a war criminal.
    what gives you this impression that i’m a supporter of planned parenthood?
    Nothing at all and I never claimed such. I am merely asking how far you are willing to take your concept of inheritable guilt.
    again, i was joking around! the whole nature of the comment was humorous!
    And as I have said repeatedly, I didn’t find it funny and I don’t appreciate people mischaracterizing my political views, just as you have stated that you don’t appreciate people mischaracterzing yours.
    blah blah blah — can’t you just accept when you’re wrong about something?
    Normally, yes. But I am trying to make a general point about politics and why I reject it. I don’t like having to compromise my political principles in order to succeed through the traditional political process (of course, I would admit, political activism through civil disobediance as was the case with Ghandi and MLK, is much more desirable).
    anarchism rejects party politics. that doesn’t mean it rejects politics
    First of all, I am not a “libertarian-socialist” (Talk about a contradiction in terms!) Second, as I previously stated, any ideology which claims to be anarchist must necessarily reject politics insofar as politics is related to a system of government.
    antithetical to libertarian socialism, aka the anarchism as it is most commonly known and practiced today.
    Very well. I have no problem with you claim that individual anarchism and anarcho-capitalism are at odds with libertarian socialism; I never claimed otherwise.
    libertarian socialism is of free will, not of force or coercion. libertarian socialist communes or other social configurations can coexist with neighboring capitalist societies, or even within them. there is no need to set up conditions of force.
    I actually agree with you! Yes, as long as these communes coexist peacefully (and allow their members to exit freely) with neighboring capitalist societies, I have no objection to them and we can live in peace together.
    just so long as you recognize that right-wing antisemitism has grown in parallel to modern left-wing antisemitism, and that when it boils down to it, it doesn’t matter whether its on the left or right, antisemitism is antisemitism, and bigots will always be bigots, regardless of their politics.
    Amen to that. Mo, I think if we could get past our getting off on the wrong foot with each other, we might find that we agree with each other on many, many issues. I too have gone through an awakening recently with regard to the Israeli/Palestinian situation, and I believe you have as well. While we both support and defend Israel to some extent, we both seem to much more critical of Israeli policy than our mainstream Jewish friends. I think that is a good thing and says much about our respective moral compasses.
    i don’t run around espousing bloody revolution as a means of instituting an anarcho-socialist society. i prefer meher baba’s approach:
    Very well said. I share the same approach.
    clearly you’re a fan of george bush.
    Honestly, I can’t stand the man.
    the majority of your article was written to counter pilcher’s points as to why the democratic platform more closely coincides with jewish ideology. it was to show, “hey, republicans can be more jewish than dems.” that your closing points was, “vote your conscience” is commendable, but you were still justifying jewish support of republican ideology.
    I think you misread my piece. My point was not to convince Jews to vote for Republicans. Rather, my point was to dispel the notion that Jews should vote based on their religion, and instead should vote based on their own personal peccadillos.
    Anyway, I hope we can turn over a new leaf with each other as I suspect we agree on more than we disagree.

  20. I recall that you previously claimed this. If I am wrong, I apologize.
    i think that the blogging on shabbos thing might’ve been a giveaway, but alas…i am mistaken.
    Sure, but they, as individuals are not picking and choosing. They are following in the tradition handed down from their parents. At some poing many years ago, certain customs diverged. But this doesn’t make observant Judaism depend upon nothing more than the mere whims of the individual practicing Jew.
    i don’t know if i agree. israel means “to wrestle with god”. if i am blindly following in the footsteps laid out before me by my predecessors than i am failing in my duty as a child of israel.
    True enough, but it is done in the proper format, with the proper authorities and rules and so on. I can certainly understand why you don’t like this system, as I have similar objections, but I don’t call myself observant nor do I claim that I am true to my faith when I reject these traditions. […] That is the nature of being an observant Jew. I’m not saying you have to be one, just that if you claim to be one, you must follow their rules.
    again, i’m a pseudo-religious jewish anarchist. “proper authorities and rules and so on” really don’t mean shit to me. and i can still be observant and practice authentic judaism without caving to such authorities. you can get anything out of torah you want. i just so happen to get anti-authoritarianism out of it. it all depends on what you’re looking for.
    Very well. Then let us return to my original argument. If it could be demonstrated that a certain Jew alive today is the direct descendant of a Jew who killed Jesus, would you hold him responsible for the actions of his ancestors?
    i wouldn’t hold him responsible, but i’d tease the ever-living shit out of him. “you fucker! you did this to us!” 🙂
    also, there’s a big difference between what happened 2,000 years ago to people who aren’t alive anymore, and what happened 60 years ago to my grandmother who’s living in queens right now. i have a responsibility to my grandparents who escaped the camps, and my family members who died there, to ensure that the men who did this to them never make their way to power again. that means NOT giving their children and grandchildren a chance to rule. ideology is conditioned, engrained, and transferred memetically. the children of bigots are usually bigots too. if i can prevent those predisposed to such bigotry from holding office, then i’ll have fulfilled my commitment to my family.
    Other than the fact that I deny the legitimacy of the U.N., not really. He was cleared from allegations of having been a war criminal.
    he managed a concentration camp AND he wore a nazi uniform. isn’t that enough?
    And as I have said repeatedly, I didn’t find it funny and I don’t appreciate people mischaracterizing my political views, just as you have stated that you don’t appreciate people mischaracterzing yours.
    fine, it was in poor taste. i’m sorry.
    First of all, I am not a “libertarian-socialist” (Talk about a contradiction in terms!) Second, as I previously stated, any ideology which claims to be anarchist must necessarily reject politics insofar as politics is related to a system of government.
    but politics themselves transcend any particular system of governance. hell, running a synagogue demands the utilization of politics. i don’t reject politics–i reject politics as a form of control and as a method of self-enrichment.
    Honestly, I can’t stand the man.
    hatzlacha!
    I think you misread my piece. My point was not to convince Jews to vote for Republicans. Rather, my point was to dispel the notion that Jews should vote based on their religion, and instead should vote based on their own personal peccadillos.
    i didn’t say that you were aiming to get people to vote for republicans–rather that you were demonstrating that republicanism coincides with jewish practice. blech! how could you do such a thing?! 😉
    Anyway, I hope we can turn over a new leaf with each other as I suspect we agree on more than we disagree.
    amen to that. truce?

  21. i don’t know if i agree. israel means “to wrestle with god”. if i am blindly following in the footsteps laid out before me by my predecessors than i am failing in my duty as a child of israel.
    True, but I think the challenge is to accept that tradition despite one’s personal objections. I sure as hell can’t do it. But if “wresting with God” means subjective picking and choosing, it doesn’t seem like much of a challenge.
    i have a responsibility to my grandparents who escaped the camps, and my family members who died there, to ensure that the men who did this to them never make their way to power again. that means NOT giving their children and grandchildren a chance to rule. ideology is conditioned, engrained, and transferred memetically. the children of bigots are usually bigots too. if i can prevent those predisposed to such bigotry from holding office, then i’ll have fulfilled my commitment to my family.
    I agree that you have a responsibility to fight anti-Semitism, but I think holding children responsible for the actions of their parents comes dangerously close to some of the same tactics anti-Semites have used to justify their hatred. I agree that ideology can be passed down from generation to generation, but that does not excuse prejudging people without first examining whether or not they (and their parents and grandparents) have rejected their previous ideology and atoned.
    he managed a concentration camp AND he wore a nazi uniform. isn’t that enough?
    I’m pretty sure the concentration camp thing was debunked, as that would fall under war crimes. Serving in the German army is not necessarily a terrible thing, considering the fact that most countries had coercive drafts.
    i don’t reject politics–i reject politics as a form of control and as a method of self-enrichment.
    I guess I can agree with this.
    truce?
    Truce. You get ’em from the left, I’ll get ’em from the right. They’ll never know what hit ’em.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.