RANGER AGAINST WAR: What Did They Say Before Kristallnacht? <

Sunday, August 11, 2013

What Did They Say Before Kristallnacht?

 --Mr. Holder's Lynch Mob 

[Lisa has been taking "news fasts" as an adjutant to a program of maintaining sanity and emotional equilibrium. Dr. Weil says it's a good thing, and she finds that nothing much has changed after a period away, anyway. However, what continues to stand out in sharp relief is the media's shameless bias and hatred.]

Take yesterday's Slate piece, "Jew Picked a Fine Time to Leave Me",  which uses the examples of disgraced public figures Weiner, Spitzer and Filner to ask, "Are Jews less likely to cheat? The data say no."  The title is neither funny, clever nor factually correct.

What an egregiously anti-Semetic non-descriptive title for this piece of non-reportage. This was not a story in the White Supremacist "Stormfront", but in a supposedly liberal, supposedly credible online magazine. Cocking my head, I thought, "O.K. -- someone thinks this is a clever title, probably borrowing from the Kenny Rogers song, but what does it have to do with the copy?"

When I asked Ranger why my feelings of revulsion at the title, he said correctly, "It's just offensive. It's racial profiling." And he's correct. Why is it that liberals -- who claim to be for the underdog -- cannot find sympathy for a people composing just .2% of the world's population? That is about 14 million people, versus say 1.6 Billion Muslims, who make up just under one-quarter (23%) of the world's population. Must not racially-profile Muslims or Blacks, but apparently we are happy keeping our old scapegoat the Jewish people in place.

The piece offers nothing beyond the author's decision to NOT BELIEVE a 2005 survey taken by the condom company Durex regarding its users self-reported behaviors. In that survey, Israelis were the LEAST LIKELY to respond they had an affair:

The survey included more than 300,000 people in 41 countries. On a list of possible “sexual experiences you’ve had,” the questionnaire asked respondents whether they’d ever had an “extramarital affair.” Israel came in dead last. Across the 41 countries, the average percentage of respondents who said they’d had an affair was 22. In Israel, it was 7.

Not one to be discouraged by facts, the creative statistician Saletan summates his piece with a Redbook survey of WOMEN to arrive at the non-conclusive statement that Protestants cheat probably a little more than Jews or Catholics. And this passes for reportage in an otherwise respectable publication. So ... why the pejorative title? 

Is this not as offensive as going through the list of black personages who have cheated and calling them "Mandingos" or some such? Why is Slate singling out one racial group and suggesting they suffer from a racial taint, as the result of a handful of examples? Is there a useful or positive message behind this non-story?

This is akin to the offensive "driving while black (DWB)"; we will call it, "Living While Jewish (LWJ)". Just as with blacks of a previous generation, Jewish people must be twice as good as a white Christian person to be free of contempt. This is probably a sour grapes extension of the Zimmerman non-story: Because some in the press are disappointed over not being able to skewer a Jew as a gunman (Zimmerman = not) killing one of their ACLU buddies (a black), they will go after their target population in another way. By any means necessary to disguise the egg on your face.

However, instead of the offensive and misleading title (these men did not leave their wives), why not ask compelling questions about these disgraced men like, "Did they remain married after their transgressions? Do they pay for their children and their family? Their schooling? Do they marry their sweet things more often, and do their offspring tend to matriculate into college more often?

"Disgraced" -- an interesting term, no? For the usually irreligionist Left, grace would seem to infer a status of moral rectitude, and morality is something enlightened Slate writer Saletan and ilk would argue vehemently against. Yet exploit the concept of morality they do.

Anyway, it's all piffle, right? Someone's misguided effort at humor, or not-so-cloaked prejudice. Hardly worth a look.

A tidbit for your Sunday.

{As an aside, my friend Alex Lickerman has written a brief piece today on morality fr. a Buddhist MD's perspective @ his blog,  HappinessInThisWorld.}

Labels: , , , , ,


Blogger no one said...

Slate...a little while ago they had a post written by a woman who, as part of the subtitle, proudly included that she is a white woman married to another woman with an adopted black son and she was struggling to explain how z got away with murdering T. I was thinking that she has some far difficult things than that to explain to her son......any way, Jews are perceived as being wealthy and in control and able to help themselves, thus enemies of the poor minorities that liberals like. Yep, that liberals for you......but hey, who is going to make those judgment calls, right?

Sunday, August 11, 2013 at 7:09:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger BadTux said...

I'm in awe of this vast liberal conspiracy against Jews financed by that notorious Arab financier, George Soros.

Uhm, yeah. Just pointing out that tarring all liberals with the antisemitism brush is a bridge too far. Antisemitism doesn't seem to be restricted to left *or* right. After all, remember that the right-wing KKK was anti-Jew (probably because young white Jewish intellectuals were so prominent in the civil rights movement of the 1950's and early 1960's, but still).

As for this particular idiot, he seems sort of like Paula Deen -- a clueless moron who has no idea why what he said is utterly offensive. To go from that to Kristallnacht is like going from Paula Deene to KKK lynchings. It makes no sense. Paula Deen isn't going to lynch anybody, and this guy isn't going to loot and destroy a Jewish-owned store. They're ignorant and insensitive racists but they're not monsters.

One point I will make about what you say, however, is to point out that the population of Israel is not representative of the worldwide Jewish population (the majority of whom are in the United States). Israeli Jews are more likely to be Orthodox, more likely to hold conservative views regarding traditional values and such, and half of them are from a repressed culture (the former Soviet Union) where sexuality was a subject that was not discussed and self-censorship of your views regarding sexuality was the norm. So yes, I would say that any surveys of the Israeli population are not representative of the worldwide Jewish population. It'd be like surveying Texas, then claiming the views held by Americans there are typical of all Americans. It just ain't so.

Monday, August 12, 2013 at 12:49:00 AM GMT-5  
Blogger Lisa said...

@BT says,

They're ignorant and insensitive racists but they're not monsters.

But I never said they were. That's one difference between us: I do not go for the ad hominum, but rather the universal gesture. This offensive head passed editorial muster.

The story is a zed; the headline is the story.

You are incorrect per Israel, where the majority of Jewish citizens are secular vs. orthodox.

Monday, August 12, 2013 at 8:02:00 AM GMT-5  
Blogger BadTux said...

Err, Lisa I didn't say that the majority of Israelis were Orthodox (in fact, I mentioned that close to half of Israeli Jews are ex-Soviet Jews, i.e., only barely culturally Jewish in many cases and almost none of them are Orthodox). I said that they're *more likely* to be Orthodox (or ultra-Orthodox) than in the Jewish diaspora. Which is true, according to surveys as many as 25% consider themselves Orthodox, while around 10% of American Jews consider themselves Orthodox.

And my point there was that when you add up the Soviet Jews and the Orthodox Jews, you get a percentage above 50%. Which invariably is going to skew any poll that touches on issues of sexuality compared to Jews in the diaspora, because Russian/Soviet culture is very conservative on the subject (look at Putin and the Russian Orthodox Church's current pogrom against homosexuals as an example of that, and yes, I know that the Russian Orthodox Church is a Christian church, duh) and of course the Orthodox and ultra-Orthodox (who are about 10% of the Israeli population) are what they are.

Note that any demographic data about Israel is to an extent conjecture because Israel considers demographic data to be a state secret as important as the size and extent of their arsenal of nuclear weapons. But Soviet records detail how many Jews were allowed to leave back in the 80's so we know they're a large percentage of the Israeli population (they all wanted to come to America but Reagan worked a deal to send them to Israel instead to "solve" the demographic problem that led Israel to declare demographic data to be as important as nuclear weapons data). The numbers I cite are rough estimates, but they are estimates based on what data are available.

Regarding tarring with a wide brush, I was addressing "no one" above with the snark about that notorious Arab financier of liberal causes, George Soros. (Who is, of course, at least ethnically and culturally Jewish, if not observant).


Monday, August 12, 2013 at 10:31:00 AM GMT-5  
Blogger no one said...

Nice piece by Lickerman (that you linked to). Definitely worth the read.

Monday, August 12, 2013 at 1:13:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger Lisa said...


It would be nice if the reader heard what I actually said.

The Slate pc. used some survey by a condom company which showed Israelis to have the lowest percentage of cheaters among respondents. Who can know the breakdown of Jewish people in that number? It is not even relevant to my piece (the numbers stand, as given.)

What do you achieve by your imagined breakdown of the Israeli population via secularity vs. observance? What I have observed writing here is how many logical fallacies are committed by respondents like yourself (and you are one of the more informed commenters.)

Why the straw man and slippery slope? Why distract from the topic? I did not say all liberals are anti-Semetic (there are always the outliers.) How does mentioning one man of money (Soros) possibly address what I wrote?

In addition to the fact that most Jewish people in Israel are secular, not all Israelis are Jewish. In any event, this is a rabbit hole, and none of this alters the survey results which the writer quoted. We are not debating the efficacy of the metrics of the study.

My point stands: "Jew Picked a Fine to Leave Me" is an example of MSM racial profiling. I think we humans should protest every incident of racial profiling, instead of trying to dilute it or dismiss it away as the work of a crank.

This was written by a top writer @ Slate. It is not an aberration. Saletan's job is to shift cultural mores to the degree he can.

My job is to reveal the lie.

Monday, August 12, 2013 at 2:58:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger BadTux said...

Once again you appear to be responding to what you imagine I said, rather than to what I actually said. I pointed out that the Soros comment was not directed to you or your blog posting. I said that quite clearly. You pointing out that it's irrelevant to your point is itself irrelevant, because it wasn't directed at you or your blog posting.

Regarding the demographics of Israel, I am quite aware of the demographics of Israel, thank you very much. The non-Jewish population of Israel is predominantly Arab Muslims, again a population that is not exactly known for liberal sexual values. My point that Israeli attitudes towards sexuality are not representative of the worldwide Jewish population stands, and you appear to agree with me by pointing out the 20% non-Jewish population of Israel.

Regarding ignorance and racism, you appear to believe I am making excuses for ignorance and racism. Again, you appear to believe this because you want to believe it, despite the fact that I have said nothing of the sort. I did point out that accusations (or even heavily implications) that someone wants to exterminate you when they quite clearly have no such intention makes you appear shrill and hysterical, but that is a different topic altogether.

Monday, August 12, 2013 at 3:08:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger no one said...

"I did point out that accusations (or even heavily implications) that someone wants to exterminate you when they quite clearly have no such intention makes you appear shrill and hysterical"

Isn't that what the Trayvon Martin supporters were shouting about? That the system run by whites (and the risible new construct of white Hispanics) is seeking the extermination of blacks? Blacks can't get no justice, get profiles, etc, etc, etc?

Just saying.........seems there's a surfeit of hysteria these days.

Monday, August 12, 2013 at 3:31:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger Lisa said...


Another ad hominem! --

The writer appears "shrill and hysterical" for making a valid observation. Surely, this is no dialog.

Per your apologia for Mr. Saletan ("this guy isn't going to loot and destroy a Jewish-owned store") -- I never implied it, and you can look at him and gather he wouldn't be the strong arm. Hitler didn't look all that macho, either.

You know your history: Movements need agitators in order to mold the populace. Also needed are people like you -- willing apologists. You behave more like an ostrich than a penguin.

My point stands: every instance of racial profiling needs to be countered (even you don't happen to like the race being profiled.)

That's called consistency and integrity.

Monday, August 12, 2013 at 3:35:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger Lisa said...

no one,

I fancy I am a measured person, but ISTM that rationality is met with hysteria.

One must toe the party line of one's chosen affiliation, and present it in an amped-up fashion, lest one risk suspicion. Must not question, lest the accusational thugs emerge.

Monday, August 12, 2013 at 3:40:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger BadTux said...

My point stands: every instance of racial profiling needs to be countered (even you don't happen to like the race being profiled.)

And where, exactly, do you see me say anything different? Other than in your way too vivid imagination, that is?

My point remains: making accusations that someone wants to exterminate you when they quite clearly don't makes you look shrill and hysterical, and does not further your purpose. 'Nuff said on that.

Monday, August 12, 2013 at 3:51:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger Lisa said...

Who "(made) accusations that someone wants to exterminate you"? What ARE you talking about?

I made a disinterested observation that the title of a news article demonstrated racial profiling.


Monday, August 12, 2013 at 4:30:00 PM GMT-5  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lisa, Just to be clear, I absolutely didn't mean to be read as saying that YOU were being hysterical. I agree with you and I find you cooly rational. The headline is offensive and it was written and published by people that are self proclaimed sensitives.

I was merely pointing out the hyprocisey of BT's position. TM was the celebrated face of hyped alleged racial aparthied and genocidal practices, but it's ok to racial profile Jews who actually indisputably have been the target of geneocide and aparthied for a couple millenia?

Monday, August 12, 2013 at 5:02:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger BadTux said...

Once again, nobody here has stated that it is okay to racially profile *ANYBODY*. Some people have vivid imaginations. Or are liars. Whatever.

Lisa, by using the word Kristallnacht, you are strongly implying that the writer and editor at Slate want to exterminate Jews. Because that is what Nazis ended up doing. My point is that this makes you look shrill and hysterical and makes people dismiss your point out of hand, which I don't *think* was what you were trying to do...

Monday, August 12, 2013 at 5:07:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger no one said...

OK, BT. I have been thinking about starting my own blog (though god only knows when I'll find the time). I'm going to have one of the inaugural articles titled "Black man picks a fine time to leave baby momma". Then I will go on to ask penetrating questions like, "Do black men prefer sex over fried chicken and crack, is there an urban versus rural split in the preference?"

If it's good enough for Slate it's good enough for me.

Monday, August 12, 2013 at 6:08:00 PM GMT-5  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Confused whether this blog is Ranger against War or Lisa against Liberals?


Monday, August 12, 2013 at 9:35:00 PM GMT-5  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Or Lisa's war against strawmen.

Monday, August 12, 2013 at 9:44:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger Lisa said...


My title was well-chosen, and suggestive; being a provocateur yourself, you should understand this.

Per my "too vivid imagination"? Rather patronizing and silencing, no?

Surely you are not so simplistic as to believe I am "strongly implying that the writer and editor at Slate want to exterminate Jews" (?)

I assure you, no one "dismisses (me) "out of hand" :)

Tuesday, August 13, 2013 at 12:18:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger Lisa said...

no one,

I LOVE you :)


Sorry for my too-quick reply last night re. hysteria. I see now what you were suggesting.

Tuesday, August 13, 2013 at 12:20:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger Lisa said...


You indict what you call my overreach.

I suggest that people happily display cognitive dissonance. GO back to Nazi GER and imagine what the people said: "We're GER citizens. What is wearing this little star on our coats? Surely the GER people will not long tolerate this bully, Hitler." Most only awoke to what had been happening all along when it was too late; the march there was a slow but inexorable ascent, only visible clearly in hindsight.

Your protest reminds me of this. The only thing I don't know is, are you one of the sheep, or one of the herders?

Tuesday, August 13, 2013 at 12:37:00 PM GMT-5  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home