Some of my conservative pals have cheered the timely--and mostly welcome--departure/retirement
of the"groundbreaking", "heroic",
earthshaking, heebie-jeebie-generating, iconic liberal journalist
Helen Thomas. In light of some recent ugly comments about the Jews needing to
"get the hell
out of Palestine"
(her term, along with more than a few in the media and government, for what you
and I would call the State of Israel) and "go back to Poland and
Germany", it seems appropriate that such anti-Semitic bile should be
punished, no?
Nay, says I. Or, at least, not like this. Let her speak.
Please allow me to explain before the hisses ad boos rise to a crescendo among some of my regular readers, and you've ruined a computer monitor with a well-aimed brick. OK? Bear with me here, gang.
Let Aunt Thom's Cabin continue running her big yap about the Jews needing to leave "Palestine" and go back to Poland and Germany 60+ years after they were told to get the hell out of Poland and Germany and "Go back to Palestine!" (I'll let that little historical switheroo in the verbiage sink in for a moment.)
Funny how derision never changes much. But in any case, yeppers, Let her return to her chair post in the front aisle of the White House Press Corps, and continue to believe--and talk earnestly-- about the media/Arab fiction of "Palestine", which for over 6 decades our nation has officially recognized the nation that now sits on that land as the state of Israel. Let her advocate another Hamas Love Boat of "activists" breaking the rather understandable Israel blockade of Gaza, designed to stanch the flow of terror on her borders.
Why? Well for one, I'm not one of those types who goes around saying "you have the right to say anything you like--however." There are very few "however" or "unless"moments in my take on free speech. This is not one of them. The ultimate test for free speech is not"everything you can imagine unless it (steps on X-group's toes, or contains something really nasty or unpleasant) or crosses (some taboo or line)." Go ahead and light the torches and grab yer pitchforks. No, the test of free speech is whether we can handle most anything. Americans usually can. We need to. Remember, conservatives and supporters of Israel say things deemed "offensive" to more than a few people as well. The very structure of this republic depends on it. Scouts Honor, boys and girls.
Next, truth be told, she's not saying anything that the Left doesn't already believe deep down in their heart of hearts. Her comment is bold for its frankness, yes, butnot fundamentally different from what this administration and most of its amen chorus in the MSM believe. I appreciate candor--as you know, a rare commodity these days. No, Thomas does not "work" for the administration any more than other Leftist journalists. But her opines are vital, as they serve as a useful window into what has become the MSM mainline thinking these days, and was always this administration's judgment on the matter at hand: Israel is illegitimate, is on "occupied land", stolen from the Pallies, and really has no fallback position other than to accept one threat after another to her very existence and safety to her populace, then just grin and bear things every time a Gaza-bound Love Boat of yet more"humanitarian" supplies to Hamas shows up. And, by George, say or do anything about it, as in the latest Israeli move to interdict the flow of terror supplies, and you'll be roundly condemned by the whole world.
Nice spot to be in, eh?
Whether the administration truly disdains the Jewish state as much as Thomas does, or truly finds honor in tacitly supporting the "Palestinian" cause for Israel's utter destruction, matters not. Ditto for the reasons the administration coddles Iran and other Islamist states' goals. Is this merely a multicultural moment where the administration truly finds that all cultures are equal in the application of law and justice? Or (perhaps more likely) is this administration trying to play Mr. Nice Guy and hope that all works out for everyone? Likewise, one might also ask the town fathers of New York City if multi-culti considerations are really what's going on regarding the finishing coffin nails, er, finishing touches on Ground Zero (a mosque has been given approval to be built near there. A mosque whose Imam has tiesto the Gaza Love Boat--a symbolism to the Islamist world that many of our alleged betters might poo-poo away as Cosmic Multi-Culti harmonic convergence, but which signals something altogether different to men like Bin Laden) or is this apparent disdain for the Jewish State really something more along the lines of what is termed "Political Realism" these days by everyone from Ron Paul supporters to Paleoconservatives, to most of the Left?
(SIDE NOTE: Get real, "Realists." The world is falling apart, you know it, and it's time to draw some lines in the sand. That sand is at our own beaches. In such a world approaching a new Dark Ages, it is far from likely that "staying out" of--name one--conflict hither and yonder will win friends, influence people, or alter history, or secure our own borders and security. A candle already flickering in the high winds that have accompanied the end of the Cold War and the resultant fallout storms will not likely continue to shine as a beacon in such a place.)
Again, back to the administration's word and deed regarding Israel, as possibly contrasted with its true inner feelings about her security: The difference matters not. Indeed, the administration's coddling of Islamic nut houses yields a situation that might be termed what is called a "distinction without a difference." The point is that if you argue against this coddling of the Sons of Allah and worry about continued terror resupply to Gaza and other areas actively engaged in trying to destroy Israel, or wonder aloud why $400,000,000 in US taxpayer dough is now flowing to "Gaza relief" efforts, you'll be quickly told by more than one administration supporter the ultimate fallback position to all the above: Israel should not even be there in the first place. So why try and posit what the administration is thinking here?
By the way, do you doubt this view is common? It's interesting that the voices saying this are getting bolder and more a-historical by the hour of late (with this administration) even if the general anti-Semitic feelings were always present in some others. Doubtful this anti-Israeli attitude came about all of a sudden. It's just some voices are a little louder nowadays.
Israel is now in grave danger, whether by some kind of strange default, or by outright design, and only ill tidings can come from backing her into tight corners.
Salon.com's Anna Clark (second link, beginning of post) begs us not to make this Thomas's main legacy. Well, oopsie. Too late. Words have consequences, sweetie. This remains true regardless of the luster of one's career, or the grandeur of one's other life journeys, however fleeting those words come that can easily terminate one's station in life. Some of us are more than happy to have this happen sometimes.
(**UPDATE: Similarly, when it comes to certain "stations", or positions in life, we can quickly find ourselves in hot water, as did ex-Afghan theater commander Gen. Stanley McChrystal recently, over Obama-disparaging comments made to a reporter for Rolling Stone magazine--even before the full real McCoy even came out in print. The consequences of our words are serious even when heartfelt and sincere, as when the good general told Rolling Stone in certain words that he and his "Team America" group (the elite cadre of alleged miscreants, killers, and eggheads charged with winning hearts and minds in Afghanistan) about the apparent lack of brain and brawn in the administration's approach to the war, including quips about certain administration officials including President Obama. Well, Free Speech can still carry a stiff price. We can complain about some embedded irony in all this; that during the Bush years a mouthy 4-star general who slammed the administration would've been hailed as a bold maverick--a hero--by the Left and the MSM. We can also point out that Obama's replacement for overseeing the Afghan campaign, General David H. "The Surge" Petraeus--another "inheritance" from the Bush era--is all the more shiggles due to Obama's previous lecturing (2007--when still an Illinois Senator) of Petraeus on the futility of the "Surge" strategy for the war in Iraq--along with several other Democrat Senators at the time. A current vice-president's name comes to mind as well. Apparently, long gone are the days ofCode Pink's "General Betray Us" ads at half-off rates for full page ads in the New York Times. General Surge is now in business in Afghanistan. But no matter. The point being that certain chains-of-command under certain people, you have to be careful where your mouth might lead you to avoid the mere appearance of incohesion and insubordination.)
In Thomas's case, we will--regardless of her employment status--continue to shoot her anti-Semitic version of history and other crappola right out of the air with a .50 caliber sniper rifle. If deep-seated hatred of the Jews or a Jewish state are what's in the noggin, and you think the world needs to hear about this at long last, you WILL take the risks involved. Ditto for any journalist or politician who--no matter their social standing--decides he or she really needs to mention a belief that blacks need to head back to Africa, whites in general back to Europe (though groups like La Raza might get a pass on this one) or for that matter, more particularly, Poles back to Poland (since that nation's name came up).
Clark, to her credit, however, does note something worth pointing out here that I'll add as reason number three for why Thomas should not have been canned: "(H)er views aren't exactly news; the gist of them are evident from her past columns." For the last decade, Clark notes, Thomas has been a columnist and not a reporter, and has said about as much on the "Palestinian" situation in her columns. So her latest quip about the Jews needing to get the hell out of their own land--which Thomas, along with numerous untold others thinks is not really Jewish land, but occupied territory belonging to Palestinians--is not exactly an unanticipated, mesmerizing bolt from a cloudless blue sky. Of course, Clark makes sure we all know that ageism and sexism had something to do with this (why, of course they do) and bemoans the fact that right wing big mouths like Hannity, Beck, and Limbaugh are still kicking after their own putatively nasty remarks. Though she declines to give specifics.
There are numerous accusations against these guys, but it seems real world examples are hard to find. Unlike Thomas, more likely what you have in the case of most of your conservative talking heads is faux moral indignation about ideology that just doesn't fit a politically correct mode of thinking more than real racism. "Outrage", in other words, over disagreements about the gospel truth of government's magnanimous, loving powers to heal the nation and its people more than individual initiative does, and "outrage" that there are prominent figures voicing the general distrust brewing in America about the direction of government size and power.
Yes, 67 total years in any career (much less journalism--geesh) is a longy-longy. True enough. No denials here of the tenacity it takes in any line of work to accomplish that feat. These days just discovering that someone has stuck it out in any job is an astonishing find. So let's help her make it 68 years. Heck, let's go for an even 70.
Let Helen Thomas speak. We'll make it fun to boot.
__________________________________
In other news, it seems Gilligan is now channeling Kid Rock.
Oh, pity the President. Standing around in rain talking to Gulf Coast fisherman and then telling reporters the purpose of this mission in the moisture was to try and figure out "whose ass to kick."
Well now. That's a fine sentiment in this context, I guess. Good call. He's not exactly doing it on the international front to those tinhorns who might need some booty-boppin' right about now. We DO have some allies, like Israel, who feel batted around right about now.
But no doubt somewhere in the echelons of power at British Petroleum, someone certainly deserves it. Good call, I guess, even if mostly pandering to the Vulgar Lite "tough guy" fantasies of your fan base. It's true he's kicked proverbial tail on a few things. Or, that is, the tails of a few people and some groups. With his mouth, however. Not his foot. Thus for example long before his presidential campaign trail, but merely in "community organizer" mode, he'd already taken the time to jab,race-bait, and poke at many of the Left's usual objects of derision (e.g., white people with money who live in places like the suburbs).
In a general sense he has kicked the can of the American people as a whole, and continues to do so.
With the looming pressures on small and large companies alike about to buckle under the unfunded strains ObamaCare and Cap-n'-Tax and the probable introduction of the Euro-sylin' VAT at some point, along with the virtual takeover of a large portion of the economy under ObamaCare and entire industries to boot (such as cars and banking and even down to student loan outlets) combined with the astonishing expansion of federal government/public union power and pay and the accompanying shift to greater bureaucracy, he's up for the domestic ass-kick mode. No doubt. He's even threatened the state of Arizona for merely trying to uphold what seems to be existing Federal law. Politics, of course, deems that his administration step in to make sure we're not turning away too many of these wonderful illegal ali...ooops...future Democratic voters too early and too often. But still, when Ass-Kick Mode needs to set in, he's good for at least some kinds of shakedown. At least, on the domestic front.
Did I mention enlarging the national debt to somewhere beyond the orbit of Pluto? Well, you get the picture.
Of course, this is all as much to the delight of some as it is the object of scorn for others, like myself. The latter group wondering aloud just how much government involvement in...well...everything...will turn out to be deemed quite enough.
With BP, let's hope that after, oh, 55 days since the blowout that occurred around Earth Day (no greater irony, eh, Greenies?) you're good for the threat and it's not just idle talk. It might be.
While on the topic of this "Kick Ass" ethos the president speaks of, however, just what about this childish demeanor would really strike fear into this nation's enemies? Or are those just irritations (like the BP oil spill) to far distant from his primary focus--domestic hand-outs and glop?
Feel free, Mr. President--any time now would be great--to really "sock it" to British Petroleum and stanch the bleeding that promises to be the greatest environmental disaster near US shores in history. Yes, tell the Corps of Engineers to make sand berms to protect the sensitive beaches and wetland areas, the intercoastal waterways and estuaries that sustain and nurture about a third of American seafood production. Absolutely. Go for it. But not for being Captain Kick-Ass. Rather, do so in order to do the right thing right, and thus avoid the growing suspicion that your legacy is quickly heading to a Katrina II. Moreover, please DO help us avoid the suspicion that you'd just as soon let this thing "bleed out" until the Fall in order to make the case to halt offshore drilling completely, or not allow more exploration of more areas.
Now then. Having said all that, if you're REALLY in the mood to go kick someone to the curb, you might instead start with some handy suggestions I have on file. For example, repeal the Eurosocialist glop you started and get rid of the notion that people are owed the "right" to sit on their fannies and smear some canvass and be artists on the public health care dime (Nancy Pelosi's notion of "entrepreneurs") and get rid of all the lobster and cream sauce salaries of Federal workers who now make 76% more compared to private sector employees in comparable work. Big government's very power, prestige, and intrusive abilities are a threat to freedom as well as common decency--not to mention budgetary sanity at a time it is least affordable. You can scale back the astonishing size and influence of government at the Federal level. Or, you could seal the so-called "Southern Border", as this spaghetti colander is sometimes called, and thereby uphold Federal law on illegal immigration and stanch the flow of millions of peasants now competing with Americans for low-paying jobs at a time when we can least afford the social services handouts, the ER visits, the incarceration costs, the bankruptcies of entire states, and American workers' historically large unemployment figures.
Good starting points, no?
You see, Mr. President, despite what you think you know, the answer to every third question on any given test one might take is not "more government oversight." That unlikely prospect is in no more danger of happening that me winning the Powerball Lotto, but it would be mighty darned impressive all the same. Dig?
_________________________________________
PS--Dear Mr. President: We're all standing around in the rain these days. Know what I mean?
PPS--Mr. President: I don't know how Chicago handles its taxes, nor even most municipalities and metropolitan areas. But I promise you that when it comes to the Atlanta Greater Metro area, for example, the city certainly darn well finds a way to tax the outlying "metro" counties that merely touch the city. They get the dough of the white folks. Scouts Honor. I'm guessing this routine is similar across the nation. (Thanks for asking.)
No comments:
Post a Comment