Corrections Cutting Both Ways

Paul Demko wrote me:

Hey Mitch,

I was going to leave a comment on the blog, but it seems you have to login or somesuch.

Yeah.  Notice how little spam I have here lately?

But a couple of things: CP broke this story and it would be nice if you linked to the piece by Matt Snyders rather than the strib (which simply stole it without attribution).

Duly noted.

Secondly where has Tutu compared Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians to Hitler’s treatment of jews? You allude to this, but don’t point to any source. I’ve seen this assertion elsewhere, but am  yet to see any proof of it. I’m not saying it’s inaccurate, but i’m curious to see some proof.

This piece in Ha’aretz is as good a recap as I’ve seen – showing both the ambiguity of Tutu’s statement, and the lack of forgiveness of ambiguity that many Jews feel about the issue.

12 thoughts on “Corrections Cutting Both Ways

  1. So, it’s alluded to, but not direct.. go figure.

    A real question then – along a similar line.

    I’m going to build a strawman, something that gets done here a lot, but I’m going to ask for your indulgence and ask that folks actually consider the point honestly for a few minutes.

    Assume there are only two possible realities (that’s the strawman part, and whild this is often done, there are of course MANY more than two possible explanations for things – something Mitch frequently ignores – seemingly wilfully – but that’s just a guess – I guess).

    Reality 1:

    Group A is a bunch of ignorant cowards, they want to hug terrorists, think that therapy is the answer for violence – blame their country (an ambiguous entity) for the problem – and mostly just are such pussies they can’t possibly come to any formualted opinion about taking strong action against bad people. In short, Group A is more interested in kumbaya than in keeping their own kids alive, they would rather their own families die than take any sort of decisive action.

    Group B – is a bunch of altruists, who wilfully, but not without complaint, defend group A – they are the super-heros, the ones who REALLY know what the world is about. They propose courses of action, which unfortunately seem to go wrong a lot – but they only go wrong because Group A gets in the way or Group A is unwilling to pay the cost needed.

    Reality 2:

    Group A sees reckless action by Group B as counter productive. They want to see the country take decisive action against the RIGHT people, not just strike out blindly, and usually vicariously. They don’t blame their country for the ills, they blame bad PEOPLE in the country for PART of the problem – they are realistic about the fact that things are simplistic, jingo-istic nonsense summed up in 2 second quips- and they actually know the difference between a Sikh and a Shiite. Because they do, they see broadbrush, knee-jerk reactions as dangerous overreactions to problems. They want vengance for 9/11, on those who planned it and upon those who would recruit and plan the next one, however, they recognize indiscriminate killing gives those recruiters FAR more people, not less, to work with.

    Group B – is demonstrably less engaged in taking in details about foriegn affairs from other than hand-picked, and slanted news sources (go read about the reading habits of the right wing if you think not) – primarly Faux News – or talk radio – They belong to a party that doesn’t waver much from what the national leadership puts forth. Consequently, when some people with less than pure intentions suggest actions that aren’t likely to be successful, they support it based on party affiliation – and because they’re pretty ethno-centric, they have little regard for either the differences between Sikhs and Shiites or for the plight thereof. And more than anything else, they believe their country is ‘great’ and does ‘great things’ and anyone who thinks otherwise is ungrateful, stupid, or a traitor – they know about things like Bopal India, but they don’t much care. They want vengance for 9/11 – but no longer know against whom they really want it.

    Now I ask you, which is more likely? Do you really REALLY think that people who aren’t Neo-Kooks want their kids to die? Or do you think maybe, JUST MAYBE, we actually want instead to see justice done to the RIGHT people for the RIGHT reasons? The first reality isn’t, the second is surely a LOT closer. Just like overstating Desmond Tutu’s remarks – the right overstated Housien’s threat, the involvement of Al Qaeda and it’s capability to establish itself in Iraq, and has created a demon in the left. We want the same things, justice and a sure and swift death for those who no longer are rational – we just happen to be realistic enough to understand that killing some 3 year old, or the 3 year old’s father, indiscriminately, creates MORE enemies.

    But hey, that took more than 10 seconds to read, so probably, most of you, won’t care to think about it, let alone read it.

  2. “People are scared in this country [the US], to say wrong is wrong because the Jewish lobby is powerful – very powerful. Well, so what? For goodness sake, this is God’s world! We live in a moral universe. The apartheid government was very powerful, but today it no longer exists. Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Pinochet, Milosevic, and Idi Amin were all powerful, but in the end they bit the dust.”

    Yeah, I can’t see why anybody would object to that. Comparing Israel to all of those murderous dictatorships and suggesting that it should meet the same fate? Why, surely that’s the sort of thing one could expect from a reasonable person like Jeffrey Dahmer, Ed Gein, or Desmond Tutu.

  3. What consistently amazes me about the left is its sense of entitlement to its putatively tame Jews, and its indignation when some of the hebes get uppity.

    Note Tutu’s piece; it’s a classic example.

  4. Tutu’s comment was somewhat insensitive, given all the carping the right does about political correctness, it sure looks like your hypocritical fingers are pointing back at you.

    In fact his comment basically was, ‘stop belly-aching and act”, stop making excuses, you have control of your own fate, as far as the influence of the Jewish lobby, this too shall pass. But why should any of us be surprised, you won’t take responsibility for your own conduct, focus on tiny points, and expect conduct you won’t live up to yourself.

    As for novellas, Bill, you read through Mitch senseless drivel, I suspect you can read through mine. It is under 1000 words, happens to be pretty imporntant point. I know it means you can’t just write off your opposition with childish and idiotic blather, but actually have to ask whether what you’re assuming makes any damned sense, but still, I suspect you’re up to it.

  5. I know it means you can’t just write off your opposition with childish and idiotic blather

    Like referring to everything you disagree with as carping, blather and hypocrisy?

    No! One certainly can not!

  6. “They want vengance for 9/11, on those who planned it and upon those who would recruit and plan the next one, . . . ”

    Another lefty droning on about ‘vengeance’. In any other context — say a vigilante going after a criminal — the word would repulse them. The US did not overthrow the Afghani government in 2001 in the name of vengeance, we did it because the Taliban would not cooperate in apprehending Osama & co. The US did not overthrow Saddam’s regime out of vengeance, we did it to prevent a mad tyrant from obtaining WMD’s.
    Under the UN charter, exactly when is a nation allowed to engage in warfare against another country in order to satisfy the desire for vengeance?

  7. Well, lets see. Reality one. Those folks actually exist.
    Reality two. The first group, like Santa Claus and the easter bunny, are fun to pretend about, but dont actually exist. The second group is a caricature created by the first group in Reality one. Therefor by a preponderance of evidence, (ie: only the groups in Reality one are real) I would have to say Reality one is more likely.
    What do I win?

  8. peeves said:

    “I know it means you can’t just write off your opposition with childish and idiotic blather”

    No. But I can write what you write off AS childish and idiotic blather. And you make it too easy.

    You substitute word quantity for quality. That is a losing strategy with people who do not already agree with you. If you don’t use words with more economy, you will continue to teach people to NOT read what you write.

  9. The concise PB-

    Tutu’s comment was somewhat insensitive, given all the carping the right does about political correctness, it sure looks like your hypocritical fingers are pointing back at you.

    It is hypocritical for the Right to complain about political correctness trumping open discussion and yet complain that Tutu is given the opportunity to speakat St. Thomas.

    In fact his comment basically was, ’stop belly-aching and act”, stop making excuses, you have control of your own fate, as far as the influence of the Jewish lobby, this too shall pass. But why should any of us be surprised, you won’t take responsibility for your own conduct, focus on tiny points, and expect conduct you won’t live up to yourself.

    Tutu’s speech is given as an essay here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/comment/0,10551,706911,00.html
    You can read it yourself and decide whether or not it was anti-semitic.

    As for novellas, Bill, you read through Mitch senseless drivel, I suspect you can read through mine. It is under 1000 words, happens to be pretty imporntant point. I know it means you can’t just write off your opposition with childish and idiotic blather, but actually have to ask whether what you’re assuming makes any damned sense, but still, I suspect you’re up to it.

    It is impossible, Bill, to fully explain the depth of my arguments in much less than 1,000 words. You are foolish if you think otherwise.

  10. This sort of thing seems to drive lefties even more than usually incoherent. Over at Minnie Mon — and I’m not making this up, I swear — one of their New Journalistic Fellows thinks that Tutu’s been denied tenure at St. Thomas.

  11. Pingback: Like A Free Ride, When You Already Paid | Shot in the Dark

Leave a Reply

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