Well, both videos pissed me off good and proper. Mamdani because every word he said is true--if you substitute Israel for Palestine. And substitute thousands of years of homeland seeking instead of a few decades that began after all the surrounding Arab/Muslim countries said "no thanks."
And Bernie? Because he was poor? He doesn't even know enough about being Jewish to know the point of Exodus? Or that "care for widows, orphans, and the strangers within your gates" is the most repeated line in the Tanakh? No wonder the DSA progressives like him as their pet Jew. How bleached out his Judaism is!
I just can’t stand the guy (Mamdani). I would like to wipe that smug look off his face. But I promise to read this later and address the substance and not merely my visceral reaction to Mamdani’s spewing his nonsensical rhetoric and people swooning at same. Glad you are on Gary’s side — from the short piece of this I read Gary has his head on straight and not up Mamdani’s arse.
Thanks much for the support, EE. And don't feel compelled to read the whole thing. Gary & Alan needed some editing on this one. It's twice as long as it should be. 😖
This was great. I finished it. I also took the time to listen to all the videos—except that Who song (I’ll listen later).
Mamdani is a very dangerous man. He is dangerous because he is arrogant. And he is a liar. “SE Asian Muslims can’t feel at home in NYC?” Please.
And when has PEP ever been a thing (progressive except Palestine)? And wrapping yourself in a keffiyeh only highlights his ideological dishonesty. Trace it—hijacked by an Egyptian who never lived in so-called Palestine and belongs to Iraqi culture. But yeah, “bring it” because I am the cool Muslim who goes to bars.
I love the allusion to Marxists become Quakers (I had to throw that in…made me laugh).
House cats and the Pope? I get it — the whole answer to everything issue. Catholics believe the Pope should be followed because “Jesus chose Peter (Cephas)” so we anachronistically make him the first Pope.
And don’t even get me started on this fool not believing in hierarchical states. Yeah okay.
I am more interested in Holland and his need for stories (which is important to you). We each have them, don’t we?
And it is true—surrendering to the truth of stories is fascinating. Truly. But someone explain Lot’s wife and not looking back thing. When I was a kid I asked my mom if the pillar statue of her was still there. Mom told me she probably got washed away over the millennia. Made sense to me.
When I was teaching my Introduction to Judaism course, I purposefully left out the unit on the Holocaust. I share this sentiment: “Jews should be defined not by the bad things that happen in life and in history, but by the promise of a better world to come—not after we die, but in this world, on the stage of human history. This redemptive vision emerges not from the death camps, but from Jewish life; not from the defeat of Hitler, but from the embrace of our Covenant and our Story; not from the IDF, but from the scribes and prophets of Jerusalem.” In fact, I no longer feel inclined to read about the Holocaust, despite being from a family of both survivors and victims. On a note related to Mamdani, I know I sound like a defeatist—but it is becoming exhausting to try to convince those whose eyes remain shut.
>> "I no longer feel inclined to read about the Holocaust, despite being from a family of both survivors and victims." <<
I, too, no longer feel so inclined. I got my fill decades ago. Yes, I remember. Never forget. But also: Eyes on the Prize.
"On a note related to Mamdani, I know I sound like a defeatist—but it is becoming exhausting to try to convince those whose eyes remain shut."
Yes, about Mamdani... and about so many other things. Do people ever really change their minds? We make some choices in life, we commit to a worldview -- and then we spend most of our time searching for ways to buttress the fort we've spent so much time and effort constructing. Once in a while, though, it happens: a window opens and we see the world anew. Or so I hope.
How, then, do you understand this? >>"He was a signatory to several PNAC public statements, including one from 1998 accusing President Clinton of having "capitulated" to Saddam Hussein and calling on the United States to do everything necessary to remove him from power in Iraq. In America at the Crossroads, Fukuyama suggests regret for that signature but says that "an American invasion of Iraq was not then in the cards, however, and would not be until the events of September 11, 2001."
Nonetheless, on September 20, 2001, Fukuyama signed another public PNAC letter declaring, "even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq." <<
Read the part in literally the very next paragraph where it says, “In the course of 2002, however, Fukuyama took part in a study on long-term U.S. strategy in the War on Terror: "It was at this point that I finally decided the war [with Iraq] didn't make any sense", he writes in America at the Crossroads. He also began to think through his wider differences with the neoconservative movement. As a result of this analysis, Fukuyama takes issue in his new book with the now-widespread excuse of neoconservatives and liberal hawks that the disasters in Iraq have been the result of unpredictably incompetent execution by the Bush Administration, rather than of the ideas that led to war”
Ah ok. I see what you’re saying: Fukuyama *admitted* he was wrong. He recanted prior to the actual invasion of Iraq. Yes, that’s true. … My point was more about his idea that liberal democracy is the "end point of mankind's ideological evolution," which doesn’t look so smart anymore. A billion Muslims have a very different vision of history. So do the Chinese. So does Yoram Hazony and his National Conservatism movement, which is aggressively illiberal. … Fukuyama has spent years trying to clarify what his book *really* means. However he parses it, though, the book was his big swing to provide a master theory of history. Problem is, what Marx was to Lenin, Fukuyama was to the neocons: **Here’s the endpoint, the goal, the final solution, so why postpone the inevitable? Why not just step on History’s accelerator and make The End happen?** … So, I still consider him to be one of many people who has claimed to have figured it all out, and, as a result, wreaked immense havoc.
There is (only) one clear reason for Universal Human Rights: if a hunan gets disrespected, neglected, tortured, misused, they all ferl the same pain. In Tahiti, with British or Indian accent, in Pakistan, Israel, Argentinia, Russia etc pp. Don“ t know what there should be so hard to understand or to explain.
No argument from me, H. But your comment makes me wonder: Why has this human being been "neglected, tortured, and misused"? The problem isn't that someone's rights were not respected; the problem is that someone has lost sight of his *responsibilities* -- to love your neighbor, and to welcome the stranger. >> Something tells me that a community built around mutual responsibility has a better chance of surviving and thriving than a community built around individual rights. ... Rights and responsibilities are not mutually exclusive, of course. But it's worth pondering which one a society should emphasize the most.
Well, both videos pissed me off good and proper. Mamdani because every word he said is true--if you substitute Israel for Palestine. And substitute thousands of years of homeland seeking instead of a few decades that began after all the surrounding Arab/Muslim countries said "no thanks."
And Bernie? Because he was poor? He doesn't even know enough about being Jewish to know the point of Exodus? Or that "care for widows, orphans, and the strangers within your gates" is the most repeated line in the Tanakh? No wonder the DSA progressives like him as their pet Jew. How bleached out his Judaism is!
I just can’t stand the guy (Mamdani). I would like to wipe that smug look off his face. But I promise to read this later and address the substance and not merely my visceral reaction to Mamdani’s spewing his nonsensical rhetoric and people swooning at same. Glad you are on Gary’s side — from the short piece of this I read Gary has his head on straight and not up Mamdani’s arse.
Thanks much for the support, EE. And don't feel compelled to read the whole thing. Gary & Alan needed some editing on this one. It's twice as long as it should be. 😖
This was great. I finished it. I also took the time to listen to all the videos—except that Who song (I’ll listen later).
Mamdani is a very dangerous man. He is dangerous because he is arrogant. And he is a liar. “SE Asian Muslims can’t feel at home in NYC?” Please.
And when has PEP ever been a thing (progressive except Palestine)? And wrapping yourself in a keffiyeh only highlights his ideological dishonesty. Trace it—hijacked by an Egyptian who never lived in so-called Palestine and belongs to Iraqi culture. But yeah, “bring it” because I am the cool Muslim who goes to bars.
I love the allusion to Marxists become Quakers (I had to throw that in…made me laugh).
House cats and the Pope? I get it — the whole answer to everything issue. Catholics believe the Pope should be followed because “Jesus chose Peter (Cephas)” so we anachronistically make him the first Pope.
And don’t even get me started on this fool not believing in hierarchical states. Yeah okay.
I am more interested in Holland and his need for stories (which is important to you). We each have them, don’t we?
And it is true—surrendering to the truth of stories is fascinating. Truly. But someone explain Lot’s wife and not looking back thing. When I was a kid I asked my mom if the pillar statue of her was still there. Mom told me she probably got washed away over the millennia. Made sense to me.
You know that just makes me want to read it even more. 😆
When I was teaching my Introduction to Judaism course, I purposefully left out the unit on the Holocaust. I share this sentiment: “Jews should be defined not by the bad things that happen in life and in history, but by the promise of a better world to come—not after we die, but in this world, on the stage of human history. This redemptive vision emerges not from the death camps, but from Jewish life; not from the defeat of Hitler, but from the embrace of our Covenant and our Story; not from the IDF, but from the scribes and prophets of Jerusalem.” In fact, I no longer feel inclined to read about the Holocaust, despite being from a family of both survivors and victims. On a note related to Mamdani, I know I sound like a defeatist—but it is becoming exhausting to try to convince those whose eyes remain shut.
>> "I no longer feel inclined to read about the Holocaust, despite being from a family of both survivors and victims." <<
I, too, no longer feel so inclined. I got my fill decades ago. Yes, I remember. Never forget. But also: Eyes on the Prize.
"On a note related to Mamdani, I know I sound like a defeatist—but it is becoming exhausting to try to convince those whose eyes remain shut."
Yes, about Mamdani... and about so many other things. Do people ever really change their minds? We make some choices in life, we commit to a worldview -- and then we spend most of our time searching for ways to buttress the fort we've spent so much time and effort constructing. Once in a while, though, it happens: a window opens and we see the world anew. Or so I hope.
Who is supposed to be wrong, Gary or mamdani?
I'm on Gary's side.
You’re misrepresenting Fukuyama, who according to the very source material you cited, was not in favor of the Iraq invasion at the time.
How, then, do you understand this? >>"He was a signatory to several PNAC public statements, including one from 1998 accusing President Clinton of having "capitulated" to Saddam Hussein and calling on the United States to do everything necessary to remove him from power in Iraq. In America at the Crossroads, Fukuyama suggests regret for that signature but says that "an American invasion of Iraq was not then in the cards, however, and would not be until the events of September 11, 2001."
Nonetheless, on September 20, 2001, Fukuyama signed another public PNAC letter declaring, "even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq." <<
Read the part in literally the very next paragraph where it says, “In the course of 2002, however, Fukuyama took part in a study on long-term U.S. strategy in the War on Terror: "It was at this point that I finally decided the war [with Iraq] didn't make any sense", he writes in America at the Crossroads. He also began to think through his wider differences with the neoconservative movement. As a result of this analysis, Fukuyama takes issue in his new book with the now-widespread excuse of neoconservatives and liberal hawks that the disasters in Iraq have been the result of unpredictably incompetent execution by the Bush Administration, rather than of the ideas that led to war”
Ah ok. I see what you’re saying: Fukuyama *admitted* he was wrong. He recanted prior to the actual invasion of Iraq. Yes, that’s true. … My point was more about his idea that liberal democracy is the "end point of mankind's ideological evolution," which doesn’t look so smart anymore. A billion Muslims have a very different vision of history. So do the Chinese. So does Yoram Hazony and his National Conservatism movement, which is aggressively illiberal. … Fukuyama has spent years trying to clarify what his book *really* means. However he parses it, though, the book was his big swing to provide a master theory of history. Problem is, what Marx was to Lenin, Fukuyama was to the neocons: **Here’s the endpoint, the goal, the final solution, so why postpone the inevitable? Why not just step on History’s accelerator and make The End happen?** … So, I still consider him to be one of many people who has claimed to have figured it all out, and, as a result, wreaked immense havoc.
2002 took place after 2001 and before 2003 for context.
There is (only) one clear reason for Universal Human Rights: if a hunan gets disrespected, neglected, tortured, misused, they all ferl the same pain. In Tahiti, with British or Indian accent, in Pakistan, Israel, Argentinia, Russia etc pp. Don“ t know what there should be so hard to understand or to explain.
No argument from me, H. But your comment makes me wonder: Why has this human being been "neglected, tortured, and misused"? The problem isn't that someone's rights were not respected; the problem is that someone has lost sight of his *responsibilities* -- to love your neighbor, and to welcome the stranger. >> Something tells me that a community built around mutual responsibility has a better chance of surviving and thriving than a community built around individual rights. ... Rights and responsibilities are not mutually exclusive, of course. But it's worth pondering which one a society should emphasize the most.