<< COLDENING EXPLAINED ~ MAIN ~ MR CATMEAT REQUIRES CONTEXT >>
NEW YORK MONEY PEOPLE
Shmuel Rosner notes a troubling line from General Wesley Clark:
You just have to read what’s in the Israeli press. The Jewish community is divided, but there is so much pressure being channeled from the New York money people to the office seekers.
To which Republican Jewish Coalition executive director Matthew Brooks responds:
This is yet another sign that the veiled and not-so-veiled anti-semitic sentiments that are rampant in the left-wing blogosphere are seeping into the ‘mainstream’ of Democrats’ political discourse.
Sure looks like it. This may be of interest to the San Francisco Chronicle’s Jon Carroll, who last year decided that George W. Bush’s criticism of the New York Times was motivated by an opposition to Jews:
The name of the New York Times contains the word “New York.” Many members of the president’s base consider “New York” to be a nifty code word for “Jewish.” It is very nice for the president to be able to campaign against the Jews without (a) actually saying the word “Jew” and (b) without irritating the Israelis.
Not to mention those “New York money people”, eh, Jon?
Behold, relevant wisdom from General Wesley Clark, the man who damn near started World War III.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2007 01 11 at 11:03 AM • permalinkNYT is code for upper class, bubble dwelling, Democrat newsletter. But as a die hard member of W’s base, I never really associated it with Jews.
In fact, if the writer would bother to check, he would find that the blogs read by Bush’s base, Lucianne, Powerline, this blog to name three, are the farthest thing from anti-semetic. But to know that would require leaving the bubble…
Liberals simply can’t break themselves of the habit of impugning conservatives with anti-Semitism, even when the evidence to the contrary is everywhere. It might have been relevant once - fifty or sixty years ago, perhaps - but they can’t let go of comforting cliches, such as the intolerant plutocrat bigot in his striped pants and morning coat, striding through his restricted-access clubroom muttering to another Powerful Old White Man about the uppity yids with their red propaganda his son is meeting at Harvard, and how the quotas on hymies should be lowered. It made them feel righteous when they saw it in Gentleman’s Agreement, and it’s all about feeling good, isn’t it? The hell with the truth.
I don’t know how many times I’ve had to try and convince my (Jewish) boss that most, if not all, of the conservatives I know are de facto Zionists, and that the biggest anti-Semites I knew were on the left. Sadly, some of the most ardent anti-Israel types I knew were Jewish, to boot. Still, I’m obliged to wrap my head around that contradiction; for liberals, that’s too much like work.
Posted by rick mcginnis on 2007 01 11 at 11:21 AM • permalinkHmmmm.
It’s rather funny really.
1. I’ve never heard of anyone using “New York” as a code phrase for Jews. And I can’t imagine anyone I know ever using something like that.
2. I fully and completely support Israel in many ways. I don’t do it for politics. I don’t do it because Israel is Jewish. I support Israel because it’s an ally and a democracy.
3. Man if those commentators at Rosner’s site think Clark’s comments are bad. They’ll have a heart attack if they ever visit Kos.
Posted by memomachine on 2007 01 11 at 11:40 AM • permalinkSo, show of hands: how many people at the Chronicle have ever worked as a shabbas goy?? How many Bush-voting RWDB’s? *Raises hand*
For a guy who works for a man who jumps in pits with giant carnivorous lizards , Mr. Carroll seems surprisingly confident of his judgment of human nature…
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2007 01 11 at 11:40 AM • permalinkI’m afraid I don’t appreciate your New York humour, Gen. Clark.
/the west wing [and, apparently] /jon carrollPosted by andycanuck on 2007 01 11 at 11:51 AM • permalinkCarroll’s article is typical liberal Democrat hypocrisy.
What the liberal Democrats did in WWII…
“Franklin Delano Roosevelt establishes the Office of Censorship in 1941 to censor communications between the United States and foreign countries and to prevent news organizations from publishing information the enemy might be interested in. Roosevelt appoints Byron Price, a respected journalist, to run the office. Price accepts the post on the condition that the media can voluntarily agree to self-censorship. The office employs 14,462 civilians to monitor cable, mail, and radio communications between the United States and other nations. The office closes in 1945.”
“The Office of War Information (OWI) is established in 1942 to control the flow of information between government agencies and manage the release of war news. The OWI opens an overseas branch and successfully transmits news and propaganda over the radio. The office closes in 1945.”
“Correspondents are allowed to travel with troops provided all writing is submitted to military censors prior to publication. In 1942 the press voluntarily accepts a Code of Wartime Practices.”
“No photographs of American dead are released to the public for the first two years of World War II. In 1943 the ban on photographs of the dead is partially lifted in an attempt to galvanize public support for the war. Graphic photographs and pictures showing faces of the dead are still censored.”
To put it bluntly, the liberal Democrats established TOTAL press censorship in WWII to prevent the press from leaking information that would be of value to the enemy, and also to prevent them from releasing information (like pictures of dead Americans) that would hurt national morale. And, though this article doesn’t make it clear, they bluntly told the media that if they wouldn’t agree to censor themselves, then the government would put them in prison (which almost happened to one guy who wrote a story for a Chicago newspaper that revealed details about the battle of Midway that Roosevelt didn’t want released).
Do me a favor, Carroll…keep your liberal hypocrisy under wraps…it’s sickening and boring.
Posted by Dave Surls on 2007 01 11 at 12:18 PM • permalinkI’ve never heard of anyone using “New York” as a code phrase for Jews. And I can’t imagine anyone I know ever using something like that.
Generally “New York City” is “code” for “urban, upscale, crowded, metropolitan”. Some of that is meant negatively, some of it isn’t. It’s largely shorthand for “the opposite of small-town life”.
Thus the salsa commercial in which cowboys express outrage that their salsa was made in New York City.
Posted by Rob Crawford on 2007 01 11 at 12:38 PM • permalink‘Seeping’!?! I call it an outright flood.
Remember the mock impeachment the Democrats held (was that last year) in which antisemitic literature was passed around and known antisemites were called to testify?
Posted by Rob Crawford on 2007 01 11 at 12:40 PM • permalinkI can’t recall one instance of anti-semitic statements on a rightwing blog. But I can think of several on leftwing blogs. Margo Kingston’s infamous statement about the Jewish control of the press comes to mind.
Posted by wronwright on 2007 01 11 at 01:14 PM • permalink#7 Rick, I know what you are saying. I work in NY with a number of Jews who are Democrats. They universally believe the biggest threats to them are Christians, Republicans and Geo. W. Bush. Muslims? not on their radar. A shill for terrorists such as Jimmy Carter? their eyes glaze over. They believe everything in the NY Times.
>#7 Rick, I know what you are saying. I work in NY with a number of Jews who are Democrats. They universally believe the biggest threats to them are Christians, Republicans and Geo. W. Bush. Muslims? not on their radar. A shill for terrorists such as Jimmy Carter? their eyes glaze over. They believe everything in the NY Times.
It is transference and fear. George Bush is probably not going to cut your head off which shouting Allah Ackbar—DIE JEW DIE! But some bin Laden wannabe hoping for 72 virgins just might. So in fear of the wannabe, they instead point their fear at Bush
The name of the New York Times contains the word “New York.” Many members of the president’s base consider “New York” to be a nifty code word for “Jewish.” It is very nice for the president to be able to campaign against the Jews without (a) actually saying the word “Jew” and (b) without irritating the Israelis.
Wow. You need GPS and a roadmap to follow that train of thought. That’s just this side of schizophrenic. And I like how the dolt states with such confidence that “Many members of the president’s base consider ‘New York’ to be a nifty code word for ‘Jewish.’” Name one, idiot.
#23 Dave S.
He has no examples, he’s just trying to deflect. The increasingly common and open anti-Semitism of the “anti-war” Left (the pervasive use of “neocon” as a perjorative primarily aimed at “pro-war” and pro-israel Jews, for example*) is starting to worry their leading wordsmiths.
*Asking them to name some “neocons” and you’ll more than likely get a list of Jewish names, like Perle, Wolfowitz, Kristol, Kagan, Ledeen, Horowitz, and Rumsfeld (without realising he’s not Jewish, his name just sounds that way). Usually, this is also accompanied by denunciations of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), many of whose more prominent members are Jewish.
Posted by Spiny Norman on 2007 01 11 at 03:53 PM • permalinkGeneral Wesley Clark. Another Roads Scholar. Yes I know it’s spelled incorrectly, but I use the same spelling for William Jefferson Clinton.
Bit of his family history…
Clark’s paternal great-grandfather immigrated to the United States from Belarus in response the Pale of Settlement and anti-Semitic violence from pogroms. Clark’s father, Benjamin J. Kanne, had graduated from the Chicago-Kent College of Law and served in the US Naval Reserve as an ensign during World War I though was never assigned to a combat mission. Kanne, living in Chicago, Illinois, became involved with politics in the 1920s as a prosecutor and serving in a variety of local offices. He would go on to serve as a delegate to the 1932 Democratic National Convention held in Chicago Stadium that nominated Franklin D. Roosevelt for president.[3] Kanne came from the Kohen family line,[4] and Clark’s son has characterized his grandparent’s marriage, between Jewish Benjamin and Methodist Veneta Kanne [5] as “about as multicultural as you could’ve gotten in 1944.”[6]
Kinda like a BLowenstein, huh? Despises his heritage.
Funny, I always thought “pssst, I can get it for you wholesale” was code for “Jewish”. But maybe that’s only for New York Jews. Or is that redundant? Idiots.
Posted by Kyda Sylvester on 2007 01 11 at 04:40 PM • permalinkGood god, I live in New York—Manhattan, also know as The City—and all I can tell you is you’d have to be awful naive to believe “New York” was a code word for something narrowly specific as “the joos”. That’s paranoid conspiracy theory territory.
If there’s one thing to be said about “New York”, it’s that it stands for lots of things (because it is lots of things).
Moscow on the Hudson.
The City that never sleeps.
Wall Street.
Madison Avenue (advertising biz).
Boss Tweed and Tammany Hall (political corruption).
Times Square (crossroads of the world).
Broadway theatre district (the Great White Way).
The Twin Towers and 9/11.I’d go on, but that would be pointless.
Cheers.
When a young bloke who grew up in New York looked like marrying our daughter, we were warned by American friends that our biggest problem would be his New York accent.
It was bad, but it turned out to be the least of our worries. Keeping him out of jail was the hard part.
I hasten to add that none of the people in this story are Jews.Left-wing hatred of Jews is nothing new. The Soviet Union was as barbaric towards Jews as Nazi Germany but nowhere near as efficient. One has to remember that the left effectively supported Hitler until he attacked the left’s supreme leader at the time, Stalin. Hitler, a National SOCIALIST, then became the lesser of two heroes. The Holocaust gave the left another weapon to attack the “enemies” of Communism, branding Hitler as extreme right when he was really extreme left. Not much laissez-fair capitalism in Nazi Germany, which was as tightly controlled and centralised economy as anything under communism.
But 60 years on, the left has new heroes in Islamic fundamentalism and ratbags such as Chavez and Ahmadinejad. And once again the intrinsic anti-semitism of the left bubbles to the surface.
How much longer are American Jews going to vote Democrat?
Dem GOP
Jewish (2%) 87% 12%
[CNN Exit Poll]
How many more Jimmy Carters and Wesley Sharps before they finally realise the world has both changed enormously since the 1950’s and stayed the same?
It was once rare for an Australian Jew to vote conservative and with good reason. Now it is not rare
A 1991 survey of the Melbourne Jewish community conducted by John Goldlust found that 24.5 per cent favoured the ALP and 63.5 per cent the Coalition. Equally, a 1995 survey of Jewish leaders in Australia, conducted by Professor Bernard Rechter for the Australian Institute of Jewish Affairs, found that 26 per cent would vote ALP and 64 per cent Liberal.
Also with many good reasons. Gough Whitlam. Bill Hartley. Julia Irwin ... and so on and so on.
Also because of
this.Former ALP minister Barry Cohen used to be proud of his party because it fought prejudice. Not any longer…
According to my teevee, “New York City” is the code for really bad salsa.
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2007 01 11 at 09:06 PM • permalink#12
Interestingly, that reporter for the Chicago Tribune who wrote a story about Midway that almost got him jailed was an Australian. The key point was that he had incorporated information in the story that had come from cryptanalysis of Japanese radio messages, the deepest secret of the war. Showing him the message destroyed the career of the naval officer who did so. Had the Japanese tumbled to the breaking of their codes from this incident not only would have Allied intel in the Pacific been crippled, but a vital source of intel about the European Theater would also have been lost. Intercepts of the diplomatic telegrams sent by the Japanese ambassador to Berlin were vital for the ETO. He was a lieutenant general, and so trusted by the Nazis that they told and showed him almost everything, including a tour of Atlantic Wall fortifications which he, a trained staff officer, critiqued in his telegram home. All this might have been lost by that one misstep in a single reporter’s story. If the FDR Administration kept a close eye on news censorship in WWII they had good reason to do so.As for antisemitism, it is becoming important among Democrats. Jimmy Carter has now let his hatred of Jews come out of the closet. Al Sharpton is a kingmaker in Democratic politics, to such an extent that even Joe Liebermann had to lick his boots in 2000 in order to become VP nominee (it profiteth a man not to sell his soul for the world Joseph, but for the Vice Presidency?). It’s Democrats who elect people like Cynthia McKinney, overt antisemites. Pat Buchanan was run out of the mainstream of the conservative movement and the Republican Party when his Jew-hatred became overt, and was last heard from in the Reform Party with a former (presumably) Marxist as his running mate. And it was Democrats and other liberal/leftists who were using “Neo-con” as a euphemism for “Jewish”. Nor does the hatred of Israel and of Jews expressed on the moonbat sites seem to bother the Dems who look to the nutroots for support.
Posted by Michael Lonie on 2007 01 11 at 09:42 PM • permalink“If the FDR Administration kept a close eye on news censorship in WWII they had good reason to do so.”
And, liberals are all for government press censorship when it’s their boys who impose it, and 100% against the rival political party even suggesting that the papers should watch what they publish in the interest of their nation.
Liberals are shit. Guys like the people who run the New York Tmes would sell their mothers into slavery if they thought it would sell more papers, and would betray their country in a New York Times second if they thought it would hurt the Republicans.
Miserable bastards ought to be lined up against a wall and shot.
Posted by Dave Surls on 2007 01 11 at 10:21 PM • permalinkSo let’s just change the paper’s name to the Jew Talk Times.
Yeah, I like it…
Posted by carpefraise on 2007 01 11 at 10:56 PM • permalinkI don’t drink coffee I’ll have latte ya hear
And tho the town votes for my side
You can hear the paranoia when I talk
I’m a democrat in New York
Hear me talking ‘bout the filthy Jews
Although most vote for my side
Anti-semitic everytime I talk
I’m a democrat in New York
I’m an alien I’m pro palestinian
I’m a democrat in New York
I’m an alien I’m pro palestinian
I’m a democrat in New York
Posted by eeniemeenie on 2007 01 12 at 07:17 AM • permalinkMaybe I’m just showing my age, but when I hear ``New York money people’’ I think of Rockefellers and Vanderbilts.
Posted by Sonetka's Mom on 2007 01 12 at 09:40 AM • permalinkHmmmm.
@ Rob Crawford
Generally “New York City” is “code” for “urban, upscale, crowded, metropolitan”. Some of that is meant negatively, some of it isn’t. It’s largely shorthand for “the opposite of small-town life”.
Actually here in New Jersey, “New York” is generally shorthand for a aggravating bad driver twit who keeps on wanting to make a left-hand turn where it’s not allowed.
Posted by memomachine on 2007 01 12 at 10:21 AM • permalinkThis year’s big hit on Broadway was the revival of “Money People on the Roof” with all-Israeli cast…
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2007 01 12 at 11:14 AM • permalinkTargeting was off, somone forgot to paint the cross.
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2007 01 12 at 09:21 PM • permalinkMeanwhile in The Australian, Martin Chulov [who believes in the rocketed Lebanese ambulances] quotes reliable and logical sources in Iraq for our learning.
This man and his interviewee really help us all undertand the Middle East!:
“For Arabs, there is a sectarian and ethnic struggle, almost a civil war,” says Bazzaz. “But the war is not a civil war. And it would not necessarily lead to disintegration and divisions. We believe that there are external forces influenced by Persians. But the vast majority want unity in Iraq.
“We do not know where we are heading to. There are powers that are steering in a way that suits their interests. That’s why, we as Iraqis, are in a vehicle and we do not know who’s navigating us, or driving us. The strategy refers to the police and armed forces as if they are neutral parties, while the problem lies in these people.
“We want the Americans to depart, and leave Iraq for its people. We do not wish to be a second Lebanon, or another Sudan for that matter. We Iraqis will stand together when this government leaves.”
Come again? So you mean you will all know how to steer out of a civil war, which isn’t and won’t be, because you will be united without a government or the Americans?
Sounds like Chulov has tapped into a great political mind like his own!
Page 1 of 1 pages
Members:
Login | Register
| Member List
Let’s put that in the “not-so-veiled” category.