Rafique's blog

Consider this:

I just updated my will and trust and, with heavy heart, cut out what was a significant bequest to my alma mater, Brooklyn College.

What caused the disinheritance is that all incoming freshmen and transfer students are given a copy of a book to read, and no other, to create their “common experience.” This same book is one of the readings in their required English course. The author is a radical pro-Palestinian professor there.

When I attended in the 1960s, Brooklyn College – then rated one of the tops in the country -- was, like most campuses, quite liberal. But, there was no official policy to inculcate students with a political viewpoint. Now there is. That is unacceptable.

That is to say, it has ceased to be liberal. Read the rest.

HT: Althouse

Steven Weiss, on the misunderstood relationship between Christian Zionists, and the Jews:

Christian Zionist theology aside, there's still the controversy over Hagee himself, appropriately summarized by the New Republic's Jonathan Chait. Hagee's said a lot to infuriate Jews: that the Holocaust was God's way of promoting Zionism and that Jews brought anti-Semitism upon themselves through their own faithless actions. I'm not going to defend Hagee's words here, because I don't agree with them and think he should never have said them. As a descendant of survivors of the Holocaust and pogroms—and, more importantly, of many nonsurvivors—I find them offensive.

But people say and believe a great many things I find offensive all the time, from pulpits Jewish and otherwise. What those people don't do, but Hagee does, is transform millions of people into lovers of the Jewish people. While watching Hagee speak live at the CUFI summit, inveighing against anti-Semitism and declaring, to the applause of thousands of Christians, "If a line has to be drawn, then draw it around both Christians and Jews, around Americans and Israelis," I got chills.

Read the whole thing.

ADDED: In a related story, it has been said that those who hate and destroy other groups of human beings they deem beneath them, hate and destroy themselves. I'm not sure how the quote really goes, but it's true. It really is true.

HT: Jaltcoh

It's so hilarous, it's almost tragic:

TIME Announces New Version Of Magazine Aimed At Adults

HT: The Daily Dish

This clip of Sen. Harry Reid from 1993 has been circulating around the blogosphere, of him railing against birthright citizenship. The apparent intent of the clip, judging by the tagline, is his alleged hypocrisy on the issue. Now, my assumptions could be wrong here, but I'm assuming this is being used by opponents of birthright citizenship to bolster their case, but if that's true, I fail to see how this advances their argument an inch. At the very least, Reid has changed his mind, or seen the light, if you want my two cents. At worst, all this shows is that he's a hypocrite, which is plausible, considering his recent behavior, but says nothing about the merits of changing the 14th Amendment. Just sayin' is all.

HT: Althouse

"I am first of all a white man, and only then a socialist," he said, and he meant it. His socialism followed a strict apartheid: It was for his pigmentary group alone. Every other ethnic group, he said, should be subjugated—or exterminated. "The history of civilization is a history of wandering—a wandering, sword in hand, of strong breeds, clearing away and hewing down the weak and less fit," he said coolly. "The dominant races are robbing and slaying in every corner of the globe." This was a good thing, because "they were unable to stand the concentration and sustained effort which pre-eminently mark the races best fitted to live in this world."

The blood-curdling words, of Jack London. Read the whole thing.

HT: Althouse

It seems she has abandoned the faith (HT: Sully):

I quit being a Christian. I'm out. In the name of Christ, I refuse to be anti-gay. I refuse to be anti-feminist. I refuse to be anti-artificial birth control. I refuse to be anti-Democrat. I refuse to be anti-secular humanism. I refuse to be anti-science. I refuse to be anti-life. In the name of ...Christ, I quit Christianity and being Christian. Amen.

Dear God, there aren't sufficient words in the English language to describe how ridiculous this is. I'm not sure how firm her commitment was before this, but I think we ought to pray for her--to treat such critical matters of the soul with such weak reasoning, it's distressing. She is or was Catholic, and I'm Protestant, but that shouldn't be an issue. Abandoning one's commitment to the faith is not something to toy with.

Rod Dreher makes this point:

I'm sorry, but this is weak, and makes me wonder what really happened. Surely a woman of her age and experience cannot possibly believe that the entirety of Christianity, current and past, can be reduced to the cultural politics of the United States of America in the 21st century. Does she really know no liberal Christians? Has she never picked up a copy of Commonweal? Does she really think that if she asked a Christian on the streets of Nairobi or Tegucigalpa what they, as Christians, thought of Nancy Pelosi, they would have the slightest idea what she was talking about? And Christianity, anti-science? Good grief. Has she not noticed that Catholic Church, to which she did belong until yesterday, has affirmed evolution, and embraces science? How can a woman of her putative sophistication really think that Christianity is nothing more than a section of the Republican Party at prayer?

Indeed. More to the point, I think when one has a genuine, Spirit-led encounter with Christ, these sorts of political distractions shouldn't affect you. Besides, it's all bunk. Anti-science? Anti-feminist? Give me a break.

Pray for her.

Hitch, still hard at work, on the comical-but-not-really-that comical derangement of Hugo Chavez:

I was hugely impressed by the way that the boss scorned this overture. He essentially doubted the existence of al-Qaida, let alone reports of its attacks on the enemy to the north. "I don't know anything about Osama Bin Laden that doesn't come to me through the filter of the West and its propaganda." To this, Penn replied that surely Bin Laden had provided quite a number of his very own broadcasts and videos. I was again impressed by the way that Chávez rejected this proffered lucid-interval lifeline. All of this so-called evidence, too, was a mere product of imperialist television. After all, "there is film of the Americans landing on the moon," he scoffed. "Does that mean the moon shot really happened? In the film, the Yanqui flag is flying straight out. So, is there wind on the moon?" As Chávez beamed with triumph at this logic, an awkwardness descended on my comrades, and on the conversation.

Read the whole thing.

"... that violate human rights not in deviation from their own principles but systematically. This underscores their bad faith."

Jacob Weisberg, on the rank and insidious hypocrisy of the various Hollywood celebrities boycottting Israel:

Boycotters are not trying to send a specific message, such as "We object to your settlement policy in the West Bank" or "We think you need to be willing to give up more for peace." What they're saying instead is: "We consider your country so intrinsically reprehensible that we are go[i]ng to treat all of your citizens as pariahs."

A good start, in trying to cut through the hysteria and bluster, over the JournoList revelations, from Philip Bump, at Mediaite:

The takeaway for today: a group of journalists who have a tacit bias seek to undermine a narrative they disagree with. But that takeaway is as much about the Daily Caller and Breitbart as it is about the subject of the original article. Those who think that there wasn’t the same email back-and-forth between Caller staff and Breitbart as there was between those who signed the letter the Caller criticizes are, I’m afraid, a bit naive. If those emails came to light, what should we think of them?

And that brings us to the key question in this tempest. Which is worse: a journalist who strives to be objective but is seen as partisan – or one who strives to be partisan and is seen as objective?

Right.

Now, please don't misunderstand--I'm not defending any of this. The whole JournoList enterprise seems to me to have been flawed from the start--an almost self-parody of entrenched liberal groupthink journalism with a clear political agenda. This sort of behavior ought to be opposed by both sides, and the whole thing smells foul. My only point is that we ought not take things beyond what the facts show, or in the interest of combating agenda-driven journalism, place much stock in the analysis of those who have a clear-record of agenda-driven journalism.

Or, as an unlikely source puts it:

I'm glad Journo-list is over. It should never have been begun. I know many of its members are good and decent and fair-minded writers. But socialized groupthink is not the answer to what's wrong with the media. It's what's already wrong with the media.

ADDED: This is what I'm talking about. I don't think I've ever seen such a hatchet-job in quite some time, with the embrassing and shameful enabling by the USDA, and the White House. Shame on Breitbart, the NAACP, Vilsack, and the White House. Shame.

"... if they haven't been dispensed with already. This is a lesson that gays ignore at their peril."

Jamie Kirchick sounds off on the banning of the Tel Aviv float in Madrid's big gay pride parade. Apparently, hating on Israel just seems to take precedence over everything these days:

Like so many other democratic values, when it comes to gay rights Israel is an oasis in a sea of state-sanctioned repression, a "little patch," to use Mr. Poveda's words, that he and his comrades ought to defend. Gays serve openly in the Israeli military. While gay marriages can't be legally performed in Israel, the government grants gay couples many of the same rights as heterosexual ones and recognizes same-sex unions performed abroad. Many Palestinian gays seek asylum in Israel.

You know, this reminds me of, I think it was a comedy bit, that mocked a real life group that was called "Gays for Palestine." The thing is, anyone who supported such groups would neccessarily be oblivious of what actually happens to gays in Palestine, and Iran, and Saudi Arabia, and, well you get the idea.

HT: Frum, at the Dish

"...and tell me it's the 'most revolutionary rain storm ever!' "

but one salient point stands out. There is increasing concern amongst Israelis, and non-Obama hating supporters of Israel, about the direction of a number of Obama's policies concerning Israel. A regrettable portion of criticism of Obama's Israel policy has been hysterical and off the wall, but a great deal of it, especially from actual Israelis, is real, and valid, and to basically paint them all as Tom Tancredos is beneath you, Mr. President.

First, let's remember that Obama's first name is Barack, which is as much of Semitic language derivation as Hussein. Of course, that first name is found in Hebrew as well as Arabic. After all, Israel's defense minister is Ehud Barak and my Hebrew name sound the same though there are two different roots involved, while Hussein is more distinctively Arabic. But still, Obama's lack of awareness about the implications of his own name doesn't indicate a great depth of knowledge about the Middle East.

Second, Obama was initially--when he had the same name as he does now--quite popular in Israel as polls show. Only when he evinced hostility did the attitude of Israelis change sharply.

Third, that same name belies the impliction that Israelis are biased against him because of his middle name. Israelis, after all, have dealt with two famous Husseins: King Hussein of Jordan and Saddam Hussein of Iraq. The former was a good friend, the most popular Arab leader in Israeli history. (Note 1)

So one can be a good Hussein or a bad Hussein. Of course the issue with this third Hussein is his policies. And that's why I find his saying this thing far more upsetting.

I say again that the rift's degree has been exaggarated by some, but it is real, and this sort of thing isn't helping.

HT: Frum, at the Dish

ADDED: Looking over the actual video in context, his comments seem less harsh, but he still seems to be avoiding the reality that many of his actual policies have generated some real concern. I think Obama is going to have to take real steps to smooth things over, and actually address these concerns. This sort of rhetoric doesn't help.

Michael Totten spells it out clearly:

I was in Jerusalem the day he was inaugurated. Everyone knew his middle name then, and the Israelis I met on that trip swooned over him as much as my bohemian neighbors in Portland did. Whether for good reasons or bad, his plummeting poll numbers are based entirely on what has occurred between then and now.

He's still alive.

Now, it's a well-known fact that despite this latest uptick, Americans generally aren't big on soccer. There is debate on the myriad reasons why (low scoring, confusing rules, tie games, the fact that Europeans like it so much, etc). There has also been much debate over the cultural divides over soccer, with some unserious types taking it to the point of hysteria. Here's the thing: To the extent that soccer had any chance of making inroads into the hearts of American sports fans, this blatant screwjob may have killed that for the time being.

Mileage is as always your own with these things, but I just wanted to bring up this clip of Nevada Senate candidate Sharron Angle, apparently unwilling to answer basic questions about statements made on her website. When pressed, she gives dodgy half-answers, and accuses reporter Nathan Baca of shilling for Harry Reid. After the interview, Angle's handlers threw various insults. Watch the clip, and judge for yourself, but I see a classic example of a candidate unwilling to own up to her record, and blame the "liberal media."

But, lest anyone left-of-center get too full of themselves, at least she wasn't violent, like this guy.

That is ostensibly, the reason behind this, from Helen Thomas. Now the age-old debates about free speech, and whether people should be fired for saying outrageous things are free to be had, but irrelevant with regards to the validity and decency of her argument. I'm not sure what an apology what acomplish, seeing that she appears to believe what she says, and thus any apoolgy would be insincere. Now, it's possible that she really has lost it in her old age, but I doubt it.

Keep in mind, that the only logical outgrowth of her statement, that the Jews should "get the Hell out of Palestine," and return to Germany, Poland, etc, is that she refuses to acknowledge the legitimacy of the state of Israel, and that those who see the presence of Jews in the land as an oocupation are correct. This position is of course repulsive, ignorant of plain history, and untenable, but unless something is up--it's the one she holds. I think she will doubtless get a substantial amount of rebuke and comdemnation for this view from respectable quarters--and every bit of it, she deserves.

That's all.

Wow.

Chances are you may have heard a story about Israelis firing on an aid vessel bound for Gaza. You may have heard about how innocent aid workers were attacked by Israeli commandos. You'd have heard about how the international community is up in arms. Here's the thing:

It's a lie. A filthy lie. Don't get me wrong, the international community is in fact up in arms, but that's because they believed the lie. What else is new? In this clip, you can clearly see and hear the IDF warning the vessel about proper protocol:

The full story is here, and here.

HT: Michael Totten

"...that he will not stop until something explodes."

Michael Totten, on the fairy-tale, pipe dream thinking that apparently underlies the Obama Adminstration's decision to sign on to a new UN resolution, that purports to oppose nuclear weapons, yet sees Israel as the roadblock, not Iran--that is to say, the country that has been threatened is the problem, not the threatener.

Now, there are an increasing number of people beginning to cast real doubt about President Obama's commitment to Israel. I don't have those doubts, and I don't think this decision is based on any malice towards the Jewish state, but the sort of delusional thinking underlying this decision is not ehat I expected for a mature President. Many have accused Obama of operating out of a need to please world opinion, national security risks notwithstanding. I've never had any doubt that that idea was false--until now.

Rethink this one, Mr. President. You ought to know better.

I've written on this before, but the lesson has yet to be learned. There are supposed to people around the President whose to duty it is to remind him that maybe going to a fundraiser in San Francisco (aqain!!) is not the best idea right now, with a crisis on the Gulf Coast. People need to do their jobs.

You are the President. YOU. ARE. THE. PRESIDENT.

HT: Althouse, for the clip.