Joseph Epstein Cancels His 'New York Times' Subscription

At Weekly Standard:

The New York Times used to be called the Gray Lady of American newspapers. The sobriquet implied a certain stateliness, a sense of responsibility, the possession of high virtue. But the Gray Lady is far from the grande dame she once was. For years now she has been going heavy on the rouge, lipstick, and eyeliner, using a push-up bra, and gadding about in stiletto heels. She’s become a bit—perhaps more than a bit—of a slut, whoring after youth through pretending to be with-it. I’ve had it with the old broad; after nearly 50 years together, I’ve determined to cut her loose.

I have decided, that is, to cancel my subscription to the New York Times. For so many decades the paper has been part of my morning mental hygiene. Yet in recent years I’ve been reading less and less of each day’s paper. Most days now I do no more than scan the headlines on the front page, check the sports pages for the pitchers in that day’s White Sox and Cubs games, then flip over to the Irish sports pages, as the obits have been called, to see if anyone I know has pegged out.

I've never subscribed. I still get LAT, though, mostly so I'll have something to read --- anything --- while I'm away from online news. As for NYT, some readers might note that I'll normally include FWIW ("for what it's worth") when linking. Sometimes there's good information, and I need to discuss it. But you mostly just can't trust the reporting, so take it with some salt, as they say. It's a "feather in my hat," of course, to have forced a correction at the Times. So, I'll keep reading it to see if I can score another!

Anyway, Steven Givler quit the Times in 2006, and he's got his cancellation letter here: "Saying Goodbye to the New York Times."

Super Cool: Hubble Telescope Ultra Deep

Via Theo Spark's:

Brain Rage Chunky Vomit

I guess I hurt JBW's feelings with my last post repudiating the Brain Rage embrace of death-wish drug abuse:

...my favorite part of this post is Don's continued insistence, albeit indirectly this time, that I should somehow embrace him as some type of mentor based on his 13-14 years seniority of me. I hate to disappoint the guy but I've tried this particular song and dance in the patriarchal sense twice in my life and the results were less than stellar both times: my father ignored me until he was on his death bed and my step-father was a serial dick throughout my childhood, so I'm sure I can be excused for not embracing the intellectual arguments of someone who consistently calls me a loser or worse.

Been there. Done that.

It sucks JBW when no father-figures have been there for you. That's called father-hunger. My heart bleeds for you buddy. And of course your pain helps explain why you'd take cocaine over camaraderie. So I'll be blunt: Drugs suck. They're for losers. If you don't want to be a loser. Don't do drugs.

P.S. Sorry to hurt your feelings, but your post truly reminds me of "chunky vomit." And like the flummoxed muscle-bound macho teacher at the clip, you're hightailing it outta there when it comes to sophisticated engagements. Get some help dude.

No One Should Be Surprised at President Obama's Defense of the Planned Mosque at Ground Zero

Nope, no surprise.

See Neo-Neocon:

It’s another in a long series of stands Obama has taken that runs counter not only to the opinions of the majority of Americans, but of the vast majority of Americans—and what’s more, they’re the ones who’ve got the principle right while he’s the one who’s got it wrong.

Polls show that 64% of Americans disapprove of the building of the mosque there and only 30% approve. But in the same poll, 61% noted that the mosque-builders have the right to construct it there, while only 34% say the group doesn’t have that right.

All in all, a pretty good demonstration of the fact that Americans get the concept of freedom of religion, and they also get the concept of what is appropriate and what isn’t. Our supposed con law expert president appears to not understand these things—or not to care about making such fine distinctions, when it happens to suit his purposes to ignore them.

RELATED: Frank Gaffney, "Obama's Ground Zero Mosque." (Via Memeorandum.) And Gates of Vienna, "Obama vs. The Survivors of 9/11."

PREVIOUSLY: "How Close Is Close Enough?"

IMAGE CREDIT: Ghost of a Flea.

Billy Idol — GOODBYE EUROPE, HELLO AMERICA

Billy Idol talks about wrapping up the European leg of his world tour:

How Close Is Close Enough?

I'm still astounded that idiots like Charles Johnson make the unbeatably peurile argument that the mosque is "two blocks away from Ground Zero." It's really not a matter if distance. It's the symbolism. Still, how close is close enough? A landing gear away?

Above photo: A piece of the landing gear that crashed into the building of the proposed Ground Zero mega mosque. The only reason that building was sold for only 4.87 millions dollars (to an NYC waiter, Sharif El-Gamal) for such a distressed price was because of the damage from the 911 attack. That building is a war memorial, a piece of American history. The 911 attack on America continues unabated.

*****

Interesting that the anti-Semitic demonizers at Firedoglake make the same argument repeatedly, and here's the latest:

The Cordoba House, actively fearmongered by the right wing, has become a lightning rod for criticism across the country. In a recent poll, nearly 70% of all Americans oppose the construction of the Islamic Center, which has been falsely called a “Ground Zero mosque” (there’s a place of worship inside the Islamic Center, but it’s mainly a kind of YMCA for the Muslim community. And, it’s not on Ground Zero, but near it).

RELATED: Actually, looks like this is all too close for comfort for President Hussein. He stupidly threw fuel on the fire this morning. See, "Obama Says Mosque Remarks Were Not Endorsement":

President Obama said Saturday that in defending the right of Muslims to build a community center and mosque near ground zero in Lower Manhattan, he was “not commenting on the wisdom” of that project, but rather trying to uphold the broader principle that government should treat “everyone equal, regardless” of religion.

Mr. Obama, who was visiting the Gulf Coast with his wife and youngest daughter for an overnight stay, made his comments at the Coast Guard district station here.

On Friday night, he used the White House iftar, a sunset dinner celebrating the Muslim holiday of Ramadan, to weigh in on the mosque controversy.

In clarifying his remarks, Mr. Obama was apparently seeking to address criticism that he was using his presidential platform to promote a project that has aroused the ire of many New Yorkers. White House officials said earlier Saturday that Mr. Obama was not trying to promote that particular project, but rather sought to make a broader statement about freedom of religion and American values.

Later in the day, the White House press office elaborated further, issuing yet another statement.

“Just to be clear, the president is not backing off in any way from the comments he made last night,” it said.

Right. "Not backing off." Got it.

More at Memeorandum. See especially John Hinderaker on the left's unhinged terror apologists, "Obama's Finest Moment?":

Greg Sargent is a left-winger who worked for Editor & Publisher magazine. When that publication went broke, he caught on as a blogger at the Washington Post. Today he hailed President Obama's endorsement of Cordoba House as "One of the finest moments of Obama's presidency." That's damning with faint praise, some would say, but it is interesting to follow Sargent's logic. He agrees with us that Obama intended his remarks to be taken as a strong endorsement of the Ground Center mosque:

Obama didn't just stand up for the legal right of the group to build the Islamic center. He voiced powerful support for their moral right to do so as well, casting it as central to American identity. ... Obama went much further than [to acknowledge the legal rights of the project's backers]. He asserted that we must "welcome" and "respect" those of other faiths, suggesting that the group behind the center deserves the same, and said flat out that anything less is un-American.

I think that fairly sums up Obama's remarks. Sargent contrasts Obama's enthusiasm with the Cordoba House's reception on the right:

Many opponents of the project have been employing a clever little dodge. They say they don't question the group's legal right to build it under the Constitution. Rather, they say, they're merely criticizing the group's decision to do so, on the grounds that it's insensitive to 9/11 families and will undercut the project's goal of reconciliation. The group has the right to build the center, runs this argument, but they are wrong to exercise it.

That, too, fairly sums up our position and that of many conservatives. But why is this a "clever little dodge"? Does Sargent believe that everything a person has a legal right to do is a good thing? He never addresses any of the facts that cause critics of the Cordoba House project to believe that it is a bad idea: the cultural center's proposed location adjacent to Ground Zero; the fact that it is named after the capital of the Muslim caliphate in Spain; the fact that the person most closely identified with the project, Abdul Rauf, blamed the U.S. for the September 11 attacks; the curious reticence of the project's front men to explain where the $100 million needed for the cultural center will come from; and the plethora of mosques already available in New York at locations other than Ground Zero.

I've added the bold highlighting at the quote. Idiot leftists rarely discuss why the public has problems with this, and notice that part about "the cultural center's proposed location adjacent to Ground Zero..."

I noted previously how the Mega Mosque controversy was becoming a central political issue at the time of the 9th anniversary of 9/11. President Hussein has guaranteed that it'll be one of the top election issues in November as well.

In Solidarity: Lunch-Bucket Americans Against Ground Zero Mosque

Via Tammy Bruce:

Ronald Brownstein referred to "lunch-bucket" Americans in a recent piece on Democratic Party weaknesses: "Dems Face Losses In Blue-Collar Districts: The House districts of the late John Murtha and retiring David Obey are lunch-bucket Democratic seats that may turn Republican in the fall."

I'm still trying to figure out the upside for the Democrats and the Ground Zero Mega Mosque. It's not popular. Obama would have been better just staying away from that debate, especially in an election year: "CNN (!) Poll: Close to 70% of Americans Oppose the Ground Zero Mosque."

RELATED: Check William Kristol's post, "No, Mr. President" (via Memeorandum), and the link to Power Line. Also, "9/11 Families for a Safe & Strong America":

Barack Obama has abandoned America at the place where America’s heart was broken nine years ago, and where her true values were on display for all to see. Since that dark day, Americans have been asked to bear the burden of defending those values, again and again and again. Now this president declares that the victims of 9/11 and their families must bear another burden. We must stand silent at the last place in America where 9/11 is still remembered with reverence or risk being called religious bigots.

Never-Before Seen 9/11 Pictures

Via Twitter:

911 Pictures

See more presentations by drscherrey | Upload your own PowerPoint presentations

Spencer Ackerman Hearts Justin Beiber

Comedy gold, on Twitter:

The ATTACKERMAN sports yet another tat! PUNK ROCK.

RELATED: I'm Instalanched this morning on my Krauthammer demonization post. Damned Firedoglake assholes.

Get Your Heterosexuality Outta My Face!

Fom Davey Wavey:

Hey, I'm for equal time around here (barf!!).

California's Union Showdown

At Wall Street Journal:

Next month in California, nearly 45,000 Kaiser Permanente health-care workers will choose their union. America hasn't seen a private-sector labor election this big since the United Auto Workers organized Ford in 1941. By the time ballots are cast, tens of millions will have been spent on a six-week campaign as brutal as any political race this year. At stake? No less than the future of America's most powerful labor group, the Services Employees International Union.

What's also unusual about this election is that it doesn't pit union against employer, but union against union. Kaiser's workers were organized years ago by the SEIU. The drama started last year when Sal Rosselli, who ran the SEIU's huge California health-care local from Oakland, left to found a rival outfit called the National Union of Healthcare Workers (NUHW). His union has but 6,000 members; the SEIU claims 2 million. Mr. Rosselli has spent the last 18 months trying to steal away as many of the 150,000 members from his old SEIU local as possible through a series of union elections. "It's a real David and Goliath story," he says.

Kaiser—the SEIU's crown jewel in health care—is a possible game changer. Employees who hold some of the best-paying unionized jobs around will have the choice to switch from the SEIU to Mr. Rosselli's group. Californians make up a third of the union's members, so losing Kaiser would be a grave blow.

Of course, no union can afford to lose dues-paying members in a shrinking market for organized labor. Only 12% of the American workforce (7% in the private sector) belongs to a union today, down from 34% in the 1950s. Some see salvation in health care. America is aging, and ObamaCare will eventually push 30 million Americans into the health-insurance system, creating scores of new jobs along the way. "Outreach to nonunion workers is our top priority," says Mary Kay Henry, who took the helm of the SEIU in April.

First Ms. Henry must douse the fires started by Andy Stern, her controversial predecessor. In 14 years atop the SEIU, Mr. Stern pioneered a new labor strategy: Size brings power, so grow at all costs. He bullied and charmed companies to get them to unionize—often, claimed his critics, in exchange for weak contracts for the workers. He raided smaller unions. And he centralized power around the group's Washington headquarters. In a decade, the SEIU doubled its membership and became the single biggest contributor to the Democratic Party.

But Mr. Stern made powerful enemies in the House of Labor, which was one of the reasons cited for his surprise decision to step down this spring. California is the most fiercely fought campaign left over from his tenure.

More at the link.

Britney Spears Cosmopolitan Cover August 2010

Britney tweeted the cover shot, on Twitpic:

She's liberal as hell, but I still love her. (And I know some of my women readers can't stand the sexual liberation politics at Cosmo ... I'm just admiring Britney!!)

Gay Marriage Myths Meet the Worst Judge Ever

Two pieces that just devastate any rational basis for the recent U.S. Disctrict Court ruling striking down Proposition 8.

First is Michael Medved, "Gay Marriage Myths and Truth." This is an incredible fisking. Readers should spend some time with it, for example:

3. ”Failure to sanction gay marriage is based on the assumption that “same sex couples simply are not as good as opposite sex couples.” (This language appears verbatim in the judge’s decision).

TRUTH: Opposition to government sanction of gay marriages isn’t based on the notion that opposite sex couples are “better,” but on the idea that they are more consequential, and serve an important social purpose more effectively. Laws in every state recognize the desirability that children should be raised by their biological parents, wherever possible. This is based on the universal, common sense assumption that a child generally will fare best if it is raised by both its birth mother and birth father. Laws on divorce, child custody, adoption and foster-parenting all display this general preference for birth parents to involve themselves in a child’s life. Traditional opposite sex marriage generally produces a situation where both birth parents will participate in parenting – and this shared responsibility even survives divorce in most cases. There is no chance--none—that a same sex marriage can produce a child who will be raised by both birth parents. This doesn’t make that same sex marriage hateful or immoral, but it does make it somewhat less desirable and less significant for society.

4. “Recognizing gay marriage would do nothing to harm existing opposite sex marriages.”

TRUTH: The problem with government endorsement of same sex marriage isn’t damage it would do to current heterosexual couples, but the profound change it would bring to the institution of marriage itself. In every civilization known to historians and anthropologists, marriage involves the union of man and woman—and the recognition that combining the two genders produces a durable unit that is very different from any all-male or all-female combination. The argument for gay marriage depends on the discredited and destructive idea that men and women are identical—that your marriage will be the same whether you select a male or female partner. Gay marriage also separates the institution of marriage from the process of childbearing, at a time when we need to reaffirm that children fare best within a marriage, and marriage becomes more significant when it produces children.

The second piece is Ed Whelan's epic smackdown, "The Most Egregious Performance Ever by a Federal District Judge." The essay takes a look from start to finish to show that intellectually, morally, politically, socially, and legally is Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling:

Walker presided over a parade of anti-Prop 8 witnesses at trial who gave lengthy testimony, only a tiny fraction of which was relevant to any sound understanding of the issues in dispute—and all of that could have been in the form of expert or documentary submissions. And—surprise, surprise—every single one of plaintiffs’ “expert” witnesses is an activist for same-sex marriage whose “expert” testimony was just a repackaging of their political advocacy.

Oh, and let’s not forget that all along Walker apparently failed to disclose to the parties basic personal facts that would have enabled them to assess whether his impartiality in the matter might reasonably be questioned.

Then there’s Walker’s crazed—and, as one same-sex marriage advocate put it, “radical”—ruling on final judgment. That ruling ignored binding Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit precedent, concocted absurd factual findings, and grossly misstated the state of the record on key points.

And, just yesterday, Walker’s refusal to stay his judgment pending appeal, the latest step in his gamesmanship to try to deprive Prop 8 proponents of their appeal rights and to avoid effective appellate review of his shenanigans.

Walker’s course of conduct would be sufficient cause for national scandal in any case. That it comes in a case that aims to radically remake the central social institution of American society makes it utterly intolerable.

I can’t imagine that any federal district judge has ever committed more egregious and momentous acts of malfeasance in a case.

Via Memeorandum.

Adriana Sklenaříková Mystery Solved!

At Stormbringer's, thank goodness! (More here.)

And happy Rule 5 Saturday everybody! Washington Rebel's really kicking things off!

**********

And here's another roundup for the friends of American Power:

* Another Black Conservative.

* Astute Bloggers (Honorary).

* Blazing Cat Fur.

* Bob Belvedere.

* Cold Fury.

* Classical Liberal.

* Daley Gator.

* Left Coast Rebel.

* Mind Numbed Robot.

* Not a Sheep.

* Paco Enterprises.

* Panhandle Perspective.

* Political Byline.

* POWIP.

* Proof Positive.

* The Other McCain.

* Reaganite Republican (Honorary).

* Right Klik (Honorary).

* Saberpoint (Honorary).

* Serr8d (Honorary).

* Snooper's Report (Honorary).

* Stormbringer.

* Theo Spark.

* TrogloPundit.

* Washington Rebel.

* WyBlog.

BONUS: Don't forget Instapundit.

And drop your link in the comments to be added to the weekly roundups!

Exports Help German Economy Beat Expectations

Exports are driving the German economic boom, but an expansionary fiscal policy laid the basis for market oriented growth. See, from last year, "Germany agrees biggest economic stimulus package since World War II":

The plan, which Christian Democrats and Social Democrats hammered out late Monday, includes €17-18bn in infrastructure investments for education and highways, and tax cuts for firms and individuals.

It also grants families a one-off extra child benefit payment, cuts health insurance costs, simplifies rules for creating temporary jobs, and provides subsidies to encourage purchases of environmentally friendly cars.

And Germany has actually been cutting taxes for a decade, "German businesses enjoyed record tax cuts in last decade."

See also NYT (FWIW), "Defying Others, Germany Finds Economic Success":

Germany has sparred with its European partners over how to respond to the financial crisis, argued with the United States over the benefits of stimulus versus austerity, and defiantly pursued its own vision of how to keep its economy strong.

Statistics released Friday buttress Germany’s view that it had the formula right all along. The government on Friday announced quarter-on-quarter economic growth of 2.2 percent, Germany’s best performance since reunification 20 years ago — and equivalent to a nearly 9 percent annual rate if growth were that robust all year.

The strong growth figures will also bolster the conviction here that German workers and companies in recent years made the short-term sacrifices necessary for long-term success that Germany’s European partners did not. And it will reinforce the widespread conviction among policy makers that they handled the financial crisis and the painful recession that followed it far better than the United States, which, they never hesitate to remind, brought the world into this crisis.

A vast expansion of a program paying to keep workers employed, rather than dealing with them once they lost their jobs, was the most direct step taken in the heat of the crisis. But the roots of Germany’s export-driven success reach back to the painful restructuring under the previous government of Chancellor Gerhard Schröder.

By paring unemployment benefits, easing rules for hiring and firing, and management and labor’s working together to keep a lid on wages, Germany ensured that it could again export its way to growth with competitive, nimble companies producing the cars and machine tools the world’s economies — emerging and developed alike — demanded.

Plus, Astute Bloggers focuses on Germany's recent social austerity, "MERKEL'S BUDGET CUTS WORKED: GERMAN ECONOMY GREW AT FASTEST PACE IN 20 YEARS." And Wall Street Journal on the continental effects, "Germany Propels Growth in Euro Zone":

The euro-zone economy tore past the U.S. in the second quarter thanks to a 9% jump in German growth—but the surge is expected to fade fast, adding to concerns about the global recovery ....

Germany's robust performance, driven by demand for its exports, stood in contrast to continued malaise in Southern Europe, where countries such as Greece are struggling to repair public finances. The mixed picture in Europe, coupled with concerns that the U.S. and Asia are slowing, has many economists, as well as the European Central Bank, predicting a second-half slowdown for the euro zone.

Obama Defends Plan for Mosque Near Ground Zero — 'Friends of Terror' Attend White House Ramadan Dinner

At Wall Street Journal (via Daily Caller):

WASHINGTON—President Barack Obama defended the plan to build a mosque near the site of the 2001 terror attacks in New York, telling Muslim guests at a Ramadan dinner at the White House that the nation's commitment to freedom of religion "must be unshakable.''

RTWT.

The White House has been wary of entering this debate, and I can't see how this is going to help Obama politically. Emotions are just too raw. It would take time, but folks might want to go down the list of those attending the Ramadan dinner and figure out how much support Obama's got in the Islamist jihad community. I mean seriously. The very first name I checked (with no prior familiarity) is Ms. Dalia Mogahed, who is Director of the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies. But as Jihad Watch points out, "Obama's Muslim adviser Dalia Mogahed 'is herself an Islamic ideologue who supports Islamic Sharia'." And the link there is to Nonie Darwish, "Appeasing the Muslim Brotherhood." Also, checking another name, Mr. Salam Al Marayati of Muslim Public Affairs Council, it turns out that Al Marayati and his group are "Friends of Terror." That piece links to "Marayati Suggested Israel Carried Out 9/11 Attacks," which reads:

Salam Al-Marayati, head of the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), which has praised the Hezbollah terrorist group —which is on the U.S. terrorist list— and publicly called for Israel’s destruction, has been invited to deliver a lecture at the State Department’s “Secretary’s Open Forum” on January 28, 2002.

Ironically, Marayati is scheduled to speak on “Rising Voices of Moderate Muslims”—even though his voice is the voice of a Muslim extremist, and his disgraceful attempt to blame Israel for the September 11 attacks was a bizarre effort to divert attention from the real perpetrators of these heinous acts, who were all Muslim extremists.

Well there you go, and that's just a couple of those in attendance at the White House Iftar dinner on Ramadan. And check Pamela's post, "Obama Backs 911 Ground Zero Mega Mosque at Ramadan Celebration":

Obama came out for the Islamic supremacist mosque at the hallowed ground of 911 attack. He has, in effect, sided with the Islamic jihadists and told the ummah (at an Iftar dinner on the third night of Ramadan, of course) that he believes in and supports a triumphal mosque on the cherished site of Islamic conquest.

If you had any doubt who Obama stood with on 911, there can be no doubt in our minds now.

Warner Todd Huston offers an analysis of the speech. But by now the lid's totally blown off the scam. The administration has turned its back on defending this country from Islamic jihad.

**********

UPDATE: Linked at Astute Bloggers, Left Coast Rebel, and NewsReal Blog.

World's Worst Blogger Advocates Lying in Policy Advocacy

Doug Ross calls him the "world's dumbest blogger." I like worst, actually, as in "The. World's. Worst. Blogger." But also the most dishonest. As Doug noted in March:

The modern, radical left Democrat Party, and its sycophants like Yglesias, are cynical, intellectually dishonest and completely, utterly at odds with our founding, the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

Well, yeah, let's just stay with Yglesias, who is a goldmine of moral bankruptcy.

The Daily Caller's piece is up on Yglesias' call for intellectual dishonesty (lying) in policy advocacy: "Liberal blogger Matt Yglesias advocates lying on Twitter." Read the whole thing. I'll just jump to the conclulsion:

In concluding his interview with The Daily Caller, Yglesias said “go fuck yourself” and hung up the phone.

Actually, I caught this debate in real time on Twitter this morning. Check Mark Hemingway's link, and this one especially.

Matthew Yglesias is blogging fail.

Americans Express Near-Record-Low Confidence in the Press

At Gallup, "In U.S., Confidence in Newspapers, TV News Remains a Rarity":

Americans continue to express near-record-low confidence in newspapers and television news -- with no more than 25% of Americans saying they have a "great deal" or "quite a lot" of confidence in either. These views have hardly budged since falling more than 10 percentage points from 2003-2007.

The findings are from Gallup's annual Confidence in Institutions survey, which found the military faring best and Congress faring worst of 16 institutions tested. Americans' confidence in newspapers and television news is on par with Americans' lackluster confidence in banks and slightly better than their dismal rating of Health Management Organizations and big business.

The decline in trust since 2003 is also evident in a 2009 Gallup poll that asked about confidence and trust in the "mass media" more broadly. While perceptions of media bias present a viable hypothesis, Americans have not over the same period grown any more likely to say the news media are too conservative or too liberal.

No matter the cause, it is clear the media as a whole are not gaining new fans as they struggle to serve and compete with growing demand for online news, social media, and mobile platforms.

Sorry Gallup. I blame left-wing press bias. It's almost criminal, frankly.

RELATED: "'Journolist' scandal shows decline of journalism."

Charles Krauthammer Demonization at Firedoglake

Jane Hamsher's Henchmen going after Charles Krauthammer.

Unreal:

* "Krauthammer is a bigot? Who would’ve thunk it?"

* "Krauthammer Krauthummer’s picture is great, looks just like a creature out of Outer Limits with their heads all swollen with their brains. But in Krauthummers case his head is swollen with Bigotry/Bullshit!"

* "we reap what we sow.

instead of calling ignorant piece of shit fucks like krauthammer ignorant piece of shit fucks, we obfuscate and twiddle and twaddle and twitter … and sternly wag our fingers…

and they blather on with too much silence and too little scorn.

to hell with civility with people like this.

rmm."

* "Charles Krauthammer should be in prison."

* "There is some guilt in Krauthammer’s family tree somewhere. He’s totally unhinged whenever he speaks of Muslims vs Jews. It’s more than the normal right wing apology tour."

* "there is no comparison between Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and the AL Qaeda attack on Twin Towers. Japan is a country, AlQaeda is a terrorist group it represents a few extremists and is not a reflection of the muslim community. Islam is a worldwide religion and in the US the right to practice one’s religion is in the constitution and is not debatable. The center needs to be built just like St. Patrick’s cathedral etc…"

* "Krauthammer’s thinking is as twisted and crippled as his body, eh? Perhaps there is a god."

* "I wish some prominent Jews would stop playing the victim card at the drop of a hat. It’s really getting old."

* "This discussion tells me why we are becoming more and more ignored in today’s discourse.

There is a legitimate point of view that is different than ours. The placement of the cultural centeral is a political statement. If it were purely religious, they would take up the offer from Governor Patterson and put the site elsewhere in Manhattan.

If it were purely for reconcilement they would offer to live up to American mores, including a complete acceptance of our LGBT crowd and full and complete equality for women. And they would be a lot more outspoken about the prolems that Islam has caused.

It is spurposefl stick in the eye, and being against it is not simply a bigoted response."

* "[In response] You offer no sound reasoning, just rants.

It’s not a “political statement” — they don’t have to put it “elsewhere” because you say it’s offensive — and it’s not a “stick in the eye” just because you say it is.

The fact that you view it as such says more about you than about them.

The Catholic Church and Mormons and Orthodox Jews are also intolerant of LGBTs and don’t offer equality for women.

Should we ban them from Lower Manhattan as well? Should we tear down the Mosque at the Pentagon?"

* "This whole issue is ugly, nasty, racist, bigoted and intolerant, plus stupid. I think I’ve pretty much described any conservative who agrees with Krauthammer. Their attitudes are unconstitutional, btw.

I’m offended on behalf of my many friends and acquaintances who happen to be Muslims. It’s despicable to lump them all into one big grouping and assign some special blame to them.

I agree with a prior post. I’m getting tired of being “polite” about such bigoted crap. The whole argument is b.s. and petty and reflects the rightwing’s desire to pit “small” people against one another to distract the “small” people from the real issues of the day, which is that we’re being massively ripped off the by banksters on Wall ST, amongst other billionaires."

Today's "professional left," on display.

Jew-Hating Mondoweiss Moderating for Anti-Semitic 'Trolls' at Anti-Israel Blog

Adam Horowitz and Philip Weiss demonize Israel at AlterNet, "Why the Deadly Attack on the Freedom Flotilla Was the Breakthrough That Made the World See Israel's Cruelty in Gaza."

The authors run the anti-Israel hate blog Mondoweiss, where the AlterNet piece is cross-posted: "The Mavi Marmara and the End of Israeli Impunity."

Philip Weiss met with Hamas terrorists last year, at an event co-sponsored by Code Pink and Norman Finkelstein. That gives a pretty good idea how far out these people are, enemies even.

Interesting though is the first entry I found while visiting, "Updated Comments Policy":

We've hit a couple of impasses on comments policy at this site in the last two years. Now we're at another. As the site has grown more popular, we've gotten more enthusiastic debate, but also more invective, profanity, and racism and anti-Semitism, all of which drive off reasonable people. We bounced a couple of commenters in the last week, and we're going to be doing more policing in days to come.

"Drive off reasonable people"? I'm sure that's exceedingly infrequent at Mondoweiss. Recall Melanie Phillips comments on irrationality and the rising tide of global anti-Semitism:

Jew-hatred, as I prefer to call it, can surely never be eradicated. But the lies that currently fuel it — lies about Israel’s behavior, the history of the Middle East, and so on — should be publicly confronted and exploded. Similarly, the ways in which the blood libels about the Jews pouring out of the Arab and Muslim worlds are poisoning minds not just in that world but in the West should also be prominently discussed, along with the continuity between the Arab/Palestinian agenda and that of the Nazis, whose allies they once were.

One of the main problems is the silence of Israel on this mass derangement in the West, and its failure to challenge it forensically and systematically. This has left an intellectual vacuum into which bigotry flows. While the irrationality of Jew-hatred cannot be defeated by reason, there are many in Britain and the West who are not natural bigots but are actually people of high-minded conscience, who have merely been indoctrinated with falsehoods about Israel that are never publicly challenged. Some of those people, at least, can certainly be reached by addressing their ignorance.