Nelson writes: The progressive idea was to turn, for instance, Beirut into NY.

The key word in that sentence must be "was."

Now, it's been flipped - at least by many who embrace the term "progressive" to describe themselves. U.C. Berkeley Islamic Studies "lecturer" Hatem Bazian speaking at an "anti-war" rally this past April:

"Well, we've been watching intifada in Palestine, we've been watching an uprising in Iraq. ... How come we don't have an intifada in this country? ... It's about time that we have an intifada in this country that changes fundamentally the political dynamics in here. ... They're gonna say some Palestinian being too radical. Well, you haven't seen radicalism yet!"

The far-left definitely wants us to move backwards. Al-Qaeda turned NY into Beirut and the SJP and the Bazians of the world are trying to turn Berkeley into Nablus - and they've succeeded in certain respects.

Great post as always.On a non-related front and because I have a 'feeling'that it is important,if Bush wins,does that mean that a full-scale counterattack against the media is likely?
I cannot believe that the Bush administration would be content to allow the status quo to continue unabated.This seems like a last ditch efort by the current media to maintain their influence but Bush has NOTHING to lose by going on the offense as conditions allow.I live in hope.

doug, what do you mean by Counter-Attack?

As for conservative holding pattern, that is exactly what the Dems propose. Welcome to the 21st century!

History's moving in the wrong direction? Huh?

Does this mean that you're done with the ideological phase of your approach to Middle Eastern policy and are now progressing into the mystical phase?

Whatever happened to the hard-headed realist MJT ... I guess he started disappearing when the facts started turing against him.

“Now, it's been flipped - at least by many who embrace the term "progressive" to describe themselves. U.C. Berkeley Islamic Studies "lecturer" Hatem Bazian speaking at an "anti-war" rally this past April:”

Anti-Semitism may very well be rampant in many of today’s liberal universities. Why the downplaying of this problem? I will be very blunt: a large number of liberal Jews are Uncle Toms. They are either thoroughly guilt tripped or self haters. Israel victimizes the Palestinians in their eyes. The United States invaded Iraq to allegedly satisfy the “neo-conservatives.” In other words, the Jews.

"doug, what do you mean by Counter-Attack?"--FH

To be candid,I have no firm ideas on the exact mechanism of the process,but since the system appears ,to my jaundiced eyes,to be broken,insofar as the medium of the message truly believes that it is the message itself,no administration that wants to succeed can allow the statas quo to endure.This conflict has always been a zero sum game,and if Bush wins,the media must begin to lose. How that occurs is important,but that it occurs is the prime consideration.Maybe it will simply be the repetition of the theme at every opportunity,that the media is 'defeatist','biased','un-constructive',and aids the enemy by excessive negativity.I don't think the media can withstand that line of attack.
This particular electoral 'war'does not seem conducive to taking lots of prisoners after the issue is decided.Just a feeling I have.

Mork: I guess he started disappearing when the facts started turing against him.

What facts? The fact that the war isn't over yet? That's all you have to say anymore. The fighting in Iraq isn't over, therefore we failed. Whatever, Mork.

So David, you're saying it's the Jews' own fault?

Plenty of Jews - and decent minded non-Jews - fight against this extremist instinct on campuses (and in the media) all the time. So much so, in fact, that socialist "progressives" felt they needed to write a hit-piece book about those efforts which they characterize as the "misuse" of the term "anti-Semitism."

http://www.counterpunch.com/poas.html

What facts?

Well, to read your posts, everything in Iraq is going swimmingly, everything the President says is factual, and when the President says he is going to do something, it's competently translated into action with no unforeseen adverse consequences.

So, to the extent that there are facts in existence that contradict that propostion, those facts.

Mork,

Iraq is not going swimmingly. Bush is often full of crap. Invading Iraq has produced some negative consequences.

Happy?

Now, I'd like to know why you think that because of the facts listed above we are doomed to fail in Iraq. Really. Name one war that lasted longer than a year that didn't also produced non-swimming short-term results and was led by a leader who was right about everything.

Dave Thomson -

I take issue with your remarks - I'm very much a 'neo-conservative' (and proud of it) - but there is no way that ANYONE would mistake me as a Jew (trust me, there is no way).

“So David, you're saying it's the Jews' own fault?

Plenty of Jews - and decent minded non-Jews - fight against this extremist instinct on campuses (and in the media) all the time.”

And a lot of American Jewish academics and intellectuals pretend nothing is going on. The Counter Punch crowd make up about one third of John Kerry’s followers. Ever hear of George Soros? Yasser Arafat has come out for John Kerry. Why? That’s a very easy question to answer. A Kerry administration will quickly push for a “peaceful resolution” to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. What does that mean in the real world? This simply means that Israel will be filthed on. Kerry also criticized the wall as “another barrier to peace.” Sigh, and please don’t bother telling me that he changed his mind a few months later. John Kerry speaks out of both sides of his mouth when it comes to Israel. And so do a very large percentage of his supporters.

“Dave Thomson -

I take issue with your remarks - I'm very much a 'neo-conservative' (and proud of it) - but there is no way that ANYONE would mistake me as a Jew (trust me, there is no way).”

I have also described myself as a neo-conservative for many years---and I’m not Jewish. What is your point?

dougf: "if Bush wins,does that mean that a full-scale counterattack against the media is likely?"

That’s one area where I’ll definitely disagree with our President. He hasn’t been aggressive enough with the media, and I think this is clearly hampering the war effort. The same way the FCC fines broadcasters for on-the-air obscenities, there should also be expensive fines when they tell lies. That’d definitely keep Rather and his cronies in check. It wouldn't solve all our media problems, but it's a step in the right direction.

And a lot of American Jewish academics and intellectuals pretend nothing is going on.

And a lot are fighting back, including famous liberals like Alan Dershowitz.

Ever hear of George Soros?

Yes. Ever hear of Haim Saban?

For every Soros, there's a Saban.

As for your Uncle Tom comment earlier, Sharon and Bush do not have a mandate on the only vision for the future of Israel.

You're a conservative. Does it ever bother you when African Americans call Clarence Thomas, Condi Rice and Colin Powell "Uncle Toms" because they have political views close to your own? Or are you fine with the notion that all African Americans must think alike too?

Kay Hoog: The same way the FCC fines broadcasters for on-the-air obscenities, there should also be expensive fines when they tell lies. That’d definitely keep Rather and his cronies in check.

I couldn't disagree more. We have a free press in this country and it needs to remain free. Let the market handle the lies in the media. It's working pretty well. CBS's ratings are cratering. State control of the media has never worked well in any country.

“As for your Uncle Tom comment earlier, Sharon and Bush do not have a mandate on the only vision for the future of Israel.”

Israel is not a perfect society. No country is, including our own. I personally have some problems with the settlements issue. Nonetheless, Israel is not an apartheid nation victimizing the Palestinians. Did you mention Alan Dershowitz? If so, you need to read the following:

"I have challenged Michael Lerner, I have challenged others both in the Bay Area and other places too. Show me a single instance where a major Jewish leader or Israeli leader has ever said that criticizing a particular policy of Israeli government is anti-Semitic. That's just something made up by Israel's enemies. It is not something that can actually be argued today.

It is anti-Semitism to single out Israel -- to single out the Jewish nation and blow its faults out of proportion and beyond any kind of recognition, and it is anti-Semitism to continually compare Israel to Nazism."

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13590

I encourage everyone to listen to David Duke's radio address:

http://www.davidduke.com/mp3/anybodybutBush.mp3

David Duke sounds a lot like at least a third of John Kerry's supporters.

I find a roach every once in a while at high-noon in my apartment living room, Michael. I try and not think about what that means most of the time. Thanks for reminding me of the obvious, buddy. Thanks alot. I'll sleep soooo well, tonight. ;)

David,

I don't see how what you just wrote runs counter to anything I've written.

Alan Dershowitz is a liberal Jew who gets it. Michael Lerner is a liberal Jew who doesn't - even after he was barred from speaking at an anti-war rally by International A.N.S.W.E.R. brownshirts.

There was a great Op-Ed by Martin Peretz over the weekend in the L.A. Times bashing John Kerry on the subject of Israel:

Kerry the Clueless

I don't disagree with anything he writes.

However, if someone is Jewish, and does disagree with it, that's their right - they are not "traitors" or "uncle toms." Or then 70% of American Jews, many of whom are strongly supportive of Israel, fit into that category.

Similarly, Likud needs a coalition to govern Israel, which includes the secular Shinui party. The majority of Israelis are not Likud or in a party to the political right of Likud. They are not "uncle toms" either. There is a fringe of self-haters - even in a country of 6 million - that's quite a lot of people, and some of them are prominent/prolific writers.

There will always be far-leftist psycho Jews, like there will be far-leftist psycho non-Jews.

But a vote for Kerry is not a vote for Arafat, nor is it a vote for Chomsky, or Kim Jong-il or Osama Bin Laden. And per your last post, it's not a vote for David Duke either. All of those people - and all the other Bush-hating moonbats - stand to be very disappointed in the course of a potential Kerry presidency, their pleasure with President Bush notwithstanding.

There was a protestor with a sign at the Democratic Convention in Boston:

"Bush=Kerry=Hitler."

That sums up the actual moonbat position, quite well.

correction:

"...their displeasure with President Bush notwithstanding."

Michael,

Who said anything about no free press? I’m only talking about broadcast, which the government already controls. I’m just demanding a little bit of accountability. The airwaves should serve the public interest, and the government should enforce this. That’s the purpose of the FCC. Unfortunately, by allowing these shenanigans to continue, the war effort is being undermined and public interest is not being served.

If the despicable Rather and his cohorts want to continue spouting their untruths they can always start their own newspaper, or their own blog.

“However, if someone is Jewish, and does disagree with it, that's their right - they are not "traitors" or "uncle toms." Or then 70% of American Jews, many of whom are strongly supportive of Israel, fit into that category.”

You are conveniently ignoring reality. Many Jews go much further than offering legitimate complaints against Israel’s policies. Are you not following my math? I said that at least a third of John Kerry’s supporters consider Israel to be an apartheid nation persecuting the Palestinians. That’s 33%. Are you now getting my point? Please take the time to listen to David Duke’s broadcast. I think it might blow your mind. The radical right and radical left are in virtual agreement concerning George W. Bush and the Iraqi war. Duke thinks that the Kerry campaign is also too pro-Israel---but his primary rage is directed towards Bush. Excuse me, are you unaware that George Soros is a Kerry supporter? Is this some sort of mystery to you?

“Who said anything about no free press? I’m only talking about broadcast, which the government already controls. I’m just demanding a little bit of accountability.”

This would be a terrible mistake. We do not want the government involved. Indeed, the free market is the proper solution. John Kerry's people are for censorship. We should not want to do likewise.

' the war effort is being undermined and public interest is not being served'--KH

Exactly.Since this situation is not tolerable,and the war effort MUST NOT be undermined FOREVER,something will get done.The only question is what.It may well end up being done by 'commercial' forces,but from now on it looks to me like open and direct combat between the Bush administration and the MSM.
Not a moment too soon.

MSM delenda est.( Oh and that goes for the 'living-dead' horror that is masquerading as the once great Democratic Party as well)Both are beyond mere repair.

John Kerry speaks out of both sides of his mouth when it comes to Israel. And so do a very large percentage of his supporters.

Nice. One of the reasons I voted Bush in 2000 was that he basically said we would get out of the Israel-Palestine mess and let them settle it themselves. I've been for that the whole way. Now he says we need to be actively involved with some bullshit "roadmap".

Hopefully, if Iraq turns out to be a democracy (I doubt it, but I'm still hopeful), we can leave Israel to stew in its own juices, so to speak.

Before you call me an anti-semite or a palestinian apologist, let me tell you that I'm neither. I just think that it's a dispute we need to have no part of. We aren't involved in the Russia/Chechnya dispute, so why should we be involved in this one? It's high time we kick Israel off our welfare rolls.

You are conveniently ignoring reality.

Maybe I'm ignoring your reality. You are conveniently pigeonholing people.

Are you not following my math? I said that at least a third of John Kerry’s supporters consider Israel to be an apartheid nation persecuting the Palestinians. That’s 33%. Are you now getting my point?

A lot of those people are not "Kerry supporters" as much as they are "ABB" (Anybody But Bush) people. And they will not have a lot of say in a Kerry adminstration - and they know it. Although obviously they will lobby for their positions - they'll likely get very little.

Please take the time to listen to David Duke’s broadcast. I think it might blow your mind. The radical right and radical left are in virtual agreement concerning George W. Bush and the Iraqi war.

I read his screed the other day. I'm very familiar with his views. He's a fringe Nazi with very few followers. A much more mainstream anti-Semite - Pat Buchanan - who has very similar views to David Duke when it comes to Israel and even certain aspects of American politics - just came out and endorsed President Bush. Does that bother you?

Duke thinks that the Kerry campaign is also too pro-Israel---but his primary rage is directed towards Bush.

Ditto Pat Buchanan - but he's supporting Bush anyway.

Excuse me, are you unaware that George Soros is a Kerry supporter? Is this some sort of mystery to you?

Excuse me, but what the hell are you talking about? When did I give any indication that Soros was anything other than a Kerry supporter?

David Thomson: "Indeed, the free market is the proper solution. John Kerry's people are for censorship. We should not want to do likewise."

I’m not advocating censorship. I’m advocating accountability. If you don’t want to get fined, don’t broadcast lies.

There is no free market when it comes to broadcast, because the government is doling out the airspace. Therefore, it’s their responsibility to make sure that what is broadcast serves the public interest. Things like cable and satellite radio are of course be exempt.

The same way the FCC fines broadcasters for on-the-air obscenities, there should also be expensive fines when they tell lies.

Hmmm ... politicians fining broadcasters who mislead. What's wrong with this picture?

“I’m not advocating censorship. I’m advocating accountability. If you don’t want to get fined, don’t broadcast lies.”

Governments do an innately miserable job of distinguishing between censorship and accountability. Alas, one man’s accountability is another’s censorship. Me thinks that John Kerry’s attempt at silencing the Swift Boat guys was deemed as merely a request for accountability. We are in dangerous waters here.

Gosh, David Duke sure does not like President Bush:

“Don’t miss this chance to defeat George Bush on Election Day, November 2, 2004! Send a message that will be remembered for many years. Once our own ranks are cleared of craven betrayers like George Bush, we will be ready to stand united against another enemy of our heritage and freedom, John (Cohen) Kerry!

Remember, spread the word: Anybody but Bush!

For our people’s heritage and freedom, this has been David Duke.”

http://www.davidduke.com/radio/transcripts/plagueonbothyourhouses.htm

Duke is obviously not thrilled with John Kerry. Nonetheless, he is deemed the lesser of evils.

Kay: Who said anything about no free press? I’m only talking about broadcast, which the government already controls. I’m just demanding a little bit of accountability.

Okay.

Still, I don't want the state saying which journalists are "liars" and which aren't. Sometimes it's obvious. Other times it isn't. Sometimes journalists make mistakes that look like lies. The government has better things to do. And the government lies, too.

David Thomson: Many Jews go much further than offering legitimate complaints against Israel’s policies.

Many people go much further than offering legitimate complaints against Israel's policies. So why zero in on the Jews? Leave 'em alone. They have a right to their opinion without being called "Uncle Toms," even if their opinion is wrong. You're using the same tactic Harry Belafonte used against Colin Powell for being a black Republican.

Besides, you yourself note that at least two-thirds of Kerry's supporters have the "correct" opinion on Israel. That's a clear majority, and it's good enough for most people.

Kay Hoog:

That broadcast spectrum needs to be controlled by the government, and therefore broadcasters must "serve the public interest", was the principle Congress followed when it created the FCC. The MSM today is the result. Look at the BBC, built under the same assumptions about broadcast; they're even more politicized, and negligent with the truth, than any American news outlet.

You can't fix a problem created by government restrictions by adding more restrictions. The only antidote against liars is to make it easy to speak the truth.

I sympathize Kay, but think Bush and Reps need to actually act like the MSM are terrorist supporters that must be handled carefully, like Chiraq.

So, for instance, on days when there is an "open" press conference (of which there have been too few), Bush could have an "invitation only" discusion with pro-life, Republican, church-going reports (of which there are too few), or even bloggers -- and let these folk get the scoops. Even a day early.

I wish Bush, at his first Debate, had clearly said thank you, but ask the public to note how the Press spent 0 time, none, on any questions of Kerry's record of votes -- and to be aware of the amount of truth the press doesn't see fit to publish.

The FCC already has too much power; like most gov't.

reports, reporters, look at the time! (actually I'm 9 hours ahead, late for lunch).
The USA needs more reporters who go to church weekly.

“So why zero in on the Jews? Leave 'em alone. They have a right to their opinion without being called "Uncle Toms," even if their opinion is wrong. You're using the same tactic Harry Belafonte used against Colin Powell for being a black Republican.”

I’m not another Harry Belafonte---for my charges are accurate. That is the only real question. Am I correct? And of course I am. Why are one third of John Kerry’s followers essentially “Jew blamers?” More importantly, why is this virtually ignored by the media. How many American Jews ( and non-Jews) realize the extent of anti-Semitism within Kerry’s campaign? Do you realize what you are saying if you truly do concede that my one third estimate is right on target?

I visited Instapundit this morning. He linked to this piece by David Bernstein:

“Jewish and Israeli students in the (Columbia) Middle Eastern Studies Department report being harassed and harangued by their professors.

http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2004_10_21.shtml#1098338602

Why is the scandal occurring right at this very moment at Columbia? This is a very easy question to answer. Far too many American Jews employed by the MSM are feel ashamed of their Jewishness. They readily accept the slander that Israel persecutes the Palestinians.

Kay said....

The airwaves should serve the public interest, and the government should enforce this. That’s the purpose of the FCC.

The fundamental problem with this argument is that it requires someone somewhere to define what is in the "public interest." This is not the same for every person.

Moreover, the initial (and proper) purpose of the FCC was to keep radio stations from bumping into one-another. It originally had nothing to do with censoring content - that concept only came about after it was determined that broadcasts should serve some arbitrary definition of "public interest." The market should determine what gets on the air. It already does, for the most part.

But I'm a (small-l) libertarian, so I would say that. :-)

In relation to Michael's original post, the article states:

The progressive idea was to turn, for instance, Beirut into NY. If that’s not being accomplished, this is bad enough. But when people start turning NY into Beirut, we’re definitely moving backwards. And fast.

I couldn't agree more, but I've spoken to many self-proclaimed "progressives" who think that turning Beirut into NYC is nothing more than imperialistic evil. In my view, this is where modern left-wingers have divorced themselves from reality with an extreme version of moral relativism. They're unwilling to say that NYC is in any way better than Beirut.

This is yet another example of how in many ways, liberalism has deterioriated to the point that it refuses to defend anything - even itself.

David:

1) Jews, like all other groups, are not single issue voters.

2) For those that Israel is the main (or at least an important issue), some think - rightly or wrongly - that they would prefer an Israeli government that operates in a different way from the current government that's in place. Some also think that they would prefer an American government that would engage more, prod, and extract concessions - not just from the Israelis - but also from the Arabs (Palestinians and otherwise).

I don't think that makes them "uncle Toms." Same with the Israelis who would prefer a different government. Whether or not I agree with them on every aspect of a complicated and important issue is immaterial.

And, this is how democracies work. There are competing ideas and visions - both of which have upsides and downsides.

3) you write: Far too many American Jews employed by the MSM are feel ashamed of their Jewishness.

Far more non-Jews employed by the MSM aren't covering it either, for whatever reason. Are they ashamed of their non-Jewish Americanness? I guess that makes all journalists of all-stripes "uncle Toms" or some other negative term.

And with respect to issues raised solely on college campuses - what ethnic or religious group do you think is doing a good job in exposing the left-wing freak show that is the ivory tower these days?

None - not just the Jews.

I do find this sentence of yours mildly ironic, considering the tenor of the posts on this thread:

Why are one third of John Kerry’s followers essentially “Jew blamers?”

Obviously, you have what you believe to be Israel's best interests at heart - and for me anyway, I think that's wonderful. There are a lot of Jews I know (I post a lot on LGF, for example), that can't even understand why any Jew could ever be a Democrat and they want to shake them to wake them up until they see the light.

I for one am glad that more Jews are becoming Republicans - I don't want the Democrats taking Jewish support for granted. But I also don't want the centrist and Jewish Dems to cede that entire party to the 1/3 lefty-worldview represented by the McKinney/Moran/Hollings/Billmon/Juan Cole Arab/Islamist-loving socialists.

Someone needs to stay behind and fight the good fight.

Jews are only 2% of America - their power as a voting block cannot really swing elections. It's the financial support - more and more of which is going to Republicans this year - that counts more.

"Hmmm ... politicians fining broadcasters who mislead. What's wrong with this picture?"

Governments lie, the press lies, but in a democracy they aren't the same lies.

David, here's something you might enjoy:

Jewish skullcaps adorned with a campaign slogan for U.S. President George W. Bush's re-election campaign are displayed in a store window in Jerusalem's Mea Shearim neighborhood, October 21, 2004. Split over the presidential race, most Israelis support Bush while Palestinians back his Democratic challenger, U.S. Senator John Kerry. REUTERS/Gil Cohen Magen

David,

Here's an op-ed from Investors Business Daily, just posted by Charles on LGF, that certainly makes part of your case:

Company You Keep

MT,

Backwards? The West, as long as it stays the West, and the US, the tip of the spear of the West don't go backwards for very long. The world around us seem to lurch into backwardness in every generation. But the self examination that is so much a part of Enlightenment thinking, and still the single most potent force for improvement in the history of man, keeps the West moving forward. Unevenly perhaps, but forward nonetheless.

As for the world? We'll need to do what we have been doing for the last couple of hundred years. Kill the bad guys, and their followers, that seem to spring up in every generation , and committ ongoing acts of cultural colonialism. Bring baseball, MTV, Twain, women's rights, free press, free speech, the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue, McDonalds's and the rest of our cultural atrocities to the opressed world. Our Grandchildren will thank us. So will the world's grandchildren.

The progressive idea was to turn, for instance, Beirut into NY. If that’s not being accomplished, this is bad enough. But when people start turning NY into Beirut, we’re definitely moving backwards. And fast.

MJT Indeed. We need to push the other way for a change.

Does anyone disagree with that?

Rhetorical question -- anyone who disagrees is a nutter and should be ignored.

David Thomson: Do you realize what you are saying if you truly do concede that my one third estimate is right on target?

I'm not conceding it. Where are you getting that number?

Why are the concepts in Nelson's article so difficult for some people to grasp?

And, when are the America-bashing Bush-haters going to apologize to the people of goodwill for having created such a crappy world.

I read Ascher's comments as a serious rebuke to the left's utopian point of view and its complete divorce from modern geopolitical realities. It calls to mind some of the anti-American comments I have seen from both American and British left-wing critics of the war in the blogosphere claiming to be chearing on the insurgents in Iraq - or denouncing our emphasis on OIL and thereby hoping for our defeat in Iraq. They don't understand that if Saudi Arabia, e.g., falls to the Islamists - it won't be the wealthiest Americans - who can afford 5.00 or more at the pump if need be - who will suffer -it will be e.g. - the Chinese - you know - those folks whom our parents invoked so we would clean off our plates at dinner? The left does indeed seem to lack any real historical perspective on how fragile our democracy really is and how terrible the real-world consequences - primarily to the poor - NOT to the richest Americans - should their wildest dreams of our demise actually come to pass. Its obviously the whole coddled post world war II baby-boom generation thing and its actually pretty scary.

And I willl add that as it seems quite likely to me that Kerry will win the election as that Bush will - the one plus I can see in a Kerry victory is that without a doubt we will be hit again - and big time - on our soil within the next few years (if not the next few weeks) and the outcome will be even more catastrophic economically. I do personally believe that the Bush tax cuts kept us out of a depression, although I ordinarily, in peacetime, would have opposed them. But how would a tax increase on the top 1% have played out in similar or worse economic circumstances? The only plus I see from a Kerry victory is that the Dems would be the ones having to clean up the economic mess and if more military action appeared necessary it would be Kerry who might have to institute a military draft (wouldn't that be his karma?). But the end result of a recession/depression plus a draft in a Kerry adminstration might at last be more unity in the country and a necessary end to this spoiled, left-wing, coddled anti-American sentiment that is so poisonous to our country. It could be very bad indeed were all this to befall a second Bush term because it would permit the left even more insulation from reality.

Caroline, what nice comments you leave.
I was just being depressed about a Kerry victory; not about the gridlock in Congress, or continued filibusters against radical priests, er, judges (but from a different side); and about how getting hit by a WMD under Kerry will be blamed on him. By the Reps.
The Dems will blame any bad WMD event on Bush's failing; and most Dem voters will believe them. I'd guess many would wake up, but I thought that would be the case after 9/11, and especially after successful elections in Afghanistan.

Maybe the foggy drizzle is depressing, too.
Iran, nukes, Kerry, Israel, Iraq, Allawi, Assad, Sistani, Sudan, Arafat; Karzani.
Bush 04 or else, nobody knows.

“David Thomson: Do you realize what you are saying if you truly do concede that my one third estimate is right on target?

I'm not conceding it. Where are you getting that number?”

This is my estimate based upon the fact that Jimmy Carter is still a prominent Democrat who sat next to Michael Moore at the Democratic Convention---that also hosted a speech by Al Sharpton. You are probably saying to yourself “Are you kidding? Do you expect me to accept this as evidence of subtle anti-Semitism within the Democratic Party?” Yes, I most certainly do.