Post by Peeler
On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 06:04:46 -0800, clinically insane, pedophilic, serbian
bitch Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous
sexual cripple, making an ass of herself as "Professeur de merde, Shitsack
Post by Professeur de merde, Shitsack Rabin Post by A. Filip
Could you publicly extend your list of sub-humans?
Ironic, given that jew paedophile Baruch 'Barry' Shein SUBPERSONIFIES
Don't be so harsh on yourself, you nym-shifting, forging, pedophilic
The mangina is without honor, decency, or integrity.
Now here is Jeff Jacoby writing about several subjects.
View web version
The Boston Globe
Arguable - with Jeff Jacoby
Monday, January 13, 2020
Debate so white? So what?
Next week, Americans will pause to honor the civil rights giant whose famous
dream was of a society in which no one would be judged by the color of their
skin. This week, however, some Americans who claim to care deeply about
civil rights are busy judging the Democratic candidates who will debate
Tuesday night by the color of their skin.
Six candidates have qualified for tomorrow’s televised event in Des Moines:
Joe Biden, Pete Buttigieg, Amy Klobuchar, Bernie Sanders, Tom Steyer, and
Elizabeth Warren. That sextet comprises Democrats who are male and female,
straight and gay, old and young, career politicians and new to politics,
federal officials and former mayors, ardent East Coast socialists and
pragmatic Midwest liberals.
For a bunch of Democrats, that’s pretty diverse.
Unless, that is, your idea of diversity is the kind that’s only skin-deep.
The kind that Martin Luther King Jr. urged Americans to get beyond. The kind
that thinks color is what matters most about human beings.
“Only white candidates have qualified for the Democrats’ January debate,”
intones an ominous headline in The Washington Post. (Similar stories have
appeared in ABC, The Hill, Politico, New York, and Salon , and there are
bound to be more this week.) “The specter of an all-white debate in the
mostly white state of Iowa is prompting concern among party activists,” the
Post’s Annie Linskey reports. It “threatens to undercut the party’s rhetoric
of inclusivity.” So much so that “the whiteness of the debate stage — and
the top candidates — has been an issue for weeks.”
An issue for whom? For self-anointed racial justice activists and the
political journalists they court? Maybe. For most Democratic voters? There
is no reason to think so.
It is certainly true that none of the six candidates in this week’s debate
are black or Asian. That isn’t because minority candidates have been
excluded from the Democratic Party’s debate process. It’s because none of
the candidates of color still in the race — Senator Cory Booker, former
Governor Deval Patrick, Representative Tulsi Gabbard, and entrepreneur
Andrew Yang — met the threshold for participating in the debate
(contributions from 225,000 donors and 5 percent in at least four polls).
Neither did three white candidates — Senator Michael Bennet, former Mayor
Michael Bloomberg, and former Representative John Delaney.
The shrinking debate stage doesn’t reflect a failure of “inclusivity” on the
part of the Democratic Party, whose voters, candidates, officeholders, and
priorities make it the most racially inclusive party in American history.
Reasonable minds can dispute whether the party’s criteria for participating
in the TV debates are sound, but to suggest that those criteria were put in
place to keep nonwhite candidates from reaching the spotlight is absurd.
Party leaders would have been thrilled if Booker, Patrick, or the others had
made the cutoff.
Unlike party leaders, however, rank-and-file Democrats haven’t shown much
interest in the nonwhite candidates. Rank-and-file black Democrats haven’t
shown much interest in the nonwhite candidates. No matter how often racial
bean-counters repeat that black voters yearn for candidates who “look like”
them and will turn out in force to support them, there is no evidence of it
in the Democratic presidential race. Quite the opposite.
A new Washington Post-Ipsos poll of black Americans demonstrates that
African American voters yearn above all for a nominee who can defeat
President Trump. A solid majority — 57% — say that beating Trump is their
most important consideration in 2020, far more than the 33% who say their
top priority is a nominee whose positions are closest to their own. And when
asked which candidate they think can win, a whopping 53% choose Joe Biden.
Bernie Sanders runs a distant second in their estimation, with 18% thinking
he is likeliest to defeat the incumbent.
Black voters, who have become the backbone of the Democratic Party, know
what any sensible voter knows: The “rhetoric of inclusivity” is well and
good, but the point of elections is to win. By a robust margin, older black
voters think Biden can win, while younger black voters are counting on
Sanders. That’s why Biden and Sanders are at the top of the Democratic
field. Not because of their “whiteness,” but because they’re the candidates
black voters support.
Obviously black voters are not averse to supporting a viable black
candidate; their enthusiasm for Barack Obama was off the charts. But they
aren’t about to back a candidate just because his or her skin isn’t white —
or reject a candidate just because it is.
Former Vice President Joe Biden is far and away the candidate most favored
by black Democrats for the 2020 presidential nomination.
In fact, according to the Post-Ipsos poll, most black Americans don’t even
care whether the Democratic vice presidential nominee is black.
“If a white candidate wins the Democratic presidential nomination,”
respondents were asked, “how important, if at all, would it be to you
personally that the nominee choose a vice-presidential running mate who is
black?” Only 27% said it was “very” or “fairly” important that a white
nominee pick a black running mate; an overwhelming 72% said it was either
“not so” important or “not at all” important.
It’s hard to run for president. Many candidates try, and nearly all of
them —men and women, whites and blacks, liberals and conservatives — fail.
Of the six candidates who will take the stage in Des Moines tomorrow night,
no more than one can win the nomination. For Democrats focused on November,
there could hardly be a more irrelevant detail than the color of the
candidates’ skin. Just as Dr. King taught.
The Soleimani celebrations
The fallout continues from the US drone strike that killed Iranian terror
master Qassem Soleimani, and if you take your cues from conventional
American media outlets and the paladins of the Democratic Party, you must be
convinced that that fallout has been overwhelmingly negative.
As I write these words, for example, the lead headline on the New York Times
website is “How Trump Pushed the US and Iran to the Brink of War,” while CNN
features an analysis by chief international anchor Christiane Amanpour, who
contends that “ The crisis between the US and Iran is far from over.” USA
Today has a big article claiming that “Iran’s intentions remain a subject of
intense debate”; it quotes a retired Army general’s warning that Iran’s
missile attack on a US air base was merely “phase one of their response.”
The nation’s editorial pages have proclaimed the Soleimani killing “a
strategic mistake” that raises the risk of a ghastly new war. According to
an ABC News poll, a majority of Americans say that Donald Trump’s Iran
actions “have made the US less safe,” a view that leading Democratic
presidential candidates, such as Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders, are doing
everything they can to reinforce.
Yet in much of the Middle East, Soleimani’s death is being celebrated with
unabashed joy and relief.
Pictures filed by Agence France-Presse photographers convey the sheer
happiness felt by traumatized and destitute Syrians upon learning that the
Iranian general responsible for so much slaughter and displacement during
their country’s civil war is dead. One photo at a camp for displaced persons
in Syria’s Aleppo province shows sweets being distributed to children.
Another, taken at a camp in Idlib province, shows a freshly painted mural of
Soleimani in a dumpster: Above the image are the words: “Qassem Solemani to
the dustbin of history.”
Elizabeth Tsurkov, a fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute,
recounts in detail the central role played by Iranian-trained militiamen in
Syria’s bloody fighting — and explains why Soleimani’s name in particular is
cursed by survivors:
Madaya and Zabadani, two picturesque Syrian towns near the Lebanese border,
were the scene of the best-known siege involving pro-Iranian militias. The
siege gained international attention after images of starving children and
babies emerged when Hezbollah tightened its grip on the towns. Hezbollah and
Syrian regime forces cut the supply routes into town in 2015, preventing the
entry of food and medical supplies. As a result, according to local
activists, 85 civilians starved to death in Madaya alone or died due to lack
of medical care. Another 235 died in Madaya due to airstrikes, shelling, or
by stepping on mines placed around the town to prevent locals from escaping
or smuggling basic necessities in.
“Qassem Soleimani is truly the person responsible for the siege of my town,
Madaya, and the death of tens of civilians there,” says Amjad al-Maleh, an
independent media activist now living in forced displacement in Idlib. Upon
learning of Soleimani’s death, he says he “remembered the dozens of
civilians starved to death – children, women and the elderly.”
. . .
Majd al-Deen al-Hassoun, who lived through the siege and nearly died during
a chlorine gas attack in November 2016 – which he endured while recovering
from a shrapnel wound to his stomach – tells Haaretz the pro-Iranian forces
“would massacre anyone trying to use the Castelo Road, whether civilian or
armed, trying to escape the airstrikes and destruction” as Russia bombed
from the air and the regime deployed incendiary weapons, chemical weapons,
and cluster munition. “It’s impossible to describe their evilness – they
played a crucial role in the fall of Aleppo,” in December 2016, Hassoun
says. Some 34,000 residents of eastern Aleppo who refused to surrender to
the regime were displaced. . . .
Following the fall of the city, Soleimani triumphantly visited eastern
Aleppo. A photo of that visit, taken in the al-Shaar neighborhood, was
widely shared on social media. When Hassoun first saw the photo while
displaced in the northern Aleppo countryside, he says he “felt horrible. You
see your neighborhood that was free . . . [and] see the Iranian occupier
there . . . defiling it. I wished I had died that moment.”
Three years on, Hassoun says he rejoiced upon hearing the news of Soleimani’s
demise. “I felt on top of the world,” he says, recounting how he rushed from
his village to the nearest town so he could “participate in the wonderful
celebrations. Owners of candy stores were distributing sweets for free. We
danced and sang.”
The former Jordanian ambassador to Iran, Bassam al-Amoush, didn’t go so far
as to dance and sing. But according to the Jerusalem Post, he posted two
contrasting images of Soleimani — one showing the smiling Quds terror leader
wearing a large ring with a red gemstone, and the other showing a photo of a
charred hand wearing the same ring. “The end of a murderer,” wrote
Al-Amoush. More diplomatic, but no less blunt, was the statement issued by
Yemen’s foreign ministry, welcoming Soleimani’s death as a step toward
ending conflict in the region.
At Tehran’s Shaheed Beheshti University on sunday, hundreds of protesters
refused to step on the American and Israeli flags painted at the main
Within Iran itself, meanwhile, popular rage erupted over the weekend after
the regime belatedly admitted that it had deliberately shot down a passenger
plane, killing all 176 civilians aboard. “Video clips on Twitter showed
protesters in Tehran on Saturday chanting ‘Death to the dictator,’ a
reference to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei,” reported Reuters . “Social media
was flooded with angry comments from Iranians, many complaining that the
authorities had spent more time denying they were to blame for the plane
crash than sympathizing with victims' families.”
In one especially dramatic demonstration of Iranians refusing to follow
their government’s lead, protesters at Tehran’s prestigious Shaheed Beheshti
University refused to step on American and Israeli flags. The regime had
painted the giant Stars and Stripes and Star of David at the university’s
main entrance for passers-by to walk across as a sign of disrespect. But a
video clip posted online by Turkish journalist Ragip Soylu showed hundreds
of Iranian protesters going out of their way to avoid desecrating the flags,
and berating the few who didn’t. “Our enemy is in Iran, not America,” some
As for Soleimani, not even the best efforts of the Khamenei theocracy have
managed to prevent some Iranians from expressing their contempt for the late
terrorist. On her Twitter feed, exiled Iranian journalist Masih Alinejad
posted footage of people tearing down posters extolling the “martyrdom” of
the Quds leader, and of crowds shouting: “Soleimani was a murderer — it’s
time for his Supreme Leader to go!”
Over the weekend, Trump tweeted his support for the Iranians taking to the
streets (“We are following your protests closely, and are inspired by your
courage.”) That doesn’t mean that the White House has a carefully
thought-through strategy for dealing with Iran. The killing of Soleimani may
turn out to be a one-off, with no serious work to follow it up other than
continued economic sanctions and Twitter blasts. On the other hand, it may
turn out — unlikely but conceivable — that Trump will prove to be the first
president since the rise of the Islamic Republic 41 years ago to adopt a
deliberate policy aimed at regime change in Tehran.
But if nothing else, Trump has at least temporarily reestablished a measure
of deterrence that had eroded badly under his and previous administrations.
No less a figure than David Petraeus, the retired four-star general who
commanded US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan and later headed the CIA, last
week praised the killing of Soleimani as “more significant” than Barack
Obama’s order to take out Osama bin Laden. Soleimani was “the most
formidable adversary that we have faced for decades,” Petraeus told Foreign
Policy. In killing him, he said, Trump sent the mullahs a “pretty
clarifying” message of American intent.
To liberal Democrats and their allies in US newsrooms, it might be
self-evident that Trump’s order to dispatch Soleimani was a deplorable crime
that has made the world more dangerous. But across the Middle East — and
even in the streets of Tehran — countless men and women are taking a very
Postscript: Over the weekend, Iran's sole female Olympic medalist announced
on Instagram that she has defected from the Islamic Republic . “I am one of
the millions of oppressed women in Iran,” posted Kimia Alizadeh, who won a
bronze medal in taekwondo at the 2016 Olympics. “They took me wherever they
wanted. I wore whatever they said. Every sentence they ordered me to say, I
repeated. Whenever they saw fit, they exploited me.” Alizadeh, 21, has
reportedly sought sanctuary in Europe. May she find only safety, happiness,
W warns against the three evil triplets
I was struck by this video clip, which has been making the rounds on social
media. It shows former President George W. Bush speaking to college students
in 2011 — two years into the Obama administration — about some of the
poisonous “isms” that recur from time to time in American history. “One is
isolationism,” he said, “and its evil twin, protectionism, and its evil
Bush was always scrupulous about not criticizing his successor, but he did
tell the students that he was “a little concerned” that Americans might
again be succumbing to the temptation of those three evil isms. He couldn’t
have imagined the coming Trump phenomenon, or how it would soon propel the
Republican Party in precisely the direction he was warning those students to
beware. It is almost surreal to view this clip now, three years into an
administration that has embraced a bristling “America First” demeanor
towards the world, launched an expensive round of protectionist trade wars,
and made harshness toward immigrants a signature policy.
Liberals and Democrats overflowed with hatred of Bush when he was in the
White House. Have any of them, I wonder sometimes, changed their minds about
The unkosher joys of bacon
In all my decades, I’ve never tasted bacon (that’s what happens when you
grow up keeping kosher). The whole “bacon mania” thing, I confess, is lost
on me. I don’t even like the smell of the stuff.
But that didn’t stop me from reading with considerable interest this
compilation of economic, historical, and medical facts about bacon, courtesy
of Jonathan Miltimore and the Foundation for Economic Education. Did you
know, for example, that bacon first appeared in China around 1500 BC? Or
that the average American consumes 18 pounds of bacon per year? Or that
bacon contains Vitamins B1, B2, B3, B5, B6, and B12, not to mention 89% of
the recommended dietary allowance for selenium.
Read the whole thing, while I go try to find my selenium somewhere else.
Subscribe to BostonGlobe.com
Everyone knows that televised presidential “debates” are silly spectacles,
about as substantive as lowbrow game shows, but with less panache.
Candidates strain to avoid saying anything substantive or controversial,
while doing their best to lob one-liners at their opponents in hopes of
being deemed the “winner” of the encounter. My Sunday column asked why we
can’t have debates that amount to more than grandstanding soundbite theater.
Instead of the unedifying format these debates always take, I propose four
alternatives that would make a dramatic change — and might just teach us
something about the candidates we didn’t know beforehand.
In my column last Wednesday , I noted that promising to bring American
troops home from of Iraq, Afghanistan, and the rest of the Middle East has
become standard for presidential candidates of both parties. What Bernie
Sanders and Elizabeth Warren promise today, Donald Trump promised four years
ago — and Barack Obama promised eight years before that. But it isn't going
to happen. Like it or not, the United States simply cannot abandon the
Middle East. The world’s most treacherous neighborhood will need the
stabilizing presence of the world’s democratic superpower for the
Enjoy reading Arguable? Please tweet a thumbs-up to your followers!
The last line
“The crowning experience of all, for the homecoming man, is the wonderful
feeling that, after all he has suffered, there is nothing he need fear any
more — except his God.” — Viktor E. Frankl, Man’s Search for Meaning (1946)
Thank you for reading Arguable. If you liked this newsletter, why not
forward it to a friend? If a friend forwarded it to you, why not eliminate
the middleman? To subscribe for free, click here.
I always welcome feedback — cheers, jeers, and otherwise. Let me hear from
you: My e-mail address is ***@globe.com (or just reply to this
newsletter). You can follow me on social media, too: I'm on Twitter and
Facebook. Have a great week!