teaching hate

I saw someone searched for "Hebrew slogans" on my blog, and I have a relevant addition. People love to flash those pics of Palestinian kids with guns and camo and say how hate is taught. No one tends to believe that Jewish children either are taught or learn the same things from their parents.

I'm reading Raja Shehadeh's When the Birds Stop Singing and he talks about Jewish school children being required to write soldiers notes of encouragement as writing exercises, like I remember writing the President as a class exercise in 1st grade. 

Some say Palestinians corner the market on teaching hate, but the Jewish children wrote things like:

• *kill as many Arabs as possible
• *for me kill at least 10
• *ignore the laws and spray them

 see also:
The myth of incitement in Palestinian textbooks
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article3923.shtml

Obama's a terrorist, this time for real guys

Ok. They've got a real live Arab (and the PLO's got a whole slew of 'em) to link Obama to, so Obama MUST be a terrorist...right? Maybe this is the plural "terrorists" the campaign was thinking of when they gave her the Ayres material.

As Palin says, let's go to the videotape!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pm-8d2gRvJM

...even today we’re learnin’ new things still about our opponent...

"It’s not negative campaigning and it’s not mean spirited to call someone out on their record, their plans, or their associations so we’re gonna do it!"

She makes it sound like she's going to do all three, here, but this looks like another simple, and rather sloppy "guilt" (manufactured guilt, at that) by association to me. What did this have to do with his record or plans? What's she implying? She calls Khalidi a radical and wants to talk about Obama's record and plans??

This Rashid Khalidi thing was described as the “latest item”, but I think this has been discussed before... Yes, it has. This is only the latest item in the McCain-Palin fishing expedition. You know, if you judge it based on body language- winking, knowing looks, smug smiles, pride, etc- you'd think McCain's really found something every time one of these "items" is unleashed (rehashed?), but when you look at the substance, it turns to dust and blows away; there's nothing there.

She went on to describe one of a number of Obama's "interesting assortment of friends".

She claimed Khalidi is another "radical professor from the neighborhood."

He's a political ally of Obama and former spokesman for the PLO, she also said. No doubt the mention of Palestinians was supposed to conjure up images of kids with AK47s, suicide bombings and move people to boo.

"The twist here is that there’s a videotape of a party for Mr. Khalidi and in that Barack Obama he, being there at the videotape for a pa- in a- a party in 2003, Barack was there, and we know that very derogatory things were said about Israel and about American support for that nation."

Obama was there...with Khalidi...I think I get it...

"Israel was described as the perpetrator of terrorism instead of victim."
This line was no doubt the guilt she was trying to associate with Obama. Obama couldn't have been elected to the Senate without being fanatically pro-Israel (there are only a couple of exceptions) and he has proven it, so she's wong, there. Ascribing guilt to both sides is fair and truthful, so her Israel the perpetual victim claim is also wrong. I'd go farther in that Israel uses dispoportionate force on Palestinians, uses collective punishment that could amount to terrorism of the innocent population, and is engaging in illegal activities, including but not limited to settlement building and extrajudicial assassinations. We should be sanctioning them, not rewarding them with money and unconditional support of all kinds.

And, Ms Palin, criticism is not anti-Semitism. I'm not anti-Semitic because I disagree with the government of Israel and neither are Israelis who disagree with their government. No doubt she was trying to make Obama look like he has the same views as Khalidi, label these views as anti-Semitic and then make Obama look anti-Semitic. She's going to have a hard time making him look like he has the same views as Khalidi. On this issue, he and almost everyone in Congress are far extreme right, much like the Israeli government. Criticizing Israel would seem radical left only because Americans are so far right on the issue, but really it would make us more toward center right.

Palin wants to know Obama’s response to these things and is distressed that the LA Times won’t release this videotape. That's all well and good to try and make yourself look like a candidate who's for free press and transparency,but I can understand not releasing it. It makes sense to me based on the reaction of the McCain-Palin supporters to just Obama (off with his head, terrorist, kill him, he’s and Arab so can’t trust him, booing Khalidi, etc) that releasing that footage would put all at the party at risk for totally unjustified (and criminal) bodily harm.

This line cracked me up:
"It must be nice for a candidate to have a major news organization looking after his interests like that and maybe other politicians would love to have a pet newspaper of their very own."

Doesn't the GOP have an entire network called Fox News?? Must be nice indeed. She speaks from experience at least on that issue!


Before demonizing Khalidi and all Arabs, perhaps she should ask McCain about his associations:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/28/mccain-funded-work-of-pal_n_138606.html
During the 1990s, while he served as chairman of the International Republican Institute (IRI), McCain distributed several grants to the Palestinian research center co-founded by Khalidi, including one worth half a million dollars.
A 1998 tax filing for the McCain-led group shows a $448,873 grant to Khalidi's Center for Palestine Research and Studies for work in the West Bank. (See grant number 5180, "West Bank: CPRS" on page 14 of this PDF.)
The relationship extends back as far as 1993, when John McCain joined IRI as chairman in January. Foreign Affairs noted in September of that year that IRI had helped fund several extensive studies in Palestine run by Khalidi's group, including over 30 public opinion polls and a study of "sociopolitical attitudes."


But, maybe he gets a pass on this one for some unknown reason, like the I married my mistress but somehow it's irrelevant one he got by "values voters."

Not only is he a terrorist, but also a socialist, too!

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/18/campaign.wrap/index.html

http://news.aol.com/elections/article/mccain-says-obamas-plans-socialistic/216894

Anti-Americans, terrorists, socialists! Oh my!

Socialist? Three percent tax increase for the wealthy or Wall Street Bailout?

I've been saying that if we could get free college and healthcare like some in Europe, then let's go socialist. I would have a problem with a tax structure such that we all took home the same amount of money no matter what. I hardly think slightly increasing taxes on those who can afford it and cutting taxes on the middle class is socialism.

It's the flavor of the week. Before 9/11, the cry of socialism had people running scared like today's cries of wolf with Muslims, Arabs and terrorism. I've heard the right try and continue to cash in on the cold war scare tactic for years now. McCain raised the issue in the summer and he's back with Obama's comment about spreading the wealth.

This is just the flavor of the week for the McCain campaign attack dog, Sarah Palin. She's crying terrorist, voter registration fraudster, and socialist while telling us some of us aren't patriotic or pro-America (the Democratic area perhaps?). Now, McCain's either directing these baseless attacks through Palin or at least not reigning in the attack dog.

Why can't the McCain campaign just discuss why his plans will work better than Obama's. Instead, they insist on using scare tactics. Some "Straight Talk". Obama was right about the wheels falling off of that bus... or SUV or jet or whatever. Or are they going for change…wait…isn't the campaign still suspended?

And what's this about Palin picking on Obama for his "photo op being interrupted by a voter"? Didn't that happen to her and she gave an answer about Pakistan that's at odds with the campaign's stand? And she's the same Sarah Palin who has been shielded from questioning, instructed to stay on script, and who's several interviews have been rather disastrous? She really doesn't have room to talk, there. Neither does McCain, as he makes rather reckless jokes or comments in public at times.

Joe or Sam or that plumber guy that was mentioned in the 3rd debate 20+ times- he's probably better off under Obama's plan?

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-oped1019pageoct19,0,6970048.column

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/384332_krugman22.html


I was listening to a radio show the other day and a caller made a good point. She was having a hard time with her mortgage and possible foreclosure and Joe may just have to wait another year or so to buy a business. Maybe Joe (Sam) isn't so average after all.

The second debate

The second debate was a little disappointing in that I heard way too many misrepresentations and on McCain’s side at least, they were ones that had already been refuted. There was question dodging by both (perhaps that was the format, which I hated) and the repetition of portions of their previous speeches. I guess they get points for having a green debate with all the recycling going on. However, it kind of made this one a snoozefest.

McCain definitely excelled in this format, in a way. He sounded more passionate than in a speech. It was hard to say who did better on the questions since I didn’t really like the questions and neither did that great on substance. Obama perhaps had a more organized response, but perhaps that is due to the fact that McCain repeated already debunked misrepresentations and I have a growing doubt about his capability the more I look at his record and what he says. I was underwhelmed after this second debate overall.

The most entertaining was the competition for the best analogy or cut down. Nailing Jello to a wall and a wheel falling off the straight talk express (the implication being a not so straight path) were pretty funny and descriptive. Can we expect “your mama” jokes at the third debate?

I kind of held my breath and was a bit embarrassed for McCain when he referred to Obama as "that one." Yikes. And people thought Obama's pig in lipstick comment was a poor choice of words. Was he trying to refer to Obama's age/experience or was it a racial slur, like calling him "boy"? I think it was harmless myself, if a poor choice of words, but if you thought the pig in lipstick comment was sexist, then you should be very worried about this (one ;) ).

I don’t like the Town Hall style at all. It is interesting to see how the candidates interact with the public, but I thought the questions weren’t very good. But Brokaw’s weren’t much better. He was way too concerned with the clock than asking quality questions and getting at different angles. Had they had Bill Moyers or Amy Goodman, I bet we’d have had some really interesting stuff. The CPD probably isn’t fans of those two, especially the latter, though. I thought Ifill did a much better job than Brokaw and I have high hopes for Schiffer.

In a way, though, I think one debate probably is enough. McCain’s desire for 10 or 15 town Hall meetings is a bit crazy. The networks wouldn’t go for that. On the other hand, it would be nice to hear them respond to the smaller weekly changes in the campaign, like the recent Ayres and Keating 5 ads, in addition to the things that matter. While this is basically a distraction touching on or reaching for the judgment issue, it might be interesting to hear them talk to each other about the attacks and responses and how it relates to the kind of clean campaign each no doubt said they wanted to run. I wonder if this kind of accountability- knowing they’d have to face each other and the public weekly and rather directly would make for a cleaner or more vicious campaign on both sides?

Let the fact checking begin! There are probably a lot of duplicates...
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/factchecking_debate_no_2.html
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/07/check-point-the-second-presidential-debate/

***
Palin was active yesterday as well. She's latched in barracuda fashion onto the misleading and well-debunked and explained "Obama has voted to raise taxes 94 times" line (as did McCain yesterday), much like she did the oft-repeated, equally misleading achievement of saying "thanks, but no thanks to the Bridge to Nowhere." Perhaps that's the barracuda reference- she'll hang onto the claim even way after it's been debunked...much like Bush and Cheney did.

Amen to this! Palin needs to be careful in attacking Obama's truthfulness, for sure.
http://www.blueridgenow.com/article/20081007/NEWS/810070255

Also about Palin in Florida:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/10/06/in_fla_palin_goes_for_the_roug.html
This kind of talk- "terrorist" and "kill him" should be condemned by the campaign, not given tacit support. I hope they make a statement soon. Or is this what they are trying to achieve? A Bush-style, fear-mongering victory.

I guess I'm not much of a Palin fan.

Or an Elisabeth Hasselbeck fan for that matter:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/06/elisabeth-hasselback-push_n_132239.html?page=4


A candid quote about the negative campaigning:

"It's a dangerous road, but we have no choice," a top McCain strategist told the Daily News. "If we keep talking about the economic crisis, we're going to lose."

from:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/10/05/2008-10-05_insults_fly_as_barack_obama__john_mccain.html

The latest set of attack ads

This was in the previous post, but I thought I'd make a new one out of it.

McCain is using Palin to bring up the Ayers so-called link to Obama. (I mean using Palin to necro this desperate fishing expedition-reminiscent of the Iraq/9-11 link?? Troopergate anyone?? There’s more substantial mud there.) I'd say that's reaching in the link department as well as the relevance to current affairs. So, I heard Obama has launched a Keating five (S&L) ad in response. I guess we have run out of current affairs to talk about?? What's up, guys? Is the economy and the bailout old news already?

McCain may have thought using Palin to bring up Ayers was ingenius, but if you're going to be talking about dirt on your hands, neither can really talk. Palin's got this Troopergate thing hanging over her head and in the way of associations, there's really no comparison between Ayers and some of the people McCain is consulting for his policy and campaign. Phil Gramm and John Bolton stick out ion my mind. These aren't mere acquaintances; these people are giving him advice on important issues affecting us now, some of which McCain may not know too much about or have much input in.

Palin's "palling around with terrorists" claim is far from true if she is meaning to link Obama with Ayers. The bombings Ayers' groups took credit for were in the 60s and 70s. Once Ayers got his degrees, and began working for education reform in Chicago, I couldn't find anything linking him to terrorist actions. There doesn't seem to be a friendship, but who cares if there were? The guy has abandoned the abhorrent tactics of his past and has done some really good things for education. Obama's "link" is working with him (not even directly) on school reform and such things, not as a member of a terrorist group. So to say that Obama doesn't see America the way evereyone else does as evidenced by his limited contact with Ayers is to try and cast Ayers' past beliefs, actions, etc on the present Obama, which is totally false and a really lame attempt at guilt by association.

McCain appears to be changing up his game again. Like when he changed to a theme of change. This time, he's going from the experience, straight talk express, war hero angle (pretty solid and clean) to attacking Obama for being too risky and too liberal and other more suspect themes like his truthfulness and associations (however long ago or loose they may be). There's an ad about his "voting 94 times to increase taxes" and how he's not truthful about taxes. This has been fact checked left and right and found to be not what it appears, and yet McCain's still hammering away with it!

On being too risky... McCain fits the bill far better than Obama. He doesn't inspire confidence in his own abilities to lead by his reaction to the financial "crisis" most recently, his myriad positions on the economy and deregulation (said he didn't know much about it, spent much time in favor of deregulation before belatedly putting his name on the Fannie Mae regulation bill), his foreign policy positions (antagonistic toward Russia, McCain following the Bush script on Iraq, talking diplomacy but being a hawk, etc). For all his experience, his positions aren't solid and stable, they are erratic. The campaign tactic of repeating well-debunked misleading accusations against Obama (or debunked distorted accomplishments of McCain/Palin) reminds me of the Bush tactic of repeating things hoping Americans will believe it if they hear it enough. I hate that. It was infuriating to hear people I thought had common sense (in other things, like Bible) repeat the Bush lines in support of the Iraq invasion. McCain can repeat misleading, fact checked assertions all he wants, but when it comes down to actions, I don't think McCain has the judgment to be President. It would be one thing if he had made some mistakes and learned from them, but he still seems to be all over the place at the current time.

I guess it's good news for Obama that McCain's best attack material is tangential and pretty weak at best.


McCain campaign quote:

"We've got to question this guy's associations. Very soon. There's no question that we have to change the subject here,"

So far attempts at trying to paint Obama as a sexist, tax raising, reckless, raging liberal who is not ready to lead have fallen pretty flat.

As with the lipstick diversion, lets get back to the issues!

More detail here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/03/AR2008100303738_pf.html

Edit 10/14/08: I saw an ad just this week after this so called story broke (or broke again) and was debunked about how Obama works with terrorists when convenient. Whaaa? Is anyone really buying that? (I guess a lot actually do buy this stuff. I heard a woman get up and talk about how she couldn't trust Obama because he's an Arab or something like that-McCain had to take the mic and correct her-sort of.) Blind ambition and bad judgment? McCain's getting his economic advice from Mr. Enron. What does that say about his ethics and judgment?