"Shut Up and Sing"

Words which I never thought I'd utter: Bill Maher is wrong and Christopher Rufo is right. (So is this tweeter.)

Bill Maher just weighed in on the Macklemore saga and dropped a heavy dose of common sense on the whole thing.

Maher put it perfectly:

MAHER: “Is anyone looking for anything of this at a concert? I mean, do I really need a lecture on politics of any stripe, right when the molly… pic.twitter.com/7O967oiyQ0

— Overton (@overton_news) September 19, 2026

 

New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft banned Macklemore from performing at the stadium he owns because of incendiary remarks the rapper had made about Israel/Palestine at two concerts in New Jersey. Kraft argued in part "Gillette Stadium has a longstanding commitment to providing a welcoming environment for all guests and ensuring that events held at our venue do not provide a platform for hate speech."

Maher says

Is anyone looking for any of this at a concert. I mean, do I really need a lecture on politics of any stripe, right when the molly is kicking in? It's so arrogant on both their sides.

Sorry to interrupt your mellow with real life, Bill.  Maher continues

I don't need Bruce Springsteen to do it, either. Or Kid Rock is a good friend of mine. I love his music. We agree on very little politically. I would go to one of his shows but it turns into a Trump rally. I'm not going to that.

And you don't have to do that, Bill. It won't kill you to miss a concert. I've been doing it for decades, and so have many people who are still alive. There are several other ways to get or hear music. Maher adds

And I don't want Bruce Springstten to do it, either. You know, why is he doing this? What's the point? Because people who agree with him agree with him. There's a lot of peopl , I bet, who are Trump voters who like Bruce Springsteen and always have. 

Well, yes, there are. And they can do to Springsteen what you can do to Kid Rock: boycott them. That would be an act of principle. 

Springsteen doesn't have to worry about fans who decide not to go to one of his concerts because he makes a political statement or two. There always are others who will fill the seats who, like Bill Maher, have a great deal of money to spend on being entertained. Also: fun trumps principle, almost always. Perform, and they will come. Maher concludes

He looks like one of them. He's a working-class guy. And now, they have to go to the concert, like, okay, I still like the music buy you know, really, I don't love you as much, Mr. Boss.

Oh, yes, a real working-class guy worth approximately $1.2 billion. I'm guessing a carpenter, sheet metal worker, electrician, or plumber- men (occasionally women) who work with their hands would love to make even a small fraction of the tens of millions of dollars he does annually. Some of those individuals who work with their hands themselves are very well off. But they do at least effect a working class lifestyle or mentality which may grant them the status of working class. But a singer and entertainer? Not on your life.

Bruce Springsteen, as with Kid Rock, deserves to earn the money he earns. It's what the market bears. However, unlike a lot of blue-collar workers, he did not have to retire young because he was beaten up physically. Ironically, he seems to understand that while Maher does not.

Maher, Springsteen, and Kid Rock all are entertainers. They are not surgeons. Or cyber security engineers. Or even social workers or garbage collectors, all doing work which needs to be done, at wages far less than Maher or the big names in entertainment.

And that is precisely why Bruce Springsteen or the right-wing, pro-Trump Kid Rock should speak up as they wish. It may suggest, as Maher believes, that they think they know more than you, me, or our neighbors.  But it suggests also that they believe the issues they address (however superficially) may be as important as their music, or at least that their music isn't the be all and end all.

When New England Patriots owner Bob Kraft banned rapper Macklemore from performing at the stadium he owns, he argued in part "Gillette Stadium has a longstanding commitment to providing a welcoming environment for all guests and ensuring that events held at our venue do not provide a platform for hate speech."

Christopher Rufo was technically incorrect- naive, actually- when he contended "But I just think any kind of echo of that old cancel culture from the past is going to be a loser in today's environment."  It won't be a loser because both the "progressive" left and the Trump right support cancellation when the victim is somebody on the other side. Now, we find that even Bill Maher- persistent critic of cancel, and of "woke", culture- is fine with suppressing speech when it's speech he finds abhorrent, in this case condemnation of Israel by an anti-Semite.

Rufo has made a career out of attacking the "woke". He understands, though didn't mention, that opposing something because it is characterized as "hate speech" is hostile to the concept of free expression. Oppose something because it is wrong and/or bigoted- or in extreme cases, highly offensive- but "hate speech" can be almost anything. It is very illiberal, shutting down speech simply because we don't like it. We may "hate" particular speech but that shouldn't be grounds to ban it.

Share |

Worthless Critics

The circumstances or context surrounding this incident are impossible to determine from this tweet.

The primary is over. Abdul El-Sayed’s deranged supporters should leave Congresswoman Haley Stevens alone. pic.twitter.com/qenIIV73Kk

— Jake Altman (@TradeUnionJake) September 17, 2026

 

We now know the circumstances, or at least have a theory. Representative Stevens tweets

Earlier today, I was leaving a Science Committee hearing, standing up for science to address climate change, when I was once again followed, shouted at, and harassed by two rogue paid actors attempting to intimidate. Let me be clear: I have always wanted the wars in the Middle East to end. I believe in a two-state solution that gives Israelis and Palestinians peace, security, dignity, and a home. People are free to disagree with me, challenge me, and protest my positions. That is democracy. But disagreement is not license for intimidation or harassment. I’m not on the ballot anymore. So, what exactly are we accomplishing by continuing to tear each other apart? There is too much at stake to spend our energy villainizing people on our own side or like me who are not coming back to Congress. We should be putting our energy into protecting Social Security, defending voting rights, lowering costs, standing up for science, and defending the people who sent us here. Disagreement is democracy. Intimidation isn’t. Let’s get back to work.

In her third to last paragraph and sentence, Stevens makes a good point. Most of the individuals most intent on cancelling supporters of Israel don't mention protecting Social Security. Or voting rights. Or standing up for science. Or reigning in the unchecked power of artificial intelligence. Or the rights of labor, of consumers, or even of minorities in the USA.

Neither do they appear to support a two-state solution. For them, it is "from the river to the sea," from the Jordan to the Mediterranean, a complete elimination of Israel.

They're unlikely to see that dream fulfilled. However, they may splinter the Democratic Party, resulting in the election of more Republicans. They're from the party generally supportive of more Israeli settlements on the West Bank, more offensive weaponry for Israel, continued war against Iran, and whatever development profitable to the Trump family springs up in Gaza. It's irony, but for many it would be mission accomplished.

Share |

... and Buried

John McCain is dead.

Literally, obviously; but figuratively, also- and almost as obviously.

At the time and not being prescient, I was not overly impressed by this:

 

It was on October 10, 2008, during a closely contested presidential campaign featuring Senator Barack Obama and Senator John McCain that

At a town hall event in Lakeville, Minnesota, a woman in the audience made a false and offensive claim about Obama.

 “I can’t trust Obama. I have read about him, and he’s not, um, he’s an Arab,” she said.

Without hesitation, McCain took the microphone from her. “No, ma’am,” he responded. “He’s a decent family man [and] citizen that just I just happen to have disagreements with on fundamental issues, and that’s what the campaign’s all about. He’s not [an Arab].”

At the same event, another supporter expressed fear about Obama becoming president. McCain again stood firm. “He is a decent person and a person that you do not have to be scared of as president of the United States,” he assured the crowd.

Many in the audience were not happy with his defense of Obama. Reports from the time say some people booed and called Obama a “liar” and a “terrorist.” But McCain refused to back down.

“I want to fight, and I will fight,” he said. “But I will be respectful. I admire Sen. Obama and his accomplishments, and I will respect him.”

At the time, a reporter for WRAL-TV in Raleigh, North Carolina was half-right upon writing "it's hard to see how his current appearance today dosn't cut against him.... But he was boxed in and had no choice but to do this."

It did cut against McCain. However, unless the mood in the Republican Party virtually reversed itself- and it didn't- between that point and Donald Trump's presidential run eight years later, Senator McCain did have the choice not to do that.

Donald Trump's words and actions did change everything, not only in politics, but in this country generally. Nonetheless, he less persuaded conservatives and Republicans than he did give license for their worst selves to manifest themselves.

 

The next time Republicans accuse Democrats of "violent rhetoric," Here's ONE of MANY videos as proof that they are full of shit.

Here's sitting US Senator Ted Cruz, doing a call-and-response with every response saying "He should be shot!"

ZERO PUSHBACK.pic.twitter.com/JEedZDljqk

— BrooklynDad_Defiant!☮️ (@mmpadellan) September 12, 2026

 

It's here that one is tempted to say "but what of the Democrats and anti-Semitism? Abdul el-Sayed, Hasan Piker, and the DSA?"  Brandon Herrera has a history of making derogatory remarks about American citizens, including women and homeless people. Therefore, to Speaker Mike Johnson, he is "a very serious candidate for Congress and a very thoughtful guy" who will be elected "and help us to save America to presrve freedom and bring down costs for the Americcan people."

HOLY SHIT -- Tapper plays Mike Johnson footage of Republican candidate Brandon Herrera describing moms as "cum trophies," mentions he called Nazi machine guns "the original ghetto blasters," and asks Johnson how he can support him. Johnson says "Herrera has run a very effective… pic.twitter.com/xfz2n8ZzmJ

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) September 13, 2026

Donald Trump called former aide Omarosa Manigault Newman "that dog" and 1996 Miss Universe winner "Miss Piggy." More recently, he targeted New York Times reporter Katie Rogers as "ugly, both inside and out" and told Bloomberg reporter Catherine Lucey "Quiet. Quiet, piggy." 

Obviously, these are not the only sewer-level insults by Trump against women, just as he has ridiculed others on racial or other putrid grounds. And just as obviously, Ted Cruz has remained silent about all of these, aside from declaring "my favorite attribute about Donald Trump is the guy has cast iron balls at a level that there's no parallel in history." Speaker Johnson and most other Republicans have displayed nearly as much cowardice.  John McCain, war hero and defender of Barack Obama against a racially offensive remark, is dead, as is any sense of decency or courage in the Republican Party.

Share |

Courting Catastrophe, Happily

Last December,  defense analyst Alex Alfirraz Scheers wrote

Turkey is the most mercurial member of the NATO alliance and often undermines alliance cohesion.

 Pointing to the threat posed by Iran, Turkey, like Saudi Arabia, has stated that it will pursue an independent nuclear capability if the Shiite country develops its own. Turkey has also expressed concerns about Israel's nuclear weapons.

'We have Israel nearby, as almost neighbours,' stated President Erdogan. 'They scare (other nations) by possessing [nuclear weapons.]'

Currently, there are roughly 50 American tactical nuclear weapons already deployed to Turkey, suggesting that a Turkish bomb is not needed for Ankara to protect its vital interest.

Unless a severe rupture were to happen between Turkey and its fellow NATO allies, such as the expulsion of Turkey from the alliance, a Turkish nuclear bomb is a low-probability prospect.

Not any more.  But let's back up. In July, President Donald Trump

approved a landmark 30-year civilian nuclear cooperation agreement with Saudi Arabia, paving the way for American companies to play a big role in building the kingdom’s nuclear energy infrastructure…

The agreement has prompted strong reactions from non-proliferation experts and members of Congress. Many analysts argue that uranium enrichment and spent fuel reprocessing represent the two principal technological pathways towards producing weapons-grade nuclear material.

They warn that even a civilian enrichment capability could provide Saudi Arabia with what is known as a latent nuclear weapons capability.

Experts also caution that moving away from the IAEA Additional Protocol could weaken established global non-proliferation standards and encourage other countries to seek similar exceptions.

“Whither goes Saudi Arabia, so goes the United Arab Emirates, Turkey and Egypt. The idea that this will have a happy ending is delusional,” Henry Sokolski, executive director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center, told WSJ.

And now saying the quiet part out loud:

Trump ADMITS He Would BOW TO IRAN if They Had NUKES

Trump on Iran:
If Iran had a nuclear weapon, I would be calling the Supreme Leader.

I would be saying, "Mr. Supreme Leader, how are you, sir? Is there anything we can do for you?" pic.twitter.com/c81YwORoOd

— Ryan Rozbiani (@RyanRozbiani) September 10, 2026

 

We knew that Donald Trump is a bully and fascist, from his threats against Cuba and Greenland; the police action and control over the Venezuelan government; and his favoritism toward Russia and Saudi Arabia. In his speech Tuesday evening at the Republican Party's mid-term convention in Dallas, the President made dangerous comments about Iran- more generally, about nuclear weapons- encourage a nuclear conflagration..

The media focused on Donald's promise that every American adult (or every American adult citizen) would be given $5,000 if Republicans retake the House and Senate in November. Possibly illegal, it is a deeply unethical bribe which will never come about but is possibly illegal and is deeply  unethical and worthy of attention. It would go by the wayside, as did Trump's promises of a DOGE dividend, rebate for tariffs, and compensation for Affordable Care Act subsidies.

Even if the President were to follow through, the impact, though harmful, would not be existential.  By contrast, these words about Iran from the leader of the world's greataest superpower will live on beyond his presidency. He wouldn't be around to answer for the consequences.

If they had a nuclear weapon, I'd be calling the Supreme Leader. And I'd be saying "Mr. Supreme Leader, how are you , sirIs there anything we can do for you?"- as opposed to bombing the crap out of them.

It's understandable, albeit reprehensible, that Trump would make these comments.  He will not have to pay a political price for them, not only because they're largely being ignored but also because by the time they'd have a devastating impact, he would be deceased. However, message received- by Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and other bad actors. As Ana Kasparian, taking a moment's leave from hating on Israel, accurately noted, "greatest ad for going nuclear."

Share |

Trump, Surprisingly Open-Minded

In the manner of Jim Steinman's lyrics for Meat Loaf, two out of three ain't bad.  Donald J. Trump is a  malignant narcissist, yes; pathological (only by definition #3) liar, yes; nuts, no.

He. Is. Absolutely. Nuts.
Beyond delusional. A fantasy making 9/11 about himself. Malignant narcissist & pathological liar. https://t.co/FKvzbTdb8V

— Jumbo Elliott (@JumboElliott76) September 8, 2026

At a 9/28/26 event at the White House honoring first responders of 9/11/01, President Donald Trump, according to CNN fact-checker Daniel Dale, stated

For nine months, rescue and recovery crews worked day and night on the site. I want to just thank my people; I took a lot of my me(n) — I was building a big building in New York, and I took the whole crew down there right after this happened,” he said. “And they were — they had no hesitation — everybody went down with me. We went down, it was a big group of people. Wasn’t too much we could do, I’ll be honest — it was, you know, it was raw, and nobody’s seen anything like it, ever. We had other buildings; the United States Steel building was creaking, really creaking, and we thought it was going to fall down; the truth is it creaked a lot, it creaked. It still creaks. But it never came down, and I re(member) — I’ll never forget two firemen. We thought it was coming down on top of us, and two firemen — big, strong guys — and I’m not the smallest guy in the world — they grabbed me under the arms, said, ‘Gotta get out of here.’ And they literally lifted me up. This is not easy to do. I’m big. They lifted me up and they started running with me. I said, ‘Fellas, I can run myself.’ But they were amazing, but they thought it was coming down; it didn’t come down. 

On 9/11/01, Trump was in Manhattan but many blocks away from the World Trade Center. He did not send a crew of workers to the site. The One Liberty Plaza office building reopened in October of 2001 and is reportedly structurallly sound to this day. Nor was Donald pulled out of the wreckage.

Other than that, most of what Trump claims is accurate. However, it is something else he said, neither true nor false, that got my attention.

After President Trump had jousted for several months with North Korean strongman Kim Jong Un, Trump remarked at a rally in West Virginia

"I was really being tough- and so was he. And we would go back and forth. And then we fell in love, okay? No, really- he wrote me beautiful letters, and they're great letters.

Often, Trump has boasted that he admires a guy because he's "powerful" or "smart"  "tough," "strong," "strong like granite".   He and Kim, however, "fell in love" after he received "beautfiul letters" from the North Korean.

That was before, but apiece with, the playing of the Village People's 1978 hit, the gay anthem "YMCA".  It became common to play the song at Trump rallies despite "the gay messaging in the song, the gay fantasy stripper-costumes, the gay dancing and faux macho posturing."

Just joking. It's not "despite," but "because," as he accompanies the song with his signature dance, the likes of which have never been popular with men in bars or clubs featuring heterosexuals. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

 

Donald Trump, the "grab them by the p_ _ _ _" guy, who always has flaunted having his way with the ladies, has the perfect cover, especially as the leading man in the portion of the Epstein files held back from the public. This should be reiminiscent of the Village People, each adopting a macho identity as "hard hat, soldier, cowboy, Indian, motrocycle cop, and leather man".  

Ooh, "two big strong guys," Donald says. Homo-erotic fantasies are not illegal and, generously, represent the diversity of the "gorgeous mosaic" of  American culture. At the least, the "G" in "MAGA" more accurately stands for "gay" than for "great".

Share |

Here We Go Again

I don't care about Fat Joe (Joseph Antonio Cartagena at birth), a 46-year-ol former rapper whose father is Cuban-American and mother is Puerto Rican. He's a rapper, not a serious individual.

But the 47-year old Marc Lamot Hill is a serious person. He once was named by Ebony magazine as one of the nation's top 30 black leaders under the age of 30 (clever!) and has been a media personality, activist, professor of urban education, and currently co-host of the Joe Budden podcast. He is nothing if not an accomplished individual- well, a few other things, but accomplished.

And so the question: Is this still a thing?

 

Marc Lamont Hill addresses Fat Joe’s recent visit to the Joe Budden Podcast and his claim that he can use the N word due to his proximity to the culture.

“Fat Joe is not black, I disagree with him using the word due to his relation to the culture, I don’t think that’s enough”… pic.twitter.com/q3ZabDLHK1

— The Art Of Dialogue (@ArtOfDialogue_) September 7, 2026

By" this"  I mean  justifying the use of the n-word by blacks while unironically condemning white racism and racists. In the video below, Hill remarks (beginning at 1:36)

I did say, and I do mean this, that if you do this you should be black. If you're going to use the n-word, you should be somebody who could actually be called the name.That's my position. That's my belief. 

Now, Fat Joe is making the claim here that he didn't make before- "I'm the blackest person." No, he is saying that he is black. I am not trying to police anybody's ethnicity. I am not trying to police anybody's racial identity.

A few moments pass before Hill decides to question, or rather "police," his friend's ethnicity or racial identity as he maintains

Fat Joe has love for black people. Fat Joe is not racist. Fat Joe cares about black people. But Fat Joe is not black. I have no issue with Fat Joe's relationship to the black community but Fat Joe is not black. Fat Joe was basically saying "I grew up around black people, I've grown up in hip-hop,I'm ensconced in the culture. I am a part of the culture.

I agree with all of that. But Fat Joe is not black. So while I love Fat Joe and I admire Fat Joe and I appreciate Fat Joe, I don't share his position that he can use the n-word by virtue of his proximity to the culture or his love for the cultrue, I don't think that's enough.

It would be easy to condemn all others while giving his friend a pass. So Hill deserves credit for not doing that. 

But not for anything else.  In response to the professor's comments, one wise and apparently black tweeter notes (though I don't know if the last statement is accurate)

The n-word derives from the most negative and degrading system of oppression known to human kind. And before slavery here in America, people of color, no matter what part of the world they were from did not call themselves or each other the n-word. I find it embarrassing and repulsive that this guy, Mr. Hill is telling the world community that it is ok to go ahead and identify yourself with degradation, lowliness, illiteracy, poverty, and everything else that is wrong with the use of this word and its ugliness.

Even more disheartening is the fact that people will hear and agree with this foolish endorsement. If you are going to be okay with people of color saying it you ought not be offended when non colored people are saying it. The word is what it is no matter who is saying. I have long ago dispensed with this notion that the word is a term of endearment, IT IS NOT. It is as offensive from people of color as it is from those who are not. This statement by Mr. Hill is miseducation of people of color. My children do not use the word and at least in my presence are forbidden from using it because they should never associate themselves or any other person of color with this word.

We have to do better. I do not know one civil rights leader of seriousness or a true scholar in history on the subject of race who would lend an ear or credibility to this ridiculous endorsement.

It should be obvious that if black people can justifiably use a term- which they can't- then all others should be able to do so. A black person, who is one most likely offended, by the term, cannot use the n-word without giving it his or her de fact endorsement.

If they could do so, accuracy would demand that we make a judgement as to an individual's blackness. Hill recognizes that Cartagena, no matter the cultural milieu in which he chose to move, is Latino. What then of an individual who is racially mixed, black on the side of one parent and whie on the other? Or what if the latter parent is racially Laino, Asian-American, or of tribal background?

Generally, those individuals have credibly been able to claim that they are black: think Kamala Harris or Barack Obama.  However, Barack Obama, for one, was not raised in a culture Hill or anyone else would recognize as being classically African-American. Nor have been most blacks who were born in Africa or whose parents were born in Africa. They- along with individuals from the Caribbean- experienced what is an immigrant culture. Yet, "black".

So there is one simple and fair resolution to this conundrum.  Another Xer- presumably white, but not clearly so- tweets

Maybe we should be having a completely different conversation altogether. Name another group that keeps one of the most degrading slurs used against them in everyday rotation, then spends time arguing over who else is allowed to say it. Some things don’t have to be carried forever just because they became part of the culture. We can decide we’re done and move on.

Let’s just all stop saying it.

Share |

Rula Jebreal Is Not Alone

Rula Jebreal was born of a Nigerian father and mother raised in Palestine. She is described by Wikipedia as "a Palestinian foreign policy analyst, journalist, novelist, and screenwriter with dual Israeli and Italian citizenship."  To her credit, she is not a Johnny-come-lately. As longtime country singer Barbara Mandrell (in a different vein) would have put it, Jebreal was anti-Semitic when anti-Semitism wasn't cool.  But this obsession with hating Jews- uh, her, "AIPAC"- now has gotten out of hand.

How is it that, of all the words in your vocabulary to express dissent against Hakeem Jeffries you landed on “monkey”??? And is it suddenly acceptable because you stuck “AIPAC” in front of it? Enlighten us all, @rulajebreal! https://t.co/EbVUJ3M2ng

— Yemisi Egbewole (@yemisi) September 4, 2026

Jebreal's statement about House Minority Leader Jeffries was

His name is Hakeem. Hakeem in Arabic is an Arabic name which means healer. He’s not a healer. He’s a divider. He is a bought and paid, by AIPAC, monkey. With all due respect, and I don’t mean it in a racist way, he is just basically an errand boy. And we’re done and tired of that.

This doesn't sound as if it was deliverd with due respect  Additionally, calling someone black a "monkey" sounds rather racist. Jebreal understood that ("I don' tmean it in a racist way") as she spoke the words and likely believed she had erred when she did so. After she- and the host, who found it acceptable- received blistering criticism on X, Jebreal responded.

I am disgusted and horrified that Hakeem Jeffries is taking money from AIPAC amidst Israel's genocide in Palestine.
That said, a term that I used to describe him was inappropriate and offensive and should never have been used.
I apologize unconditionally.

— Rula Jebreal (@rulajebreal) September 4, 2026

Jebreal did apologize "unconditionally" for making a racist remark. She not only stated the obvious- that it was "offensive"- but more importantly that it was inappropriate and "should never have been used". ("Errand boy," though, is an old-school slang term which is highly derogatory but unrelated to race.)

Yet, there was something lacking in the apology. Self-described "'apologetically Jewish' author" Trisha Posner notes 

This is not a “Palestinian journalist” born and raised and working in the Middle East who might not understand the sensitivity of this attack on the House minority leader.

It is not a slip when she slurs a Black Democrat:

“He is a bought and paid by AIPAC monkey. With all due respect — and I don’t mean it in a racist way. He is just basically an errand boy, and we’re done and tired.”

 What she means is she’s sorry for any Black insult, she meant it only in her more typical anti-Jewish way.

Posner observed that Jebreal was arguing that the top-ranking House Democrat is an AIPAC toady. Increasingly, everything Israel is AIPAC and "AIPAC" is a diplomatic way of saying "Jew."  That's not true of everyone anti-Israel, of course. However, it's true of enough of them to be a major phenomenon.

And who are these people? Jebreal, Wajahat Ali (the podcaster of the show Jebreal appeared on), Mehdi Hasan, Hasan Piker, Karishma Manzur, and even influencers who are not Muslim have taken on the cause of hating Jews. 

The non-Muslim opponents of Zionism, however, need to be wary. They are typically left-of-center, including on matters of same-sex marriage, divorce, abortion, and other issues sex- or gender- related. 

Most of the Muslims who are allies on Palestine/Israel are laser-focused on that issue and will not hesitate to sell out allies  There are wolves in sheep's clothing and as suggested by Rula Jebreal's charge, more here than in most.

Share |

Ignorant, at Best

In my last post, I half-seriously suggested that Michigan senate candidate Abdul el-Sayed of Michigan heed the words of a fictional character in 30 Rock, who said "... just say Jewish, this is taking forever." No need to say that to podcaster Emma Vigeland, who helpfully, if ignorantly, has done just that.

Why clip the first 40 seconds, in which I make clear that this is about the *aftermath* of the Holocaust, if you’re going to smear me with one short quote? I'm literally saying Nazi Germany deserved harsher treatment.

The Zionist AI bot that scans our episodes is getting lazy. https://t.co/ntHQzUDQj1

— Emma Vigeland (@EmmaVigeland) September 2, 2026

 

In this curious word salad, Vigeland stated

It should be, I think, a teachable moment for people about what Zionism is really about as a white supremacist ideology that has been tied into an ancient religion and should have nothing to do with it and has put so many Jews on the front line of hatred in a failed attempt for reparations for the Holocaust where nobody who really perpetuated it saw much outside of some select few who paid for their crimes of Nazis. Many of them fled to countries with the help of western governments, too, and European governments. The people who bore the brunt of the Holocaust were the Palestinians.

It's easy, though critical, to knock Vigeland for the utterly preposterious statement "the people who bore the brunt of the Holocaust were the Palestinians."  The individuals killed by the Third Reich were European Jews, and not even those residing in the ancient land of Palestine or as Scripture would have it, Judea and Samaria. That should be clear to everyone, especially those possessed of such knowledge and wisdom that they feel a need to present us "a teachable moment.

Some did, indeed, flee to the West with the help of European and American governments. However, they fled to escape likely punishment for war crimes and in general

The Allies recognized the appeal of Nazism to a defeated people. The movement had sprung from Germany's humiliating defeat 27 years earlier. To eradicated the idea, all four major powers- America, Russia, Britain, and France- agreed to a plan of denazification. They would hold the supporters of the Nazi government accoutable for their crimes, eradicate Nazi regalia, and present the country with the scope of Nazi crime.

The West- aside from Germany itself- was not responsible for the rise of Nazism. And the West- including, especially, Germany- has done whatever it could to prevent a similar situation from arising.

It's not entirely clear what Vigeland means by Jews being put "on the front line of hatred in a failed attempt for reparations for the Holocaust."  Presumably, she does not mean the Jews of the USA, who played a prominent role in the civil rights movement at a time, particularly, when such activism was controversial and often dangerous.  Vigeland probably is referring to the Jews of Israel, who live side-by-side with Arabs, who enjoy more rights than in any other country of the Middle East. 

And as Vigeland others on the extreme left conveniently disregard, the establishment of the State of Israel was not a response merely to the Holocaust. (President Obama fell victim to the same myth when in Cairo in June, 2009 when he implied that the people of "the Holy Quran" have always liked Jews.)  Discrimination against, sometimes persecution of, Jews has been taking place in the Arab world for nearly a millenium.

Many of the Jews whom Vigeland believes are such haters include individuals who knew persons who were slaughtered in the October 7, 2023 attack launched by Islamic terrorists with the purpose of killing as many Jews as possible. It was a devastating and, in the short-term, successful operation in which

the attacks by Hamas—the Arabic acronym for the Islamic Resistance Movement—killed more than 1,300 Israelis and third-country nationals, including at least 29 Americans, in a country whose population is less than 10 million. In America, that would be equivalent to killing nearly 40,000—13 times more than the number of Al Qaeda victims on 9/11.

Jews took offense, about which the anti-Israel (supposedly progressive) far left takes offense. Some Israelis even conflated Hamas with Palestinians, including them in their hatred of Hamas. But Muslim (Arab and Persian) governments and people of their region also are hostile toward Palestinians, which the far left are unconcerned with. 

That is an obstacle in the search for a two-state solution, which few prominent politicians appear interested in nowadays. (Chuck Schumer, Rahm Emanuel, and Josh Shapiro appear to be outliers; a pattern, perhaps.)

And, of course, race. Vigeland aargues we must be taught "about what "Zionism is really about as a white supremacist ideology." However, Zionism is not a "white supremacist ideology." It is not a supremacist ideology and not race-based but rather a 

Jewish nationalist movement with the goal of the creation and support of a Jewish national state in Palestine, the ancient homeland o fthe Jews (Hebrew: Eretz Yisra'el, "the Land of Israel"). Though Zionism originated in easteren and central Europe in the latter part of the 19th century, it is in many ways a continuation of the ancient attachment of the Jews and of the Jewish religion to the historical region of Palestine. According to Judaism, Zion, one of the hills of ancinet Jerusalem, is the place where God dwells.

Zionism, like it or not, pertains to a Jewish homeland.  Judaism is not a race, but a religion.  Or as God has written

Breaking news from Mt. Sinai: Judaism is a religon. The millions of allusions to me in every single text and commentary and ritual of the past 3,000 years probably should have been a giveaway.

Share |

Speaking Up, and Not

Van Jones is quite capable of saying bad things.  

After Charlie Kirk was assassinated, Jones appeared on Real Time with Bill Maher. He stated that Kirk had sent him a message proposing that Jones appear on Kirk's podcast and he suggested

‘Let’s disagree, agreeably.’”

“I’m going to carry those words with me because he was a words, not weapons, guy… We’re getting away from that now. I was very frustrated with people in my party throwing rocks at the corpse before he could even be buried. Bl00d still on the widow’s shoes, and people want to post every dumb thing he ever said. He was a 31-year-old kid.”

There were a few individuals who slammed Kirk after he was killed, but very few. And a 31-year old, especially an activist such as Kirk, is a "kid."  Still, at times Jones makes a lot of sense.

Van Jones on Abdul El-Sayed ⬇️

"These people are incredibly dangerous... I know Abdul, his positions on Israel and foreign policy are INSANE. They're not reasonable reactions to anything."

"Abdul's position is a total and complete arms embargo against the State of Israel,… pic.twitter.com/tKuiuDGXNe

— Sarah Gallagher (@sgallz_) September 1, 2026

Jones, green czar in the Obama Administration before he was prevailed upon to resign, argues that Abdul el-Sayed's

position is a total and complete arms embargo against the State of Israel, including defensive weapons, That's an insane position.

Israel wants to pay for infrastructure to stop a rocket coming from Iran or coming from Hezbollah or coming from Iran. We should deny them the right to buy the interceptors and knock down rocket going into Israel, men, women, children babies?

That's an insane position and by the way, it offends me because Barack Obama was a part of creating that Iron Dome. Barack Obama was a part of creating those interceptors. Barack Obama thought the Israeli people were in such a tough neighborhood, they needed to be able to knock down rockets. So you're telling me you're smarter than Barack Obama? You have better ideas about foreign policy than Barack Obama and you want to deplug an defund and take away Israel- half the world's Jews- ability to defend themselves?

Van Jones has exhibited undying love for, and devotion to Barack Obama through the years. He has a blind spot there and evidently does realize that some people do have better foreign policy ideas than the ex-President. (Crimeans would agree.) 

However, Jones is right about President Obama vis-a-vis the Iron Dome. As explained by a guest column published in The Jewish News in 2021 by Doron Levin, the idea for the defensive system was hatched in 2004 as Israel was being bombarded by crude, short-range rockets from Hamas and Hezbollah.

The project received some funding from the Israeli government but the Bush Administration believed Israel should use the USA's own Phalanx Vulcan anti-missile sytem. However, Colin Kahl, who had been cooridinating USA Middle East policy at the Pentagon, sent to Israel in 2009 experts who discovered that Iron Dome was superior to the Phalanx. His office recommended $200 million in aid and

In May 2010, Obama asked Congress to provide $205 million for production and deployment of Iron Dome, which would be manufactured by Israel’s state-owned Rafael Advanced Defense Systems Ltd. The U.S. House of Representatives approved the funding later that month in a 410-4 vote. The measure became part of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2011, approved by the Senate and signed by Obama on Jan. 7, 2011.

Iron Dome went operational in March 2011 and shot down its first missile a month later. Whether the new missile defense ever would have been built without Obama’s support and U.S. funding is questionable.

President Obama, having taken bold and proper action, later cooled toward the Israeli government. Nonetheless, it appears that Jones was largely correct about Obama's assistance for military defense of Israeli infrastructure and citizens. His observation that el-Sayed opposes defensive aid (all aid) to the Middle East democracy.  He is wrong about the reason. El-Sayed is no more "crazy" than the 104 Democrats in the House of Representatives who have voted to cut off all aid to the Netanyahu government.

They had varying reasons to do so, none of them valid I, and presumably Jones, find valid. Unlike some of those Democrats, el-Sayed is actively hostile toward Israel. And in his case, it's not the current government in Jerusalem; it's the very nature and idea of Israel itself. That's not insane, but something else.  AIPAC! AIPAC! AIPAC!  (Liz Lemon/Tina Fey to Jack Donaghy/Alec Baldwin in 30 Rock: "Jack, just say Jewish, this is taking forever.")

Never missing an opportunity to criticize Barack Obama (one Democrat, somewhere, has to do it sometime), I see a rich irony. You don't have to be James Carville (terrible idea, though, James) to recognize the development of a schism in the Democratic Party over Middle East policy. It is not about Gaza or Palestinians or Netanyahu; it is about Israel.  As the Party, and especially the media, contemplate Democratic prospects this November or November two years  hence, Israel looms large as an issue which can do (further) major damage to party unity.

Two voices have yet to be heard from. One is Joe Biden, who has cancer and whom nobody wants to hear from anyway- despite a successful presidency- because of how his term ended. The other is Barack Obama who, though idolized only by Van Jones and a large minority of the Party, is nonetheless beloved by most Democrats. 

And Barack Obama, exhibiting the boldness which characterized his presidency, has remained silent. It is unsurprising but damaging. He cannot unite the Democratic Party by simply snapping his fingers. However, some individuals, Van Jones and many others, are by speaking out forcefully risking their careers, reputation, or at least popularity. It is time that Barack Obama grab a backbone and do the same. I can survive a fainting spell.  

Share |