Friday, 29 June 2012

A moot point about the sun rising!

A moot point about the sun rising!

When the indubitable realized and unrealized consequences of Gillard's  unique ill - conceived, economically irrational  socially catastrophic, pathetically usurious, misnamed,  plainly ignorant Marxist AKA social - justice - based  carbon dioxide tax have had their multifarious consequences, it will be a moot point as to who remembers their currently parroted asinine byline about the sun still rising in their utopian world.

They will be gone soon - sadly not before they will have damaged everything they touched.

Think how many lives could have been saved if the waste of hundreds of billions of dollars these professional twirps waste of this  mega - incompetent government had gone into medical research!

Any thinking person will wonder how this government can create so many disasters.
It is obvious to me: it is all a brilliant  ruse. First create so many imbecilic policies then waste so much money, manifestly create lots of  enquiries non acted upon, vitiate any semblence of common sense - and do it so rapidly that they think none of them can be absorbed in all their trite ineptitudinous execritudes!

I have created a couple of new words; it is necessary to describe it in some sort of context.

But they are wrong: the biographers creating their obituary: no one will revisit their sepulcher: there will be no resurrection for the left in our lifetime. 

And perhaps worse of all - they have no one who even thinks about fixing things.
No one who believes there are consequences in everything a government does.

 History will be brutal.

Thursday, 28 June 2012

Of Cats and Men!! Google messes up

Work - in - progress!
Is artificial intelligence a threat to the Argument - from - Design idea supported by BILLIONS?
Man has already created computers that some years ago could beat in chess any homo sapien: Is this a reason for concern for anyone?
Yet we have the below postulate: that they have created a mere fragment of our minds - a computer that allegedly can recognize a cat!
No time to criticise Google for now.
However I do wonder how close we really are to anything remotely approaching artificial intelligence - and how far removed THAT would be to a Supreme Being.
The simplest cell would take a groupp of Evolution - supporting monkeys 10 10000000 years to fail to create.
Sadly the chess analogy does not work for me.

On top of Google's artificial mind: the ability to recognise cats

Of possible interest in future:

On top of Google's artificial mind: the ability to recognise cats

GOOGLE has been deeply involved in the field of artificial intelligence since its inception. Now the internet search giant has made what is being heralded as a significant breakthrough in the field: an artificial brain that has taught itself how to recognise cats.
The project could mark an important advance in the effort to create machines that are able to interact with the world - by recognising shapes and objects - as effortlessly as humans do.
A Google team connected 16,000 computer processors to create a "neural network" with more than one billion connections.
It turned out that this "Google brain" behaved in a manner that mirrored the habits of many human internet users: it became obsessed with pictures of cats.
The researchers fed the machine random images plucked from 10 million YouTube videos. Despite none of the images being labelled as feline, the Google brain constructed a kind of ghostly abstract model of a cat after being bombarded by millions of pictures.

"We never told it during the training, 'This is a cat'," Jeff Dean, a Google scientist, said. "It basically invented the concept of a cat."
By the end of the experiment the Google brain recognised three quarters of the cats that it was presented with, from a collection of 20,000 objects.
It also proved sensitive to human bodies and faces and performed more than twice as accurately as any previous neural network, according to The New York Times. The researchers who conducted the experiment believe that the process may have mirrored what happens in the human visual cortex, which is the largest system in the 

human brain and is responsible for processing visual images.
Recognising a cat may sound like a trivial thing, but in the world of artificial intelligence it is significant.
Experts sometimes refer to "Moravec's paradox". This is an expression of a counterintuitive truth: that training machines to do things that are easy for humans (such as recognising a cat) is often far harder than training machines to do tasks that humans can find challenging (such as playing chess).
Hans Moravec, an expert in robotics at Carnegie Mellon University, in Pittsburgh, said: "It is comparatively easy to make computers exhibit adult level performance on intelligence tests or playing checkers, and difficult or impossible to give them the skills of a one-year-old when it comes to perception and mobility."
The Google brain appears to be the first artificial neural network to identify objects without hints from a human supervisor, but it has a long way to go before it matches the human brain.
"It is worth noting that our network is still tiny compared to the human visual cortex, which is a million times larger in terms of the number of neurons and synapses," the researchers wrote.
The technology has been developed in Google's X Lab, a secretive facility led by Sebastian Thrun, a guru in the field of artificial intelligence. Among Professor Thrun's other projects are Google's driverless car. He has also worked on Google Glass, a pair of spectacles that displays data from the web in front of a user's eyes.
The Times

Sunday, 24 June 2012

Children the victims in minefield of same-sex marriage breakdowns

Posted without comment by GS


Children the victims in minefield of same-sex marriage breakdowns

HOMOSEXUALS can love and they can be monogamous. They are in all respects, save one, like anyone else. Of course, the respect in which they are different is that they cannot conceive children through sexual intercourse. Without children there is no life. True, some heterosexual couples cannot conceive, but that is by exception.
The chairman, Graham Perrett, and some members of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs have supported the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2012 and the Marriage Amendment Bill 2012; each proposes to change the Marriage Act to recognise homosexual marriage.
Perrett suggests that "marriage is still the best way to protect committed monogamous relationships". And further: "The love between same-sex couples is no different to that of opposite-sex couples, and deserves no less the public recognition which marriage bestows."
He fails to mention children. If it is only about love and recognition of a monogamous relationship, then there is no debate: do what you like to marriage. But if it is about children and the best institutional means of securing their future, then there is a debate.

For the supporters of homosexual marriage, marriage is not about reproduction; it is about delivering equality. Their claim ignores the fact two men or two women cannot as a matter of course, indeed, as a matter of intercourse, conceive children. Barring extraordinary intervention, there is no next generation.
The evidence seems clear: the best conditions for the creation and upbringing of children is a loving, long-term relationship. Whether these conditions are emulated in a homosexual relationship, however loving and stable, is the case in point. Homosexual couples may contrive to have children, but if they do so, a third and sometimes a fourth person enters the relationship.

I take a practical view on the matter, as prescribed by Murphy's law. If something can go wrong, it will go wrong.
In considering changes to the Marriage Act, the more people are involved, the likelier is the breakdown of the marriage. Moreover, should breakdown occur, it would be more difficult than it otherwise would be to manage the future of the children.
Placing to one side the ideal -- natural conception within wedlock -- homosexual marriage may work for children.
Heterosexual as well as homosexual marriage where IVF or surrogacy is used, however, carries the potential for donor claims during the marriage, or at its dissolution.
My argument is that, while homosexual marriage may not carry an extra risk per se, if there is an intention to have children, it always starts with a third person, a sleeper in the relationship. This is not true as a matter of course in heterosexual marriage.
Start with the simple case of a failed marriage: one man, one woman and one healthy child. The relationship breaks down. So long as one or both parents are not incompetent, parenting can be shared through the length of the child's life. Even still, there is a great deal of litigation at the Family Law Courts over these matters.
Consider a complex and, incidentally, true case: two women in a relationship conceive babies by artificial means to two men in a relationship. Both relationships break down. Potentially, each child has four people claiming a relationship with the children.
The Family Law Courts and many talented practitioners in Australia work mightily to settle what two parents and more cannot: the continuing shared parenting of children after the dissolution of the marriage. Adding more claimants makes it much more difficult.
Marriage as an institution for child-rearing is not foolproof. Adding complexity to an already increasingly complex world for marriage intensifies as a matter of course, not as a matter of exception, for homosexuals.
In the 1980s, Australian state and territory governments began amending legislation to provide de facto couples with similar rights to married couples, and from the end of the 90s they began to extend these rights to same-sex de facto couples to remove discrimination based on sexual orientation in relationships.
But that is as far as it goes.
The Australian Human Rights Commission has been at its unhelpful best in its submissions to the parliamentary committee, arguing that "the principle of equality requires that any formal relationship recognition available under federal law to opposite-sex couples should also be available to same-sex couples".
Homosexual marriage begins with a vastly different assumption to heterosexual marriage. The assertion of equality cannot overcome this assumption.
The commission also states, "We do hold a very genuine concern that anything that publicly legitimises discrimination of any kind does play to a feeling that these relationships can be treated with less respect." The respect is for the institution of marriage, not a contrived equality.



  • Muzz of Canberra Posted at 12:40 AM June 21, 2012
    To sum up, if a woman wants a child she gets pregnant. If a man wants a child he gets married.
    Comment 1 of 26
  • helgab of Perth Posted at 1:12 AM June 21, 2012
    I agree - you can't have it all. It is a fact of life no matter who you are or what relationship you are in.
    Comment 2 of 26
  • still undecided on this Posted at 2:42 AM June 21, 2012
    Hmmm. Question: If homosexuals were allowed to marry should one of the partners already have sired children would the new spouse be able to addopt the child(ren) and become a parent as I believe is the case in hetrosexual marriages.
    Comment 3 of 26
  • Old Fogey of Poona Posted at 5:18 AM June 21, 2012
    Hear hear!
    Comment 4 of 26
  • bevleann Posted at 6:37 AM June 21, 2012
    Food for thought, Gary. This aspect hadn't entered my mind before. Thanks.
    Comment 5 of 26
  • Maggie Q of Qld Posted at 6:52 AM June 21, 2012
    Excellent and what is missing in many arguments commonsense. I am not in favour of same sex unions being called marriage. Marriage is between a man and a woman it does not discriminate. If same sex unions want "equality" and get it why then cannot those who have multiple partners, indulge in incest and so on have the same equality. Right now Marriage means something this equality move is to undermine and destabilise traditional marriage and traditional families nothing more and nothing less.
    Comment 6 of 26
  • David of NSW Posted at 6:54 AM June 21, 2012
    So called marriage equality brings a whole mew meaning to the contractual concept of a 'sleeping partner'. Apples and seedless grapes have an equal right to the concept fruit, but it's unreaonable to call apples grapes or oranges mangoes, etc. Equality before the law is one thing; marriage is another. Legislation to give equal rights in law to consenting adults in same sex unions can be done by democratic process, but it is misleading to call such unions marriage i.e. a union between a man and a woman.
    Comment 7 of 26
  • Aussie Padre of Brisbane Posted at 7:04 AM June 21, 2012
    Great article, Let Homosexuals like tens of thousands heterosexuals that choose civil unions be satisfied with the same. I can see a high court challenge if it is passed, and it will be funded and be bigger than Mabo.
    Comment 8 of 26
  • Jan of Noosa Heads Posted at 7:54 AM June 21, 2012
    So post menopausal women should not be allowed to marry (or remarry) then? Seriously if that's the best argument you can come up with Gary, same sex marriage becoming law looks like a pretty safe bet to me. Sexual orientation does not change a persons humanity so in the sad event of a break up why would the homosexual adults involved be any less likely to put their concern for the childrean first? People of all orientations are perfectly capable of loving and caring for children and should not be prevented by law from living their lives and caring for any children they choose to raise. I am a hetero woman of a certain age and married my husband many years ago at the age of 49. I can tell you raising children was not one of the reasons we decided to marry! It is time to take the blinders off and let Australia be an equal society - I promise you, the Churches won't fall down.
    Comment 9 of 26
  • Charles of Brisbane Posted at 8:07 AM June 21, 2012
    This is an exceptionally weak argument against homosexual marriage. If one if serious about "saving the kids" on these grounds, one would ban divorce or single parenting on the premise that the very best thing is woman and man sticking together as a nuclear family. Well, the rest of our society has moved on from that Victorian thinking, and this is not the depths of Catholic Limerick. Kids don't need their biological parents to stay together. They need a loving, secure family environment with suitable role models. A functional heterosexual couple, whether or not married, is one solution to that. For much of human history, it was a broadly extended family within the village. This debate is not so much about homosexual marriage. It is really about the power of churches to arbitrate in one of the few domains within which they still claim authority. In modern Australia, we have stopped overtly persecuting single parents. We live longer, so the troubadour ideal of everlasting love is harder to sustain. We ought not retain medieval concerns about whether love is between heterosexual or homosexual couples. Don't use children as human shields against the love in others' lives.
    Comment 10 of 26
  • Swing voter of Perth Posted at 8:29 AM June 21, 2012
    Thank you John for some common sense wisdom.
    Comment 11 of 26
  • M of Adelaide Posted at 8:31 AM June 21, 2012
    Good arguments. I am a bit more basic I am afraid. I am interested in the shrill demands to be able to join an institution that so many have been bagging for so many years now. All of a sudden it is a denial of human rights for homosexuals not to be able to bring theselves under the Marriage Act. Five years ago you would be forgiven for thinking its days we're done. Well it is a denial of human rights to deny people the right to marry a la polygamy - or their beloved and devoted pets - or a combination thereof. A rich source of work will be denied to my legal colleagues, but so be it. We as a community are being manipulated (again) ....
    Comment 12 of 26
  • Marcus Hall of Brisbane Posted at 8:52 AM June 21, 2012
    Gary, Where in the marriage act does it mention children!
    Comment 13 of 26
  • donkeygod of Cardiff, NSW Posted at 9:01 AM June 21, 2012
    Marriage evolves. It's adaptable. Different cultures have made it work in dramatically different ways -- still do. That's what we're trying to achieve here. And it's not an impossible task, I'm sure of that much. Just because it's worth doing, though, doesn't mean that any old way of doing it is better than nothing. Well-established cultural norms don't change by reason of a government fiat -- not without horrific long-term damage. I'd bet my house that most of the public disquiet threatening to derail SSM is due to the perception that renovations to the 'institution' of marriage are the product of an activist committee, and that the real beneficiaries will be lawyers who'll turn our pious good intentions into a cash cow they can milk for decades. We need to 'evolve' change, not simply 'declare' it. Setting a deadline and summarily announcing that marriage has been 'fixed' isn't just undemocratic. It's the kind of hubris that wrecks lives, damages society, turns opponents into bitter enemies, and produces history's most spectacular tragedies. Wouldn't it be far, far better to do this carefully than quickly?
    Comment 14 of 26
  • Goldcoaster Posted at 9:08 AM June 21, 2012
    In my view marriage is a union between one woman and one man. I do accept and support the need for same-sex couples to have a legal and societal framework to recognise their partnerships. But I would not support the term 'marriage' for those unions. Perhaps another term can de developed that would be acceptable to all?
    Comment 15 of 26
  • Rebecca Posted at 9:27 AM June 21, 2012
    Well you've tried to cover all the bases to defray opposition to your argument,but really you're just grasping at straws.
    Comment 16 of 26
  • Sandy Lindsay of Perth Posted at 9:44 AM June 21, 2012
    Thank you for your article. I often say I would like to see a new term used in this debate. I do not "fear" those who consider themselves homosexual (homophobia), but I "fear for" them in just the way you have described. Without the intervention of a third party, homosexual partners are on a path to their own extinction. What does concern me is the amount of social enginering required to provide the natural to the un-batural.
    Comment 17 of 26
  • BruceS of nswcentral coast Posted at 9:59 AM June 21, 2012
    Thank you for an informative and accurate article. The rot started when Saint Michael of Kirby was head of the Law Reform Commission, at which time he was wilfully breaking the law whilst pushing reforms that has lead us to this present farce. I predict that the next step will be to legalise paedophilia, or at least, lower the age of consent, as the first step.
    Comment 18 of 26
  • NevilleW Posted at 10:11 AM June 21, 2012
    It is a perfectly valid point that Gary Johns makes. I see the lobby for gay marriage as just another breakdown of civil standards by succeeding generations. Each generations wants more than it's predecessors, but this one should be resisted mightily, I see it as a recipe for more troubled children (and thence adults) than needs be. Marriage is not perfect but it is the best we have, leave it alone.
    Comment 19 of 26
  • Philip Crowley of Brisbane Posted at 10:15 AM June 21, 2012
    Well said Mr Johns.
    Comment 20 of 26
  • Anthony of Ryde Posted at 10:55 AM June 21, 2012
    I think this is the best argument yet made against same sex marriage. The best outcomes for raising children comes from children been bought up by their biological parents in a loving and committed relationship. However there is a strong point for the parliament to legislate civil unions - providing gay couples with an option to formalise their relationship.
    Comment 21 of 26
  • Chris Turnbull of brisbane Posted at 10:56 AM June 21, 2012
    Gary the difficulty with your argument - at least as far a family law is concerned - is that a same sex de-facto couple with children can already be parties to proceedings under part VII of the Family Law Act. There are many reported decisions about precisely the scenario you mention (the third party issue). Changing the marriage act ( or not) will make no difference to the jurisdiction or powers of a family law Court.
    Comment 22 of 26
  • Brian Greig of PERTH Posted at 11:29 AM June 21, 2012
    For goodness sake Gary Johns, marriage is NOT about children. Many people marry with no intention of having kids, including older couples, the infetile and those who just dont like or want them. More importantly, same-sex couples do not need marriage in order to have kids. A marriage certificate neither helps nor hinders procreation - witness Penny Wong and partner. However, heaps of research shows that kids do best in married households. As such, denying the thousands of children being raised by same-sex couples the right and opportunity to live within the framework of civil marriage only disadvantages those children. If you really care about kids with gay parents Gary, then let the parents marry.
    Comment 23 of 26
  • Trish P of WA Posted at 11:45 AM June 21, 2012
    A clear and balanced article without the emotional and moral carping that is usually associated with this debate. I feel quite conflicted about this whole issue until I bring myself back into the reality of child-rearing and all it entails and realise that marriage is about children, not "rights" and "equality"
    Comment 24 of 26
  • M D'Ortenzio of Melbourne Posted at 12:13 PM June 21, 2012
    Many people come to relationships with baggage. In fact every 2nd marriage is so. And of course even first marriages sometimes include other parties, ask any recently married person what they think of their in laws, or any highly religious married person who is married to a less devout person. The argument that homosexuality is a special case is due to its recent taboo and legal state. This is a view that will take time to dispel, and one that would be helped along by legalizing gay marriages. The point about increasing complexity is a fair one, but on the balance not sufficient to deny citizens a marriage.
    Comment 25 of 26
  • DD Casson of Douglas Posted at 12:18 PM June 21, 2012
    Well said Gary. Couldnt agree more with your analysis on marriage. I support equality but this debate is not about equality as all forms of intimate relationships currently have equal legal status. The issue needs to focus on what is best for rearing and development of children and not the individuals wishes for recognition of their particular relationships. About time the real agenda behind changing the marriage act was exposed. Keep up the heavy hitting Gary.
    Comment 26 of 26

Thursday, 21 June 2012

Candidly Speaking: Breakfast with Peter Beinart16 May 2012

Candidly Speaking: Breakfast with Peter Beinart
05/16/2012 21:26

It is important to publicize that Beinart’s extremist views are an anathema to the vast majority of Israelis as well as American Jews.

Peter Beinart's bookPhoto: Courtesy
During a recent visit to New York, I had an extended breakfast meeting with controversial author Peter Beinart who in recent months received enormous media exposure as the most prominent far-left critic of Israel in the United States. Jeffrey Wiesenfeld, a feisty New York conservative Jewish activist, also participated.

I must confess that I prefer confronting less charming adversaries. Beinart, who is 41 years old, is an amiable, charismatic and highly articulate personality. In contrast to many Jewish critics of Israel who are often ignorant and indifferent of their Jewish heritage, he considers himself a committed Jew, maintains a kosher home, attends synagogue and sends his children to Jewish day schools. He also regards himself as a passionate Zionist and claims that his prime motivation is to contribute to the long-term future of Israel and the Jewish people.

But despite his likeable personality and insistence that “disagreements” with Israeli government policies do not detract from his ardent love of Israel, Beinart has unquestionably now assumed a prominent role as a leading Jew engaged in demonizing and delegitimizing the Jewish state.

His portrait of Israel, which he accuses of obsessively exploiting “victimhood,” is consistently distorted and imbalanced. His analysis of the Israeli-Arab conflict is unfailingly biased, not merely because he is unfairly critical of Israeli government policies but more so because he has essentially adopted the narrative of our enemies. He dismisses the reality that the vast majority of Israelis have no desire to rule over Arabs and – if they had a genuine peace partner – would welcome a Palestinian state.

While occasionally paying lip service and condemning some Arab abominations, his book concentrates on Palestinian suffering and lacks comprehension and compassion for the violence and terror suffered by the Israelis since Oslo. To accuse him of establishing moral equivalence between the parties would be an understatement.

He even condemns Israel for not having tried hard enough to find a diplomatic solution with Hamas to avert the Gaza War. Beinart uses clichés like occupation even in relation to Gaza, despite the fact that aside from border security and an ineffective prohibition on importing arms, the Hamas state is entirely independent and runs its own affairs.

The core of his case rests on the distorted and widely discredited chronicle of former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who Beinart insists was close to achieving a settlement.

He thus praises the limited security cooperation achieved with the PA as a diplomatic strategy to gain international support but fails to relate to the stubborn intransigence of PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas, his refusal to end incitement, educate his people for peaceful co-existence or compromise on the right of return of Palestinian refugees.

Beinart repeats the mantra that in the absence of settlements, peace and goodwill would prevail and warns that unless they are dismantled, a single state will emerge which will demographically destroy the Zionist dream. The most radical aspect of his approach is his despicable call for a “Zionist BDS” – a global boycott of goods from the settlements, which he defines as “nondemocratic Israel.”

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is depicted as a duplicitous schemer who pays lip service to peace but in practice bitterly opposes any genuine settlement. In contrast, he adulates President Barack Obama, devoting to him an entire chapter of his book, bizarrely titled “The Jewish President,” extolling his virtues as a ardent friend of Israel.

I challenged Beinart on how, as a committed Jew and purported Zionist resident in New York, he failed to experience pangs of conscience when adopting a stand on life and death issues which ran counter to the will of the majority of Israelis. He retorted that his views mirrored those of many Israelis and that as an American Jew who loved Israel, he felt an obligation to speak up.

When we parted, Beinart graciously presented me a copy of his book with an inscription referring to me as “a fellow lover of the Jewish people and the Jewish state,” but it was clear that our respective positions remained unchanged. Yet, although he did not say so explicitly, my impression was that were he to write his book today, he would not include his radical call for a boycott of settlements, which alienated him from farleft groups who otherwise share his views.

Beinart is not a self-hating Jew, but many allege that his views stem from a calculated decision to advance his career or are subconsciously motivated by a desire to become the darling of the far-left liberals. If he has genuinely convinced himself that his motives are exclusively altruistic, one is tempted to suggest that he is displaying egomaniacal or narcissistic characteristics.

Despite the extensive media coverage, sales of his book have been poor and most reviews, including many from the left, have panned him, particularly in relation to his call for a Zionist BDS. Even J Street distanced itself from this. Initial indicators suggest that as of now, the vast majority of American Jews oppose his views and only a small (albeit noisy) group support him.

But one should not underestimate the potential damage he can inflict. One need only “Google” his name to appreciate the enormous media fest associated with him. His demonic misrepresentation of current Israeli government policies has the potential of influencing and confusing Jews on the left fringe and providing succor to those seeking to besmirch and delegitimize Israel at a time when it is confronting grave existential dangers. It is thus crucial that his fraudulent allegations and distortions be exposed and refuted.

It is highly disconcerting that only last week Beinart was one of a group, which included other virulently hostile critics of Israel, who met and consulted with President Obama on the Middle East. Beinart would unquestionably be at the vanguard of those encouraging the president (if reelected) to renew pressure against the Jewish state. He would also unquestionably urge him to implement his call to boycott Israeli settlement products.

It is thus important that we publicize the fact that Beinart’s extremist views are an anathema to the vast majority of Israelis as well as American Jews. In this context, while endorsing the principal that the widest range of opinions should partake at the forthcoming Peres Presidential Conference scheduled for June in Jerusalem, the disturbing decision by the organizers to invite Beinart as a keynote speaker, is perplexing and inexplicable.

It implies a failure to appreciate the damage that providing such a prestigious platform and legitimizing the status of a Jew promoting an odious campaign explicitly calling for a global boycott of Israeli settlements, inflicts on both our self-respect and international standing. Above all, it conveys an utterly confused message to the Obama administration on where Israel itself draws red lines.

Real-time updating is enabled(Pause)

Showing 34 comments

    So Let me get this right...Some lefty US Democrat Party suckup writes a B.S book espousing the hate Netanyahu line that prevails in the (Obama) US State Department......and he represents who?  This is delusional high school stuff.  Just follow the money, this clown Beinert will leave a trail from Soros and Saudi money just like the J Street loons.
    The fact that Obama seeks the counsel of this particular man on issues dealing with U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East, when in fact Beinart has absolutely no personal experience there, is yet another critical sign of how far our President leans to the radical fringe on this important issue to Jews.  It's a mystery to me how Obama has managed to never visit Israel during his entire tenure in office, when he has been to Egypt twice and the Middle East as recently as last week.  Unfortunately, it seems to indicate the same sort of distaste and antipathy to the...
    show more
    Hussein Obama is not my president.
    beinart is a narcissist who has a burning desire to belong to the tight circle of the much adulated president barack obama whom he calls "the jewish president."
    it is very difficult to understand where beinart got his ideas about israel. it is rather obvious that they are not ideas that sprung from a well of long experience living in the jewish state.
    to the contrary, one gets the distinct impression that beinart rehashes ideas long peddled by the far left and their arab proteges.
    anyone who fails to understand the radical islamist ideology of hamas, has a real problem understanding the...
    show more
    Actually it is very easy to understand where he got his ideas. Just a tired rehash of the decades old leftist/Islamic narrative that has been going round and round in American academia since the Vietnam War (and probably earlier :-)
    Beinart may say things that you disagree with but surely there is no need to attack the man.  Argue the facts, they speak for themselves.
    only a certain type of man could have produced this obnoxious collection of venom.
    Juan Juan
    Beinart's views are extremist? Just how far to the right are ultra-Zionist? 
    "His portrait of Israel, which he accuses of obsessively exploiting victimhood..." Then the author goes on to state; "...delegitimize Israel at a time when it is confronting grave existential dangers" 
    "It is thus crucial that his fraudulent allegations and distortions be exposed and refuted". Something that you failed miserably at doing. No facts, just qualifying adjectives; "consistently distorted, unfailingly biased, unfairly critical"

    "occasionally paying lip service and condemning some Arab abominations... lacks comprehension and compassion for the violence and terror suffered by the Israelis"...
    show more
    the other Bob
    What makes Samaria & Judea "occupied"  Palestinian territory?  There has never been a Palestinian state.  The region had been conquered in a war of aggression in '48 by Jordan and ethnicly cleansed of Jews.  The Israelis took it from Jordan in '67.  Jordan subsequently relinquished all claim to the land.  So, what makes it Palestinian territory?  The fact that the say so?  Arabs lived there and Jews lived there.  What makes the Arab claim more compelling than the Jewish claim?
    Juan Juan
    Another occupation denier. What makes the Jewish claim to Israel more compelling than the Arab one?
    I thought you had been cut to the quick & emotionally devastated by the plethora of (entirely justified) aggressive responses to your tired, repetitive BS.
    Weren't you going to take a necessary, well deserved hiatus from posting here?
    At least, get some new assertions to entertain us & be comprehensively ripped apart;  please stop peddling your old "Classic" anti Israel fantasies. They are boring.
    This Juan Juan cretin will never leave off posting here. He craves the attention that he gets. I believe he should be ignored together with the other creeps. You know what the are going to answer before they answer so why bother asking.
    Juan Juan
    You (meaning ultra-Zionists) can't kick me out of the forum, you can only pretend to. So why can't I pretend that I leave?
    Dallas Dan
    Anti-Semite says what?
    Juan Juan
    Does Polly want a cracker?
    As a Non-Jew I think the most important statment in this article is: "But one should not underestimate the potential damage he can inflict".  From my little corner of the world I see anti-Jewish events, statements, etc going on all the time in the US but I do not see many prominent Jews speaking out especialy Jewish Democrats.  In my opinin Jews are losing the war of hearts and minds and it may come back to haunt Israel some day. To me American Jews care more about abrtion and gay issues than they do Israel.
    Marsha in Englewood
    Isi, how did you sit at the same table with this traitor to the Jewish people?
    Dr Zhivago
    Being a leftist trumps being a Jew. I hope you did not pay for HIS breakfast? I wouldn't spend a shekel on a puts!!
    Beinart like too many Jews (and even non-jews for that matter) who have adopted the story of the downtrodden Palestinians forget three things: 1. As an American citizen living on conquered land who
    still oppress their native, indigenous people it is wholly inappropriate
    to criticize Israel. Clean up your own house first! Moreover, unlike
    your natives who are truly natives, there is no historical evidence to
    support that the Palestinians are the natives of this land. The
    comparison is fallacious! They are an imposed people who received their
    land and it's called Jordan. 2. Americans are not citizens of...
    show more
    amazing the kind of people who get to be professors these days ...
    Another Goldstone ... :^(
    Isi offers assertion after assertion--conclusory statement after conclusory statement.  This is sloppy journalism  the only point of which is to preach to the converted.  How surprising he didn't change Beinart's [or anyone else's] views.
    Actually Isi provides fact after fact. Your reply on the other hand provides inane commentary without any counter argument. But that's par for the course for someone supporting the Palestinian narrative. You lost in the past and you continue to lose today. And all you have is your bitterness at being out smarted by a better, more moral people (the Israelis).  You should have gotten used to that by now.
    This Beinart fellow is one very mixed up Jew. He runs a kosher home. He makes sure his pigs are shechted? He attends synagogue. Louis Farakan is the rabbi. I don't want to ask what passes for a Torah in his world but it cannot be the same one that the rest of us Jews use. The man is definatley using something he is not telling us about.
    The likes of Beinart, who go to the extreme of encouraging hostile acts such as boycotts in order to muscle Israel into submission to its enemies, should be prevented of setting foot on Israeli soil. He deserves to get  the Finkelstein & Chomsky treatment, i.e. dispatched back on the same plane that brought him in.
    Beinart according to Isi may not be a self-hating Jew but he should be labelled an 'appeasing Jew' who panders to the wishes of the haters and enemies of the Jewish people, or claims to the Jewish homeland.  Beinart is not the first Jewish traitor who would sell his people down the river for personal self preservation or advancement in the non-jewish world, or an easier life.  it is right that Isi is disgusted by Beinart.
    D . Rusk
    "The vast majority of Israelis would welcome a Palestinian State "??? Ha,ha - is then this "vast majority" ok with removing lots of settlers to avoid a Pal. Bantustan?  Because the voice is between THAT or civil war with the settlers.This "vast majority"must then live in la la land !
    Dear Isi : Wonderful column. Anybody who refers to Rev. Wright's ex-ardent supporter, and Samantha Powers' sponsor, as the "first Jewish President" is a kook. Also, Beinart has found a new income source  : Like so many other jerky American Jews, Beinart has discovered that attacking Israel earns him praise ( a "good Jew") and .$$. My reaction ? Feh ! Tod Zuckerman. 
    Rebecca Johansen
    Make that TWO Feh's !
    I'll be a copy cat and make it three Feh's.
    I would also like to add a few Feh's if I may.
    I eat bacon, tomato and lettuce sandwiches on occassion.  Screw Beinart and his bona fides.
    A strong, aged, cheddar goes well with a BLT. Heavy on the soy mayonnaise.
    Boning Fido? Who? Where?
    Maybe you saw Harry Reems in his re-make of 101 Dalmations.