Video
Twitter
RSS Feed
Sarah Silverman and the Florida Jews
I have no formal training in comedy but, as Jews are wont to do, I consider myself something of a comedian (and a tragedian too!). These talents notwithstanding, the only insight I have about Sarah Silverman's recent pro-Obama video entitled "The Great Schelp" is that it is: 1) funny, 2) refreshingly anti-PC, and, 3) based on the rather questionable surmise that Jews might actually be able to tilt the vote in Florida.
As for funny, well, just watch the clip. That young African-American men and Jewish grandmothers have in common a love of track suits, Cadillacs and their grandchildren is perhaps the only joke from the video that I can recount on the august (web) pages of The Washington Post.
With cringe-inducing reliability, Ms. Silverman always manages to say the most offensive and unconscionable thing imaginable. Here, she clearly shares a twisted strand of DNA with her co-religionist, Larry David. The star of Curb Your Enthusiasm, who sets nightmares to comedy, has left in his wake scads of outraged Jews, African-Americans, Japanese-Americans, Muslim-Americans, gays, lesbians, rabbis, visually impaired people, Evangelical Christians and a small armada of people in wheelchairs.
And many others.
Aside from being skilled at their craft, both understand that in this great nation of ours skewering must be performed democratically. All groups must, perforce, be mocked. No one shall be spared--this is America, after all! We should consider ourselves fortunate to have these foul-mouthed patriots in our midst.
My only concern lies with the significance that Ms. Silverman and her fellow schleppers attribute to the Jewish vote in Florida. Don't buy those plane tickets just yet, kids. Aside from the fact that air travel isn't what it used to be, please recall that Jews compromise a scant 3.6 percent of the Sunshine State's citizenry (about 655,000 out of a total Population of about 18 million).
True, a very large population of elderly Jews who are more hawkish on Iran than Obama, may find the McCain-Palin ticket more attractive. True, some of these grandparents could swing to the GOP after having lived through the unraveling of the Civil Rights coalition with all the Black-Jewish urban tensions that it entailed (for an intriguing look at this problematic I would recommend Grace Paley's short story "Zagrowsky Tells.")
But bear in mind that Obama's views on the war in Iraq, abortion, the economy, public school curricula, gay marriage, the environment and other issues are far closer to those of the Jewish liberal mainstream. This is a mainstream that has not given a Democratic presidential candidate less than 76% of its vote in the last 4 elections.
If tomorrow were November 4th my surmise is that Obama would lose a few of those Jews who voted for Kerry in 2004. But not enough to tilt the race in any substantive manner. And that's because Jews are bit players in the Florida electoral drama.
Yes, I know: hanging chads. I get it. To that I say, the shleppers might do more good for their candidate by brushing up on their Spanish and reaching out to the state's massive Latino population ("Me llamo Shlomi. Yo soy por cambio!"). It is also estimated that roughly 4.5 million Evangelicals (with many Latinos to be counted among them) reside in Florida.
Think of Ms. Silverman rushing out to Jacksonville First Church of Christ with her video camera and inspirational messages for undecided gentiles. Then think of thousands of Obama operatives being flown in from 36 neighboring states and the Island of Guam to make sure that no such meeting ever occurs.
By Jacques Berlinerblau |
October 1, 2008; 9:59 PM ET
Save & Share:
Previous: "A Mass Violation of Federal Tax Law" |
Next: The Financial Tsunami Drowning Poverty Agenda
Posted by: Anonymous | October 8, 2008 2:11 AM
Report Offensive Comment
The medically important obstetricians could provide the candidates is:
How often is the life of the mother actually at stake due to a pregnancy?
How often does an obstetrician have to decide to abort the child in order to save the life of the mother?
How has modern medicine, read:obstetrics, improved the health of the mother during pregnancy?
How has the medical specialty of fetology improved the life of the child in the womb?
How has the life of the prematurely newborn been improved by advances in neonatal pediatric medicine/surgery?
Posted by: Anonymous | October 8, 2008 1:56 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Since abortion has remained a hot topic for thirty five years and is not about to go away any time soon, it is vitally important for all four candidates - Senator Obama, Senator McCain, Senator Biden and Governor Palin to get embryologists to brief them on important scientific aspects of human development, so that none of them make any public blunders with regard to the science, and are able to expressed informed opinions on the topic.
Question: What would the candidates do to reduce abortions?
Do they believe overturning Roe vs Wade would have a positive impact on reducing abortion?
Will social support alone help in reducing abortions? If they believe that alone is sufficient, how do they explain the situation in Europe where social support is very good. In Europe, the laws restricting abortions does seem to have an equally important impact.
What sort of sex education would they provide to reduce abortion? Abstinence alone has not worked as successfully as it was supposed to; but neither has unlimited availability of contraceptives with very lax abortion laws worked in a country like Sweden with very generous social support. In Germany, on the other hand, tough laws with sufficient flexibility, comprehensive sex education, generous supply of contraceptives seem to produce better results. On the other extreme of abortion laws are two Catholic countries which outlaw abortion: Ireland and Poland. Abortion rates are extremely low, not many women are known to be dying due to back alley abortions, although many go to other countries for abortions, the numbers do not run into hundreds of thousands.
What can US learn from all of this?
The WHO is pushing abortion as a population control measure. While applicable in desperately poor countries, does the richest country in the world, the US, with a Christian majority, with the highest percentage of practicing Christians in the Western world, need to resort to such eugenics?
Posted by: Anonymous | October 8, 2008 1:51 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Since abortion has remained a hot topic for thirty five years and is not about to go away any time soon, it is vitally important for all four candidates - Senator Obama, Senator McCain, Senator Biden and Governor Palin to get embryologists to brief them on important scientific aspects of human development, so that none of them make any public blunders with regard to the science, and are able to expressed informed opinions on the topic.
Question: What would the candidates do to reduce abortions?
Do they believe overturning Roe vs Wade would have a positive impact on reducing abortion?
Will social support alone help in reducing abortions? If they believe that alone is sufficient, how do they explain the situation in Europe where social support is very good. In Europe, the laws restricting abortions does seem to have an equally important impact.
What sort of sex education would they provide to reduce abortion? Abstinence alone has not worked as successfully as it was supposed to; but neither has unlimited availability of contraceptives with very lax abortion laws worked in a country like Sweden with very generous social support. In Germany, on the other hand, tough laws with sufficient flexibility, comprehensive sex education, generous supply of contraceptives seem to produce better results. On the other extreme of abortion laws is Irel
Posted by: Anonymous | October 8, 2008 1:46 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Suggested question for next Presidential debate
Roe vs Wade and the Constitution
1. Does Roe vs Wade violate the Constitution? If so, in what way?
2. Does the right to LIFE, as an inalienable right granted by God and protected by the Constitution, exclude the living, unborn child in the womb? If yes, on what scientific basis does Roe vs Wade conclude that the unborn child is not a developing human being, whose process of development is complete only as an adult, many years after birth? If not, on what basis does Roe vs Wade stand?
3. If right to privacy, the basis on which Roe vs Wade currently stands, includes a mother's right to kill her unborn child, why does it not grant her the right to kill her born children when they become inconvenient to her life for any reason?
Posted by: Anonymous | October 8, 2008 1:30 AM
Report Offensive Comment
There is plenty of opportunity for candidates to put their personalities on display and appeal to the emotions of voters during their individual campaigns. The national debates must focus on policies which gives the voters, including the international community, a chance to compare important policies proposed by both sides, since the individual campaigns focus only on individual strengths and focus on issues that suits each candidate best.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 7, 2008 10:50 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Moderator of Presidential Debate II was brilliant and non-partisan. Congratulations!
Keeping the debate focussed on policies was good strategy. Politics should be primarily about policies and how it affects the people. People should learn to focus less on personalities and more on merit of the policies that affect them.
Both Senators did their best and revealed their respective strengths.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 7, 2008 10:42 PM
Report Offensive Comment
As long as "only" The Hippocratic Oath, some physicians, conservative Jews, Roman Catholics, Orthodox Christians, Conservative Evangelical and some atheists are against abortion, overturning Roe vs Wade is going to be a tough fight, mostly because the "right" to abort is perceived as a feminist "achievement" that is supported by some physicians and all the other religious communities, except the ones listed, and most atheists.
The argument with human embryology had been made in 1973, but the invention of the term "personhood," a word non-existent in the Constitution, canceled the merit of hard core medical science that supported the right to life of the unborn child. Similarly, the word "conception as a process" was introduced. Conception is a layman's term, hence it cannot be used in the legal context when it tries to present the scientific viewpoint.
Fertilization is not a long drawn process. "Human oocytes (unfertilized eggs) are usually fertilized with 12 HOURS after ovulation (release of the egg) . In vitro observations have shown that the oocyte cannot be fertilized after 24 HOURS and that it degenerates shortly thereafter." (Moore and Persaud) Implantation of the zygote "fertilized ovum" starts six days after fertilization and is complete before the woman even suspects pregnancy. If implantation is to be the layman's equivalent of conception, then it occurs BEFORE the woman misses her period due to pregnancy, *before* the pregnancy test shows a positive result.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 5, 2008 9:15 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Attitudes may have changed, but human embryology has not - not since Hippocrates, not since the beginning of human existence.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 5, 2008 7:32 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Roe vs Wade
The position of the American Medical Association.
The anti-abortion mood prevalent in this country in the late 19th century was shared by the medical profession. Indeed, the attitude of the profession may have played a significant role in the enactment of stringent criminal abortion legislation during that period.
An AMA Committee on Criminal Abortion was appointed in May 1857. It presented its report, 12 Trans. of the Am. Med. Assn. 73-78 (1859), to the Twelfth Annual Meeting. That report observed that the Committee had been appointed to investigate criminal abortion "with a view to its general suppression." It deplored abortion and its frequency and it listed three causes of "this general demoralization":
"The first of these causes is a wide-spread popular ignorance of the true character of the crime -- a belief, even among mothers themselves, that the foetus is not alive till after the period of quickening.
"The second of the agents alluded to is the fact that the profession themselves are frequently supposed careless of foetal life . . . .
"The third reason of the frightful extent of this crime is found in the grave defects of our laws, both common and statute, as regards the independent and actual existence of the child before birth, as a living being. These errors, which are sufficient in most instances to prevent conviction, are based, and only based, upon mistaken and exploded medical dogmas. With strange inconsistency, the law fully acknowledges the foetus in utero and its inherent rights, for civil purposes; while personally and as criminally affected, it fails to recognize it, and to its life as yet denies all protection." Id., at 75-76.
The Committee then offered, and the Association adopted, resolutions protesting "against such unwarrantable destruction of human life," calling upon state legislatures to revise their abortion laws, and requesting the cooperation of state medical societies "in pressing the subject." Id., at 28, 78.
In 1871 a long and vivid report was submitted by the Committee on Criminal Abortion. It ended with the observation, "We had to deal with human life. In a matter of less importance we could entertain no compromise. An honest judge on the bench would call things by their proper names. We could do no less." 22 Trans. of the Am. Med. Assn. 258 (1871). It proffered resolutions, adopted by the Association, id., at 38-39, recommending, among other things, that it "be unlawful and unprofessional for any physician to induce abortion or premature labor, without the concurrent opinion of at least one respectable consulting physician, and then always with a view to the safety of the child -- if that be possible," and calling "the attention of the clergy of all denominations to the perverted views of morality entertained by a large class of females -- aye, and men also, on this important question." ...
Posted by: Once upon a time | October 5, 2008 7:27 AM
Report Offensive Comment
I'm convinced beyond a shadow of doubt that deeply religious politicians (without having to prove their faith by talking about it in public) committed to peace, justice and human rights around the world can work miracles in a way no other can. When Caesar strives to establish God's kingdom on earth with the power that he/she wields (without establishing a theocracy of any particular religion), they can move mountains in which God is truly a part.
Voters should learn to judge politicians by their good works, not by the eloquence with which they express their religious beliefs. Politicians are not pastors and should not be pushed to play such roles. Politics is a full time job.
All religious people must pray for politicians, that politicians may seek God's wisdom and guidance in prayer in the privacy of their chambers and express it through their policies.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 5, 2008 3:12 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Roe vs Wade is perched precariously on an arbitrary definition of personhood. The arbitrary definition implies, with life threatening consequence for the child in the womb, that it has no right to its life because it is dependent on its mother for its survival; and that personhood and right to its life will be granted only when it can survive independent of its mother.
It does not take rocket science to worry seriously about the sinister consequence of such an arbitrary definition of personhood - dependency equals losing the right to one's life.
Out of such a court decision, which awarded a mother the right to kill her unborn child arbitrarily, has issued the most "creative" definitions for a completely defenseless, innocent, unborn child: "parasite," "clump of cells," "an invader in the womb who deserves to
be exterminated with lethal force as a measure of self-protection," and what have you. The vile terms endowed on a sacred being granted the gift of life by God has been limited only by the imagination of the pro-abortionists. Pregnancy, a normal physiological reproductive state, has been redefined as a life threatening disease of the mother, but ONLY when the mother does not want the child, when in fact the real threat is only to the child's life.
As once slavery was the law of the land and yet was abolished, because many would not rest until it was, so should the law that gives a woman the "right" to kill her unborn child be overthrown because of the work of those who cannot rest in the knowledge more innocent children get killed each day because the law remains in force. If only one more child gets to live when the law is overturned, that one child's life is worth fighting for.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 4, 2008 11:40 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Roe vs Wade is perched precariously on an arbitrary definition of personhood. The same arbitrary definition claims that life that depends on another for its survival has no rights to personhood. Hence pregnancy, a normal physiological reproductive state, is redefined as a life threatening disease of the mother, but ONLY when she does not want the child, when in fact the real threat is to the child's life.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 4, 2008 8:46 AM
Report Offensive Comment
A book on Obama by Gwen Ifill is to be released in January 2009.
Better to pick a more non-partisan moderator for debates next time, although Gwen Ifill did a splendid job.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 4, 2008 8:19 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Btw, Judisch in German actually means Jewish, NOT Yiddish.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 4, 2008 8:13 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Unless Juden (pronounced yoo-den) is used, the expression "Jews mitschleppen" remains non-German, at least only partly German as Yiddish is. (Yiddish is the Yiddish form of German 'Judisch' - pronounced yoo-dish.)
Posted by: Anonymous | October 4, 2008 8:10 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Sorry the title on the main page was "Schlepping for Jews."
"Jews mitschleppen" is the better expression, at least in my humble non-German opinion.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 4, 2008 8:04 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Hence in ?Yiddish
"Jews mitschleppen" is a slightly better expression than for "Schlepper for Jews."
(mitschleppen in German = to carry sth. along; to drag sth. along; to haul sth. along; to cart sth. along
Posted by: Anonymous | October 4, 2008 8:01 AM
Report Offensive Comment
On the Rhineland, German origin of the Yiddish language from Wikipedia:
Yiddish (ייִדיש yidish or אידיש idish, literally "Jewish") is a nonterritorial High German language, spoken throughout the world but, unlike other such languages, is written with the Hebrew alphabet.
The language originated in the Ashkenazi culture that developed from about the 10th century in the Rhineland and then spread to central and eastern Europe and eventually to other continents. In the earliest surviving references to it, the language is called לשון־אַשכּנז (loshn-ashkenaz = "language of Ashkenaz") and טײַטש (taytsh, a variant of tiutsch, the contemporary name for the language otherwise spoken in the region of origin, now called Middle High German; compare the modern New High German Deutsch). In common usage, the language is called מאַמע־לשון (mame-loshn, literally "mother tongue"), distinguishing it from biblical Hebrew and Aramaic, which are collectively termed לשון־קודש (loshn-koydesh, "holy tongue").
The term "Yiddish" did not become the most frequently used designation in the literature of the language until the 18th century. For a significant portion of its history, Yiddish was the primary spoken language of the Ashkenazi Jews and once spanned a broad dialect continuum from "Western Yiddish" to three major groups within "Eastern Yiddish." Eastern and Western Yiddish are most markedly distinguished by the extensive inclusion of words of Slavic origin in the Eastern dialects. While Western Yiddish has few remaining speakers, Eastern dialects remain in wide use. Yiddish is written and spoken as a living language in many Orthodox Jewish communities around the world. It is most notably used as a first language in most Hasidic communities, where it is the first language learned in childhood and used in home, schooling, and many social settings...
The Ashkenazic culture that took root in tenth-century central Europe derived its name from Ashkenaz (Genesis 10:3), the medieval Hebrew name for the territory centered on what is now Germany...
Posted by: Anonymous | October 4, 2008 7:56 AM
Report Offensive Comment
test
Posted by: Anonymous | October 4, 2008 7:53 AM
Report Offensive Comment
From Concerned the Christian now Liberated:
Once orthodox Jews come to grips with the flaws and errors of Judaism, there will even be fewer orthodox Jews in that 655,000 Florida Jewish population.
A synopsis of the flaws and errors of Judaism:
Abraham founder/father of three major religions was either the embellishment of the lives of three different men or a mythical character as was mythical Moses, the "Tablet-Man" who talked to burning bushes and made much magic in Egypt.
Many of the 1.5 million Conservative Jews and many of their rabbis (e.g. Rabbi Wolpe) have relegated Abraham to the myth pile along with most if not all the OT.
Current crisis:
Realization that the Jews are not god's chosen people and never were since we are all children of the "Singularity".
www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/ConservativeTorah.htm
Posted by: Concerned The Christian Now Liberated | October 4, 2008 7:48 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Why a religious debate is somewhat inappropriate in a political campaign:
It is one thing to say prepared answers about economics and foreign policy or any political issue, but quite another to parrot prepared answers about religious conviction, since politicians are known to have speech writers who say what the public wants to hear. Only God is true witness of a person's relationship with God and the authenticity of their faith. The personal integrity and the merit of their policies reflect the religion of politicians. Scrutiny should therefore be directed to the merit of their policies and integrity and generosity in their personal lives - lack of greed and corruption, the good deeds they have done outside of their paid political roles, good deeds done not as a political stunt to win votes or power, dance to lobbyists...
Posted by: Anonymous | October 4, 2008 2:26 AM
Report Offensive Comment
"Schlepping *for* Jews" is wrong use of the verb "schleppen" in German.
The better usage would be
"Schlepping Jews"
or even better "Mitschlepping Jews"
Posted by: Anonymous | October 4, 2008 1:00 AM
Report Offensive Comment
m/watch?v=Ii9UXFxwnO8
Posted by: here | October 3, 2008 11:14 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Posted by: openminded | October 3, 2008 11:14 AM
Report Offensive Comment
It was really smart to sidestep the issue of religion in the VP debate.
There should not be a religious test for public office. The personal integrity of the candidates - lack of greed and corruption - and the policies they propose is the fruit of their religion. That should suffice as proof.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 3, 2008 6:55 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Anyone wondering why Governor Palin seems to wink, it is the glasses stupid. No other candidate wears glasses.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 3, 2008 1:17 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Respectfully, Mr. Berlinerblau, you miss the point.
The reason Sarah Silverman wants to persuade her Jewish grandmother in Florida to vote for Obama is because her grandmother is: 1. Jewish, 2. lives in Florida, and 3. doesn't want to vote for Obama.
Last time I checked, Jewish voters and Evangelical Latino voters are each allowed exactly one vote per person.
Oy!
Posted by: Ed in Miami | October 3, 2008 12:09 AM
Report Offensive Comment
I understand that in Yiddish the German words used can sometimes have very different meanings.
E.g. Schmuck = ornament in German and pronounced as "shmook" as in "cook" has a less flattering meaning in Yiddish.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 2, 2008 10:42 PM
Report Offensive Comment
BTW, it was a non-German, non-Jewish take.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 2, 2008 9:49 PM
Report Offensive Comment
"My only concern lies with the significance that Ms. Silverman and her fellow "schleppers" attribute to the Jewish vote in Florida."
To those who wrote "schlepper" is a Yiddish word. Since Yiddish to my knowledge is mostly German + a bit of Hebrew written in the Hebrew alphabet, the word "schlepper" is found also in German.
The word is also commonly used in German as a verb "schleppen" = drag, haul, to tote, to tow...
In German as a noun the word Schlepper has many meanings = tout, tugboat, tractor, hauler, smuggler...
Posted by: Anonymous | October 2, 2008 9:48 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Farnaz, Paganplace-
"Disgusting" is a germ. Good to see we have doctors on this blog. -)
Posted by: Janet | October 2, 2008 9:01 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Disgusting:
Do you, perhaps, have Ruth Wisse (Harvard)in mind?
Posted by: Farnaz | October 2, 2008 8:47 PM
Report Offensive Comment
sam:
Sarah Silverman (kapo) is part of a movement that is setting up the Jewish community to take the blame if Obama loses
Sam,
I wouldn't worry. Like the poor, bigoted morons will always be with us. Jews are fragment of this population. To anyone who would dare raise an accusing finger at Jews, I would quietly explain that it is the Christians (including Catholics) who are to blame. The reason, of course, would be their numbers. They, not Jews, will elect the next president.
Keep in mind that "they," the multinational Christian corporations also own the media, the products advertised there, etc. We have Born Again as President, Born Once (too often) Cheney, a Protestant House, Catholic Senate, Christian EXXON, BP, etc.
Christian bigots find this information palliative, even curative. Now, there is of course, a great deal to be said to bigots of other persuasions, but I deal with one set of A holes at a time. Speaking of which....
__________________________________
Disgusted:
Shleppers, isn't that yiddish? Such a splendid language. A triumph of Americanism.
You are partly correct, partly in error, my friend. Yes, it is a splendid language, and many writers did remarkable things with it. I suspect you are thinking of IB Singer, Joseph Singer, Perelman, etc.? Kafka's obsession with Yiddish perhaps?
Are you familiar with Uriel Weinreich's ground-breaking work? Let me know.
Your error is in thinking it has anything to do with Americanism, whatever that means.
It is, of course, older than the US, as you must know...
Posted by: Farnaz | October 2, 2008 8:43 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The " other " Sarah is funny, she's a joke
Posted by: oberst | October 2, 2008 8:36 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Oh, Lady, that brought em out of the woodwork.
Let me put it this way. Mr. 'Disgusted' at:
"Shleppers, isn't that yiddish? Such a splendid language. A triumph of Americanism."
Listen.
I'm a queer Paddy Pagan chick. And a proud American. I have in fact known a number of Jews, but Yiddish wasn't in the equation, there, given where they came from. And *I* say 'schlep.' And all manner of words I know come from Yiddish.
By the time circumstance comes around that *I* say 'schlep,' ... It's American. Get over it.
"Sarah Silverman, isn't she the latest in a long list of foul mouth, classless, culture debasing Jewish comics?"
As opposed to those of other ethnicities? I'm kind of partial to Denis Leary, myself.
I happen to like Sarah Silverman. A lot. Didn't always want to *watch* her, when I had cable, cause she does address her own and others' prejudices in ways that are often a little too yucky to want to look at... but this ad, yeah, she knows whereof she speaks, and does lighten up on it a bit.
I bet it needed saying.
If you don't mind so very much, 'Disgusted.'
Posted by: Paganplace | October 2, 2008 8:34 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Silverman oftentimes vulgar humor, I think, turns off more people than not.
Posted by: Francisco Cardenas | October 2, 2008 8:21 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Shleppers, isn't that yiddish? Such a splendid language. A triumph of Americanism.
Sarah Silverman, isn't she the latest in a long list of foul mouth, classless, culture debasing Jewish comics?
Such a contribution to an America already nearly uncivil because of the characteristic of the ownership of 'American' media.
Let us hear more from Berlinerblau, atleast,at last, speaking in his area of expertise.
Happy New Year.
Posted by: Disgusted | October 2, 2008 7:51 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Sarah Silverman (kapo) is part of a movement that is setting up the Jewish community to take the blame if Obama loses. By the way, elderly Jews are in a unique position to have lived through the Holocaust era and may not take a positive view of "adoring children singing the praises of their leader".
Posted by: sam | October 2, 2008 7:31 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Jim, you rightly said,
"Any black that has been blessed to interface with whites, Latinos and Asians know that there are good and bad in all races with the good usually out numbering the bad by a significant number. We blacks just want to be welcomed into the human family."
Please let me commend you on your post. You are a true American. I, an old white dude, am proud to welcome you to the human family. But, ya know what? You were already there. Thanks, friend. We need more Americans like you.
Posted by: Arminius | October 2, 2008 5:45 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I am glad that Obama is running for president. Being a sixty-six year old black man and having endured stereotypes all of my life the airing out of black feelings towards whites and jews and Latinos and asians because of Obama’s racial makeup is refreshing.
Obama is part black and part white. In order to honor his father and his mother Obama must be fair towards each race. Blacks do not hate Jews. Blacks do not smile in the face of whites and Jews and then go home and hate them. When we go home we talk about Judge Judy with our wives. We talk about paying bills. We talk about all kinds of things mainly through reaction to what has been said.
Any black that has been blessed to interface with whites, Latinos and Asians know that there are good and bad in all races with the good usually out numbering the bad by a significant number. We blacks just want to be welcomed into the human family.
Posted by: Jim | October 2, 2008 3:53 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Jacques,
And this is important....because?
Are you going to update us soon on liberal comedians appealing to elderly Catholics, Protestants, animists, Bahai, Buddhists, Hinudus, Muslims, et al?
M'guess is Protestants and Catholics would be most significant since they make up the majority, and, do not, as you well know, overwhelmingly vote Democratic year after year, unfailingly in presidential elections.
But y'know, I'm not really interested in hearing more about sectarian comedian appeals to the elderly, regardless of sect.
I mean, well, who cares. (Sorry, but you really can do much better than this; you often do.)
Posted by: Farnaz | October 2, 2008 3:33 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Sarah Silverman is funny? That's news to me!
Posted by: Athena4 | October 2, 2008 2:00 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The comments to this entry are closed.
In the lead up to the enactment of Roe vs Wade, the American Medical Association in its report on the matter, had this to say:
"With strange inconsistency, the law fully acknowledges the foetus in utero and its inherent rights, for civil purposes; while personally and as criminally affected, it fails to recognize it, and to its life as yet denies all protection." Id., at 75-76."
What does Senator Obama, trained in law at Harvard, and as one who taught Constitutional Law at the University, have to say about the strange legal inconsistency referred to by the AMA in its report on abortion?