Not Politically Correct, But Honest

Helen Thomas has been getting a HUGE dose of hatred from the Right because of this.



The fact that many conservatives are accusing Thomas of advocating ethnic cleansing - which is a blatant and preposterous lie - only serves to make this issue much larger than it already is.

This, however, doesn't remove the fact that she is taking up a very controversial opinion. But I have to ask myself why it is controversial in the first place. The answer is not entirely simple and it's not one that many in America are willing to admit - in public anyway.

I'm not going to claim to support Hezbollah, nor am I going to state that I agree with everything done in the name of the Israeli nation. What I will state without fear of being challenged is that it seems rather peculiar, upon a great deal of reflection and questioning, that the people of Israel have the right to land that was never theirs to begin with and to have so much control over aid being distributed to Gaza. In that respect, Helen Thomas is correct.

Where I think she went wrong was with her apology. I don't buy for one second that she is actually apologizing - it's a calculated move in order for her to save face with conservatives. I really thought that she was better than this, that she had the courage of her convictions, but apparently not.

In my mind, the reason that the bulk of Americans ( primarily conservatives ) "support" Israel is out of what they claim to disagree with - political correctness. They can't risk being seen to be even moderately critical of what the Israeli people are doing to Palestine simply because they see the Jewish nation as the "people of God". Does this exempt them from doing wrong against others? Most certainly not.

I look upon Israel the same that I do my own nation - it has to be accountable for it's actions. And that is something that conservatives have a hard time doing when it comes to their own actions and those they they use for their own ill-conceived ends.

A Love Affair Of Convenience

Everytime I hear anyone within the fringe conservative movement claim that they are "the greatest supporter of Israel" I want to ask them to prove it.



Considering that there are two very distinct classes of "support" for the Jews and the Israeli state, it's getting to the point where people like Malkin and Beck need to be called on their empty rhetoric.

Firstly, there's the near-masterbatory school of thought ( a la John Hagee ) that if you round up all the Jews in America and ship them back to Israel that your wet-dream of making the "Left Behind" series a reality will happen.

Secondly, there's those that are "friends" of the Jews and Israel only for strategic value in the Mid-East. This is the more prominent and widely accepted form of "friendship" seen throughout the conservative movement.

So, where do Beck and Malkin fall? That's not so easy to determine.

Considering that both are pretty much bat-shit crazy, I think it's a fair assumption to say that both have their own individual reasons for saying they are "supporters" of the Jews and of Israel.

Here's what I can't figure out - why would Glenn Beck have Michelle Malkin on as a guest when he says things like this:

You know the anchor baby thing has already really hacked me off. You know the anchor baby, you know what that is. That’s when somebody — a child that is born here — becomes a citizen. And they help the illegal parents here become citizens. Remember empathy, oh empathy — no one wants to separate that family. Oh that baby is a child — it’s an anchor — it’s an anchor to stay here.

Malkin certainly fits that catagory, but don't expect her to discuss it. Her hypocrisy normally knows no bounds, but I think that she might spontaneously combust if she started to decry that which kept her parents in America.

The reason that Beck is willing to have her on as a guest is that she's willing to bow to his whim because he has a massive audience now. This is also going to work to Malkin's advantage as well. The more exposure she can have for her nonsensical blathering, the better.

The larger question is this - are they telling the truth?

To the extent that it makes them feel better about themselves, then yes. The reason that they are often taken at their word is because they have a large audience. Once you convince a few people to agree with you, the rest will easily fall into place. Also, if you keep repeating it, then you're likely to be believed. But the question that should be put to them is what have they actually done.

It's exceptionally easy to say one thing, but it becomes more like actual "work" when you back up your words with action.

There's another, more interesting, side to the "neoconservative" movement in America and how it "supports" Israel:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

More on that from Racheal Weiner.

Essentially, Maklin and Beck's statements fall sqaurely into the catagory of "it sounds good so I'll say it". Standard fare for conservative pundits. It creates the illusion that you are telling the truth.

Comedy Gold, Joe Style

I don't know what's more laughable, Joe doing his"COME LOOK WHAT I'M DOING!!!!!" schtick or trying to tell camera operators and reporters what to do.

If you'd like to watch the who video, you'll have to register.

I Am At A Loss For Words

What?

TOLEDO, Ohio — Joe The Plumber is putting down his wrenches and picking up a reporter's notebook.

The Ohio man who became a household name during the presidential campaign says he is heading to Israel as a war correspondent for the conservative Web site pjtv.com.

Who is PJTV.com, you ask?

Well, thier website has this to say about Joe "The Guy That Has No Clue What He's About To Get Into" Wurzelbcher here.

Michelle Malkin, a PJTV contributor, seems to think that people are going to be praying to Joe's death during his trip.

Predicting death wishes for Joe from the left side of the blogosphere in 3, 2, 1…

All kidding aside, Joe is only being sent to the middle-east because of his comments regarding Barack Oabama and Isreal:



Does this man not realize what he's getting into? Has he the intelletual honesty to tell himself that he isn't a field reporter, that the "average Joe's" that he is bein sent to talk to in Israel more than likely will want nothing to do with him? Does he understand the real danger that he is putting himself in?

There is still a part of me that thinks that this is all hype and no delivery, all foreplay and nothing more - something juicy for the Fox"News" prattle-heads to pat theirselves on the back with . Is Joe honestly going to go to Israel and talk to the "average Jew" that is being affected by this conflict?

I'll believe that when I see it.