This month, J Street faced a major test of its "pro-Israel" mantle when the United Nations Human Rights Council released its "Goldstone Report" on alleged war crimes during last year's Gaza War. Practically every major pro-Israel and Jewish organization--including the liberal National Jewish Democratic Council--has condemned the report. Yet J Street has thus far been reluctant to do so. When Reform Judaism leader Rabbi Eric Yoffie stood before the conference and condemned the report, he was greeted with both applause and booing. J Street's desire to satisfy too many constituencies may also explain its ambiguous approach to Iranian sanctions--supporting the "mark up" of the sanctions bill just passed by the House on Wednesday, but opposing its actual implementation.
That J Street faces a serious identity crisis is an impression shared not only by its critics, but even its supporters. "The leadership of J Street is to the right of its base," Weiss wrote after his first day at the conference. This impression was shared by blogger Matthew Yglesias, who came away from the event shocked by the extreme views he found. Among those at the conference was Scott McConnell, editor of The American Conservative (which he co-founded with Pat Buchanan), who described it as "an exciting and historic event" and claimed to be "enthusiastic about the group."
And so there is a fork in J Street, and it's unclear which direction the group will take. If the organization wants to be a serious political player, it will have no choice but to alienate many of its fervent supporters--particularly those who are largely animated by their imagined victimization at the hands of the Israel lobby and are fundamentally disdainful of the Zionist project. If these elements are not pushed away, J Street will not be seeing much traffic.
James Kirchick is an assistant editor of The New Republic.
.jpg)
Print
COMMENTS (30)
In order to encompass what it means to BE pro-Israel....to establish what being pro-Israel IS....one would need to know practically everything that can be known about:
1] the history of Judaism
2] the history of Christianity and Islam
3] the history of Zionism
Also, one would need to know practically everything that can be known about:
1] the nature of religion
2] the nature of ethnicity
3] the nature of religious and ethnic conflict
Also, one would need to know practically everything that can be known about:
1] human anthropology
2] human history
3] political economy
Also, one would need to know practically everything that can be known about:
1] human consciousness
view full comment
In order to encompass what it means to BE pro-Israel....to establish what being pro-Israel IS....one would need to know practically everything that can be known about:
1] the history of Judaism
2] the history of Christianity and Islam
3] the history of Zionism
Also, one would need to know practically everything that can be known about:
1] the nature of religion
2] the nature of ethnicity
3] the nature of religious and ethnic conflict
Also, one would need to know practically everything that can be known about:
1] human anthropology
2] human history
3] political economy
Also, one would need to know practically everything that can be known about:
1] human consciousness
2] human psychology
3] human emotions
Also, one would need to know practically everything that can be known about:
1] human evolution
2] the evolution of life
3] the evolution of materialism
Also, one would need to know practically everything that can be known about:
1] ontology
2] teleology
3] the nature of existence itself
So, let's start there. Who among us is best qualified to collect, then congregate, then collate these billions of complex, intertwined and ever evolving variables into a metaphysical mosaic we can call, say, Proposition Israel.
Then, after we establish this and the report has been written, I will be glad to go over it as someone who knows practically everything one needs to know about the relationship between language and meaning. You know, from the perspective of Continental Philosophy.
gw
Aside to James,
Just out of curiosity, what is the difference between an "assistant editor" and a "senior editor" at TNR?
Is a mere assistant allowed more lattitude in, say, criticizing Israel?
; o )
gw
Aside to James,
Just out of curiosity, what is the difference between an "assistant editor" and a "senior editor" at TNR?
Is a mere assistant allowed more lattitude in, say, criticizing Israel?
; o )
gw
“Helena Cobban, the newly-appointed executive director of the Council for the National Interest…”
Here is more on Cobban:
Noah Pollak - 10.29.2009 - 2:04 PM
Helena Cobban sits on the board of Human Rights Watch and was a member of the blogger panel at the J Street conference. She recently ruminated on the question of why so many Jews are disgusted with the Goldstone/HRW treatment of Israel (hat tip: Richard Landes). Her answer:
“But the Michael Goldfarbs, the Norman Podhoretz’s, the Alan Dershowitz’s, and Robert Bernsteins of this world truly don’t get this. They truly think there is something so “special” about Jewish people and their experience in the world that somehow the ... view full comment
“Helena Cobban, the newly-appointed executive director of the Council for the National Interest…”
Here is more on Cobban:
Noah Pollak - 10.29.2009 - 2:04 PM
Helena Cobban sits on the board of Human Rights Watch and was a member of the blogger panel at the J Street conference. She recently ruminated on the question of why so many Jews are disgusted with the Goldstone/HRW treatment of Israel (hat tip: Richard Landes). Her answer:
“But the Michael Goldfarbs, the Norman Podhoretz’s, the Alan Dershowitz’s, and Robert Bernsteins of this world truly don’t get this. They truly think there is something so “special” about Jewish people and their experience in the world that somehow the [sic] (and especially the allegedly “Jewish” state, Israel) deserve to be given a free pass on the application of any neutral standards of behavior, such as would be applied to anyone else.”
Ah, so the Jews think they’re superior to everyone else — where have we heard that one before? And what is the “allegedly” Jewish state? (Sorry, I’ve misquoted her. That’s the allegedly “Jewish” state.) Her writing is so sloppy that it’s impossible to discern what specific slander she has in mind.
Cobban concludes:
“So now, frustrated by their inability to dream up a “Cast lead II,” Israel’s hardliners are taking out their frustrations by railing against Goldstone and “demanding deep changes in the laws of war.””
The pop psychology here is entertaining but of a thematic piece with the rest of her thinking. The criticism of Goldstone, she intones, is not serious or rational — it is in fact the redirected frustration of a predatory and sadistic people whose desire for more war on Palestinian civilians has been thwarted. Get it?
Just to remind people again: this petulant woman sits on the board of Human Rights Watch.
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/pollak/147252
That J Street allows antisemites to participate in its conference tells us that their aims are more than a little confused:
Do they mean to speak for the Jewish community, or against it?
Richard Landes has more on this deluded bigot:
http://www.theaugeanstables.com/2009/10/27/hullo-can-you-see-florida-fro...
Looks like loony tunes George waited all night to be the first to post an irrelevant comment here.
And why not the putz has nothing else to do than stalk New Republic forums.
He should be banned or else an ignore feature should be instituted.
Looks like loony tunes George waited all night to be the first to post an irrelevant comment here.
And why not the putz has nothing else to do than stalk New Republic forums.
He should be banned or else an ignore feature should be instituted.
When I saw that kirchick had penned this article, I groaned. Oh no, yet another bucket of half truths, smears, and misrepresentations.
Well, I was wrong. Sure, there are the usual kirchickian over-statements (Yglesias was "shocked") but overall, considering kirchick's sordid past on the issues of honesty and misrepresentation, this piece does a pretty good job of laying out the issues, avoiding his usual incendiary hyperbole, and based upon my impressions of J Street, lands at an appropriate and appropriately phrased conclusion: Does J Street want to be the trumpet for the marginal, some would even say crackpot, anti-Israel voices.
What encouraged me - and still does - about J Street was that ... view full comment
When I saw that kirchick had penned this article, I groaned. Oh no, yet another bucket of half truths, smears, and misrepresentations.
Well, I was wrong. Sure, there are the usual kirchickian over-statements (Yglesias was "shocked") but overall, considering kirchick's sordid past on the issues of honesty and misrepresentation, this piece does a pretty good job of laying out the issues, avoiding his usual incendiary hyperbole, and based upon my impressions of J Street, lands at an appropriate and appropriately phrased conclusion: Does J Street want to be the trumpet for the marginal, some would even say crackpot, anti-Israel voices.
What encouraged me - and still does - about J Street was that they could provide an alternative to very static, conservative, and in many ways bullying perspective found in AIPAC and among the bellicose, intolerant voices in the US who often align with the Likud perspective, with the implication that this right wing perspective within in Israeli politics, which they support, is the only option for American Jews and US policy. Marty P. comes to mind
However, if J Street is going to be the vessel for anti Israel crackpots, then as Sam Goldwyn used to so eloquently say, Include Me Out.
Good job on this piece. In my opinion, a sign of a maturing perspective and style on your part.
"....based upon my impressions of J Street, [he] lands at an appropriate and appropriately phrased conclusion: Does J Street want to be the trumpet for the marginal, some would even say crackpot, anti-Israel voices..."
gw:
But that's my point, of course.
Cookie goes from the hugely problematic, "based on my own impressions of J-Street" to the much more emphatic conclusion that J-Street reflects marginal, crackpot, anti-Israel voices. As though this were perfectly reasonable.
What he/she does not explore, of course, is the manner in which his/her assumptions about Israel today are not also just embedded in a particular existential assemblage of personal experiences and relationships.
Instead, the ... view full comment
"....based upon my impressions of J Street, [he] lands at an appropriate and appropriately phrased conclusion: Does J Street want to be the trumpet for the marginal, some would even say crackpot, anti-Israel voices..."
gw:
But that's my point, of course.
Cookie goes from the hugely problematic, "based on my own impressions of J-Street" to the much more emphatic conclusion that J-Street reflects marginal, crackpot, anti-Israel voices. As though this were perfectly reasonable.
What he/she does not explore, of course, is the manner in which his/her assumptions about Israel today are not also just embedded in a particular existential assemblage of personal experiences and relationships.
Instead, the leap is made: Based on all I have come to know about Israel thus far, J-Street is "Anti-Israel".
But what if he/she had come to accummulate an entirely different set of impressions, assumptions, predispositions---having had different parents, being raised in a different community, meeting different people, encountering different experiences, reading different books, learning different things. etc.
This is what Jackson grasps, of course. He knows what the hell I am getting at here about "identity".
Well, based on what I know about him, of course. And I did, admittedly, stop accummulating data months ago.
Was that a mistake?!
george
I briefly attended the unsponsored bloggers' forum--because I wanted to meet one of the bloggers whose blog I often read, comment on, and sometimes write for. I saw Jeremy Ben-Ami enter the room and leave after about a minute. Perhaps Mr. Kirchick wants a slightly more liberal version of AIPAC--where everyone is told what to think and a conference is basically a hasbara training session and a chance for politicians to perform like parrots. The conference featured many figures from the left half of the Israeli spectrum from Meretz to Kadima on its breakout panels. It also featured Eric Yoffie in a debate with Jeremy Ben-Ami, something you won't see at an AIPAC conference. I attended the 1995 ... view full comment
I briefly attended the unsponsored bloggers' forum--because I wanted to meet one of the bloggers whose blog I often read, comment on, and sometimes write for. I saw Jeremy Ben-Ami enter the room and leave after about a minute. Perhaps Mr. Kirchick wants a slightly more liberal version of AIPAC--where everyone is told what to think and a conference is basically a hasbara training session and a chance for politicians to perform like parrots. The conference featured many figures from the left half of the Israeli spectrum from Meretz to Kadima on its breakout panels. It also featured Eric Yoffie in a debate with Jeremy Ben-Ami, something you won't see at an AIPAC conference. I attended the 1995 AIPAC conference as an intern staffer and I don't really remember very many panels on or discussions of the peace process. Instead it was just devoted to hasbara training, the 1996 presidential election, and both parties kissing AIPAC's broad ass.
The deluded George posts as if anyone cared what he says.
NO ONE DOES!
The deluded George posts as if anyone cared what he says.
NO ONE DOES!
"Perhaps Mr. Kirchick wants a slightly more liberal version of AIPAC--where everyone is told what to think and a conference is basically a hasbara training session and a chance for politicians to perform like parrots."
Mitch, you are deluded if you think any Jewish group cab be told what to say.
You obviously don't know Jews very well.
Your description fits the far left better.
"Perhaps Mr. Kirchick wants a slightly more liberal version of AIPAC--where everyone is told what to think and a conference is basically a hasbara training session and a chance for politicians to perform like parrots."
Mitch, you are deluded if you think any Jewish group cab be told what to say.
You obviously don't know Jews very well.
Your description fits the far left better.
Excuse me Jackson but I want to give it one more shot with george. By your leave or no.
George. Do you believe Truth to be malleable? If so, is that the Truth? Do you accept the dual proposition of eternity and forward movement of time?
Umm. Don't trifle with me because I'm fairly intimate with those things which you presume to have championed.
Excuse me Jackson but I want to give it one more shot with george. By your leave or no.
George. Do you believe Truth to be malleable? If so, is that the Truth? Do you accept the dual proposition of eternity and forward movement of time?
Umm. Don't trifle with me because I'm fairly intimate with those things which you presume to have championed.
I couldn't care less about Walty's replie, Jacko, but did you mean to say: "Do you accept the dual proposition of eternity and forward movement of time?"
or "the dual proposition of infinity and forward movement of time?"
Just curious.
I couldn't care less about Walty's replie, Jacko, but did you mean to say: "Do you accept the dual proposition of eternity and forward movement of time?"
or "the dual proposition of infinity and forward movement of time?"
Just curious.
Interesting distinction. I suppose in my book infinity would imply all dimensions yet subservient to eternal.
Interesting distinction. I suppose in my book infinity would imply all dimensions yet subservient to eternal.
Jamie Kirchik deciding who's "pro-Israel" enough is like Glenn Beck's teabaggers deciding who's Republican enough.
Jamie Kirchik deciding who's "pro-Israel" enough is like Glenn Beck's teabaggers deciding who's Republican enough.
jacko
"Interesting distinction. I suppose in my book infinity would imply all dimensions yet subservient to eternal."
Ontologically speaking the "eternal" is the unchanging; hence devoid of temporality.
The infinite is always temporal.
In other words, the eternal is like a tit from which all milk has been squeezed out, the infinite is like a tit with a never ending supply of milk.
jacko
"Interesting distinction. I suppose in my book infinity would imply all dimensions yet subservient to eternal."
Ontologically speaking the "eternal" is the unchanging; hence devoid of temporality.
The infinite is always temporal.
In other words, the eternal is like a tit from which all milk has been squeezed out, the infinite is like a tit with a never ending supply of milk.
jfelliott
"Jamie Kirchik deciding who's "pro-Israel" enough is like Glenn Beck's teabaggers deciding who's Republican enough."
This is hardly the issue, elliott.
The issue is: why would people like Philip Weiss who would like to see Israel (and the Jewish people) disappear be considered pro Israel in the first place?
jfelliott
"Jamie Kirchik deciding who's "pro-Israel" enough is like Glenn Beck's teabaggers deciding who's Republican enough."
This is hardly the issue, elliott.
The issue is: why would people like Philip Weiss who would like to see Israel (and the Jewish people) disappear be considered pro Israel in the first place?
jacko:
George. Do you believe Truth to be malleable? If so, is that the Truth? Do you accept the dual proposition of eternity and forward movement of time?
george:
Read much Wittgenstein lately?
That's like a man insisting, "All men are liars, and that's the truth." So, is it?
Same with words like "eternity". It is a word-sound we invented to describe...what, exactly? What IS "eternity"? Do you know? No, of course not. It's just a word you use like the rest of to encompass something we can only speculate about such that the word itself breaks down when we try to attach to, say, the universe?
Philosophy [epistemology] is filled with antinomies like this. "Free will", "determinism", "God", "no G ... view full comment
jacko:
George. Do you believe Truth to be malleable? If so, is that the Truth? Do you accept the dual proposition of eternity and forward movement of time?
george:
Read much Wittgenstein lately?
That's like a man insisting, "All men are liars, and that's the truth." So, is it?
Same with words like "eternity". It is a word-sound we invented to describe...what, exactly? What IS "eternity"? Do you know? No, of course not. It's just a word you use like the rest of to encompass something we can only speculate about such that the word itself breaks down when we try to attach to, say, the universe?
Philosophy [epistemology] is filled with antinomies like this. "Free will", "determinism", "God", "no God", "time", "space", "solipsism". "realism", "idealism".
As for "malleable" truth, I make that crucial distinction between the laws of nature and moral and political values. Abortion as a medical procedure is far more easily pinned down objectively than assessing whether or not it is moral or immoral. J-Street as an organization [membership, website, physical presense] is far more easily pinned down than establishing whether it is right or wrong about Israel.
Right?
Jacko:
Umm. Don't trifle with me because I'm fairly intimate with those things which you presume to have championed.
george:
Oh, we'll see about that. Or are you going to abandon yet another exchange with me? If not, I say this: Welcome to Hell.
george walton
d/a
there you have it, jacko. And you were hoping for a real answer from this self taught ignorant jerk?
there are junior school students more knowing about philosophy than he is.
there you have it, jacko. And you were hoping for a real answer from this self taught ignorant jerk?
there are junior school students more knowing about philosophy than he is.
George. I wonder why you even bother making any distinctions at all. Natural or otherwise. Why would you choose to acknowledge the validity of a scientific inquiry when it presumes that something must be knowable? Even if mitigated by lack of absolute clarity and the doing which has consequence.
No. I think you are indeed a relativist at the convenience of your own bias. But don't despair. You have lots of company.
I've been to Hell, george. Nothing you could say along these lines would even come close. Yeah. We don't have anything to discuss because you can't be inconvenienced with meaning and .... really anything except at the service of your own bias. You're a scammer, georgie. I got your ... view full comment
George. I wonder why you even bother making any distinctions at all. Natural or otherwise. Why would you choose to acknowledge the validity of a scientific inquiry when it presumes that something must be knowable? Even if mitigated by lack of absolute clarity and the doing which has consequence.
No. I think you are indeed a relativist at the convenience of your own bias. But don't despair. You have lots of company.
I've been to Hell, george. Nothing you could say along these lines would even come close. Yeah. We don't have anything to discuss because you can't be inconvenienced with meaning and .... really anything except at the service of your own bias. You're a scammer, georgie. I got your number. It is 0.....)
jacko:
George. I wonder why you even bother making any distinctions at all. Natural or otherwise. Why would you choose to acknowledge the validity of a scientific inquiry when it presumes that something must be knowable? Even if mitigated by lack of absolute clarity and the doing which has consequence.
george:
Aside to others:
First, you'll notice that Jacko makes absolutely no attempt whatsoever to respond to any of the points I raised above. Stuff he professes to be "fairly intimate" regarding. Perhaps he should define "fairly" for us.
jacko,
What about it? Are you going to discuss these points intelligently or [as per usual] wiggle out of it?
Another Irony, perchance?
As for "scientific inquiri ... view full comment
jacko:
George. I wonder why you even bother making any distinctions at all. Natural or otherwise. Why would you choose to acknowledge the validity of a scientific inquiry when it presumes that something must be knowable? Even if mitigated by lack of absolute clarity and the doing which has consequence.
george:
Aside to others:
First, you'll notice that Jacko makes absolutely no attempt whatsoever to respond to any of the points I raised above. Stuff he professes to be "fairly intimate" regarding. Perhaps he should define "fairly" for us.
jacko,
What about it? Are you going to discuss these points intelligently or [as per usual] wiggle out of it?
Another Irony, perchance?
As for "scientific inquiries", no scientist has come up with a way in which to obviate David Hume's hard skepticism, right? There is still that ontological gap between "correlation" and "cause and effect". Instead, we all have to acknolwedge this and live our lives acting as though it is irrelevent instead. And, for all practical purposes, it is....right?
jacko:
No. I think you are indeed a relativist at the convenience of your own bias. But don't despair. You have lots of company.
george:
Again, choose a moral issue and denote knowledge that is universal with respect to it and knowledge that can be used only to connote value judgments that are subjective in nature. Do you even grasp the crucial is/ought distinction here at all?
jacko:
I've been to Hell, george. Nothing you could say along these lines would even come close. Yeah. We don't have anything to discuss because you can't be inconvenienced with meaning and .... really anything except at the service of your own bias. You're a scammer, georgie. I got your number. It is 0.....)
george:
Aside to others:
See the wiggle room he is insinuating yet again into the discussion: apparently, I "can't be inconvenienced with meaning"!!! What the fuck does that mean?
Cluck, cluck, cluck, said the chicken! Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle, said the worm!
Jacko,
Yes, you are woefully inadequate to the task. But surely you must know someone who can give it a go. Or maybe Jackson can tell you what to say.
; o )
george walton
d/a
Another comment by Walty which reads like a cry for recognition.
Everyone of his posts show what a whackjob he is; a self taught whackjob.
Another comment by Walty which reads like a cry for recognition.
Everyone of his posts show what a whackjob he is; a self taught whackjob.
George.... it's clear you're just a ' fuck with '. I'll not bother to point out all of the the bait and switch bullshit you just ran down. Piss off.
George.... it's clear you're just a ' fuck with '. I'll not bother to point out all of the the bait and switch bullshit you just ran down. Piss off.
Jackson. Self taught is okay with me. Truth be known that is the place of unmediated opportunity. All things considered though I see a glimmer of unwitting ownership per curious george. The fact is that there are some places of agreement that we have touched upon. A twinkle of useful communication. I still stand by my assessment however the mysteries are becoming less so. I'm all for light.
Yeah. Love is the bottom line george. That is where justice and truth reside. One might even speculate that such a place might be holy. Though we of good will struggle to define, one does indeed know what it is..... and what it isn't when run through the thresher. The reason the West has an affinity with ... view full comment
Jackson. Self taught is okay with me. Truth be known that is the place of unmediated opportunity. All things considered though I see a glimmer of unwitting ownership per curious george. The fact is that there are some places of agreement that we have touched upon. A twinkle of useful communication. I still stand by my assessment however the mysteries are becoming less so. I'm all for light.
Yeah. Love is the bottom line george. That is where justice and truth reside. One might even speculate that such a place might be holy. Though we of good will struggle to define, one does indeed know what it is..... and what it isn't when run through the thresher. The reason the West has an affinity with Israel is quite simply the claimed origin and hence sense of justice are more closely related than not. Justice is a horseshoe approximation ..... but when you are in Hell that's the best one might hope for. At least when dealing with the vagaries of Collectives. And then there was God...... huh, George.
jacko:
George.... it's clear you're just a ' fuck with '. I'll not bother to point out all of the the bait and switch bullshit you just ran down. Piss off.
george:
Again, all of you, please join me in a rousing chorus of,
Cluck, cluck, cluck went the chicken!! Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle went the worm!!
Jacko,
Your humiliating retreat is duly noted. But, of course, it goes without saying, the invitation to crawl up out of the intellectual sandbox still stands. ; o )
george
jacko:
George.... it's clear you're just a ' fuck with '. I'll not bother to point out all of the the bait and switch bullshit you just ran down. Piss off.
george:
Again, all of you, please join me in a rousing chorus of,
Cluck, cluck, cluck went the chicken!! Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle went the worm!!
Jacko,
Your humiliating retreat is duly noted. But, of course, it goes without saying, the invitation to crawl up out of the intellectual sandbox still stands. ; o )
george
No george. I get the last word.
No george. I get the last word.
jacko
"Jackson. Self taught is okay with me."
Yes, if you have actually learned something. This is not the case with loony tunes George.
jacko
"Jackson. Self taught is okay with me."
Yes, if you have actually learned something. This is not the case with loony tunes George.
Loony tunes George says to jocko:
"Your humiliating retreat is duly noted."
This from an ignorant narcissistic autodidact who doesn't know his own limitations and can't stand still for three seconds to answer a question.
Every post of George's shows that the runt is beyond humiliation; one needs a sense of reality to feel humiliated and this is what the psychotic George lacks.
He is just full of hackneyed phrases and self love.
Loony tunes George says to jocko:
"Your humiliating retreat is duly noted."
This from an ignorant narcissistic autodidact who doesn't know his own limitations and can't stand still for three seconds to answer a question.
Every post of George's shows that the runt is beyond humiliation; one needs a sense of reality to feel humiliated and this is what the psychotic George lacks.
He is just full of hackneyed phrases and self love.
jacko "No george. I get the last word."
Good for you!
jacko "No george. I get the last word."
Good for you!
'No george. I get the last word."
gw:
Is that what you call it?
Here's what I call it: Cluck cluck cluck...wiggle wiggle wiggle.
Thank god for my maturity, right?
Not to worry though. Aside from JD, no on else is here to see you squirming.
; o )
gw
'No george. I get the last word."
gw:
Is that what you call it?
Here's what I call it: Cluck cluck cluck...wiggle wiggle wiggle.
Thank god for my maturity, right?
Not to worry though. Aside from JD, no on else is here to see you squirming.
; o )
gw
I guess you get the last word, george. Kind of an issue with you. Isn't it?
cluck, cluck
I guess you get the last word, george. Kind of an issue with you. Isn't it?
cluck, cluck
On the contrary, the "issues" with me have hardly varied at all:
Identity. Value judgments. Political economy. The limitations of language. Existentialial philosophy.
And how they fit into an evaluation of "the news".
Go back to my very first posts and you will confirm this.
It would be nice of course to bump into a few minds here who can discuss these things intelligently. But no biggie if not. It is the manner in which I am able to convey the thinking of the True Believers to friends of mine that primarily motivate my efforts here.
Thanks for your own contributions.
; o )
gw
On the contrary, the "issues" with me have hardly varied at all:
Identity. Value judgments. Political economy. The limitations of language. Existentialial philosophy.
And how they fit into an evaluation of "the news".
Go back to my very first posts and you will confirm this.
It would be nice of course to bump into a few minds here who can discuss these things intelligently. But no biggie if not. It is the manner in which I am able to convey the thinking of the True Believers to friends of mine that primarily motivate my efforts here.
Thanks for your own contributions.
; o )
gw