March 23, 2016 Rabbi Shmuel Herzfeld: ‘Donald Trump is wicked. As a rabbi, I had to protest his AIPAC speech.’ Luke Ford No sacred cows.

This Purim, we Jews must not bow down and kneel to a man who inspires hatred.
As a rabbi of an Orthodox congregation in Washington, I am a strong supporter of Israel and of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, which lobbies on its behalf here. For more than a decade, I’ve traveled to Israel at least once a year, and I’ve been to many AIPAC events over my 17 years as a rabbi.
So when Donald Trump addressed the group’s annual policy conference at the Verizon Center on Monday, I was sitting six rows away from the stage. And as Trump began his speech, I rose from my seat. I spread my tallit over my shoulders, raised my hands up high and declared: “This man is wicked. He inspires racists and bigots. He encourages violence. Do not listen to him.” With every cell in my body, I felt the obligation to declare his wickedness to the world.
Since 2004, I’ve been a rabbi here in Washington. I try very hard to stay away from commenting on partisan politics. (I don’t remember ever publicly criticizing either George W. Bush or Barack Obama.) I believe that the job of a rabbi is to be a rabbi for all congregants — no matter who they vote for. Our congregation has passionate Republicans and Democrats, and we all get along. This ability to worship together despite strong political differences is essential to a faith community.
But besides being the spiritual adviser to my congregation, I am also a father of seven children. As a father, I teach my children that when there is wickedness in our midst, we must stand up and recognize it. Sometimes we will just be another voice in the wind, but even so, we have a religious imperative to call out that wickedness and declare that it is wrong.
And the laws and teachings of Judaism make it clear that Trump qualifies as wicked. He has equivocated about whether he would disavow support from David Duke and the Ku Klux Klan. He has called for a ban on all Muslims entering the United States. He has suggested that torture be made legal and that the U.S. military kill the families of terrorism suspects (a war crime in international law as surely as it would be an ethical crime in religious law). Sure, he walked back some of those comments, but there is no question that his campaign is inspiring and nourishing the bigots and racists of the world. Lately, he has openly encouraged violence at his rallies. This combination of providing sustenance to racists and encouraging violence is a deadly one that represents an existential threat to our country. That certainly qualifies as wicked.
As a rabbi of an Orthodox congregation in Washington, I am a strong supporter of Israel and of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, which lobbies on its behalf here. For more than a decade, I’ve traveled to Israel at least once a year, and I’ve been to many AIPAC events over my 17 years as a rabbi.
So when Donald Trump addressed the group’s annual policy conference at the Verizon Center on Monday, I was sitting six rows away from the stage. And as Trump began his speech, I rose from my seat. I spread my tallit over my shoulders, raised my hands up high and declared: “This man is wicked. He inspires racists and bigots. He encourages violence. Do not listen to him.” With every cell in my body, I felt the obligation to declare his wickedness to the world.
Since 2004, I’ve been a rabbi here in Washington. I try very hard to stay away from commenting on partisan politics. (I don’t remember ever publicly criticizing either George W. Bush or Barack Obama.) I believe that the job of a rabbi is to be a rabbi for all congregants — no matter who they vote for. Our congregation has passionate Republicans and Democrats, and we all get along. This ability to worship together despite strong political differences is essential to a faith community.
But besides being the spiritual adviser to my congregation, I am also a father of seven children. As a father, I teach my children that when there is wickedness in our midst, we must stand up and recognize it. Sometimes we will just be another voice in the wind, but even so, we have a religious imperative to call out that wickedness and declare that it is wrong.
And the laws and teachings of Judaism make it clear that Trump qualifies as wicked. He has equivocated about whether he would disavow support from David Duke and the Ku Klux Klan. He has called for a ban on all Muslims entering the United States. He has suggested that torture be made legal and that the U.S. military kill the families of terrorism suspects (a war crime in international law as surely as it would be an ethical crime in religious law). Sure, he walked back some of those comments, but there is no question that his campaign is inspiring and nourishing the bigots and racists of the world. Lately, he has openly encouraged violence at his rallies. This combination of providing sustenance to racists and encouraging violence is a deadly one that represents an existential threat to our country. That certainly qualifies as wicked.
Before Trump’s speech, I asked other attendees at the AIPAC conference whether they would walk out to protest. Some small groups did leave, to study Torah elsewhere during his address. But most stayed, and many applauded. People told me that they wanted to hear what he had to say. They wanted to hear whether he would be supportive of Israel.
Whether he supports Israel is irrelevant to me. If a person inspires bigotry and racism, we should not overlook those character traits just because he says something with which we agree. Just the opposite: that he does agree with us on some issues makes his message even more dangerous, as it can make his bigotry and racism more palatable.
On Wednesday evening, we Jews will read the Book of Esther as part of our celebration of the holiday of Purim. In this story, King Ahasuerus first seduces the people of his kingdom with lavish parties. The people are impressed and grateful for the king’s ostentatious hospitality, so they all rush to support him. At that moment, Ahasuerus elevates the wicked Haman to a position of great power. Haman eventually manufacturers an edict to kill all of the kingdom’s Jews, but even before that, Mordechai, a Jew who lives in the kingdom’s capital, senses Haman’s true nature. All the visitors to the king’s palace bow down to Haman, but Mordechai alone “refused to bow and refused to kneel” (Esther 3:2).
At that critical moment, Mordechai spoke truth to power.
As I sat in the Verizon Center and watched Trump ascend to speak, I thought of my children, and I drew inspiration from the Purim story. Like Mordechai, we Jews must not bow down and kneel to a man who inspires hatred. We will not overlook his calls for violence.
After AIPAC security escorted me out of the arena, I was approached by members of the media. They asked me why I did what I did. I had no illusions that I might affect Trump’s rise in any way, nor did I expect to convince people of the correctness of my positions. I also knew that many in my congregation would support me and others who call me their rabbi would be deeply upset with me. But at that moment, none of it mattered. I felt a strong religious imperative to act even if it achieved nothing. As the Megillah says about Mordechai, when he heard the news of Haman’s decree: “He went out into the city and let out a loud and bitter cry” (Esther 4:1).
So I told the media, as I broke down in tears: I did it for my children.

So I hope the rabbi has a freiliche Purim and a great chuckle over those 75,000 Hamanites who met their doom at the hands of the Jews. I hope it puts him in the mood for Passover, and the termination of all the first born sons of Egypt. Hilarious!

Shmuel Herzfeld is a gay-friendly rabbi.

Joe emails me in 2008:

I think that you should run a piece on Rabbi Shmuel Hertzfeld. His time has come, since he is a quasi-celeb.
Without any previous knowledge, you might think Hertzfeld is some kind of activist, a modern day Heschel — but Orthodox.
That is not the case. Let me give you some background. You can verify the assessment that I am giving you with anyone who was at YU with Hertzfeld.
Hertzfeld was in YU before Yeshivat Chovevei Torah opened up. Today, a person like him would probably wind up at YCT, but that wasn’t an option then.
He was always a maverick, or, if you will a trouble maker. He would make controversial statements in public, just to attract attention.
His most famous line — which he would repeat and repeat and repeat was, "The only reason guys in YU get married early, is because they don’t have premarital sex." Of course, everyone knew that he and his girlfriend were dating a long time, by YU standards, and only got married after three years of dating.
So, Hertzfeld was some kind of cynical YU guy, doing graduate work at Revel (YU’s graduate program in Judaic studes) — until he met Avi Weiss. When Hertzfeld took the job at Weiss’s shul (Hebrew Institute), he got into the whole "Avi Weiss/Hug everyone/isn’t it a wonderful world/so open-minded your brain falls out" thing. Luke, since you live on the West coast, you are used to such people; in New York, they are a rare commodity. Hertzfeld realized that, instead of making provocative comments that enraged people in YU, you could say the same things, and become the darling of your congregants, because that is exactly what they wanted to hear, a message contra YU.
Then Hertzfeld saw his opportunity. He took a dying shul in the DC area and renamed it "The National Synagogue." What a move! It’s like, there’s a National Cathedral — and a National Synagogue. He got a ton of money from Jonas (of IDT fame) and was soon in business running tons of programing. In a place like Washington, he taped into a niche market for "Open Orthodoxy."
Here’s Hertzfeld, doing his Open Orthodoxy thing, and getting the other rabbis, who belong to the "Vaad of Greater Washington," more and more upset at him. In a sense, he infuriated Rabbi Barry Freundel more than the more right-leaning rabbis. Freundel is a major YU person, very into YU as an institution. Hertzfeld represents a challenge to that.
Rubashkin was Hertzfeld’s coup de grace. He gained two things: first, he presented himself as a social activist, which is exactly the kind of PR that he needs. Second, he "assered," or forbade the meat, which is supervised by establishment groups like the OU. This is a classic trick of rabbis, to forbid something to show your political muscles. Even better, Hertzfeld comes out "frummer" than the other DC rabbis, who are far to his right.
The Times op-ed was a classic Hertzfeld. It brings him back to the days of being a cynical YU smicha guy.
The problem is, that he is nearly untouchable. If YU crucifies him, then he’ll become a martyr for Open Orthodoxy. If they tried to assassinate his character, by bringing out his dirty laundry from his YU days, then Hertzfeld will only gain, since he will become known as "the cool rabbi who allows pre-marital sex." Only time will tell what lies in wait for Shmuel Hertzfeld.

Comments at the Washington Post:

* I see, it’s not the very real hurt perpetrated by Obama on Israel and the world by funding Iranian terror or the disgusting disrespect shown to the Israeli Prime Minister and Ambassador Derner by this administration and their spokespeople but Trump saying “yay” to Obama’s final days in office. Pinkus should indeed be deeply sorry but only for humiliating the rest of the proud American Jewish community with this mewling apology.

* There are few things more disgusting than a clergyman cloaking his partisan political views and prejudices in religion. Just say that you hate Trump, Rabbi, and leave Judaism out of it.

* I did some reading on this “Rabbi.” He is a nobody that represents a fringe 3rd rate Synagogue. The WAPO makes this guy out to be the Pope of the Jewish faith. He is a nobody.

* AIPAC and the Israeli lobby have too much influence over US foreign policy and the mechanisms of our federal government, especially, but not exclusively, in the Republican dominated House of Representatives. It is about time U.S. politicians started putting U.S. national interests ahead of those of Israel. I don’t agree with Trump on many issues, but he called it right to put U.S. interests first, to ask our allies to spend more for their own defense, especially Europe, and to recognize that Bush jr. was a disaster when it came to foreign and national security policy, not to mention economic policy.

* As a Jew, I must express my deep unease and heavy embarrassment that I felt upon reading this article. Your invocation of the story of Purim is highly inappropriate because it bears no relation to what is going on in the race; specifically, Trump is no Haman. The implausibility of your claim beggars belief.

You may not necessarily agree with Trump’s policy proposals, or his abrasive manner at times. But to paint him with the same brush as Haman is painted? We compare Haman to Hitler; are you sincerely making the claim that there is equivalence between Trump and Hitler??

Your article is lazy. You come across as sanctimonious. You misrepresent the megilla story. You cast Jews in a very awkward light. Shame on you.

* This clown Herzfeld is a well-known left-oriented attention-seeker. Anything for attention. Absolutely anything — with the emphasis on attacking someone else, because attacking prompts controversy, which assures publicity somewhere. He walked out of Donald Trump’s AIPAC address, but virtually no one noticed — so now he tries to grab attention with this little post. Identically, he resigned from the Rabbinical Council of America to get attention. When he walked out of the Rabbinical Council, no one noticed . . . until he published a silly attack later. Same here. When he and two others walked out of AIPAC, the remaining 19,997 remained, heard Trump, and many even gave Mr. Trump rousing standing ovations. It was Trump’s finest moment in the campaign, speaking from prepared thoughts, laying out policies, speaking in measured and respectful tones. That kind of presentation is the kind that is to be encouraged for a candidate who long has needed encouragement to rein in the distractions. Herzfeld is a joke outside his small little fan club.

— Rabbi Dov Fischer
Young Israel of Orange County, CA

* Let’s cut to the chase here. Exactly what does Israel want? Who is Haman in this modern day story? Collectively it appears to be the right wing Netanyahu government that is perpetrating what many believe to be a lie, that Israel will ever enter into a two state solution regarding Palestine.

Ted Cruz early on in his speech, to much applause, stated there has been no Palestine since 1948. The implication is there never will be. Naftali Bennet a member of the current government and leader of Jewish Home party is on record stating Israel will never surrender Judea and Samaria. Is it not Israel leading the lie? And AIPAC is perpetrating the same lie?

So Rabbi, in your celebration of Purim, search your conscience and decide if Israel is being truthful with the world. It is time to either annex the West Bank and Gaza and declare they are Israel or stop the settlements, return the settlers to present day Israel and enter negotiations for the two state solution? Just do not perpetrate the lie. President Carter, Anwar Sadat of Egypt and Menachem Begin, concluded the Camp David Accords which has brought a degree of peace to Israel. It is time for Israel to be honest with the world. Either halt settlement and withdraw all settlers from the West Bank or annex the West Bank and deal with the consequences.

It is blatantly obvious that the view of Naftali Bennet represents the long term goal of making Judea and Samaria part of Israel proper. And AIPAC is part of the charade. That is why AIPAC will cheer a bigot. Where is morality if lies are being perpetrated?

* Why would a jew turn on a man who actually admits to favoring Israel and the jewish religion? Look what happened when y’all voted for barrack Hussein Obama. Not a brilliant move on your part. Maybe jews just like to play the victims, and view themselves as poor humble downtrodden friends of the weak, and scorned. It doesn’t work for you! Most American jews are well educated, successful in careers, and upper middle class and wealthy. I’m not jewish, and I support Trump. I’m not anti jewish, I support Israel as a top friend of America. If you don’t like Trump because of his colorful speech, vote for Bernie sanders. But don’t expect him to make much difference. He is part of the liberal establishment. They don’t favor jews. They support Palestinians. People are already blaming jews for the Belgium terrorist attacks, because Israel won’t give back disputed territory, to the palestinians. Muslims have a sworn duty to destroy Israel. That won’t change, and they won’t stop, until they do. The world will stand back and watch. Democrats won’t do anything to make the Palestinians accountable for their violence. They will just tell Israel to role over and give disputed lands back, on a silver platter.

* This Rabbi is a farce. THERE IS NO NATIONAL SYNAGOGUE. I was duped when visiting DC. Saw the name National Synagogue and thought it would be worthy of a visit. Thought it would have years of history (like the rest of the city). Bottom line, its the name that a Rabbi selected the name a half-dozen years ago to attract tourists to an empty building that would have otherwise closed down. It was not a National Landmark. Everyone walking in was like…WTF!?? He speaks for no one. And he certainly doesn’t speak for me. And by the way, Washington Post knows all of this. However, the name sounds large (as if he represents a large group), therefore, the Post was willing to allow the title of the synagogue to mischaracterize the circumstances. When I saw the place, I was insulted. Empty, neglected, and clearly taking advantage of having seized a name to feed off the tourist draw. To me, was not even a house of worship at all. If he thinks Trump is evil, what would you call him? After all, he did not convey the status of the synagogue honestly to prospective guests or the newspaper? The name of the REAL synagogue in the center of DC with decades of history is on the corner of Sixth and I. Nothing to do with level of observance here. And as if being in DC makes him a political expert?

* What is your stance on the right to return for Palestinians, Mr Herzfeld? If Mr. Trump is a racist for calling for a Muslim immigration moratorium and you are an ardent Israel supporter, are you saying Israel is a racist state? How many Muslim refugees has Israel taken in? If Israel does not take in Muslim immigrants and refugees, why should we?

* My understanding is that a Jewish prayer shawl is normally worn only at prayer services. (“Prayer” shawl get it?) Why was Rabbi Herzfeld wearing his in a convention center? Perhaps the Rabbi was disoriented and thought that the wicked Trump was visiting his temple. (God forbid).
Anyway, Rabbi Herzfeld is obviously a brilliant man. Whereas the Bible usually associates terms like “evil” and “wicked” with those who murder , rape and pillage, the good rabbi has apparently used his acumen to enlarge the definitions: The terms now describe any politician who opposes an open door immigration policy. Rabbi Herzfeld, of course, is not alone in doing so: http://wp.me/p5Ep2A-49.
I’m left wondering what terms Rabbi Herzfeld would use to describe, say, those who blew up 30+ people yesterday in Belgium?
Now, I’m no preacher or rabbi, but do I know of one biblical verse, not in the book of Esther, that maybe the rabbi should consult: “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness, who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.” (Isaiah 5:20)

* Shmuel, you are not speaking as a rabbi. You are speaking as a man.

Numbers 31 in the Torah describes a war between Israel and the Midianites. “So, they made war against Midian, just as the Lord had commanded Moses, and they killed every male.” Moses then goes on to demand, “Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately…But all the girls who have not known man intimately, spare for yourselves.” Pretty gruesome stuff. The point is according to the reasoning of Rabbi Herzfeld, God must be wicked also.

Certainly what Trump has proposed is a lot milder than the above bloody description.

18,000 attended Donald Trump’s AIPAC speech. Only a few hundred walked out. Trump received many standing ovations. I have to wonder why the the WP selected one of the very few dissenters to write this piece instead of the many thousands who enthusiastically applauded Trump’s message.

* Looks like the Washington Post is now scraping them off the streets to write anti-Trump articles. Some nobody rabbi is on the front page of this national news paper. What’s his qualification? He hates Trump. Next we’ll get a couple of drug dealers, maybe El Chapo if we’re lucky, to write op-eds here.

* But Trump’s “kill the families” has roots in the Torah. Read what happened at Jericho after the Israelis took down the wall:
“They devoted the city to the Lord and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it—men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys.”

Wicked?

* Funny what a double standard this idiot rabbi has, Israel lives in a state of apartheid, and they accuse Trump of being Islamophobic. Well the only way Israel maintains its own security is by being Islamophobic. So stop lecturing us and get real, this is not Disneyland, this is the real world.

* Yes, you schmuck, you taught your seven children to disrupt and interfere with the First Amendment of anyone whose views don’t agree with yours. Yeah, I bet you are proud of that and your kids are kosher with it, too.

* So when a religious person sees/identifies what he describes as wickedness, he should throw his hands in the air and walk out? Rabbi, I believe Barack Obama is wicked but he is our President, misguided, totally out of touch with what I would describe as American values, and self-serving to the point that no experience can change his mind. A lot of Americans feel as I do: disgusted, very angry with Obama, the media, the Republicans in Congress. Enter Trump, exit Rabbi Herzfeld. Just remember Rabbi, as we have to tolerate Obama, you may have to tolerate President Trump. You might want to try to devise a way to accommodate the conceivable.

* Arrogant cleric flapping his jaws. He should have been thrown out, butt over heels, and his ridiculous prayer shawl thrown after him. Amazing how these brazen clerics think they have the right to be tax exempt while involving themselves in politics. If this idiot has a congregation it should lose its tax-exempt status.

* Well, from the reactions I saw throughout the speech, you’re out there alone, Herzfeld, 19,997 attendees disagreeing, several standing ovations, laughter, 100% support for Netanyahu, unlike the present jerk. Get a grip and a tissue, and suck it up, buddy. Watch the speech again. The present WH occupant is in Cuba, and could give a crap about your country.

Posted in Donald Trump, R. Shmuel Herzfeld | Comments Off

Is It Lion Supremacy To Care About The Survival Of This Mountain Lion?

Posted on March 23, 2016 by Luke Ford

New York Times:

The problem, experts say, is that there is nowhere else for him to go. Male mountain lions fight to the death to protect their territory, and there is no suitable habitat left unclaimed in California. “It’s not like there is some mountain lion Shangri-La with no adult male lion,” said Seth Riley, a wildlife ecologist with the National Park Service, which has been tracking P-22 with a GPS collar since 2012. “Moving animals around generally results in their death.”

There are benefits to having an apex predator in Griffith Park, said David Ryu, the city councilman whose district includes the park. They eat coyotes, which are much more likely than a mountain lion to eat a pet dog.

“If we get rid of him, what next?” Mr. Ryu said. “Do we get rid of all the coyotes? They prey on raccoons. Then do we get rid of the raccoons? Where do you draw the line?”

Posted in Diversity | Comments Off

LAT: To save native island animals from extinction, eradicate the uninvited guests, study finds

Posted on March 23, 2016 by Luke Ford

Sounds like a powerful argument against immigration of incompatible sub-species.

Los Angeles Times: In 1894, a pregnant house cat escaped from a lighthouse on Stephens Island, New Zealand. She had her kittens in the wild, where they went feral. Within 13 months, a native bird species known as the Stephen Islands wren was nearly extinct.

It’s a story often cited as an extreme – and by some accounts exaggerated – example of the damage that invasive mammals can do to delicate island ecosystems.

But the plot is hardly unusual. On islands where native species evolved with no natural predators, intruders like rodents, feral cats and goats can quickly outcompete or even eat the locals.

Islands are home to 15% of the world’s terrestrial species, but they represent 61% of recorded extinctions, experts say. Invasive species usually were a factor.

Now a new study is making the case for a tried-and-true method of staving off this island extinction “crisis”: Get rid of the invasive mammals.

“We spend billions of dollars a year on conservation … but you can help a lot of the world’s biodiversity by removing” these invasive animals, said study leader Holly Jones, a conservation biologist at Northern Illinois University. “In terms of gain per dollar spent … it’s a pretty darn good return on investment.”

…The study looked back on eradication projects since the 1970s and ‘80s, when some of the first techniques were developed for removing invasive mammals. The study also included a 1925 effort to remove the feral descendants of the Stephens Island lighthouse keeper’s cat, which came too late for the wren but aided the recovery of the fairy prion bird and a nocturnal reptile called the tuatara.

…While the study highlights the importance of removing harmful invasive species from islands, it’s just as important to make sure the interlopers don’t come back after multi-million-dollar eradication efforts, Jones and Holmes said.

On the Channel Islands and those around New Zealand, for example, officials take strict biosecurity measures to prevent invasive species – especially rats – from hitching rides onto the islands. In New Zealand, visitors must unpack all their belongings in rodent-proof rooms and on some islands, including Anacapa, pass through tunnels lined with rat traps when they land.

Holmes said the results should encourage similar projects on other affected islands.

“There’s thousands of islands that we know have threatened species and continue to have invasive mammals,” he said. “If we want to prevent these species from going extinct, we have to do these interventions in pretty quick clip.”

NEW YORK TIMES:

Prime Suspect in Koala’s Murder: Los Angeles’s Mountain Lion

LOS ANGELES — The murder was grisly. A koala disappeared from the Los Angeles Zoo one night this month. Its body, mangled and bloody, was found the next morning on a nearby hillside.

Suspicion immediately fell on the area’s most famous resident: a wild mountain lion, known as P-22, who has made a home in the rugged hills near the zoo in this city’s Griffith Park since wandering from a nearby national recreation area in 2012.

The big cat had been caught on video roaming the zoo on the night of the attack. Besides, who else could have hopped the zoo’s nine-foot fence? Certainly not a coyote.

Posted in Immigration | Comments Off

How to sleep without crunching your shoulders

Posted on March 23, 2016 by Luke Ford

More.

Posted in Alexander Technique | Comments Off

The Trump Spring

Posted on March 23, 2016 by Luke Ford

Posted in America | Comments Off

Should Donald Trump Have First Amendment Rights?

Posted on March 23, 2016 by Luke Ford

Scott McConnell writes: On Sunday’s “Face the Nation,” host John Dickerson asked his press panel what the Democrats’ reaction would have been to large-scale efforts to block roads and disrupt traffic for those attending a Barack Obama rally during the 2008 campaign. While no one replied directly, Ruth Marcus said, “We know what it would be.” The understood answer was the road-blockers would encounter a nationwide crescendo of denunciation, and would be shamed as despicable racists seeking to disrupt the American democratic process.

By contrast, those seeking to disrupt Trump rallies face nothing of the sort. Instead, Trump and his supporters are denounced over and over again for their verbal, or in two or three instances physical, lashings out against those who have repeatedly sought to wreak havoc on their events.

The possibility of widespread violence, instead of the now-routine disruptions, prompted Trump to cancel a Chicago rally on the evening of March 10. The cancellation, and the TV coverage of altercations outside the arena which followed, sparked debates between liberals and leftists over whether creating mayhem around Trump events is politically prudent, morally justified, and tactically effective. No one who scans these debates is likely to come away greatly reassured about the bedrock solidity of the shared commitment to the democratic rules of the game in American politics; one could easily conclude that America is beginning to veer towards a state where political disruption and civil violence will become a kind of norm, as it is in much of the Third World.

After the cancellation, the news networks played in continuing loops footage of confrontations between outnumbered Trump supporters and anti-Trump demonstrators outside the University of Illinois at Chicago venue. The latter sometimes waved Mexican flags or banners flouting their undocumented status, defiantly expressing the belief, newly ascendant on the left, that the United States has no right to enforce its immigration laws.

The essayist Michael Tomasky tweeted, “It’s surreal, but if you think this hurts Trump and not the protesters, I fear you are mistaken.” This seemingly innocuous tweet was quickly set upon by some of Tomasky’s Twitter followers, one of whom labeled him a “tone-policing white liberal.” In a podcast debate between millennial writer-activists Ali Gharib and Jesse Myerson over whether it was a good idea for the left to shut down Trump rallies, Tomasky was singled out for disdain along with Damon Linker, who had written the left’s proper response to Trump’s events was not to disrupt them. Myerson used the word “cowardice” before adding he didn’t actually know Linker personally. The former Occupy Wall Street activist, who had created a small splash by publishing a kind of communist manifesto for millennials in 2014, argued that almost any action which prevented Trump from speaking was justified, so long as it succeeded. The important thing was to show strength, not weakness. Forcing Trump to cancel a rally showed the demonstrators’ strength. Chicago was thus an unambiguous victory.

Posted in Censorship, Donald Trump | Comments Off

The Creation Of The Book Of Esther

Posted on March 23, 2016 by Luke Ford

Two Bible scholars write: The final step for the creation of the Megillah was connecting the combined story to the (preexisting) Festival of Purim. The name Purim is based on the Akkadian word for “lots” (pūrū). Many scholars believe that the holiday originated as a Persian new- year celebration, which included the casting lots as one of the rituals.[16]

The Megillah, however, uses these festival lots in a different way, imagining the lots as having been cast by Haman to determine the most auspicious time to kill the Jews. It was at this stage that verses like 3:7,[17] which explain how the 13th of Adar was chosen as the fateful day, and much of chs. 8-9 were written.

This recast the story of Mordechai and Esther vs. Haman into a story that undergirds the festival calendar. It justified the Persian Jewish community’s celebration of a new-year festival by turning it into a Jewish festival. Thus the same process that we can see having occurred for Pesach and Sukkot in the Torah,[18] and Shavuot in Second Temple and Rabbinic literature,[19] occurred for Purim as well.

Posted in Bible | Comments Off

Washington Post: “Horror in Brussels Is a Rebuke to Trump’s Foreign Policy”

Posted on March 23, 2016 by Luke Ford

Steve Sailer writes: “How’s NATO working out at defending the borders of Europe, anyway? Are the peoples of the North Atlantic getting their money’s worth? You know, sometimes I almost suspect that the Washington Post favors whatever foreign policy would lead to maximum expenditure of taxpayer dollars within its circulation area. Times being what they are, you gotta keep those ad rates up …”

Comments:

* That’s hilarious. From claiming that Trump has no “policy” that’s quite a climb down for the WaPo clowns to concede he does.

* One possible effect of NATO and the non-necessity of Europeans defending their own borders without Uncle Sam standing behind them is the mistaken impression on the part of Europeans that armies are for intervention, not defense.

I’ve never once seen an article about border skirmishes or even war games on European soil. However, there are constant articles about NATO or French or British military interventions. I assume the media in Europe are basically the same.

I suspect people who don’t think of their military as a defense force don’t think of their nation as requiring defense.

So, maybe one of the best things that could be done to win hearts and minds in Europe on the immigration question would be to completely 100% pull out of Europe and NATO and let them fend for themselves against Russia, ISIS, etc.

* Black Lies Matter hate it every time there is a terrorist attack, because the media focus shifts away from police brutality of Dindus to Muslim extremists. After the Paris attacks happened, Black Lies Matter went on Twitter to tweet who cares about a bunch of dead White people. I am sure they will also tweet the same about the Brussels attacks.

* Back in ’01, were we not all assured by reliable sources that 9-11 was a consequence of GWB’s isolationism? I recall hearing that somehow or other his failure to ratify the Kyoto Treaty had some bearing on the incident. I guess green IS the color of Islam, but I digress.

Is the WaPo running so short of spurious complaints they had to dig up the isolationism schtick? Or am I just supposed to not have a memory? I heard memories are racist, so yeah whatever…

* Has anyone else noticed that headlines and content from the Washington Post and Huffington Post are now impossible to tell apart? Huffington is intended to be a left tabloid and WAPO is meant to be serious.

Even NYT got in on the act for a while but they are dialing back the crazy a little bit.

* Where has Trump said withdrawing from NATO will keep us secure? Trump has suggested we are not getting the bang for the buck. We are providing the lion’s share of manpower and funding of a defense pact in which most of the members are collectively confederated into the European Union which is more populous and has a larger GDP than the USA. Evaluating whether this is the most effective way to spend our defense dollars, or whether the Europeans should contribute more is a different argument that what you wrote.

Now Patrick Buchanan might make the argument that withdrawing from NATO would make us safer. That of course would be based upon his concerns that any one NATO member, such as Turkey, could get us into a shooting war with a nuclear armed Russia over an incident that is not in our national interests. For example, last October’s downing of a Russian jet might have been the tripwire that committed Uncle Sam to an armed conflict with Russia.

Given how close we came to such an event, and given how Turkey’s and possibly other European nations’ interest differ from ours, there is a potential threat to USA security remaining in NATO twenty plus years after its reason to exist went out of business.

* The appearance of this article today simply underscores the fact that the real political battle emerging is between globalism and nationalism, not liberalism and conservatism. The editorial board of one of the most prominent newspapers in the country jumps on the tragic fallout of a great international terror event in order to attack a presidential candidate’s foreign policy platform.

The article is completely incoherent.

“On one side are those who support the internationalist response of President Obama, who said the United States “will do whatever is necessary to support our friend and ally Belgium,” and who asserted that “we must be together, regardless of nationality or race or faith, in fighting against the scourge of terrorism.”

The perfect articulation of internationalism – unqualified devotion to non-Americans. This is assumed to be a good thing; the position is never justified.

“Against them is the radical isolationism of Donald Trump…”

Anything not in the vein of Trotskyite internationalism is automatically branded “isolationism”.

“However much they are reinforced, borders will provide no protection to Americans if the jihadists are not defeated elsewhere.”

Simple non-sequitur. Even if ISIS is not defeated elsewhere, if they can’t get thru the border, or they at least have a decreased chance at getting thru the border, that keeps citizens of Belgium or the US, applicable, safer.”

“Britain, France and Germany, among others, contribute materially to the war against the terrorist entity in Iraq and Syria, not to mention NATO member Turkey.”

Yes, not to mention Turkey, who supports terrorist groups allied with ISIS in their fight against Assad, thus hindering the effort to bring stability to the Syrian situation.

“But she or he must also accept that the alliance won’t function without U.S. leadership — which inevitably means a larger role militarily and financially as well as politically.”

Yes, the world cannot function without US leadership. In the last 15 years, the United States’ international “leadership” has de-stabilized Iraq and Libya, sites that are now, as a result, prominent sources of radical Sunni terrorism.

* For a candidate who is a joke with zero chance of winning, and hopelessly behind either democrat in a general election matchup, the MSM and other candidates sure seem to focus a lot on Trump. I don’t think any major news outlet can go the day without condemning this candidate who has no chance of winning. Even Hillary and Bernie seem to be directing more of their attacks against this potential November walkover than they do against each other. People seem to show a lot of concern and expel a lot of energy over a guy who supposedly has no chance of winning.

* If only we’d had an aggressive foreign policy for the last 15 years, invading and occupying and bombing and droning all over the middle east, I suppose we wouldn’t be facing the threat of ISIS today.

* I know this is a blog that favors deep thought about long-term policy issues, but my first thought regarding that title was clickbait.

“Brussels Shows Trump Wrong”

It’s simple: like sex, Trump sells. And if it bleeds, it leads. Everyone wants an explanation. And we of course can’t say Trump is right. So.

A. Bleeding: Brussels
B. Trump: Wrong
Explanation: A causes B, or B causes A.

It’s a bit much to say that Trump Wrong Caused Brussels (but let’s keep that around, it might come in handy later). So Brussels Caused Trump Wrong.

I’m overthinking it.

“[Insert news here] Shows Trump Wrong”

works for everything. That guy really is a gift to all of us.

* I’m thinking about Steve’s concept of leapfrogging loyalties. As he wrote in 2012, “Modern liberals’ defining trait is making a public spectacle of how their loyalties leapfrog over some unworthy folks relatively close to them in favor of other people they barely know.”

Loyalty, properly understood, has to be reciprocal. You have loyalty to your spouse or to a friend largely because you trust they are loyal to you. To a lesser degree there is some reciprocal loyalty to your neighbors, your coworkers, or members of any group to which you belong. That is how interpersonal bonds are forged. But the liberal, who leapfrogs his loyalty to underclass blacks or Mexican immigrants, gets no loyalty in return. Rather, they see in him someone who has made himself open to manipulation and exploitation. The liberal’s only reward from this arrangement is the pleasure he experiences from the resentment of his fellow citizens, who feel his loyalty would be more properly devoted to them. So his loyalty, the leapfrogging type, doesn’t create the normal bonds that exist between people, or in communities and nations, but fractures them.

Obama frequently displays his leapfrogging loyalties, as when he refused to stop travel from Ebola afflicted nations. As it happened his policy caused few deaths, though that was by no means a given at the outset. However, the message to Americans was, “Your safety and well-being is not my foremost concern.” Similarly, with Syrian refugees, he expresses contempt for the natural concerns of his citizens–”This is not who we are! We’re better than that!”–which means, “If some of you die as a result of my admitting this hostile group, that’s a price I’m willing to pay.”

In a democratic nation, citizens are loyal to their government because the government represents their interests; i.e., makes their safety and well being its primary concern. But in most Western societies that is no longer the case. As this fact sinks in to the citizens of Western nations, they must ask themselves what loyalty they owe their governments. Is their authority even legitimate anymore?

* Trump does poorly in states with high social cohesion. He does better in more diverse states.

* Donald Trump does well with Right Wing people who are not Conservative in the traditional sense, because they use a lot of profanity. That is why The Donald is popular with people like Anthony Cumia, Legion Of Skanks, Gavin McInnes, Nick DiPaolo, Jim Norton, and Adam Carolla, but not Steve Sailer. The Donald is too vulgar for Steve, who has a very PG vocabulary.

* Trump does well with those who feel that society needs what he’s offering and does poorly with those who quite like the society that they inhabit and don’t see the need for Trumpian policies.

* I was looking at county level data for the Trump and anti-Trump voters. The higher the percentage of the county which is black, foreign born, Hispanic the higher the Trump vote and the opposite for the anti-Trump voters. Those were all independent measures. The only measure with higher correlation was poverty in the county. So poverty, followed by black, followed by Hispanic, followed by foreign born, followed by tw0 or more races, etc.

Living in close proximity to diversity sure seems to predict support for Trump.

* If you ever watch a Gavin McInnes or Anthony Cumia podcast, let’s just say its not for the whole family. Sometimes they even have female porn stars on showing their breasts. They also use the N word more freely, get into specific details about sexual acts, and drug use. They are definitely not your parents Conservatives. They are more anti-PC than they are Conservative in the traditional sense. They are like South Park.

* Because it was so classy of Cruz (or his supporters) to use Melania’s 15 year old picture against Trump.

And do you really have a problem with Trump getting angry when his wife is attacked?

* Yeah, I clicked on your link. So Ted (or a front group for him) doing an absolutely unnecessary, and, frankly, vulgar, thing of tweeting a nearly nude pic of Melania (taken 15 years ago when she was a silly girl) is NOT repulsive. Okaaaaayyy.

But, Trump threatening to spill the beans on Ted Cruz’s wife *is.*

Uh. Huh. You do know what the “beans” are, right? That she is an executive of Goldman Sachs and that GS gave undisclosed loans to Ted Cruz’ campaign (no bribes there, right?) and has had active involvement in the, frankly, treasonous effort to abolish the border between Mexico and Canada under the project of North American Union. Telling THAT truth is “repulsive.”

You are nuts.

Twinkie, every time I turn around, you just reconfirm my bias. Asians are *not* good immigrants. Even the ones who are ostensibly well-assimilated Catholics with tall sons.

* Why is it that everything now seems to be PR or Marketing, honed to eventually provide a nozzle via which any collective rage or fear can be redirected at will to hose whatever target is convenient or profitable for those pulling the strings?

We saw this expertly played in the aftermath of 9/11, when public rage was channeled into support for a war long planned, against a nation-state whose rulers and people had nothing to do with the events on that day, while the official story ignored the fingerprints of [a] nation[s] since clearly more involved.

Mass media + mass psychology = herd behavior on a scale not seen before, say, 100 years ago. Video (esp. TV) makes direction and amplification of the mass mind’s emotions all too easy.

Posted in Europe | Comments Off

Ted Cruz Voters Will Go Trump In The General Election

Posted on March 23, 2016 by Luke Ford

Comment: Cruz voters will go to Trump in the general election.

Cruz co-opts and steals Trump’s positions and then accuses Donald of not having them. It’s amazing to watch. He really is a sleazy snake of a man, the kind for whom The Big Lie is a modus operandus.

It was hilarious this morning watching him try to be Trump by talking about some plan to gang-patrol Muslim neighborhoods. This naturally will get him tarred, when it would somehow get Trump more votes.

Looking over a map of states won by Cruz, I can see where the weird states are. I always knew Utah was weird anyway, having lived next door to it.

Posted in America | Comments Off

The Color Of Crime

Posted on March 23, 2016 by Luke Ford

Steve Sailer writes: Earlier this month, John Rivers tweeted out his hope for the future:

I dream of a world where a midlevel manager in a midlevel company can accurately quote FBI crime statistics on Facebook and not be fired.

We don’t live in that utopia, however, so you should be cautious about mentioning this article at work. But at least accurately quoting government crime statistics is more convenient than ever due to the publication of The Color of Crime, 2016 Revised Edition.

Researched and written in a sober, judicious manner by veteran economic analyst Edwin S. Rubenstein, this is the first update since 2005 of Jared Taylor’s American Renaissance magazine’s venerable report on racial differences in crime rates.

Most of the government data used in the report ends with the year 2013, and therefore generally offers an encouraging contrast to the last report’s use of 2002 as its terminus. From 2002 to 2013, most crime rates fell, and racial differences moderated somewhat.

An epilogue to this 12,000-word study, however, deals with the alarming spike in homicide rates in 2015 during the Black Lives Matter agitation. The Washington Post reported in January:

The number of homicides in the country’s 50 largest cities rose nearly 17 percent last year, the greatest increase in lethal violence in a quarter century. A Wonkblog analysis of preliminary crime data found that about 770 more people were killed in major cities last year than the year before, the worst annual change since 1990.

It’s tragic but hardly unexpected that the antiwhite race-baiting by the Obama Administration, the Soros Foundation, and the national media has led to hundreds more blacks being murdered by other blacks.

“A body with a hole in it demands attention.”

After all, that’s also what happened in the 1960s, the last time liberals grabbed control of the criminal justice system. During the Warren Court era, incarceration was driven way down per crime committed, so, amazingly enough, more crimes were committed. Before that historic mistake was finally rectified, much of urban America had been reduced to depopulating slums.

Rubenstein carefully walks readers through the different sources of statistics about crime and race, such as arrests, imprisonment, and interviews with victims.

All three measures come up with similar racial ratios. On average, blacks commit more violent crimes than Hispanics, who commit more than whites, who commit more than Asians.

The more severe the crime, the worse the racial ratios tend to be. For example, California data is instructive because it carefully breaks out Latinos from whites, whereas federal statistics usually lump whites and Hispanics together. In California, blacks are arrested for homicide 8.6 times as often as whites (down from 9.8 times in 2002) compared with 2.5 times for Hispanics (down from 3.6 in 2002). Robbery, a career that favors the athletic and fleet of foot, is even more of a black specialty, with a black-to-white ratio of 13.4 (down from 15.9 in 2002) versus 2.0 for Hispanics (down from 2.7).

In contrast, in California, blacks are arrested for driving offenses only 1.7 times as often as whites, and Hispanics merely 1.3 times as often.

Or, to use national statistics, blacks are incarcerated 13.1 times as often as whites in state prisons for robbery but only 2.6 times as often for “other property crimes.”

Rubenstein makes the important point that this pattern of lower racial ratios for less vicious crimes is inconsistent with the conventional wisdom that racial differences must be the result of blacks and Hispanics being the victims of discrimination by police and juries:

Almost without exception, the black/white and Hispanic/white arrest multiples are lower for the less serious crimes. Whatever else this difference may mean, it is strong evidence that the police are not making biased arrests. Police have broad discretion as to whether they will arrest someone for forcible touching, shoplifting, or setting off a false fire alarm. If racist police wanted to vent prejudices on non-whites, these are the crimes for which they could most easily do so. They can walk away if someone complains he was spat on, and if they are racist they can walk away if the spitter is white but make an arrest if the spitter is black. Police cannot walk away if someone is lying on the sidewalk bleeding from a knife wound.

A body with a hole in it demands attention.

Interracial violence, contrary to the impression you might get these days from the obsessions of respectable media outlets, is overwhelmingly skewed toward victimizing whites (and Asians):

In 2012 and 2013, blacks committed an annual average of 560,600 crimes of violence against whites whereas whites committed only about 99,400 such crimes against blacks. This means blacks were the attackers in 84.9 percent of the violent crimes involving blacks and whites.

The differences in propensity toward interracial violence are noteworthy:

In 2012/2013, the actual likelihood of attack was extremely low in all cases, but statistically, any given black person was 27 times more likely to attack a white and six times more likely to attack a Hispanic than vice versa. A Hispanic was eight times more likely to attack a white than the reverse.

Rubenstein puts “Black Lives Matter” into proper perspective by citing federal murder statistics:

Although most murders are within the same race, [individual] blacks were 13.6 times more likely to kill nonblacks than [individual] nonblacks were to kill blacks.

COMMENTS TO STEVE SAILER:

* What he really means:

I dream of a world where a midlevel manager in a midlevel company can accurately quote FBI crime statistics about black offenders and white victims on Facebook and not be fired.

Of course you can talk about the number of murders recorded by the FBI in 2015 on Facebook without any consequences. However, you can’t talk about black crime against white victims. If John Rivers had real spine he would acknowledge this is actually his vision of utopia.

And do you believe it would be utopia Steve? For whites to be roused up on Facebook and in casual everyday conversation against the black race because there are a large number of black criminals? I would really like to hear your reasoning of why you think this is utopia.

* Try dropping this point on all those Democrats you know who love to brag about how only liberals love “science” while Republicans are in denial about “science.” The trouble is finding a way to do so inciting them to burn you at the stake for daring to question their unquestionable articles of faith.

* The problem can never be fixed if the truth is forbidden.

for example: r/K selection

whatever the starting base line mass unemployment selects for r and full employment selects for K

say group A starts at 70/30 r/K then after generations of mass unemployment it might be 80/20

say group B starts at 30/70 r/K then after generations of mass unemployment it might be 40/60

You can see – if you’ve worked in rustbelt towns – how the white ex-workers get more r-selected over time. Same thing happened to black ppl after 1965.

The starting line might have been different and the end result after n generations will depend on the starting line but the mechanism is the same.

So full employment would improve the problem over generations.

The people who most want to deny the problem are also the biggest cause of the problem because they all support mass unskilled immigration.

* Utopia would be a black crime rate as low as the Asian rate. What we’re discussing on this site is reality. Modern day America largely prevents the open discussion of reality, with disastrous consequences in policy, safety and culture.

“Also, they avoid having anything to do with African-Americans, whom the Mexican smack dealers stereotype as being prone to theft and violence. (When accurately quoting FBI crime statistics is criminal, only criminals will accurately quote FBI crime statistics.)”

* Yesterday, I watched an outstanding report summarizing what’s known about the Brussels terror attack on public TV’s PBS Newshour. What made the segment worthy of a Pulitzer award was that the words “Muslim” and “Islam” didn’t cross the reporter’s lips; nor did he refer to any underlying concepts. A couple of young Belgian men just decided to hold an attack-a-thon. An isis-thingy had something to do with it, and an interview of a professor of sociology revealed that the root cause was the failure of society to provide full employment for young people.

Classic.

Posted in Blacks, Crime | Comments Off