McMillan is upset with me because of some comments I made to one of his articles a few months back, where I challenged some of his assumptions. The dispute between us really isn’t all that significant (the way it is, say, with some of the people on the far Left who don’t like what I say). But it does become rather intense when one side insists on adherence to that person’s POV, which makes it no longer a debate, but something ideological.

And I’m just not comfortable arguing religion with people by pitting one scripture saying agaionst another.

Yeah, I can read.

I suspect Mr. McMillan was mostly trying to provoke a response, which I can see you might not want to oblige.

Jews have two primary identities in this world: victim and evil doer

Removing all the straw from his post, you guys are not far apart, really. His point is that Wall Street bankers are guilty and do not deserve to be painted as Jews (the victims) by you, while your point is that they don’t deserve to be painted as Jews (the evil doers) by Obama.

I assume both of you reject that as a class of people, Jews do not deserve the “evil doer” brand, and that they deserve to be considered victims due to the suffering the “evil doer” brand has caused.

You may want to expand on this at some point, because it is interesting to explore the money as the root of all evil theme, how it came to be personified by Jews in the minds of many, and how that “evil” is now being leveraged by Obama to sell his ideas and as a tool to dehumanize a class (idetifiable by profession, much as it historically has been with Jews) of human beings.

Clearly not all Wall Street bankers are bad because of the greed of a few, just as all Jews are not bad because a few among them got greedy (however you define it).

But just as Jews have been labeled as evil (synonymous with banking), so too is Obama labeling capitalism as evil, synonymous with (Wall Street) banking.

The enemy of socialism is capitalism. Just as Obama is maneuvering to weaken Republicans by announcing that Rush Limbaugh is the heart of the party, he is trying to weaken our free-market system by announcing that Wall Street is the heart of capitalism.

The cure? Don’t vote Republican, and get behind socialism as the cure for the evil that is banking/capitalism.

“Other than a few archaic phrases that would be said today with fewer words, the sentiment is pretty much unchanged; at least insofar as how the Left has been framing the current debate in this country. … All the Left needs to do is insert a few key word substitutions to make this old document respond to issues in 2009 instead of, say, 1929 — give or take a couple of years.”

It’s amazing the lengths some other people will go to assign conclusions to the essay I never produced, so as to knock down a straw man argument about the Holocaust.

As for responding to McMillan’s parodies of Scripture, it’s not a particularly classy thing to do in the first place (particularly during Lent), so ignoring things like this is usually the best course. Besides, it was a little creepy and difficult to follow.

Take care, Phil.

You wrote that , “The ‘morality’ statement in this article equates an economic crisis caused by greedy Wall Street Bankers (something those of all political persuasions have said, and recognize) with the extermination of millions of Jews throughout history.”

I think any reasonable reading of Mr. Jackson’s piece reveals, to use your words, that he “equates an economic crisis caused by greedy Wall Street Bankers” with the stereotype that such behavior and practice historically has attributed to Jews .

Obama (fairly and unfairly) paints Wall Street bankers as greedy, abusive and uncaring in their reckless pursuit of profits. I’m sure you are aware this characterization has been applied by many throughout history to Jews, whom many credit with the very existence of the “evil” that is banking and “usury.”

Mr. Jackson saw no reason or need to bring up the Holocaust . I’m not clear why you had that need.

The theme here is banking, greed, the very old argument about whether it is ethical to profit from money, stereotypes about Jewish bankers going back to the “money changers” and the use of many of the same adjectives used to describe them throughout history being applied now to Wall Street bankers – literally, or as Dr. Jackson points out, through creative-speak.

It might be interesting to note that when Obama speaks of greedy Wall Street bankers, many people in this world think he is talking about Jews.

I think Dr. Jackson at the very least establishes that Obama’s words in no way lead these “many people” to believe otherwise.

That said, I really hate (destructively) greedy Wall Street bankers not based on their race, creed, color, religion, gender, or sexual preference.

Remember, he has a history of spouting off about things he doesn’t understand, and when challenged, runs away.

He makes a stupid statement about the Vietnam War. Bob Stapler spanks him, and he runs away.

He makes a stupid statement about Bush outing Plame. I spank him, and he runs away.

He makes a stupid statement about counting ballots. Patrick spanks him, and he runs away.

Now he wants to talk about another subject.

People like DrK aren’t interested in, or capable of, legitimate debate and discussion. The best they can do is offer a platitude or two, draw some line of moral equivalency, then run away when confronted because they can’t actually sustain an intelligent conversation.

When DrK finishs the discussions he ran away from earlier by addressing the issues that were presented, or admitting that he was wrong, I’ll take him seriously. Until then, it’s just another aimless drive-by comment. My resolution for Lent is to only engage in serious discussions with serious people.

>In that short span, he has broken his promises of bipartisanship and transparency.

Courting Republican votes for the stimulus that he didn’t need, and adding Republican tax cuts to it that he didn’t want in order to appease them, is not bipartisan exactly how?

And in what way are usaspending.gov and recovery.gov not transparency?

>and has populated his administration with ‘hold-overs’ of a bygone era, as opposed to elevating new talent.

In the old days, keeping folks on from a previous administration of the other party was lauded as, oddly enough, “bi-partisanship.” Congratulations on simultaneously contradicting yourself and introducing a double-standard.

Obviously he can’t be both, so which is it?

I didn’t expect you to recognize the subtilty of the directness of my comment, but at least you have provided me with the opportunity to identify exactly where the inanity lies here.

But first, let’s ask what inanity actually means. It means “lack of substance or solidity; lack of ideas; senselessness, silliness,” and so on – in theme with your article, perhaps?

So let me consider your article, and my response, in light of that definition.

The title of your article is – Wall Street Bankers: the new “Jews”.

What that title suggests is a persecution of Wall Street Bankers in the manner that Jews have been persecuted throughout history. And the persecution of Jews, verbally and physically, found its ultimate expression, or consummation, in the extermination of the Jews by Hitler and the Nazis.

So what you have done is equate the death and misery of millions of Jews, not just by the Nazis, but throughout history, with Obama’s identification of Wall Street Bankers as the source of America’s and the world’s current economic disaster, all in the name of ‘word-play’, of course.

Clearly, you do not see the equating of a child being stuck into a gas chamber, with the greed of Wall Street Bankers, as being in any way untoward. On the one hand you have the incomprehensible evil of exterminating human beings for no other reason than their race, and on the other hand we have a bunch of incompetent, greedy, and unconscionable ‘business men’ who by any standards have caused untold misery to millions of people, yet you see some moral equivalence between these two events?

In short, what you have done is equate the deep-rooted hatred of Jews (or what is called anti-Semitism) that has stained the history of the human species, with Obama’s speech to Congress in which he rightly identified the source of our current economic woes.

Your article is therefore a moral statement, or what I see as an immoral statement.

The ‘morality’ statement in this article equates an economic crisis caused by greedy Wall Street Bankers (something those of all political persuasions have said, and recognize) with the extermination of millions of Jews throughout history. And you make that statement for no other reason than to make a political point, and attend to the demands of your own vanity. It makes you feel smart! It demonstrates that those who do not share your view of the world are ‘hopeless in debate’!

Now, I don’t pretend to be an authority on anti-Jewish statements made throughout history, but what I do know is that even any half-educated child (assuming such a thing exists under the modern educational system) would know that a reference to Jews in the context of ‘persecution’, as you have done, is intended to conjure up an image of coincidence between the events referred to. No amount of clever maneuvering about ‘debate’ and the use of words can escape the intent of this article.

So let me now turn to my ‘inane’ reply to the article.

I open with quotes from the Prophet Isaiah, quotes that decry the pursuit of wealth as an object in life.

Those quotes are echoed in Obama’s speech to Congress, the one your article seeks to ridicule. And the reason Isaiah decry’s the pursuit of wealth as the driving force in life is because it is directly contradictory to God’s Law – the Ten Commandments.

Then I refer to the so-called ‘second coming’ of Christ. I do so for good reason. Conservatives today advance half-baked opinions as ‘fundamental values’, then invoke God to give authority to their opinions. As Albert Schweitzer would have said, they put their opinions under the protectorate of God, while simply ignoring the entire message of the Scriptures – which centers on the Ten Commandments.

So while Obama finds it offensive that many families are reduced to bankruptcy as a result of the greedy on Wall Street, and thus unable to meet even the basic needs of their children, conservatives like you are equating those sentiments to the persecution of Jews which everyone today will identify with the extermination of millions of Jews at the hands of the Nazis.

So, I ask, if Christ were to return, and express sentiments similar to those of Obama (as He did on His first visit to earth), what would today’s conservatives do? I have no doubt! He too would be ridiculed in the same manner as you have ridiculed Obama (and no, I’m not equating Obama to Christ, only exposing the hypocrisy of today’s conservatives).

Then I come to you. You, of course, have ‘discovered’ your very own ‘God-given universal moral code’ (UMC). Now, since your article is a moral statement, I saw fit to make reference to the source of the morality you must have drawn on in order to equate a speech to Congress by Obama to the persecution and extermination of the Jews.

Of course, there is very little in your UMC to elucidate the ‘morality’ of your liking Obama’s speech to the millions of anti-Semitic statements throughout history. Your UMC is simply an expression of your opinion that abortion should be prohibited under all circumstances. Your UMC is a device for tyranny in which I and my family would be compelled by the likes of you and Palin to endure the humiliation of my wife having to give birth to the child of a vicious rapist irrespective of the effect on our children, and our family.

Yet, ironically, I hear nothing from the likes of you and Palin regarding the hundreds, or more likely thousands, of innocent children (born and unborn) who are even today dying in the War on Terror that you both seem to enthusiastically embrace. Is that because there are only ‘innocent’ unborn American children?

The contradiction between your UMC and your general views is not one most rational people are encumbered with. I would have no hesitation killing any number of innocent people (born or unborn) when it comes to defending my family. Neither would I hesitate to kill innocent people if I had to do so to preserve my life in order to meet the obligations I have towards my family. And that, quite rightly, is what US and Coalition troops do almost every day in Iraq and Afghanistan, and Israeli forces are compelled to do in the defense of Israel.

And, just as I wouldn’t expect them to sacrifice their lives because someone else puts an innocent life in risk, neither would I tolerate anyone claiming that my wife were committing murder by aborting the child of a rapist. And anyone who sought to impose such a tyranny on me and my family would find themselves on the receiving end of a rage that they would be powerless to resist.

So there we see why a UMC that has no relation to reality, and is utterly disconnected from the Law, could come up with something as INANE as a coincidence in morality between a speech given by Obama regarding the greed on Wall Street, and the persecution of Jews, by Hitler and the Nazis, and all the other anti-Semites throughout history.

Hopefully you will now understand the rage I felt at reading this piece of drivel that is, quite frankly, not worthy of you – and insulting to all those victims of the darkest days of human depravity. Disguising this moral equivalency as some kind of ‘word play’ is no defense!

Joseph BH McMillan http://www.freedomvrights.com

Re: “I’m afraid we’ve entered into a brand new era of political demagoguery that no longer uses similar sounding words, but rather employs deliberately misleading imagery to make a misleading point.”

I am reminded of the John Milton quote: “When language in common use in any country becomes irregular and depraved, it is followed by their ruin and degradation.”

Alas, we seem to be on that trajectory. Hopefully, it is not an uncontrolled “spin” (puns and connotations intended).