By Brent Bozell:
In Hollywood, the only truly serious sexual disease is virginity. It’s a dire and embarrassing condition, desperately in need of elimination. Teenagers that still have “it” are woefully immature. They might as well consider themselves to be walking the school hallways in diapers.
Along comes Fox Entertainment to enlighten us. Get ready. It’s sick.
Fox’s “Glee” devoted an entire episode on November 8 to setting up and celebrating the shedding of virginity by two teenage couples on the show. One was heterosexual, and one – yippee! – was homosexual. TV critics were raving in advance. Entertainment Weekly’s Tim Stack all but demanded everyone watch: “It’s without a doubt one of Glee‘s best installments ever and features two popular couples on the show having sex for the first time.”
Let’s face it, our civilisation is no longer worthy of preservation.
by Barry Rubin:
Why suddenly has Sarkozy turned against Netanyahu? I can’t prove it but I think there is evidence for the following scenario. Sarkozy decided that he was going to broker a major deal at the UN, showing that France was a leading great power in the world. (A theme I think you have heard before is a major French goal.) So he went to Netanyahu with a proposal: Israel would accept unilateral independence for Palestine and Sarkozy would get Israel something from the Palestinians (perhaps recognition of a Jewish state?).
Netanyahu played along a bit but, of course, knew that Sarkozy wouldn’t get anything from the Palestinian Authority. Sarkozy’s idea — like that of virtually all the well-intentioned or bad-intentioned, naive or cynical, friendly or hostile to Israel busybodies who think they are going to make peace — just didn’t make real sense. At any rate, Sarkozy thought he had something from Israel that he didn’t. His UN speech implying he wanted to support unilateral independence was certainly bad from Israel’s standpoint.
The deal fell through — it was doomed from the start since the Palestinian Authority wouldn’t compromise — and, of course, he blamed Israel and not the Palestinians. Hence his fury that Netanyahu was a “liar.”
An interesting question is this: What could Netanyahu have possibly done to underpin Obama’s anger? There is only one real possible argument: Netanyahu’s trip to Washington in which he gave Obama a lesson in Middle East politics and made a stirring speech to Congress that made Obama look foolish.
But why did Netanyahu do this? Only because while on the way to Washington he was ambushed by a major Obama speech — which had not been discussed with him beforehand — that badly undercut Israel’s strategic position. The point most cited in the speech was the idea of returning to the 1967 borders but there are worse things in it. Besides the substance, you just don’t present a major new policy critical of an ally’s interests while he’s on the plane to Washington and you haven’t even fully discussed it with him.
I could here provide a list of broken promises from Obama to Israel along with insulting and verbally damaging behavior.
By Peter Heck:
On the surface, I suppose it does sound incredible: they created a monument to honor an influential Baptist minister and they omitted any reference to God or Jesus in the featured quotations throughout the memorial. The monument in question, of course, is the recently unveiled tribute to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. in Washington, D.C. That would be “Reverend” Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., to be precise.
Perhaps the argument is that Biblical references were rejected because the memorial was to focus not on his work as a pastor, but rather as a civil rights crusader. But then again, to Dr. King, the two were inseparable. It was his faith in Jesus Christ, his belief in transcendent Moral Authority, and his allegiance to Divine Law that motivated his activism. Not to mention that his civil rights speeches were peppered with Scriptural references as the justification for his positions.
by Victor Davis Hanson:
It Doesn’t Add Up
Here are some things in the daily news that do not quite make sense.
Most Palestinian leaders have never wanted peace with Israel, other than the peace that would come from the massacre, expulsion or subjugation of the Jews. The whole formula of “land for peace” has been a confidence trick – the trading of tangible territory for a revocable truce. The legitimacy of Israel as a Jewish state has never really been accepted by most of the Arabs. To this day, Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas still refuses to make this concession.
When former Israeli premier Ehud Barak conceded almost everything PLO leader Yasser Arafat was seeking at Camp David in 2000, Arafat demanded the right of six million Palestinian refugees and (mostly) their descendants to “return” to Israel and thereby swamp the state’s Jewish population. For good measure, he unleashed a second Intifada in late 2000, which Ariel Sharon shut down very effectively over the following years.
Sharon and his successors, Ehud Olmert and Benjamin Netanyahu, have promoted vibrant economic growth – including in the West Bank, which is now enjoying the greatest prosperity in its history. Meanwhile, Hamas, which has refused to negotiate with Israel until the recent prisoner exchange, has sunk further into poverty under the Israeli boycott.
Even the ability of the anti-Israeli majority at the United Nations to go on tormenting Israel has been compromised by perhaps the most hopeful development on the Middle East stage in some years. The new country of South Sudan, set up in January of this year as a response to the genocidal outrages of the Sudanese Arabs against their Christian, Muslim and animist non-Arab countrymen, has taken its place squarely with the Jew-ish state and attacked the Arab-led conspiracy against Israel in international organizations.
By Barbara Yaffe, Calgary Herald:
Rubin says the American government has betrayed Israel’s interests.
The director of the Global Research for International Affairs Centre and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs wrote this week: “The Obama administration has openly sided with Israel’s enemies.
I don’t mean the Palestinian Authority or Saudi Arabia.
That would be tolerable. We’re talking here about openly genocidal, anti-Semitic groups . . . the Muslim Brotherhood, Hezbollah and the Taliban (moderate wing).”