There are 42 comments.

  1. 1
  2. 2
  1. filmklassik Member

    Good lord. News flash, guys: Democrats were bailing on Israel lonnnng before the Cheeto King came along.

    Jay even wrote an article in support of Israel (where he said “please let Israel live”) several years ago.

    So to posit causality between pronounced anti-Israel sentiment on the Left (which is global, by the way) and the election of our Jackass in Chief is madness.

    Moving on … 

    Racism was discussed today, as was the former CEO of Starbucks, Howard Schultz.

    And speaking of racism and Schultz and Starbucks, I’m wondering if the Mona Charen who co-hosted today’s Need to Know would even recognize the one who wrote this particular article four years ago, in early 2015:

    https://www.creators.com/read/mona-charen/03/15/does-starbucks-want-an-honest-conversation

    I’m not kidding, gang — I’d love to know what the MC of today thinks of what she wrote four years ago, particularly in paragraphs like:

    Each and every time we’re hectored to engage in an “honest conversation” about race, it’s a sham. What’s wanted is not honesty, but confession of sin by white people and expressions of pain from blacks and others. Decade after decade, despite vastly diminishing levels of white racism (and the rapid growth of non-white populations), we are told that the old stain of racism continues to poison the lives of minorities. By encouraging that fiction, Starbucks is subtracting from racial understanding.

    Does Mona still hold these views — specifically the one where she says that the notion of “the old stain of racism” continuing to “poison the lives of minorities” is basically a “fiction” cooked up by the Left? I fear I know the answer. (Psst! It’s “No”)

    • #1
    • February 4, 2019, at 6:02 PM PDT
    • 6 likes
  2. Lois Lane Coolidge

    @filmklassik is completely right about Israel. I remember an anti-Israel sentiment festering in the Left as far back as the 90s. If that was small then, it had full blown blossomed during the Obama administration. Leaders might impact some thinking, but Donald Trump isn’t the cause of that sentiment.

    The governor thing is more amusing to me because it is so ironic, but that doesn’t mean I want to join the chants of “stone him.” The levels of outrage per the abortion thing and the costume thing seem so disproportionate that the storm inspired by the second lacks any real moral weight. (Real pain and suffering is caused when you put a baby to death, not when you parade around as a jackass in an offensive costume.)

    Regardless, many things related to race require honest, nuanced conversations, which we never have and will continue to not have had long after this affair with a yearbook blows over.

    It’s a shame.

    I bet the governor is hoping for a wall announced in the State of the Union. Then he’ll be forgotten as attention turns towards all those Democrats talking about that.

    • #2
    • February 5, 2019, at 4:34 AM PDT
    • 1 like
  3. Daniel Sterman Listener

    filmklassik (View Comment):

    So to posit causality between pronounced anti-Israel sentiment on the Left (which is global, by the way) and the election of our Jackass in Chief is madness.

    Don’t you remember how the Senate voted 90-0 in June 2017 to reaffirm their belief that the embassy needed to be moved to Jerusalem, then attacked Trump for going ahead and doing it less than a year later? That was very obviously based solely on opposition to Trump. This is not a rare phenomenon. Political parties redefine themselves in opposition to things that the other political party supports. It happens all the time.

    • #3
    • February 5, 2019, at 7:04 AM PDT
    • 3 likes
  4. filmklassik Member

    DanielSterman (View Comment):

    filmklassik (View Comment):

    Don’t you remember how the Senate voted 90-0 in June 2017 to reaffirm their belief that the embassy needed to be moved to Jerusalem, then attacked Trump for going ahead and doing it less than a year later? That was very obviously based solely on opposition to Trump. This is not a rare phenomenon. Political parties redefine themselves in opposition to things that the other political party supports. It happens all the time.

    The level of amnesia in this country — both on the Left and, increasingly, on the Right too — is staggering. Jaw-dropping, even.

    It is present on Need to Know, and on this very thread.

    So, just to remind you: In every nation on the planet — on the planet — enmity against Israel has been on the rise for years.

    In 2015, Daniel, Jay himself wrote:

    The United Nations often seems to exist to oppose Israel. Since 2006, the U.N. Human Rights Council has condemned Israel 62 times. It has condemned the rest of the world a combined 59 times. (Syria is in second place, by the way, with 12 condemnations. North Korea has a paltry 8.)

    There is a great BDS movement in the world – with “BDS” standing for “Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions.”

    This movement targets one country, and one country only: Israel. 

    In Scotland, the West Dunbartonshire Council forbids local libraries to carry Israeli books. 

    Wherever they go in the world, Israeli athletes and musicians are hounded and harassed. In 2009, a major tennis tournament, the Davis Cup, was held in Sweden. The Israelis had to play a match in an empty arena, because protests and other disruptions had been promised.

    For two years in a row, an Israeli tennis player at the ASB Classic in New Zealand was screamed at.

    In London, concerts of the Jerusalem Quartet have been disrupted. Prominent writers have defended those disruptions too, with one music critic saying that the quartet was “fair game for hecklers.”

    Did you read that, Daniel?

    I cite these paragraphs only because Jay himself wrote them, and there are literally hundreds of similar articles that pre-date the Trump presidency — many about the rise of anti-Zionism in the Democratic Party.

    Yet you (and others like you) have got it in your head that pre-Trump America was the one stalwart bulwark against the rise of anti-Zionism — the one holdout.

    But, again, the journalistic record clearly shows that Leftists around the world — including, yes, Lefitsts in America, and that includes, yes, the Democratic Party — have been increasingly hostile to the Jewish State for many, many years.

    • #4
    • February 5, 2019, at 10:11 AM PDT
    • 2 likes
  5. Eugene Kriegsmann Member

    There is an excellent site which provides a diagrammatic description of second trimester abortion which is appalling enough that one does not need to see a real one. I recommend it to anyone who has any question about the procedure: Abortionprocedures.com 

    I agree with Jay about the pile on, but let us keep in mind that it was the left that started this lunacy. A lesson from the French Revolution should remind them that it isn’t long before such revolutions eventually eat their own. I do believe, though, that the intense acrimony directed to Northam from the left is largely due to their desire to draw attention away from the things he said about late term abortion. In that regard they have been pretty successful. If you have any doubts all you have to do is look at the denials by Pelosi et al. in reference to having heard Northam’s statements about abortion, and, yet, they arose in unity almost immediately when the photos showed up. 

    • #5
    • February 5, 2019, at 12:28 PM PDT
    • 1 like
  6. Lois Lane Coolidge

    I do think the way abortion is promoted and protected is very similar to what happened with slavery. It’s weird.

    • #6
    • February 5, 2019, at 1:13 PM PDT
    • 1 like
  7. Daniel Sterman Listener

    filmklassik (View Comment):

    [Lots of condescending stuff]

    Nobody said there was no such thing as enmity to Israel before the Trump era. You’re imagining that.

    The only thing that Jay and Mona discussed was the recent poll that showed for the first time that support in the Democratic Party for Israel was essentially equal to support for the Palestinians.

    And the only thing that I said was that Democratic Senators seem to have mysteriously abandoned positions they’ve held for years – nay, decades – the moment Trump expressed support for them.

    Are either of these statements incorrect?

    • #7
    • February 5, 2019, at 2:43 PM PDT
    • Like
  8. filmklassik Member

    DanielSterman (View Comment):

    filmklassik (View Comment):

    [Lots of condescending stuff]

    Nobody said there was no such thing as enmity to Israel before the Trump era. You’re imagining that.

    The only thing that Jay and Mona discussed was the recent poll that showed for the first time that support in the Democratic Party for Israel was essentially equal to support for the Palestinians.

    And the only thing that I said was that Democratic Senators seem to have mysteriously abandoned positions they’ve held for years – nay, decades – the moment Trump expressed support for them.

    Are either of these statements incorrect?

    Both of these statements are absolutely correct.

    One hundred percent.

    And I would remind you that in exactly the same time period (the last three years or so) This Is Us became the highest rated drama on network TV, prima facie evidence that the success of that particular show is at least partly responsible for eroding Congressional support for the State of Israel.

    Or would you insist that one had little to do with the other?

    How — in the name of all that is holy, HOW — does the woeful election of Donald Trump change the fact that domestic acrimony toward Israel has been trending steadily upward for many years now?

    Which means that it doesn’t matter who is in the White House today — Trump or, you know, a good President. Trump’s presidency is irrelevant to how the Left — the domestic Left — and by that I mean politicians and the polity — views the Jewish State.

    One mistake the Left tends to make (indeed, loves to make) is to attribute every disturbing cultural trend (rising tension between the races, for example) as a function of the Trump presidency. Which is madness.

    Has Trump helped to toxify Conservatism? Of course he has. And that sickens me.

    But to suggest that if (fill in the Mad Lib blank) were in the Oval Office instead of Trump, that any Social Justice trend you care to mention (which includes the delegitimization of Israel) would be less pronounced, is absolutely insane.

     

    • #8
    • February 5, 2019, at 4:24 PM PDT
    • Like
  9. Daniel Sterman Listener

    You agreed that both of my statements are 100% correct. That Democratic Party voters’ sympathy for Israel is at an all-time low, and that Democratic politicians changed their position on Israel in order to stick it to Trump.

    Nobody is trying to blame Trump for a “larger societal trend”. You’re attacking a position that is not held by anybody. At this rate you’re going to get a strongly worded letter from the NAASM.

    • #9
    • February 5, 2019, at 10:21 PM PDT
    • Like
  10. filmklassik Member

    DanielSterman (View Comment):

    You agreed that both of my statements are 100% correct. That Democratic Party voters’ sympathy for Israel is at an all-time low, and that Democratic politicians changed their position on Israel in order to stick it to Trump.

    Nobody is trying to blame Trump for a “larger societal trend”. You’re attacking a position that is not held by anybody. At this rate you’re going to get a strongly worded letter from the NAASM.

    Fine. Let’s say Trump lost in 2016. Let’s say Trump never even ran. Let’s say we had a “normal” Dem or Republcan in the White House at the moment …

    Given the decades long, global trend line of anti-Zionism … and the rise of the BDS movement across the country … and the surge of artistic boycotts of Israel since the early 2000’s … indeed, given every decades-long metric that spells WE HATE ISRAEL … given all of that …

    — do you honestly think the U.S. Congress — which answers to the same constituents it always has, and thus always keeps one wet finger in the cultural wind — would have voted to treat Israel any differently?

    Do you honestly believe that??

    • #10
    • February 5, 2019, at 11:08 PM PDT
    • Like
  11. Daniel Sterman Listener

    filmklassik (View Comment):

    — do you honestly think the U.S. Congress — which answers to the same constituents it always has, and thus always keeps one wet finger in the cultural wind — would have voted to treat Israel any differently?

    Do you honestly believe that?

    It literally voted 92-0 in favor of moving the embassy to Jerusalem. And it did this after Trump was elected. The Democrats only changed their minds after he tried to actually do it. So yes!

    I don’t see why this is so controversial or hard to swallow. When the Republicans passed their tax cut, you had the surreal experience of Bernie Sanders arguing that the tax cuts weren’t permanent enough. Bernie Sanders! Is there any other president, Republican or Democrat, against whom Bernie would have staked out such a position?

    What about the fact that Bernie was a severe immigration restrictionist until Trump came along? What about widespread Democratic support for border security, which used to be higher than Republican support, until Trump came along?

    This isn’t Trump’s fault. It’s the realities of two-party politics. One party takes a position, the other party is naturally inclined to be contrarian and oppose it. And if the politician in question is particularly loathed, as Trump is, that contrarianism can go to ridiculous extremes.

    • #11
    • February 6, 2019, at 12:10 AM PDT
    • Like
  12. filmklassik Member

    DanielSterman (View Comment):

    filmklassik (View Comment):

    — do you honestly think the U.S. Congress — which answers to the same constituents it always has, and thus always keeps one wet finger in the cultural wind — would have voted to treat Israel any differently?

    Do you honestly believe that?

    It literally voted 92-0 in favor of moving the embassy to Jerusalem. And it did this after Trump was elected. The Democrats only changed their minds after he tried to actually do it. So yes!

    I don’t see why this is so controversial or hard to swallow. When the Republicans passed their tax cut, you had the surreal experience of Bernie Sanders arguing that the tax cuts weren’t permanent enough. Bernie Sanders! Is there any other president, Republican or Democrat, against whom Bernie would have staked out such a position?

    What about the fact that Bernie was a severe immigration restrictionist until Trump came along? What about widespread Democratic support for border security, which used to be higher than Republican support, until Trump came along?

    This isn’t Trump’s fault. It’s the realities of two-party politics. One party takes a position, the other party is naturally inclined to be contrarian and oppose it. And if the politician in question is particularly loathed, as Trump is, that contrarianism can go to ridiculous extremes.

    Here is why the Dem’s trend toward anti-Zionism is a different breed of animal than the examples you just cited:

    The Dems’ idea of a virtual open-border policy and perhaps even defunding ICE, and saying things like “All walls are immoral,” and Bernie Sanders’ position on taxation? — these aren’t policies the global Left has been championing for decades the way it’s been championing the cause of anti Zionism.

    The Dems flipped on immigration and border security 20 minutes ago. Bernie Sanders flipped on taxation 20 minutes ago. So yes, fine, you can say their whiplash-inducing about-face on these issues was a Newtonian response to Donald Trump. I’ll grant you that. But the Dems have been trending Hamas-ward on Israel for decades.

    • #12
    • February 6, 2019, at 12:48 AM PDT
    • Like
  13. filmklassik Member

    DanielSterman (View Comment):

    It literally voted 92-0 in favor of moving the embassy to Jerusalem. And it did this after Trump was elected. The Democrats only changed their minds after he tried to actually do it. So yes!

    I don’t see why this is so controversial or hard to swallow. When the Republicans passed their tax cut, you had the surreal experience of Bernie Sanders arguing that the tax cuts weren’t permanent enough. Bernie Sanders! Is there any other president, Republican or Democrat, against whom Bernie would have staked out such a position?

    What about the fact that Bernie was a severe immigration restrictionist until Trump came along? What about widespread Democratic support for border security, which used to be higher than Republican support, until Trump came along?

    This isn’t Trump’s fault. It’s the realities of two-party politics. One party takes a position, the other party is naturally inclined to be contrarian and oppose it. And if the politician in question is particularly loathed, as Trump is, that contrarianism can go to ridiculous extremes.

    Daniel, here’s a BBC article from 2015. And I’m sure you’ll agree that the BBC is not some bloviating mouthpiece of the Right.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-33181782

    Now, I normally resent being given “homework” in these forums, so while I do encourage you to read the whole article, I’ll understand completely if you don’t. (I wouldn’t wanna read it either).

    But I hope you’ll take 28 seconds and just read the following excerpt from it, because it bears directly on what we’ve been discussing on here — namely, how the Democratic Party views the State of Israel:

    Israel lurched far to the right under Netanyahu, and America lurched to the left under Obama.

    But there has been another significant shift too. In the process, Israel has, to an extent, become a party political issue in Washington. 

    Prof Feldman said: “The sharp contrast between the tense relationship between Netanyahu and Obama, and Israel’s close relationship with the Republican leadership in the US Congress, has contributed to making Israel — for the first time — a partisan issue; a very dangerous development for the future of Israel’s ‘special relations with the US’.” 

    Mr Goldberg agrees, saying: “On the Right, support for Israel has become a symbolic banner and a political litmus test in a way that Israel never was in America before. 

    “It’s often the second or third thing out of any Republican’s mouth — after low taxes and abortion, and sometimes even ahead of abortion. 

    “The Left side ranges from troubled support for Israel to open hostility.”

    Thanks, Daniel. And once again, this article is from 2015.

    2015, my friend.

    Twenty-fifteen.

    Not insignificant.

    • #13
    • February 6, 2019, at 12:54 AM PDT
    • Like
  14. Daniel Sterman Listener

    Nobody denies that the Democratic Party began to move away from Israel long before now. But it was gradual. Obama gave Israel a ridiculous amount of aid at the end of his term, which was universally supported in the party, even while he engaged in his petty vendetta against Netanyahu at the UN.

    But I and Jay and Mona are referring to an accelerated movement that began in 2016. That and the accompanying blatant flip-flops (as you said about border security and about taxation, they changed their minds about the Jerusalem embassy 20 minutes ago, didn’t they?) are very obviously a reaction to Trump.

     

    One final thing: quit the condescending attacks on my character. “Did you read that? I hope you’ll decide to read this.” Assume some goddamned good faith. I read the entirety of every comment you post in response to me, and I will continue to read the entirety of every comment you post in response to me. If I decide to stop reading them, I will by necessity also stop responding, because that is fundamental to the nature of having a conversation. Furthermore, if I decide to stop reading them it is likely because I have decided that I no longer want to respond to them. (Which I will, if you keep this up.) I don’t repeatedly condescend to you and imply that you’re not bothering to read what I write, and I’ll thank you to stop doing it to me.

    • #14
    • February 6, 2019, at 2:20 AM PDT
    • Like
  15. Lois Lane Coolidge

    A side comment on the nature of social media discussions:

    It’s interesting to read a thread without really participating in that thread because I can see the heated emotions typed here while also thinking that the heat would probably just be vigorous dialogue in person. 

    I mean, I don’t think you guys are dismissing each other or casting aspersions on each other. You’re vigorously disagreeing with each other and feeling a little put upon mostly because of the medium.

    I’ve actually learned from reading your different points of view, though I wonder what the heck is NAASM?

    Sounds… ominous? :)

    • #15
    • February 6, 2019, at 5:28 AM PDT
    • 1 like
  16. Daniel Sterman Listener

    Lois Lane (View Comment):

    I’ve actually learned from reading your different points of view, though I wonder what the heck is NAASM?

    Sounds… ominous? :)

    The National Association for the Advancement of Straw Men, of course. Though the organization was founded back when that was an acceptable term for them – nowadays you’re supposed to call them “Scarecrow-Americans”.

    • #16
    • February 6, 2019, at 7:06 AM PDT
    • 1 like
  17. filmklassik Member

    You just said “Nobody denies that the Democratic Party began to move away from Israel long before now” — yet you’d never know this from listening to today’s show.

    There was absolutely no mention of it. Indeed, to hear today’s show, you’d think the Democratic Party’s (indeed, the entire Left’s) enmity toward Israel was a recent, sudden flip-flop along the lines of Pelosi’s “immoral” border walls.

    But such an omission was certainly consistent for Jay & Mona 2.0. It was all of a piece. Regarding the “religion” of anti-racism (which Identity Politics has absolutely become in the last 10 years, on an order of magnitude that dwarfs anything it may‘ve been in Jay and Mona’s youth): To listen to today’s show, you’d think the Left’s fetishized mania toward racism (“Racism!!!”) was — God help us all — and am I actually writing this? — justified, instead of overblown and toxic, which it almost empirically is. This latter position is one that Mona herself held in the not-too-distant past (See her 2015 “Starbucks” article which I linked to yesterday).

    And it’s insane to me that she and Jay have allowed their hatred for a hateful, unqualified POTUS to affect their core principles.

    • #17
    • February 6, 2019, at 7:43 AM PDT
    • Like
  18. Daniel Sterman Listener

    filmklassik (View Comment):

    Indeed, to hear today’s show, you’d think the Democratic Party’s (indeed, the entire Left’s) enmity toward Israel was a recent, sudden flip-flop along the lines of Pelosi’s “immoral” border walls.

    But it really was a recent, sudden flip-flop. Prior to the last two years, the Democrats’ support for Israel always exceeded its support for the Palestinians by significant margins. Sure, those margins had begun to narrow, but it was gradual. Only now did it suddenly make a huge jump downward. That’s the point.

    Articles like the one you brought forward were talking about the vocal, activist far-left, which has always been anti-Israel. But the rank and file, and even the politicians, were still mostly on Israel’s side.

    filmklassik (View Comment):
    To listen to today’s show, you’d think the Left’s fetishized mania toward racism (“Racism!!!”) was — God help us all — and am I actually writing this? — justified, instead of overblown and toxic, which it almost empirically is. This latter position is one that Mona herself held in the not-too-distant past (See her 2015 “Starbucks” article which I linked to yesterday).

    I think you’re overreacting. But here’s a serious question: Why do you still listen to this podcast if it pisses you off so much? You complain about how awful it is every other week.

    • #18
    • February 6, 2019, at 1:07 PM PDT
    • Like
  19. filmklassik Member

    DanielSterman (View Comment):

    filmklassik (View Comment):
    To listen to today’s show, you’d think the Left’s fetishized mania toward racism (“Racism!!!”) was — God help us all — and am I actually writing this? — justified, instead of overblown and toxic, which it almost empirically is. This latter position is one that Mona herself held in the not-too-distant past (See her 2015 “Starbucks” article which I linked to yesterday).

    I think you’re overreacting. But here’s a serious question: Why do you still listen to this podcast if it pisses you off so much? You complain about how awful it is every other week.

    Nah, it’s not an overreaction. It’s simple observation. Jay and Mona may not have guzzled the Left Wing Kool-Aid (as, for example, Max Boot, Jennifer Rubin, and David Frum all have) but they have certainly imbibed a demitasse or two.

    For instance, there is no question that their attitude about the “scourge“ of racism in America has changed dramatically in the last three years. They felt one way about the issue in 2015, and feel differently about it now. And the way they feel now has about it an aspect — just an aspect, mind you — a minimal buying into — of BLM hysteria.

    And this is not a coincidence. Trump shows up, and certain sound Conservative ideas go by the wayside. Which is madness. The election to the Presidency of an unqualified idiot with a heavy racist following should not prompt a re-examination of one’s core (and utterly sound) moral principles.

    For the life of me I can’t understand how one follows the other, but for a tiny percentage of otherwise intelligent people, it did.

    As for your final question, one keeps on listening (albeit far less frequently now) in the forlorn hope that one is mistaken in one’s assessment.

    • #19
    • February 6, 2019, at 2:57 PM PDT
    • 1 like
  20. Daniel Sterman Listener

    Hey, my attitude about racism in the US has changed in the last three years as well. Trump turned over a rock and a lot of ugliness was revealed underneath. Charlottesville was merely the worst example. You acknowledge that almost explicitly in your comment, that Trump had a heavily racist following – why is it so shocking that people might have been less aware of it until he concentrated and amplified their voice? And what “conservative principle” is going by the wayside?

    • #20
    • February 6, 2019, at 4:25 PM PDT
    • Like
  21. filmklassik Member

    DanielSterman (View Comment):

    Hey, my attitude about racism in the US has changed in the last three years as well. Trump turned over a rock and a lot of ugliness was revealed underneath. Charlottesville was merely the worst example. You acknowledge that almost explicitly in your comment, that Trump had a heavily racist following – why is it so shocking that people might have been less aware of it until he concentrated and amplified their voice? And what “conservative principle” is going by the wayside?

    You honestly believe that? In other words, despite every available metric showing racism to be down down down in the present century compared with the last (See the representation of blacks in the arts, government, and the media … see the U.S. being the only country in world history to elect a member of a 13 percent minority to be its leader … see the polling on public acceptance of interracial marriage … see the absolute eradication of structural racism … see economist Roland Fryer’s findings showing unarmed blacks to be less likely than unarmed whites to be killed by police … and on, and on, and on, and backwards reels the mind…) —

    — despite the mountain of empirical data showing white-on-black racism to’ve plummeted like a stone in the last 50 years … in the face of all of that evidence … you still cling to the idea that the bigots who showed up in Charlottesville that day represent the tip of a gigantic iceberg?

    Well, Ta-Nehisi Coates would certainly agree with you, as would everyone else who proselytizes the new religion of Social Justice. I, however, do not.

    And to answer your final question: Helping to legitimize fashionable tribalist emoting, and putting it ahead of conflicting empirical data — even though said emoting will inevitably lead to identity-based social norms, and dubious (and dangerous) public policy — represents a major abandonment of conservative principles.

    • #21
    • February 6, 2019, at 5:32 PM PDT
    • Like
  22. Eugene Kriegsmann Member

    If I may inject something into this argument. I think both of you have points which carry a certain amount of truth. I am no Trump fan, however, I don’t believe that he is a racist or that his administration shows any sign of racism. However, as one who was for a major portion of my professional career subjected to both open and de facto racism, I can understand why some think that Trump elicits or attracts racist ideas. 

    For nearly 45 years I taught in schools with largely minority populations. Beginning back in the mid 1960s I rapidly learned that black people could make statements about white people, Jews, and almost anyone else they chose to demean without any consequences. In later years I sat through any number of human relations seminars in which decent, caring people were accused of being part of a “white collective” that was responsible for all of the ills that were visited upon black people and other minorities, though mostly blacks, simply because of our caucasian background. Any attempt to deny personal guilt was immediately condemned and any attempt to contradict the narrative could easily lead to the loss of one’s job. We were, in essence, taught to shut up and take it. 

    Andrew Breitbart was the first person of any prominence I heard speak who was unafraid to respond appropriately to what was unquestionably racist behavior, but which we were never supposed to acknowledge as such. Though Trump clearly lacks Breitbart’s intellect, he, essentially, has adopted the same kind of repartee. Being independently wealthy has some serious advantages. You can’t be threatened with economic consequences or social ostracism for not toeing the party line. 

    I am sure that there are a lot of real racists out there in the form of neo-Nazis and skinheads of other sorts, but they aren’t a particularly large percentage of the population. However, there are a lot of people who have come to feel like their opinions and their worth to our society has been seriously diminished in the years since the Civil Rights Act was passed. You can’t keep throwing dirt in people’s faces and expect them to not react. Trump’s unwillingness to quail at the charge of “racism” doesn’t make him a racist. It does make him attractive to people who feel that they have been unjustifiably painted with that brush or have been told that they are somehow “privileged” because of their color, particularly when the person making the accusation is far more affluent than they are. When you have been passed over for a promotion or not hired at all because of your color or sex, it isn’t racism that makes you vote for Donald Trump, it is simple economics. 

    • #22
    • February 6, 2019, at 6:56 PM PDT
    • 1 like
  23. Daniel Sterman Listener

    filmklassik (View Comment):

    You honestly believe that? In other words, despite every available metric showing racism to be down down down in the present century compared with the last […]— despite the mountain of empirical data showing white-on-black racism to’ve plummeted like a stone in the last 50 years … in the face of all of that evidence … you still cling to the idea that the bigots who showed up in Charlottesville that day represent the tip of a gigantic iceberg?

    That’s not what I said. I said that Charlottesville is merely the worst example of it. We all thought that racism was essentially “solved”- but those same metrics that show racism to be “down down down in the present century” show it to also be making a significant resurgence starting in 2015 and continuing to the present day.

    So either a whole bunch of people decided to become racists in 2015, or something in 2015 caused racists to feel freer about expressing their racism than they did previously.

    I referred to it as “turning over a rock and exposing a lot of ugliness underneath”. Did the ugliness get created ex nihilo when the rock was overturned? Or was it always there, but it couldn’t get out from under the rock until somebody came along and lifted it?

    • #23
    • February 7, 2019, at 3:12 AM PDT
    • 1 like
  24. George Townsend Member

    filmklassik (View Comment):

    Good lord. News flash, guys: Democrats were bailing on Israel lonnnng before the Cheeto King came along.

    Jay even wrote an article in support of Israel (where he said “please let Israel live”) several years ago.

    So to posit causality between pronounced anti-Israel sentiment on the Left (which is global, by the way) and the election of our Jackass in Chief is madness.

    Moving on …

    Racism was discussed today, as was the former CEO of Starbucks, Howard Schultz.

    And speaking of racism and Schultz and Starbucks, I’m wondering if the Mona Charen who co-hosted today’s Need to Know would even recognize the one who wrote this particular article four years ago, in early 2015:

    https://www.creators.com/read/mona-charen/03/15/does-starbucks-want-an-honest-conversation

    I’m not kidding, gang — I’d love to know what the MC of today thinks of what she wrote four years ago, particularly in paragraphs like:

    Each and every time we’re hectored to engage in an “honest conversation” about race, it’s a sham. What’s wanted is not honesty, but confession of sin by white people and expressions of pain from blacks and others. Decade after decade, despite vastly diminishing levels of white racism (and the rapid growth of non-white populations), we are told that the old stain of racism continues to poison the lives of minorities. By encouraging that fiction, Starbucks is subtracting from racial understanding.

    Does Mona still hold these views — specifically the one where she says that the notion of “the old stain of racism” continuing to “poison the lives of minorities” is basically a “fiction” cooked up by the Left? I fear I know the answer. (Psst! It’s “No”)

    I just don’t agree at all. And I find nothing in this Podcast to signify that she has changed her mind. She even said, along with Jay, that she was almost made to feel guilty about being white. The only thing that she does nowadays is indicate that there is racism around in some areas. But it is neither pervasive nor infectious, as the Left would have us believe. As in the the disgraceful address by the losing candidate from Georgia, the other night.

    • #24
    • February 7, 2019, at 5:51 AM PDT
    • 1 like
  25. George Townsend Member

    Lois Lane (View Comment):

    I do think the way abortion is promoted and protected is very similar to what happened with slavery. It’s weird.

    I am sure about this, but I seem to recall that it is said that many in the South called slavery their “peculiar institution”. Maybe abortion is the Left’s Peculiar Institution.

    • #25
    • February 7, 2019, at 5:59 AM PDT
    • 2 likes
  26. filmklassik Member

    “…but those same metrics that show racism to be ‘down down down in the present century’ show it to also be making a significant resurgence starting in 2015 and continuing to the present day.“

    So the arrow was trending downward for many years before (taking the phrase significant resurgence literally here) it suddenly spiked upward in 2015?

    Any links to any of these metrics?

    The decline of racism in this country has been dramatic and measurable. And so, presumably, is the “significant resurgence starting in 2015.”

    So I’ m very curious to see this data.

    Personally, I don’t think such data exists. I think Trump has a small but noxious white racist following on his side — a following no larger than, and no more noxious than — the cohort that vilifies “cisgendered white men” and reviles Jews (through the guise of “anti-Zionism”) and ignores Louis Farrakhan, and believes in retributive Social Justice — on the other.

    • #26
    • February 7, 2019, at 8:49 AM PDT
    • 1 like
  27. Daniel Sterman Listener

    Here you go: Hate crimes rose in 2017 for the third straight year, which means the first of those three years was in 2015: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/hate-crimes-rose-17-percent-last-year-according-to-new-fbi-data/2018/11/13/e0dcf13e-e754-11e8-b8dc-66cca409c180_story.html?utm_term=.6c4c9891d323

    • #27
    • February 7, 2019, at 12:41 PM PDT
    • 2 likes
  28. filmklassik Member

    DanielSterman (View Comment):

    Here you go: Hate crimes rose in 2017 for the third straight year, which means the first of those three years was in 2015: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/hate-crimes-rose-17-percent-last-year-according-to-new-fbi-data/2018/11/13/e0dcf13e-e754-11e8-b8dc-66cca409c180_story.html?utm_term=.6c4c9891d323

    Can’t argue with the cold equations. I didn’t know this. And until I hear a persuasive rebuttal to what you just posted, all I can say is, “I stand corrected.”

    • #28
    • February 7, 2019, at 12:48 PM PDT
    • 2 likes
  29. George Townsend Member

    filmklassik (View Comment):

    DanielSterman (View Comment):

    Here you go: Hate crimes rose in 2017 for the third straight year, which means the first of those three years was in 2015: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/hate-crimes-rose-17-percent-last-year-according-to-new-fbi-data/2018/11/13/e0dcf13e-e754-11e8-b8dc-66cca409c180_story.html?utm_term=.6c4c9891d323

    Can’t argue with the cold equations. I didn’t know this. And until I hear a persuasive rebuttal to what you just posted, all I can say is, “I stand corrected.”

    This is good. We disagree on some things, but you’re a good man, filmklassik.

    • #29
    • February 7, 2019, at 1:22 PM PDT
    • 3 likes
  30. Eugene Kriegsmann Member

    I think one very important question might be, who were the targets of the hate crimes. I would guess that the largest number were directed toward Jews. 

    • #30
    • February 7, 2019, at 5:46 PM PDT
    • 2 likes
  1. 1
  2. 2