Monday, 01 July 2013

THE NEW YORK TIMES' VIEW OF JOHN KERRY AND THE "PEACE PROCESS"

Ken Berwitz

You certainly can't say the New York Times is inconsistent about what it laughingly calls the Israel-Palestinian Arab "peace process".   It takes exactly the same side every time.

Do you want to see evidence?  Ok.  Here is this morning's editorial on John Kerry's efforts to restart "peace talks", in rust  My comments are in blue.  As with the previous blog, please read each and see who seems to be making more sense:

There is a sense of fatalism in Washington about Secretary of State John Kerry's quest to revive Israeli-Palestinian peace talks. Many experts have concluded that the conditions for peace dont exist and are unlikely to exist anytime soon. Until Palestinian Arabs in Gaza, and in Judea/Samaria (the west bank), renounce the hamas charter, which specifically calls for the annihilation of Israel and the killing of all Jews - Israeli and non-Israeli alike - how can there be?  So far, White House officials have not begrudged Mr. Kerry's investment of time and energy in the initiative, but there is little expectation that President Obama, bogged down with so many other priorities, will get very involved unless real progress emerges.  What priorities would those be?  What, exactly, is Barack Obama on top of, other than endless state trips at taxpayer expense and endless fundraisers?  When was the last time he rolled up his sleeves and actually sat down to work with congress on one of these "priorities"?

Still, Mr. Kerry keeps doggedly plowing forward. Despite the skeptics, this issue is of such importance that he is right to stay focused on it, at least until it becomes clear that neither side is willing to seriously engage. And while his trip to the region last week - his fifth - produced no breakthrough, he said he had made progress and would return again soon. Why would you expect any breakthroughs from John Kerry?  After 30 years as a US Senator, can you name even one major piece of legislation he introduced and brought through to enactment?  Why would this blank page on legs be expected to do better in the Middle East?

On Thursday, he met with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel, then drove to Amman to confer with the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, on Friday. He later flew by helicopter back to Jerusalem for another meeting with Mr. Netanyahu, then one with President Shimon Peres of Israel. On Saturday and Sunday, he shuttled between the leaders again. And?

Whether there is any substantive narrowing of differences between the two sides is unknown. Mr. Kerry's determination to maintain secrecy is frustrating to anyone following his mission but also tactical, since unveiling details prematurely is more likely to back Israelis and Palestinians into opposite corners. The Jerusalem Post reported on Friday that Mr. Kerry proposed a series of meetings between Mr. Netanyahu and Mr. Abbas. The newspaper said Mr. Netanyahu accepted the plan and Mr. Abbas was being pressured to do the same.  I love it.  Netanyahu accepted the plan.  But abbas didn't refuse it, that's much too hard on the poor fellow.  Instead, he "was being pressured to do the same".  Anyone who wonders why I, and so many others, see the New York Times as having an anti-Israel disposition, can get a nice strong whiff of the reason right there.

The public signals from both sides have been confusing. There is division in Israel's conservative government, where hard-liners have tried to undermine Mr. Kerry's initiative by advocating more West Bank settlements, which are a death knell for any Palestinian state, while moderates have endorsed a two-state solution. There you go.  Support new settlements and, to the Times, you're a hardliner against a two-state solution.  But Palestinian Arabs who have rejected every single peace proposal for 46 years, without making one serious counterproposal of their own?  Do you see the term "hardliner" used for them?  Nope.  The Israeli news site Haaretz.com reported that Mr. Netanyahu has "shifted" and is now serious about the peace process and a two-state solution. One can only hope that is true.  Sorry for the broken record, but - again - it is seen that the one and only side which is expected to offer an accommodation of any kind is Israel.  Have abbas, and/or his hamas masters in Gaza, who he signed a "unity agreement" with, shown any indication that they want a two-state solution?  See, in the minds of the New York Times editorial board, it is not necessary for a Palestinian Arab leader to do this, only for an Israeli.

It does not help that the Palestinians are more disorganized than ever since their highly competent prime minister, Salam Fayyad, was ousted and replaced by someone who resigned a few weeks later. It's not that they are intransigent.  Or violent.  Or committed, in writing, to killing all Jews.  They're just "disorganized".  Holy excrement.  Mr. Abbas has insisted that Israel halt all settlement building before negotiations could resume and reportedly also wanted some Palestinian prisoners released from Israeli jails. Israel's government has not initiated new settlements since it was formed in March; even so, it has moved forward on 69 previously approved apartments in East Jerusalem. What is the Times' point here?  That Israel should accede to all Palestinian demands, for the great privilege of abbas gracing them with a meeting?  What concessions is he being asked to make?  And then there is that implied equivalency of circumstance:  Palestinian Arabs retain their commitment to kill Jews, but...Israel is building 69 residential housing units.  To the Times, this is equivalent???

There have been no direct Israeli-Palestinian peace talks since 2010. Mr. Kerry has made clear he wants to make headway on negotiations well before September, when the United Nations General Assembly will once again debate the Middle East. If that does not happen, there may come a point when Mr. Kerry and President Obama will have to decide whether it continues to make sense to invest this level of energy in this project indefinitely without a commensurate commitment by Israel and the Palestinians. Yawn:  same-old same-old.  If Palestinian Arabs cannot renounce their commitment to killing all Jews, there is nothing to negotiate.  If it remains a capital crime - that's, right, punishable by death - for a Palestinian Arab to sell land to a Jew, there is nothing to negotiate.  If Palestinian Arabs continue to name their parks and sporting events in honor of "shahids" - i.e. "martyrs" who have blown themselves up to kill Jews - there is nothing to negotiate.

This is not an equivalent situation.  Even if the hopelessly benighted New York Times editorial board thinks otherwise.

Zeke .... .... The Peas Process --- Pali President Abbas is negotiating ...... .... Someone tell Lurch that Abbas' term ended 4 years ago ... he's just refusing to allow any new elections. .... ...The guy has no legal standing.... ... but "legal" is a silly term there. .... ...... The next election will see Hamas in power on the West Bank. ...... ...... Hamas has already agreed to a de facto Peace Agreement --- as soon as the last Israeli is gone from the Middle East. .... ... (07/01/13)

Ken Berwitz Your point about abbas is very well taken, and I should have mentioned it in the blog. abbas was elected to serve until 2009. He has been an unelected dictator since then. (07/01/13)


ANOTHER "SHE'S BLACK SO YOU WHITE PEOPLE ARE OUT TO GET HER" DEFENSE OF RACHEL JEANTEL

Ken Berwitz

As someone who has spent most of his adult life preaching that people should be judged as individuals rather than components of groups, the race-based apologists for Rachel Jeantel make me cringe. 

I have posted excerpts from several of these racists already.  And here's another one:  someone named Brittney Cooper, who - like her fellow Rutgers faculty member, Khadijah Costley White, assures us that Jeantel's pathetic turn as a witness in the George Zimmerman trial was not what our eyes saw and our ears heard, it was exclusively that she was being mistreated by White people.

Yeah, right.

Here, from her article at salon.com, are excerpts of Ms. Cooper's wit and wisdom, in rust....with my comments in blue.  See who you think makes more sense:

Trayvon Martin's trial might be intriguing, fascinating cultural theater to some. To me, it is more akin to a cultural trauma: a continual reminder of how unsafe all those young black men that I love actually are as they move through the world - and how tenuous and torturous it would be to seek justice on their behalf. You love young Black men?  Do you love young non-Black men?  Way to go, Brittney: the first thing you do to complain about racism is make it clear that you personally separate people by race.  Troubled, though, by the negative characterizations of Trayvon Martin's friend Rachel Jeantel, after her first day of testimony, I tuned in yesterday in a show of sofa-based, sister-girl solidarity.   You self-describe as a "sister"?  Again you make it clear that your commentary is specifically based on race.  And you're about to call other people racists?  Hooboy.

Immediately, I heard newscasters referring to her prior testimony, which I had watched on video, as combative and aggressive. And I felt my pressure start to rise.

These kinds of terms - combat, aggression, anger - stalk black women, especially black women who are dark-skinned and plus-sized like Rachel, at every turn seeking to discredit the validity of our experiences and render invisible our traumas. Er, what am I supposed to do if I conclude that Rachel Jeantel was every one of those things - which, FYI, I do?  Not say them because the Brittney Coopers of the world will accuse me of racism?  Am I allowed to say these things about non-Blacks?  Because if I am, that means you are setting up Black people as some kind of protected species, immune to criticism, based on...as always seems to be the case with you - their skin color.  By painting Rachel Jeantel as the aggressor, as the one prone to telling lies and spreading untruths, it became easy for the white male defense attorney to treat this 19-year-old, working-class black girl, a witness to the murder of her friend, as hostile, as a threat, as the one who needed to be regulated and contained and put in her place.  White and Black again.  Do you ever see things in any but racial terms?  Does the fact that Jeantel lied, numbers of times, mean a thing to you?  Tell me:  if the defense trots out a White witness who is caught in lie after lie, will you give that person a free pass too?  I didn't think so.

The unique quality of her black vernacular speaking style became hypervisible against the backdrop of powerful white men fluently deploying corporate, proper English in ways that she could not do.  Translation:  She's not undereducated or unintelligent, it's all a White plot.  Those devious bastards spoke in proper english.  How dare they.  The way they spoke to her was designed not only to discredit her, but to condescend to and humiliate her. She acknowledged this show of white male power by repeatedly punctuating her responses with a curt but loaded, "Yes, Sir."  Another race-based attack.  What a surprise.  All race all the time:  the great panacea for people like Brittney Cooper, which is supposed to trump everything else.

She was there to defend her friend. And herself. NO NO NO.  She was there to TELL THE TRUTH.  Do you know anything about anything other than racial attacks?  Though she was not on trial, she seemed to know instinctively that black womanhood, black manhood and urban adolescence are always on trial in the American imaginary. Well, at least it isn't 100% the "ignore everything you see and hear, just think racism" routine.  Now we have the added dimension that Rachel Jeantel instinctively perceives great truths too.  Maybe you can get her a job teaching with you, Brittney.

By choosing to take the stand and fight for her friend, she was fighting for so much more than simply him. She was fighting for the right of black people to be seen and heard, for our testimony about our traumas to be believed, no matter how inelegantly stated.  Wonderful.  Now Trayvon Martin - suspended from school three times in the six months prior to the shooting, caught with women's jewelry and a burglar tool he could not explain, tattoos on his arms, a "grille" on his teeth, and the twitter screen name "NO_LIMIT_NIGGA" - is a metaphor for all Blacks.  And this genius teaches at an accredited school?  Does that ever explain a lot about the current state of education.

Rachel Jeantel took the stand and told the gut-wrenching, heartbreaking, ugly truth. My only hope is that the jury truly listened.  Well, at least we agree on one thing.  I hope the jury truly listened.  I also hope it was sequestered enough not to be influenced by stone cold racists like you. 

David My blog, I dismantled Khadijah Costley White's letter. coldtones.wordpress.com/2013/07/03/kadijahjeantel/ (07/03/13)


ANOTHER "SHE'S BLACK SO YOU WHITE PEOPLE ARE OUT TO GET HER" DEFENSE OF RACHEL JEANTEL

Ken Berwitz

As someone who has spent most of his adult life preaching that people should be judged as individuals rather than components of groups, the race-based apologists for Rachel Jeantel make me cringe. 

I have posted excerpts from several of these racists already.  And here's another one:  someone named Brittney Cooper, who - like her fellow Rutgers faculty member, Khadijah Costley White, assures us that Jeantel's pathetic turn as a witness in the George Zimmerman trial was not what our eyes saw and our ears heard, it was exclusively that she was being mistreated by White people.

Yeah, right.

Here, from her article at salon.com, are excerpts of Ms. Cooper's wit and wisdom, in rust....with my comments in blue.  See who you think makes more sense:

Trayvon Martin's trial might be intriguing, fascinating cultural theater to some. To me, it is more akin to a cultural trauma: a continual reminder of how unsafe all those young black men that I love actually are as they move through the world - and how tenuous and torturous it would be to seek justice on their behalf. You love young Black men?  Do you love young non-Black men?  Way to go, Brittney: the first thing you do to complain about racism is make it clear that you personally separate people by race.  Troubled, though, by the negative characterizations of Trayvon Martin's friend Rachel Jeantel, after her first day of testimony, I tuned in yesterday in a show of sofa-based, sister-girl solidarity.   You self-describe as a "sister"?  Again you make it clear that your commentary is specifically based on race.  And you're about to call other people racists?  Hooboy.

Immediately, I heard newscasters referring to her prior testimony, which I had watched on video, as combative and aggressive. And I felt my pressure start to rise.

These kinds of terms - combat, aggression, anger - stalk black women, especially black women who are dark-skinned and plus-sized like Rachel, at every turn seeking to discredit the validity of our experiences and render invisible our traumas. Er, what am I supposed to do if I conclude that Rachel Jeantel was every one of those things - which, FYI, I do?  Not say them because the Brittney Coopers of the world will accuse me of racism?  Am I allowed to say these things about non-Blacks?  Because if I am, that means you are setting up Black people as some kind of protected species, immune to criticism, based on...as always seems to be the case with you - their skin color.  By painting Rachel Jeantel as the aggressor, as the one prone to telling lies and spreading untruths, it became easy for the white male defense attorney to treat this 19-year-old, working-class black girl, a witness to the murder of her friend, as hostile, as a threat, as the one who needed to be regulated and contained and put in her place.  White and Black again.  Do you ever see things in any but racial terms?  Does the fact that Jeantel lied, numbers of times, mean a thing to you?  Tell me:  if the defense trots out a White witness who is caught in lie after lie, will you give that person a free pass too?  I didn't think so.

The unique quality of her black vernacular speaking style became hypervisible against the backdrop of powerful white men fluently deploying corporate, proper English in ways that she could not do.  Translation:  She's not undereducated or unintelligent, it's all a White plot.  Those devious bastards spoke in proper english.  How dare they.  The way they spoke to her was designed not only to discredit her, but to condescend to and humiliate her. She acknowledged this show of white male power by repeatedly punctuating her responses with a curt but loaded, "Yes, Sir."  Another race-based attack.  What a surprise.  All race all the time:  the great panacea for people like Brittney Cooper, which is supposed to trump everything else.

She was there to defend her friend. And herself. NO NO NO.  She was there to TELL THE TRUTH.  Do you know anything about anything other than racial attacks?  Though she was not on trial, she seemed to know instinctively that black womanhood, black manhood and urban adolescence are always on trial in the American imaginary. Well, at least it isn't 100% the "ignore everything you see and hear, just think racism" routine.  Now we have the added dimension that Rachel Jeantel instinctively perceives great truths too.  Maybe you can get her a job teaching with you, Brittney.

By choosing to take the stand and fight for her friend, she was fighting for so much more than simply him. She was fighting for the right of black people to be seen and heard, for our testimony about our traumas to be believed, no matter how inelegantly stated.  Wonderful.  Now Trayvon Martin - suspended from school three times in the six months prior to the shooting, caught with women's jewelry and a burglar tool he could not explain, tattoos on his arms, a "grille" on his teeth, and the twitter screen name "NO_LIMIT_NIGGA" - is a metaphor for all Blacks.  And this genius teaches at an accredited school?  Does that ever explain a lot about the current state of education.

Rachel Jeantel took the stand and told the gut-wrenching, heartbreaking, ugly truth. My only hope is that the jury truly listened.  Well, at least we agree on one thing.  I hope the jury truly listened.  I also hope it was sequestered enough not to be influenced by stone cold racists like you. 

David My blog, I dismantled Khadijah Costley White's letter. coldtones.wordpress.com/2013/07/03/kadijahjeantel/ (07/03/13)


OUR DEBT OF GRATITUDE TO ALEC BALDWIN

Ken Berwitz

I feel we owe alec baldwin a debt of gratitude. 

Why?  Because he has so clearly shown us the amazingly sick double standard currently operating in this country:

-Paula Deen admitted to using racially offensive language years and years ago, apologized for doing so, and has since been stripped of her TV show, her book deal and virtually every endorsement she had.

-by contrast, alec baldwin used the vilest anti-gay slurs within the past week, without apology,...and, unless something happened behind closed doors that we don't know about, has not lost one deal or endorsement.

This proves with crystal clarity that, in today's sick climate, if you are a hard leftist in good standing there is an open field for you to say any damn thing you want, and all will be forgiven on the spot.

So my thanks go to alec baldwin.  The fact that - at least so far - there has been no price to pay for his ugly, vicious, intolerant words, tells the true story about this country's double standard far better than anything I could write.


EGYPT ON THE BRINK (CONT.)

Ken Berwitz

Egypt's deteriorating situation is, if anything, accelerating.

Now the military has warned that it will intervene unless President morsi and his apparently massive opposition get it together in the next 48 hours.

That's not going to happen. 

This is looking more and more like a runaway train, filled with nitro-glycerine, heading toward a derailment.  

I'm hoping against hope that it isn't....but I'm not at all optimistic.

Zeke .... .... .... The US is giving Egypt the latest versions of 200 M1 Abrams main battle tanks and 20 F-16 fighter jets. ..... ...... ..... Unclear, is exactly WHO these weapons are meant to oppose. ..... ...... (07/01/13)


THE NEW YORK TIMES' VIEW OF JOHN KERRY AND THE "PEACE PROCESS"

Ken Berwitz

You certainly can't say the New York Times is inconsistent about what it laughingly calls the Israel-Palestinian Arab "peace process".   It takes exactly the same side every time.

Do you want to see evidence?  Ok.  Here is this morning's editorial on John Kerry's efforts to restart "peace talks", in rust  My comments are in blue.  As with the previous blog, please read each and see who seems to be making more sense:

There is a sense of fatalism in Washington about Secretary of State John Kerry's quest to revive Israeli-Palestinian peace talks. Many experts have concluded that the conditions for peace dont exist and are unlikely to exist anytime soon. Until Palestinian Arabs in Gaza, and in Judea/Samaria (the west bank), renounce the hamas charter, which specifically calls for the annihilation of Israel and the killing of all Jews - Israeli and non-Israeli alike - how can there be?  So far, White House officials have not begrudged Mr. Kerry's investment of time and energy in the initiative, but there is little expectation that President Obama, bogged down with so many other priorities, will get very involved unless real progress emerges.  What priorities would those be?  What, exactly, is Barack Obama on top of, other than endless state trips at taxpayer expense and endless fundraisers?  When was the last time he rolled up his sleeves and actually sat down to work with congress on one of these "priorities"?

Still, Mr. Kerry keeps doggedly plowing forward. Despite the skeptics, this issue is of such importance that he is right to stay focused on it, at least until it becomes clear that neither side is willing to seriously engage. And while his trip to the region last week - his fifth - produced no breakthrough, he said he had made progress and would return again soon. Why would you expect any breakthroughs from John Kerry?  After 30 years as a US Senator, can you name even one major piece of legislation he introduced and brought through to enactment?  Why would this blank page on legs be expected to do better in the Middle East?

On Thursday, he met with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel, then drove to Amman to confer with the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, on Friday. He later flew by helicopter back to Jerusalem for another meeting with Mr. Netanyahu, then one with President Shimon Peres of Israel. On Saturday and Sunday, he shuttled between the leaders again. And?

Whether there is any substantive narrowing of differences between the two sides is unknown. Mr. Kerry's determination to maintain secrecy is frustrating to anyone following his mission but also tactical, since unveiling details prematurely is more likely to back Israelis and Palestinians into opposite corners. The Jerusalem Post reported on Friday that Mr. Kerry proposed a series of meetings between Mr. Netanyahu and Mr. Abbas. The newspaper said Mr. Netanyahu accepted the plan and Mr. Abbas was being pressured to do the same.  I love it.  Netanyahu accepted the plan.  But abbas didn't refuse it, that's much too hard on the poor fellow.  Instead, he "was being pressured to do the same".  Anyone who wonders why I, and so many others, see the New York Times as having an anti-Israel disposition, can get a nice strong whiff of the reason right there.

The public signals from both sides have been confusing. There is division in Israel's conservative government, where hard-liners have tried to undermine Mr. Kerry's initiative by advocating more West Bank settlements, which are a death knell for any Palestinian state, while moderates have endorsed a two-state solution. There you go.  Support new settlements and, to the Times, you're a hardliner against a two-state solution.  But Palestinian Arabs who have rejected every single peace proposal for 46 years, without making one serious counterproposal of their own?  Do you see the term "hardliner" used for them?  Nope.  The Israeli news site Haaretz.com reported that Mr. Netanyahu has "shifted" and is now serious about the peace process and a two-state solution. One can only hope that is true.  Sorry for the broken record, but - again - it is seen that the one and only side which is expected to offer an accommodation of any kind is Israel.  Have abbas, and/or his hamas masters in Gaza, who he signed a "unity agreement" with, shown any indication that they want a two-state solution?  See, in the minds of the New York Times editorial board, it is not necessary for a Palestinian Arab leader to do this, only for an Israeli.

It does not help that the Palestinians are more disorganized than ever since their highly competent prime minister, Salam Fayyad, was ousted and replaced by someone who resigned a few weeks later. It's not that they are intransigent.  Or violent.  Or committed, in writing, to killing all Jews.  They're just "disorganized".  Holy excrement.  Mr. Abbas has insisted that Israel halt all settlement building before negotiations could resume and reportedly also wanted some Palestinian prisoners released from Israeli jails. Israel's government has not initiated new settlements since it was formed in March; even so, it has moved forward on 69 previously approved apartments in East Jerusalem. What is the Times' point here?  That Israel should accede to all Palestinian demands, for the great privilege of abbas gracing them with a meeting?  What concessions is he being asked to make?  And then there is that implied equivalency of circumstance:  Palestinian Arabs retain their commitment to kill Jews, but...Israel is building 69 residential housing units.  To the Times, this is equivalent???

There have been no direct Israeli-Palestinian peace talks since 2010. Mr. Kerry has made clear he wants to make headway on negotiations well before September, when the United Nations General Assembly will once again debate the Middle East. If that does not happen, there may come a point when Mr. Kerry and President Obama will have to decide whether it continues to make sense to invest this level of energy in this project indefinitely without a commensurate commitment by Israel and the Palestinians. Yawn:  same-old same-old.  If Palestinian Arabs cannot renounce their commitment to killing all Jews, there is nothing to negotiate.  If it remains a capital crime - that's, right, punishable by death - for a Palestinian Arab to sell land to a Jew, there is nothing to negotiate.  If Palestinian Arabs continue to name their parks and sporting events in honor of "shahids" - i.e. "martyrs" who have blown themselves up to kill Jews - there is nothing to negotiate.

This is not an equivalent situation.  Even if the hopelessly benighted New York Times editorial board thinks otherwise.

Zeke .... .... The Peas Process --- Pali President Abbas is negotiating ...... .... Someone tell Lurch that Abbas' term ended 4 years ago ... he's just refusing to allow any new elections. .... ...The guy has no legal standing.... ... but "legal" is a silly term there. .... ...... The next election will see Hamas in power on the West Bank. ...... ...... Hamas has already agreed to a de facto Peace Agreement --- as soon as the last Israeli is gone from the Middle East. .... ... (07/01/13)

Ken Berwitz Your point about abbas is very well taken, and I should have mentioned it in the blog. abbas was elected to serve until 2009. He has been an unelected dictator since then. (07/01/13)


EGYPT ON THE BRINK (CONT.)

Ken Berwitz

Egypt's deteriorating situation is, if anything, accelerating.

Now the military has warned that it will intervene unless President morsi and his apparently massive opposition get it together in the next 48 hours.

That's not going to happen. 

This is looking more and more like a runaway train, filled with nitro-glycerine, heading toward a derailment.  

I'm hoping against hope that it isn't....but I'm not at all optimistic.

Zeke .... .... .... The US is giving Egypt the latest versions of 200 M1 Abrams main battle tanks and 20 F-16 fighter jets. ..... ...... ..... Unclear, is exactly WHO these weapons are meant to oppose. ..... ...... (07/01/13)


THE ZIMMERMAN TRIAL

Ken Berwitz

I'm not actually watching the trial of George Zimmerman, but have put it on here and there during the day.  And, unless I'm just catching some very bizarre swatches of the testimony, it seems to me that each prosecution witness is strengthening the defense's position.

This trial is a joke.  If Martin and Zimmerman both were the same color instead of Martin being Black and Zimmerman being characterized as a "White Hispanic" (which is about as ridiculous as it gets; he is of mixed ancestry), I disbelieve it would even be taking place.

Ken Berwitz I've never written about Pigford. Should have. Maybe I will at some point in the future, when I catch up (I haven't even blogged about Vienna and Budapest yet, a week after we got back) (07/01/13)

Zeke .... ... There is no joke here. .... ..... The same crew that engineered the Pigford Settlement. There, 85,000 of the 400 claimants (strange how everyone piled on the gravy train) are getting $2.2 BILLION because they were denied agricultural loans and such. Most of the claimants never farmed. ....... ...... The racist hustlers are now looking to collect a few bucks from the Zimmerman case. .... ... They ALREADY have gotten 7 figures in settling with the HOA (home owners' association) insurance policy. ..... .... They'll go for civil damages, regardless of the outcome of the criminal trial. .... .... True justice would be for Zimmerman to do a book and speaking tours. .... .... Oh, btw, CNN, NBC have broadcast his Soc Sec No, Driver's License No. .... ...... [dude better dial 1-800-LifeLock] ..... ...... (07/01/13)


A MOMENT OF SILENCE FOR THE FALLEN 19

Ken Berwitz

I don't know how to do it on a blog, but consider this a moment of silence for the 19 brave firefighters who died near Yarnell, Arizona yesterday.

What a terrible, terrible tragedy this is.  My heart goes out to their families.


Buy Our Book Here!


Return to Current Blog
We're Hopelessly Partisan

hopelesslypartisan.com, is a web site which is dedicated to honest, blunt, debate on the issues of our time.


About Us



Privacy Notice: In conjunction with the ads on this site, third parties may be placing and reading cookies on your browser, or using web beacons to collect information.


At “Hopelessly Partisan” we discuss all issues, big and small. In here, nothing is sacred and nothing is out of bounds.

So settle back, preferably after laughing your way through a copy of “The Hopelessly Partisan Guide To American Politics”, and let the battle begin. In this blog, your opinion counts every bit as much as anyone else's, maybe even more.

And to show that my willingness to provide all sides of the issues is sincere, here are links to a variety of web sites, from the left, the middle (more or less) and the right. Read them and either smile in agreement or gnash your teeth in anger!!