Now David Codrea has weighed in with his latest Examiner article. He takes Michael Dresser of The Baltimore Sun to task for calling the flier anti-semitic, suggesting that this is just left-wing hoplophobe propaganda:
There's only one problem: the creator of the flier is JPFO. So to buy into Dresser's propaganda fantasy, we need to believe that the one civil rights group that not only says "Never again!" but also points to the one way to ensure against genocide—and is headed by a Jew—is anti-Semitic!And I don't know - maybe it is just spin on Dresser's part. But personally I wonder if Michael Dresser et al even know who Aaron Zelman is, or what JPFO is. Again, maybe he just saw "Bagel Brain Jews" and flew from there. I know what assumptions I'd make, if I didn't already know better. Yes, of course a real, super-duper JOURNALIST should do better research than that. But we all know they don't always.
Zelman himself has spoken on the matter, in a JPFO piece titled The Bagel Brained Jews of Baltimore are Bleating Vociferously. Heh - as you can see from the title, Zelman is just prostrate with remorse over the whole kerfuffle. His take on it:
From its inception, JPFO has “targeted” victim disarmament advocates of any stripe. But we reserve a special indignation for those who call themselves Jews, but actually spit on one of the most fundamental tenets of our religion: the right to self defense and the defense of the innocent. See "The Ten Commandments of Self Defense"Well, okay. I still think this particular tack is dumb, but I don't get a vote. I must point out, though - we don't even know if they like bagels.
JPFO can go where others dare not. Go here to see the electronic handbill that is causing blood pressures to rise within the Jewish anti-gun community.
When politicians support policies that are potentially dangerous to all humanity, one should not be hesitate in calling them “bagel brains”.
2 comments:
Maybe the anti-semetic accusations were expected? Maybe that was specifically why the term was used? It is not unimaginable that he intentionally offended a target audience with the purpose of motivating them to fight, so he could educate them. If just a few are converted by logic, then the tactic was a success. I surely can't imagine someone becoming anti-gun over this. It is a potential win/no loss scenario.
I think CorbinKale's on to something there.
Sure, the tactic is dumb. Then again, who listens to politeness anyway?
Post a Comment