Jim Moran and AIPAC

It kind of pains me to write this as Yom Kippur is just about to commence, but....

I kind of agree with Jim Moran when he talks about AIPAC and other Jewish organizations in the build-up to the Iraq War.

I'm linking now to Lowell of Raising Kaine, whose take is pretty similar to mine. He's Jewish, Pro-Israel, and he lives in Moran's district (I used to), and he's got some issues with Moran, and he thinks Moran could stand to be a little more careful when he speaks... but he doesn't think Jim Moran is an anti-semite.

Pretty much the same for me. Jim Moran's got some problems, no doubt. This is what he said, which led to the latest controversy....

Moran said that the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) "has pushed this war from the beginning . . . They are so well organized, and their members are extraordinarily powerful -- most of them are quite wealthy -- they have been able to exert power."

When you put it like that, this quote bothers me a bit. But here's a little more context.

You’ve touched on a quandary, and it particularly applies to the Jewish American community. Jewish Americans, as a voting bloc and as an influence on American foreign policy, are overwhelmingly opposed to the war. There is no ethnic group as opposed to the war as much as Jewish Americans. But, AIPAC is the most powerful lobby and has pushed this war from the beginning. I don’t think they represent the mainstream of American Jewish thinking at all, but because they are so well organized, and their members are extraordinarily powerful—most of them are quite wealthy—they have been able to exert power.

Sure, Moran should have known that "quite wealthy" would set some people off, and he may be overstating AIPAC's power a bit, but generally speaking...... he's right. And he makes it pretty damn clear he's talking about AIPAC, not Jews as a whole.

After 9/11, I felt abandoned by groups like AIPAC that pushed the Iraq War, which I opposed from the beginning. Is AIPAC solely responsible for the war? Of course not. They were a very small part of the equation. But make no mistake about it, the leadership of AIPAC fully supported the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld-Rice-Wolfowitz led invasion of Iraq, and they should be held accountable for it.

AIPAC was not the only organization that did this... It disturbs me to this day that 9/11 caused such a shift among Jewish organizations that had previously been more-or-less civil liberties organizations... Many of these organizations could have stood to shift some of the resources they used to support the Iraq war toward fighting the PATRIOT Act and other assaults on our freedom at home.

Some people probably think I'm an anti-semite for even writing all this. Let me be very clear... It's possible to support the Jewish community without fully supporting AIPAC. In fact, I'd argue, and I have before, that linking people like me with neo-conservatives INCREASES anti-semitism. Likewise, it's possible to be Pro-Israel while sometimes criticizing its government, just as it's possible to support America and criticize its government.

During these days of atonement, sure, Jim Moran, could stand to do a little atoning. But AIPAC has a few reasons to ask for forgiveness on Yom Kippur as well.

Is Mary Kate Olsen, gasp, a decent actress?

I haven't seen the rest of the show, but from this clip, I think Mary Kate Olsen is actually pretty decent as a bible thumping, yet somewhat charming, stoner chick on Weeds.

Watch This....

Keeping your eye on the bat at all times. If you're at work, you can watch it on mute, sound isn't necessary.



Was this for real? People commenting on Youtube are disagreeing on this as we speak. Some claim to have been at the game and seen it happen. I'm pretty sure it's real, it would have taken serious editing to fake.

The Onion AV Club is Wrong About Music Again

Recently I posted about how the Onion AV Club missed the boat about The Rockin'-est Song of All Time. Now they're trying to tell me that 1997 was some sort of watershed year for music. The theory seems to be that Radiohead's OK Computer came out in 1997, as did 17 other albums that supposedly make it a great year (none of which are very interesting to me). First of all, The Bends is a better Radiohead album, so 1997 isn't even the best year for Radiohead. Second no mention of the only other 1997 album I consider to be great, Ben Folds Five's Whatever and Ever Amen.

Another AV Club writer wrote a rebuttal, claiming 1998 and 1999 were better.

Both writers are way off.

The truly great year for nineties music was.... 1991.

Exhibit A: Nirvana, Nevermind
Exhibit B: U2, Achtung Baby
Exhibit C: REM, Out of Time
Exhibit D: Red Hot Chili Peppers, Blood Sugar Sex Magik
Exhibit E: Pearl Jam, Ten
Exhibit F: Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers, Into the Great Wide Open
Exhibit G: Lenny Kravitz, Mama Said
Exhibit H: Toad The Wet Sprocket, Fear
Exhibit I: Bonnie Raitt, Luck of the Draw
Exhibit J: Metallica, The Black Album
Exhibit K: Matthew Sweet, Girlfriend

Look at that list. Are you kidding me? All those came out the same year?

Seriously. I've listed these exhibits in order of importance... Pearl Jam's monumental debut, arguably one of the most important albums of all time was merely the FIFTH most important album of the year. Because there were four albums that were even MORE important. And you know how much I love Tom Petty... One of my absolute favorite Tom Petty albums was released in 1991, and it didn't even crack the top five!

1997? Yeah, right. 1991 is THE YEAR for nineties music, and you know it, AV Club.