Morning Ed: Health {2016.10.13.Th}

Will Truman

Will Truman is the Editor-in-Chief of Ordinary Times. He is also on Twitter.

Related Post Roulette

107 Responses

  1. j r says:

    Negative stereotypes don’t just hurt people’s feelings, they can undermine people’s performance. Tell an African American student that his performance on the GRE is diagnostic of intellectual ability, and his test performance will decline compared to similar students informed that the test is non-diagnostic. People are influenced by negative stereotypes about race and intelligence. The same stereotype threat has been shown to undermine the performance of women taking math tests, or Caucasians engaging in athletic endeavors.

    Does anyone know if this a real thing? I mean, is it something that has been demonstrated in multiple studies? Or is it something that one paper twenty years ago hinted at and no paper since have been able to replicate?

    The bit of research that I just did online suggests that it could go either way.Report

  2. fillyjonk says:

    I’m not surprised by the Soylent bar story – both my mother and I have a sensitivity to soy (one of the reasons I quit trying to be a vegetarian: tofu and its kin give me a badly upset stomach). And also to the artificial sweetener – my dad developed a sensitivity to Splenda after trying to sub it for sugar after a pre-diabetes diagnosis.

    I suspect this sort of thing will be a problem if people try to eat just a few foods….wasn’t Soylent promoted as essentially “human chow” where you don’t need to eat much else?

    (I suppose the problem could also be mold that sneaked in with the soy….lots of people are sensitive to different molds)

    I’ve developed a few new food sensitivities and hope I don’t outlive my ability to eat….it seems like every five years or so there’s some new little thing I have to cut out. (So far: carrots, celery, soy, mango, cashews, pistachios, mushrooms….and I have to be careful about how many raw strawberries I eat.)Report

    • Kolohe in reply to fillyjonk says:

      fillyjonk: I suspect this sort of thing will be a problem if people try to eat just a few foods….wasn’t Soylent promoted as essentially “human chow” where you don’t need to eat much else?

      It was in the movie.Report

    • Morat20 in reply to fillyjonk says:

      Sensitivity or allergy? Because I’m not going to lie, my allergist went off on an epic rant about that topic once.

      Interestingly enough, my kid loved soy sauce. When he was about 5, he’d have lived off of white rice and soy sauce if we’d let him. He’s also allergic to soy. Took longer than I’d like to admit to put together the minor hives with his inhalation of his new favorite condiment.

      (I see an allergist because I am allergic to every tree native to my state, every form of grass God invented, and also cats. I got tired of spending six months of the year with a headache, so now I pay a lot of money to have everything I’m allergic to injected directly into me, to save the grasses and trees the effort. Strangely, it seems to work).Report

      • fillyjonk in reply to Morat20 says:

        I call mine “intolerances” or “sensitivities” because while I have (in some cases) a mild immune reaction (I get hives if I eat cashews) but generally if you say “allergies” people freak out – and I’ve been taken to task by people with anaphylactic food allergies that I’m not allowed to say “I’m allergic” to some food if it doesn’t kill me.

        And I don’t know. I genuinely think the carrot and celery thing is some kind of weird missing enzyme in me; I cannot digest them and my body reacts like someone with lactose intolerance reacts to milk.

        I used to get the allergy immunotherapy and it helped with my grass and tree pollen allergies. I can’t, now, because I’m on a beta blocker and it’s contra-indicated – something about they might not be able to “bring me back” if I went anaphylactic, which is not reassuring at all, given all my other allergies.Report

        • Morat20 in reply to fillyjonk says:

          People do jump straight to “throat swelling shut” when it comes to food allergies and I can’t really blame them. “I don’t eat nuts because they give me a mild stomach ache and some bloating” sounds better as ‘sensitivity’.

          As for beta blockers — IIRC, my allergist will do shots even then. But they make you hang around twice as long after, because if you react they want you there where they have options.Report

        • Kim in reply to fillyjonk says:

          Yeah, adrenalin and my husband don’t mix so well either.
          Those people who have anaphylactic food allergies and go off on you for that?
          Fuck ’em.
          You’re ALLOWED to have situational allergies (defined as ones that aren’t likely to cause death unless your allergenic load is already high).
          You’re ALLOWED to avoid foods simply because they give you a minor allergy.

          My husband has a range of allergies to nearly everything under the sun (except Maple). He’s so allergic to cockroaches that he can tell roach motels without even stepping off the sidewalk.Report

        • dragonfrog in reply to fillyjonk says:

          It seems the technically correct use of ‘intolerance’ and ‘allergy’ don’t map all that well to ranking the two by severity.

          Celiac disease is an intolerance, and it can kill you over time.

          Fledermaus is allergic to wheat, and it mostly gives her eczema, aggravates her asthma, and increases her reaction to other allergens like dogs and grass and whatnot. The kind of allergy it takes years to figure out, if you start from eating a diet where you would basically never just coincidentally not eat any wheat for a couple of weeks.Report

  3. LeeEsq says:

    Besides the health problems caused by the soylent bars, I’m really shocked that soylent people thought they could replace regular eating with unappetizing soy products. For an occasional emergency it might work but not for every meal because eating is pleasurable for most people. There has always been a certain strain in American business culture that hated lunch and saw it as drain on productivity though. When Americans entered into the British financial markets during the 1980s, one of the first things they got rid of was lunching practices. Instead of going to a restaurant for an hour or longer if you were senior, lunch became a sandwich eaten at the desk.Report

    • fillyjonk in reply to LeeEsq says:

      Confession: I’ve more than once wished there was “human chow” – some kind of nutritionally-complete, bland, easy-to-eat food. There are times when I am literally too busy to shop or cook (And frozen dinners, I can’t really do – I have a sodium restriction in my diet). I once idly looked into Nutriloaf, the stuff that is used for unruly prisoners, but as I remember, it had one or two of my “can’t eat” things in it.

      (And those nutritional shake things – most of them have artificial sweetener, none of which I can tolerate).

      Being able to cut grocery shopping and cooking out of my week would make my life easier some weeks. It’s sad but true. (I probably need a stay at home husband, but I don’t see any men volunteering for that job)Report

      • Kim in reply to fillyjonk says:

        Larabars. Trailmix. “Meat crumble”

        Or, hell, buy some Mountain House. That’s boil in bag, done in two minutes, and the food’s decent.Report

      • Kim in reply to fillyjonk says:

        There is no reason you can’t make enough food in a day to feed you for a full month. Just freeze the leftovers.
        Recipes available upon request.Report

        • fillyjonk in reply to Kim says:

          I know, but it takes being willing to give up my one day off a week AND having sufficient energy to cook and freeze a crapton of food.

          I eat a lot of peanut butter. Which I will probably become allergic to, eventually. And a lot of canned fruit. (I also have tooth issues so stuff like trail bars are kind of out. I figure someday I will just wind up on parenteral nutrition because I will develop too many limitations to be able to eat like a normal human)Report

          • Kim in reply to fillyjonk says:

            Recommend hummus and nutella if you aren’t allergic to them too. Rice cooker is literally two minutes to make rice (and that’s if you wash it, which I do).Report

          • Morat20 in reply to fillyjonk says:

            If you’re pretty solid with eating “the same thing” a lot, it really doesn’t take as much time. There’s generally one rather solid grocery run in the beginning (to stock your pantry with a few staples you’ll need for the few recipes you want) and then the occasional “I need produce and/or milk” runs.

            Jaybird’s right — slow-cookers are amazing for that sort of thing, for instance. You can make a week’s worth of meet with about 20 minutes of time, and then just ignore the thing.

            Heck, we’ve used ours for breakfast stuff. Toss it in at night, go to bed.

            You’re looking for assembly line food — sandwiches, burritos/tacos, stuff like that. Cook and prep once, store everything in Tupperware in the fridge, yank out and assemble in minutes.

            There’s a bit of extra prep — slow cooking a week’s worth of meat or chopping up some vegetables ahead of time, but that’s pretty much peanuts. The “hours” it takes to slow cook something are hours in which you’re ignoring the cooker, because it can’t overcook. It’s the time to chop it up and dump it in, then ignore it.Report

      • Morat20 in reply to fillyjonk says:

        Burrito bowls. There’s even some good vegetarian ones (the one we use uses roasted chickpeas and broccoli has the protein).

        Roast the chickpeas and broccoli, make some form of grain (millet, brown rice, lots of things you can use). Get some veggies –cucumber, red pepper, tomatoes, corn, salsa, guac, spinach, onion — sky’s the limit. (You can even use a little plain greek yogurt if you want to avoid sour cream).

        Once it’s cooked (which doesn’t take long), the protein and rice are good for a week or so in the fridge, it reheats well, and you can vary the vegetables to vary the taste.

        Easy to assemble, easy to pack up, easy to reheat, can be varied pretty easily.Report

      • LeeEsq in reply to fillyjonk says:

        Its called a sandwich. They come ready made in many places. You could also do a bowl of cereal with fruit.Report

      • Jaybird in reply to fillyjonk says:

        The slow cooker.

        Seriously. Minimal prep time. Makes 5 liters of food while you’re at work. Get a ladle and ladle the leftovers into tupperware or ziplocs.

        This recipe
        , for example, can be modified to take out the things you don’t like/can’t eat (unless, of course, you don’t like/can’t eat cheese or chicken or cauliflower).

        If nutriloaf sounds like a decent compromise, you won’t mind how, eventually, everything cooked in a slow cooker eventually tastes exactly the same.Report

        • dragonfrog in reply to Jaybird says:

          I’m sure there are wide swaths of humanity for whom slow cookers are an excellent convenience device. I am not of that demographic.

          To get the most of a slow cooker means, to my understanding, something like this production pipeline, on a regular basis:

          H-34 – decide over breakfast what’s for dinner tomorrow
          H-26 – buy food for tomorrow’s dinner on the way home from work
          H-22 – prep food for tomorrow’s dinner, refrigerate
          H-9 – throw prepped food into slow cooker, turn it on, go to work
          H hour – serve dinner from slow cooker

          We’re just not that good at advance planning. For us, the pressure cooker is the miracle device. I can decide when I walk in the door after work that I would like something with chickpeas for supper, and the fact there is a jar of dried chickpeas in the pantry means it can work, not that it is impossible.

          We have a slow cooker, and occasionally use it for things like whipping by home to pick up our potluck dish on the way to the party – we can muster the extra planning and logistics a couple of times a month.Report

          • Jaybird in reply to dragonfrog says:

            I admit: I live a child-free lifestyle. This gives me certain assumptions that may be unfounded when it comes to others. With that said:

            H-34 – decide over breakfast what’s for dinner tomorrow

            Is the criticism the placement of the step, here? I mean, sometimes Maribou and I talk on Thursday or something about how I’m going to make Spaghetti sauce or Chicken or something on Sunday night. If you’re making a meal for one or two, you can do that ad-hoc. If you’re making 5 liters of food, you *SHOULD* have a meeting about it.

            H-26 – buy food for tomorrow’s dinner on the way home from work

            True enough, but getting stuff from the grocery is going to happen no matter what if you do stuff like eat fresh produce.

            H-22 – prep food for tomorrow’s dinner, refrigerate

            This is where the most work is, true. That said, this is a criticism that would apply to anything that involves cooking. Given that we’re comparing this kind of prep to other kinds of prep rather than comparing it to doing nothing at all, I can say that the slow cooker prep is exceptionally easy insofar as the prep usually consists of a mere handful of steps:

            1) Remove cover
            2) Spray inside of pot with cooking spray
            3) Prepare ingredients (like chopping chicken or cauliflower or what have you)
            4) Dump ingredients into pot all willy-nilly
            4.5) Throw some wine in there too. Why not?
            5) Put lid back on

            H-9 – throw prepped food into slow cooker, turn it on, go to work

            I prep the stuff in the pot and then put the pot into the fridge. Saved you a step, pretty much!

            H hour – serve dinner from slow cooker

            Another criticism that applies to any meal, from the slow cooker to the grill to removing burgers from the McDonald’s bag.

            I’m down with the pressure cooker allowing for a 45 minute meal to taste like a 10 hour meal, but if you want 5 liters of food to get you through the week?

            Crock-pot it.Report

            • dragonfrog in reply to Jaybird says:

              The criticism is not so much of the slow cooker, but of our inability to plan our week in advance – a slow cooker is a great labour saver, if you’re organized enough to take advantage of its capabilities.

              So, for example,
              H-34 – decide over breakfast what’s for dinner tomorrow
              It’s not that it happens over breakfast, it’s that it requires thinking about dinner at least 34 hours into the future. At breakfast I’m doing well if I can figure out where I left my gloves last night.

              Usually, I buy groceries almost every day on the way home from work for the dinner we will be eating in a couple of hours. Generally I’ll get a few things not for immediate use, which will build up in the fridge until there is enough for a whole nother dinner, so I can skip grocery shopping once, maybe twice a week.

              I realize that I’m generating more work for myself this way – I could make fewer trips to the grocery store if I could plan out a week’s menu in advance and do one big shop plus a top-up mid week for fresh produce. But I’m so very far from the kind of organization that would enable me to use a slow cooker to its full potential.Report

            • Kazzy in reply to Jaybird says:

              FWIW, I didn’t read @dragonfrog as offering a criticism of your approach as much as his (his, yes?) acknowledgement that such an approach is not well-suited to his lifestyle/wiring/whatever.Report

          • Kim in reply to dragonfrog says:

            I love my pressure cooker!
            And when I make chicken, that’s food enough for two weeks. (two chickens)Report

          • Hoosegow Flask in reply to dragonfrog says:

            Most use I’ve gotten from our slow cooker was when I was made freezer meals (there are a ton of recipes online). Do a ton of prep on the weekends and put everything into gallon bags and stick them in the freezer. The night before you want to use one, put it in the fridge, then stick it in the cooker in the morning before work.

            I just got a pressure cooker, but haven’t used it yet. I probably will this weekend.Report

    • Kazzy in reply to LeeEsq says:

      “There has always been a certain strain in American business culture that hated lunch and saw it as drain on productivity though.”


    • Saul Degraw in reply to LeeEsq says:


      I’ve been rather hard on soylent since the product came out. I find the concept of trying to disrupt and destroy the concept of eating to be immoral and horrifying but I like taste. People who defended soylent try to ask friendly questions like “Hasn’t there been a time when you have just been really into a project and you know you need to eat but don’t want to step away for a meal because it disrupts the work/project?”

      My answer to this is always no. I don’t know what this says about me or not.

      FWIW, it is usually engineer/techie types who claim that they get really into a project and don’t want to step away. I like clearing my brain.Report

      • Kim in reply to Saul Degraw says:

        I like clearing my brain, too. But there are times whenyou’re doing fiddly bits and if you step away you WILL have double the work.

        Getting so caught up in a project that you don’t want to step away is a GREAT way to lose weight, btw.Report

      • Kazzy in reply to Saul Degraw says:

        Immoral? How???Report

        • LeeEsq in reply to Kazzy says:

          Well, the inventor of Soylent argues that taking time to prepare and/or eat meals is just a waste and completely unproductive and that his Soylent product will free people of this great evil. It can seem as a way to take away people’s one break during the work day to get every last bit of labor out of them. That sort of exploitation is perceived as immoral by many.Report

          • Kazzy in reply to LeeEsq says:

            Wait… I’m confused… is anyone being compelled to eat Soylent? No? Okay then.

            This would be like arguing that the automobile is immoral because it stopped people from taking leisurely strolls and converted that time into additional working hours.

            You made the claim above about attempts to do away with lunch and when I asked for a cite, you offered none. If you are going to make the argument that an inventor creating a product aimed at offering convenience to those who feel inconvenienced by its alternatives is immoral because he is part of some greater effort to exploit laborers through the elimination of lunch… you’re going to need to connect those dots a bit more than you have here.Report

      • LeeEsq in reply to Saul Degraw says:

        I could see very creative types getting into Soylent to, especially during the time right before or during a performance.Report

      • The actual statement is that you’ve filled your head with what you need to make progress, and any interruption means you’ll have to spend time rebuilding that state to get back to where you are now. This is a real thing, not an affectation.Report

    • James K in reply to LeeEsq says:


      I think it depends on whether Soylent is trying to to me a mass market product or a niche market one. Some people aren’t interested in eating as an aesthetic experience and may find a full meal replacement useful. But I agree most people aren’t going to be interested.Report

  4. notme says:

    Federal Court Rules Uber, Lyft Can Be Regulated Differently From Taxis

  5. Jaybird says:

    How’s about that Bob Dylan?Report

  6. Jaybird says:

    Good news, everyone. The UNESCO has backed a motion nullifying Jewish claims to a historical connection to the Temple Mount.

    Unfortunately, I can’t find an unbiased article discussing this so here’s one from Haaretz.Report

    • Will Truman in reply to Jaybird says:

      Jerusalem Post has one that’s going up on LF tomorrow.Report

    • J_A in reply to Jaybird says:

      I read the resolution. I didn’t find it that terrible.

      For a start it doesn’t nullify any claims about a historical connection of Judaism to the Temple Mount. Nor does it say that only Islam has a claim to the Temple Mount

      It talks almost exclusively about the Mosques at the top of the Temple Mount, which are undoubtedly a Muslim Holy Site of the first order; about the access routes to the Mosques; and about the restrictions that have been placed once an again to accessing the Mosques. I don’t think anybody can deny that, since the second Intifada, there’s been on and off restrictions for Palestinians to access the Temple Mount Mosques for Friday prayers. Whether those restrictions are or nor justified for security reasons, the fact that they have happened frequently is not disputed.

      The most relevant paragraphs are:

      7. Calls on Israel, the occupying Power, to allow for the restoration of the historic status quo that prevailed until September 2000, under which the Jordanian Awqaf (Religious Foundation) Department exercised exclusive authority on Al-Aq?a Mosque/Al-?aram AlSharif(*), and its mandate extended to all affairs relating to the unimpeded administration of AlAq?a Mosque/Al-?aram Al-Sharif, including maintenance, restoration and regulating access;

      (*) Note from J_A: The Noble Sanctuary, the complex on top of the Temple Mount.

      8. Strongly condemns the escalating Israeli aggressions and illegal measures against the Awqaf Department and its personnel, and against the freedom of worship and Muslims’ access to their Holy Site Al-Aq?a Mosque/Al-?aram Al-Sharif, and requests Israel, the occupying Power, to respect the historic status quo and to immediately stop these measures;

      9. Firmly deplores the continuous storming of Al-Aq?a Mosque/Al-?aram Al-Sharif by Israeli right-wing extremists and uniformed forces, and urges Israel, the occupying Power, to take necessary measures to prevent provocative abuses that violate the sanctity and integrity of Al-Aq?a Mosque/Al-?aram Al-Sharif;

      10. Deeply decries the continuous Israeli aggressions against civilians including Islamic religious figures and priests, decries the forceful entering into the different mosques and historic buildings inside Al-Aq?a Mosque/Al-?aram Al-Sharifby different Israeli employees including the so-called “Israeli Antiquities” officials, and arrests and injuries among Muslim worshippers and Jordanian Awqaf guards in Al-Aq?a Mosque/Al-?aram Al-Sharif by the Israeli forces, and urges Israel, the occupying Power, to end these aggressions and abuses which inflame the tension on the ground and between faiths;

      11. Disapproves of the Israeli restriction of access to Al-Aq?a Mosque/Al-?aram Al-Sharif during the 2015 Eid Al-Adha and the subsequent violence, and calls on Israel, the occupying Power, to stop all violations against Al-Aq?a Mosque/Al-?aram Al-Sharif;

      12. Deeply regrets the refusal of Israel to grant visas to UNESCO experts in charge of the UNESCO project at the Centre of Islamic Manuscripts in Al-Aq?a Mosque/Al-?aram AlSharif, and requests Israel to grant visas to UNESCO experts without restrictions;

      13. Regrets the damage caused by the Israeli Forces, especially since 23 August 2015, to the historic gates and windows of the al-Qibli Mosque inside Al-Aq?a Mosque/Al-?aram AlSharif, and reaffirms, in this regard, the obligation of Israel to respect the integrity, authenticity and cultural heritage of Al-Aq?a Mosque/Al-?aram Al-Sharif, as reflected in the historic status quo, as a Muslim holy site of worship and as an integral part of a world cultural heritage site;

      14. Expresses its deep concern over the Israeli closure and ban of the renovation of the AlRahma Gate building, one of the Al-Aq?a Mosque/Al-?aram Al-Sharif gates, and urges Israel, the occupying Power, to reopen the Gate, and stop obstruction of the necessary restoration works, in order to repair the damage caused by the weather conditions, especially the water leakage into the rooms of the building;

      15. Also calls on Israel, the occupying Power, to stop the obstruction of the immediate execution of all the 18 Hashemite restoration projects in and around Al-Aq?a Mosque/Al-?aram AlSharif;Report

      • LeeEsq in reply to J_A says:

        Oh, please. The passage is deeply offensive because Muslims see Jews worshiping at our holy sites without seeking their permission and groveling before them to be deeply aggressive. They have repeatedly stated that they are to be in control and the Jews are to have whatever worship rights at our holy places that they deem us to have. This includes the Western Wall. The position of the Muslim world has been that there is no connection between Jews and the Temple Mount since 1948, which is how they justified excluded us from the Western Wall from 1948 to 1967 even though that violated the ceasefire treaties.Report

        • Kazzy in reply to LeeEsq says:

          Which passage?Report

          • LeeEsq in reply to Kazzy says:

            See link bellow.Report

            • Kazzy in reply to LeeEsq says:

              You mean the passing of the resolution? Okay. I assumed you meant a “passage” of the text.

              Do you care to refute @j_a ‘s analysis? I’m not saying he is correct but given that he clearly read the resolution and offered a partial point-by-point defense of it, offering the same to counter seems reasonable.Report

        • J_A in reply to LeeEsq says:

          The first part of the Resolution (par. 7) is to restore the management of the Mosques to what they were until the yeR 2000. 2000 was 33 years after the Israeli Occupation. For 33 years the Israeli government were satisfied with a certain arrangement, and then they changed it

          I don’t know why it was changed, how it works now, and if it’s better or not that it was changed, but the Resolution is asking for something Israel was willing to do for 33 years. Are you telling us that Jews didn’t have worshiping rights until the year 2000?Report

          • Pillsy in reply to J_A says:

            The objections seem to be much more to the wording of the resolution than what it’s proposing, FWIW.Report

          • j r in reply to J_A says:

            You guys are probably talking past each other. I read @leeesq as interpreting this resolution within a larger fight over the Temple Mount and East Jerusalem.

            I do not know enough about the situation to have an opinion one way or the other, but it is certainly plausible that this could be a carefully worded, banal-sounding resolution meant to advance the larger goal of de-legitimizing Jewish/Israeli claims over the Temple Mount and Jerusalem more broadly.Report

            • Stillwater in reply to j r says:

              this could be a carefully worded, banal-sounding resolution meant to advance the larger goal of de-legitimizing Jewish/Israeli claims …

              The word “could” is doing a really impressive amount of heavy-duty work in that sentence, I gotta say. Like, impossible to refute type work.Report

              • j r in reply to Stillwater says:

                What I am saying is completely falsifiable. And as I said, I’m not weighing-in on either side. I’m just pointing out that you guys and Lee are talking past each other.

                A bit of background on the history of access to the Temple Mount along with some understanding of how the resolution came to be proposed, who proposed it, and how it was lobbied for would do a great deal in establishing whether this is merely about trying to preserve Muslim access to holy sites or is part of a larger move to legitimize the Israeli claim to East Jerusalem.

                The other possibility is that it is both. Israel-Palestine is a true quagmire. There really are very few moves that either side can make that cannot be simultaneously defended as necessary and defensive or derided as aggressive and offensive. It is Crips and Bloods.Report

              • J_A in reply to j r says:

                Besides very specific requests, like visas, or restoring a damage door, or a leaky roof, the Resolution requests the Mosques area administration to go back to the 2000 status quo.

                And, not having been there, I don’t know how significant it is, but the Resolution refers only to the Mosques area on top, not to the whole of the Temple Mount.

                So yes, it might be that the Resoltion is sneaking something in, or it might be that opponents to the Resolution are sneaking something in. But, bear in mind, the Haaretz description didn’t match the plain language of the Resolution itself.

                Because the Haaretz description sounded too strident, even for UNESCO, I read the Resolution, and found it quite banal, except for the part about returning to the 2000 status, which is, of course, after only 33 years of Israeli administration.Report

          • Autolukos in reply to J_A says:

            Non-Muslims are currently banned from praying on the mountReport

            • J_A in reply to Mike Schilling says:

              Are these changes the best response to the Second Intifada?

              Did the up to the year 2000 status caused the Second Intifada?

              Note: These are rhetorical questions, up to a point. I won’t derail this sub thread to discuss the Israeli Palestinian issue, but just saying “but Second Intifada” doesn’t explain anything. You might as well say “but [Hillary]/[Trump]”Report

            • j r in reply to Mike Schilling says:

              There is something in that Wikipedia article that I’ve noticed elsewhere. Pictures of Israeli soldiers often picture black or Arab Israelis quite prominently. Do they make up that big a percentage of the IDF or is this like big companies or universities that put all their brown people in the brochure?Report

        • Stillwater in reply to LeeEsq says:

          They have repeatedly stated that they are to be in control and the Jews are to have whatever worship rights at our holy places that they deem us to have. This includes the Western Wall.

          I read the resolution and saw two references to the Western Wall: two of them referring to various development projects around the wall and one about the removal of Muslim remains at the site. I didn’t see anything about denying a Jewish connection to the Western Wall. Did I miss something?Report

    • LeeEsq in reply to Jaybird says:

      Tablet has more. Moynihan was right. The United Nation is the third world dictator’s debating society. People wonder why Jews in and out of Israel don’t take United Nations resolutions against Israel that seriously. This is why.Report

  7. Dand says:

    What does it take to make the left defend Wall Street? Trump denouncing it. Report

    • greginak in reply to Dand says:

      That wasn’t a defense of wall street. It was noting Trumpy’s use of old school anti- semitic lines. Marshall wasn’t subtle at all. It was about the anti-semitism.Report

      • Dand in reply to greginak says:

        So now criticizing the economic elites is anti-Semitic?

        How does one criticize the globalist economic elites without being anti-Semitic?Report

        • greginak in reply to Dand says:

          Oh lord no….i love me some bashing on the economic elites…good stuff. Nevertheless shadowy international conspiracies of bankers to impoverish everybody are old school anti semitic tropes. That stuff has been around for many decades. What Marshall directly said was

          “Whatever Trump is thinking or means, the white nationalists and neo-Nazis he’s activated will hear his speech with glee because he’s channeling text book anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, with all the code words and emotional tenor.”

          That is his point. Not a desire to avoid criticizing wall street but how trump’s remarks can very easily read and will be read by a block of his supporters.Report

          • Dand in reply to greginak says:

            But the banks are international and they do conspire with each other to screw over the rest of us.Report

            • greginak in reply to Dand says:

              You aren’t responding to or hearing Marshall’s point. Not at all.Report

              • Dand in reply to greginak says:

                What Marshal ignores is that the vast majority of bankers are not Jewish.

                His point is that’s it’s bigoted to talk about international bankers conspiracies, since international bankers conspiracies acutely exist how are we supposed to talk about them?Report

              • Pillsy in reply to Dand says:

                By not cribbing your complaints out of Protocols of the Elders of Zion? It’s not actually hard; lots of people do it all the time.Report

              • Dand in reply to Pillsy says:

                How do you suggest talking about international bankers conspiring against the people with it it appearing anti-Semitic?Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Dand says:

                Have you like, actually heard of this group called The Left, that does that very thing?

                If Jacobin or Mother Jones are a bit too strong for your taste, you could start with ex-rightys, guys like John Cole or Charles Johnson (the good one, not that other one), and work your way up from there.

                I’m serious here; what with your use of “proles” and class rage, you sound like a classic leftist, to the degree that in previous eras you would have an FBI dossier.

                I just wonder what it is about the actual left you find objectionable.Report

              • Kolohe in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                So we are saying it’s not the ideas that are bad, it’s the words, correct?Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Kolohe says:

                Eh what?
                I’m not sure how you got that from what I wrote.Report

              • Dand in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                I’ve spent too much time around actual liberals and as a result I know how they feel about actual working class people. They think that since they support policies that they believe benefit the working people that they can then look down their nose at them and treat them poorly.

                I don’t believe that the contemporary (post 1972) left is a working class movement it’s a movement of the cultural elites or what Schumpeter called the “New Class”; they are comparably less well off than the economic elites so they want the reduce the economic elites welth but they look down their noses at actual working people and are mostly interested in advancing their own status and power. The right has still been the party of the economic elites, but I think the post Trump Republican party has the potential to be a populist party that is skeptical of both the cultural and economic elites.Report

              • Dand in reply to Dand says:


                And the New Class thinks that the working class should good little foot soldiers in the fight against the Capitalist Class and get extremely angry when the working class as has a mind of it’s own.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Dand says:

                I do get it, that this is a very personal thing for you.
                It is infuriating when people look down at us and exclude us. No one can stand that for very long.

                I’m just wondering if you look beyond the Malibu liberal set, at which political movements are actually doing what, rather than the assholes within them.

                I mean, wouldn’t you consider Elizabeth Warren to be a friend of the working class, with what she is doing in the Senate, and her advocacy of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau?

                And aren’t there liberal groups who actually lobby for things like the EITC that actually, demonstrably, put money in working people’s pockets?

                Not to mention the whole minimum wage issue, and OSHA protections for workers in dangerous occupations?

                Aside from sending the yuppies to FEMA camps, what would a Dandotopia world look like?Report

              • Pillsy in reply to Dand says:

                Have you actually read or heard what Trump said yet? This piece, unlike Marshall’s, quotes it at length.Report

              • Dand in reply to Dand says:

                People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.

                Was Adam Smith cribbing from Protocols of the Elders of Zion?Report

              • greginak in reply to Dand says:

                Well drop the secret cabal/conspiracy stuff for one. What wall street has done was not done in secret at all. They have openly lobbied for what they have got. They didn’t need some international cabal. They asked for much less regs and got it. Mostly they asked for easy treatment from R’s and got it. Not just R’s, there have been WS friendly D’s. But then again, like her or not, its a D like Warren who has been pushing for harsher treatment for WS. R’s fought for WS interests after the crash when D’s wanted far more regs. All that was in the open, nothing hidden.

                It’s not a secret conspiracy if it’s what they openly and publicly lobby for.Report

              • Dand in reply to greginak says:

                If that’s how they behave openly imagine how they behave behind closed doors.Report

          • Chip Daniels in reply to greginak says:

            Aaand its stuff like this that gives me pause in mid-chant of “Jump You Fuckers!” at my daily rousing of the proletarian rabble.

            I like this part:
            It’s possible these are simply the tropes and storylines of international Jewish conspiracies repurposed with the Jews removed from the picture. But it hardly matters. The substrate of traditional anti-Semitism is just as toxic as what grows from it. These are the kinds of conspiratorial, revanchist fantasies that spur violence and attacks on the mundane ordinariness of democracy itself.”

            It isn’t even the Jewish angle thats important; even with all the Zionist references snipped out, the dark rage and revanchist worldview is what destroys our society, and can pivot on a dime from Jews to Mexicans to Muslims or anyone really.

            It reminds me of that Twilight Zone episode where the lights go on and off , and the terrified neighbors turn on each other.

            And as much as I joke about being a raging leftist, its disconcerting to see this, to see how easily and effortlessly a claim of injustice against the rich can pivot to be a broad swipe against whatever group happens to be unpopular with the mob.Report