Saturday, October 16, 2021

Larry Summers on Inflation Risk

Larry Summers, Democratic Party stalwart and currently Harvard professor, does not have a political reason for criticizing the Federal Reserve.

This means, when he attacks the current Fed for its new wokeness we sit up and notice. Summers says that the central bank is failing to control the money supply and is contributing mightily to America’s inflation. In truth, this is not the first time he has sounded this alarm.

Thus, credit to Larry Summers. Credit where credit is due. The Daily Caller has the story:

Former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers on Thursday blasted the Federal Reserve and other central banks for not addressing the growing threat of inflation, instead focusing on maximum employment and social issues like climate change.

Summers told attendees at a virtual conference held by the Institute of International Finance that arguments by the Federal Reserve downplaying the long-term risk of inflation are similar to those made by former Federal Reserve chairs like Arthur Burns and G. William Miller, who presided over the 1970s inflation crisis.

The problem lies in the Fed’s current embrace of wokeness. It does not want to limit its responsibilities to the money supply and inflation, but it wants to be fighting climate change. Are these people deranged, or not? 

Leading a shift that will stoke serious inflation is Fed governor Lael Brainard. One notes that she is at the top of every progressive’s list of candidates to replace current Fed chairman Jerome Powell. So, we might say that she is promoting her candidacy by sucking up to the radical left in the Democratic Party.

It is also useful to recognize that the climate change hysteria is currently working to destroy the value of American currency. 

The Daily Caller reports:

Federal Reserve policy makers announced a more inclusive approach to measuring employment in 2020, going beyond the minimum unemployment rate. The bank has also pledged to keep its near-zero benchmark interest rate even as inflation continues to grow, citing its commitment to expanding the labor market.

Central banks around the world are also focusing more on social issues like climate change. Federal Reserve Governor Lael Brainard, for example, said earlier in October that financial regulators should tell banks how to tackle climate change as a way to monitor threats to the overall financial system.

“We have a generation of central bankers who are defining themselves by their wokeness,” Summers warned. “They’re defining themselves by how socially concerned they are.”

The worse the inflation gets the more drastic the measures that the Fed will need to institute to get it under control. Remember Paul Volcker and the early eighties when he had to raise interest rates to the sky in order to get inflation under control. 

But Summers said the Federal Reserve and other central banks haven’t done enough to prepare investors for the measures policy makers will likely have to take in order to reduce inflation.

“If those actions come, they’re going to be very shocking and very painful in financial markets,” he said, according to Bloomberg.

The Fuckability Quotient

I am at a slight disadvantage here, because I did not see the Amy Schumer sketch in question. A reporter from the Guardian asks filmmaker Nicole Holofcener whether she thinks that Hollywood has changed its attitude toward women.

The question goes thusly:

I absolutely loved the Amy Schumer sketch [Last Fuckable Day, which Holofcener directed]. Do you think Hollywood has changed in its attitudes to women in the five years since it came out, especially after #MeToo? If not, what do you think ought to change immediately? 

For all I know the Schumer pic involved the question of Botox, especially the number of women of a certain age whose faces no longer move. Or better, whose faces express no emotion and have no character lines.

In any case, Holofcener does not respond to the #MeToo question, but pivots to what women have been doing to their faces. Again, the answer is not overly clear, but she seems to be suggesting that women indulge their Botox obsession because they want to be more fuckable. 

I think it’s almost getting worse, because anybody over 50 has distorted their own face so badly. I can’t even find a list of actors that haven’t done anything to their faces, because we’re deemed not fuckable. It’s still absolutely prevalent in Hollywood and elsewhere.

Actually, it’s prevalent everywhere. I hesitate before blaming it on the male gaze, because do you really believe that Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, a woman whose face has not moved in a decade, does it because she wants to be more fuckable? After all, she is a politician and she must believe that the numb face look projects well on television. In truth, it's hideous, but no one seems to be aware.

Might it be that the women who adopt this mask are really saying that they do not want to be fuckable? Put that one in your pipe and puff on it.

Friday, October 15, 2021

The Great American Cultural Revolution

Of course, the Great American Cultural Revolution did not begin yesterday. In truth, I called it such a quarter century ago.

Recently, things have taken a turn for the worse. The ongoing cultural revolution has come out of the shadows and into the light. It has metastasized, extending from the academy to the media to the bureaucracy, even to the corporate boardroom.

Now, the highly esteemed Bari Weiss-- she who was driven out of the New York Times for wrongthink, but who has parlayed her resignation into a new lease on independent journalism via Substack-- has written an interesting essay for Commentary on the ongoing woke revolution.

Her diagnosis, made more relevant by the current court martial of Lt. Col. Stuart Scheller, is that America is suffering from a courage deficit. Better yet, it and its major institutions have succumbed to rank cowardice. Calling out leadership failure, calling out leaders for failing to take responsibility for their own actions, is worthy of a court martial.

In truth, and by the by, a quarter century ago I denounced the leaders of our failed war in Vietnam for the same reason. As I put it then, “no one ever apologized for Vietnam.” I thought it mattered then. I think it matters now.

When your leaders can never admit to failure, but are concerned mainly with what they can get away with, and when they punish those who hold them to account, they are undermining the moral basis for leadership-- namely the willingness to take responsibility for failure. And that means, not to shift the blame to the troops. 

Because if the leaders did not fail, then by implication the troop failed their leaders. At that point, you demotivate the troops and declare that your moral compass is guided by what you can get away with, not by what will keep your troops battle ready.

Anyway, this leadership failure diminishes honor and dignity. More than that it manifests a failure of courage. It would have taken courage for the leaders of the Vietnam War to step forward and to take responsibility for their failures. That would have begun with the best and the brightest from the Kennedy and Johnson administrations. And it would have taken courage for the leaders of Joe Biden’s Afghanistan withdrawal debacle to step up and to take responsibility. Surely, it was a sign of gross cowardice that these same leaders, rather than taking responsibility, threw an officer in the brig for the thought crime of wanting to hold them accountable, of calling out their dereliction of duty.

As we know, only too well, on D-Day, the commanding allied general, Dwight Eisenhower, had already written a message that he would have delivered had the operation failed. In it he took sole responsibility for failure and absolved his troops of any blame.

It would have been courageous. Ike would have done it. Today’s American leaders are not made of such stern stuff.

Anyway, Weiss declares that America undergoing a cultural revolution because its leaders are cowards. That does not merely involve government officials; it does not just involve academics and media executives; it also involves corporate poobahs who refuse to stand up against the current woke revolution.

For the record, and to add a point that Weiss does not consider, the cowardice made manifest these days across America is a sign of terminal decadence. After all, the American left rushed out to defend serial sexual harasser Bill Clinton, the better to keep him as the symbol of America. An America that could not hold Bill Clinton accountable for raping a woman is an America that has lost the name of courage.

But, it is all in for sexual pleasure. And it is all in for making a public spectacle of one’s sexual proclivities and even one’s sexual conquests. It means, as I also argued way back when, that we have lost our sense of shame, and that means, that we have lost our sense of honor. 

It may feel like a stretch to go from shamelessness to dishonor, but we are dealing effectively with two sides of the same coin. On the one hand a coward’s sole purpose is to preserve his own pleasurable sensations. A man or a woman of honor thinks first of the good of the group and thinks second about personal pleasure. Surely, a man of honor does not make a public spectacle of his sexual prowess-- as did Bill Clinton.

The result has been what Nietzsche called a transvaluation of values-- though the transvaluation in question would have been applauded by everyone’s favorite syphilitic philosopher.

The issues, Weiss explains, no longer involve ideas. They no longer involve the exchange of ideas in the marketplace of ideas. The current leaders of our cultural revolution are not smart enough to debate ideas. They only care about the identity of the individual who is offering the ideas. And they love or hate different ideas on the basis of the ethnic or racial identity of the person who is offering them. 

If it does not it should remind us of Nazi bookburning. The sole basis for burning certain books was the ethnic identity of the author. What was in the books was of no consequence.

Weiss explains:

And in so doing, persuasion—the purpose of argument—is replaced with public shaming. Moral complexity is replaced with moral certainty. Facts are replaced with feelings.

Ideas are replaced with identity. Forgiveness is replaced with punishment. Debate is replaced with de-platforming. Diversity is replaced with homogeneity of thought. Inclusion, with exclusion.

In this ideology, speech is violence. But violence, when carried out by the right people in pursuit of a just cause, is not violence at all. In this ideology, bullying is wrong, unless you are bullying the right people, in which case it’s very, very good. In this ideology, education is not about teaching people how to think, it’s about reeducating them in what to think. In this ideology, the need to feel safe trumps the need to speak truthfully.

In this ideology, the equality of opportunity is replaced with equality of outcome as a measure of fairness. If everyone doesn’t finish the race at the same time, the course must have been defective. Thus, the argument to get rid of the SAT. Or the admissions tests for public schools like Stuyvesant in New York or Lowell in San Francisco.

And, of course, the Great American Cultural Revolution is a religious revival movement, conducted by people who believe that they are so enlightened that they have escaped the superstitions and dogmas of organized religion. It is a colossal cultural irony, to the effect that anyone who does not believe the right beliefs is now considered a heretic. The inquisition is back; the witch hunts are back. 

Most important: In this revolution, skeptics of any part of this radical ideology are recast as heretics. Those who do not abide by every single aspect of its creed are tarnished as bigots, subjected to boycotts and their work to political litmus tests. The Enlightenment, as the critic Edward Rothstein has put it, has been replaced by the exorcism.

What we call “cancel culture” is really the justice system of this revolution. And the goal of the cancellations is not merely to punish the person being cancelled. The goal is to send a message to everyone else: Step out of line and you are next.

Weiss allows that the cause of the problems lies in America’s shredded social fabric. One might disagree slightly and say that the cause lies in the fact that patriotism has been severely undermined by certain presidents and certain social movements that hate the country-- but that is another way of saying the same thing. And it has been undermined by certain groups that want to remove all the counterrevolutionaries from the American military and who consider their fellow citizens to be domestic terrorists:

All of this has taken place against the backdrop of major changes in American life—the tearing apart of our social fabric; the loss of religion and the decline of civic organizations; the opioid crisis; the collapse of American industries; the rise of big tech; successive financial crises; a toxic public discourse; crushing student debt. An epidemic of loneliness. A crisis of meaning. A pandemic of distrust. It has taken place against the backdrop of the American dream’s decline into what feels like a punchline, the inequalities of our supposedly fair, liberal meritocracy clearly rigged in favor of some people and against others. And so on.

Weiss concludes that the most apt term for America’s current moral failing is cowardice:

But there is one word we should linger on, because every moment of radical victory turned on it. The word is cowardice.

The revolution has been met with almost no resistance by those who have the title CEO or leader or president or principal in front of their names. 

The refusal of the adults in the room to speak the truth, their refusal to say no to efforts to undermine the mission of their institutions, their fear of being called a bad name and that fear trumping their responsibility—that is how we got here.

Sad to say, as Lt. Col. Scheller is now seeing, the problem goes well beyond the fear of being called a bad name. The powers that be refuse to forgive heresy. They are not quite ready to burn people at the stake, but they are close enough.

Thursday, October 14, 2021

Indigenous Savages

How did we miss this? In truth, we did not all miss this. Only some of us did. In some American precincts Monday was pronounced to be Indigenous Peoples’ Day. Heck, our mentally challenged and thoroughly incompetent vice president, that would be Kamala Harris, even chose the moment to denounce the horrors that white people had visited on these people of color, centuries ago.

Happily, or unhappily enough, Francis Menton, proprietor of the Manhattan Contrarian blog, looked up the historical record. (via Maggie’s Farm) Apparently, these noble savages were more savage than noble. 

So, Menton begins by quoting Joe Biden’s presidential proclamation about Indigenous Peoples’ Day. Because that was just what the country was missing:

Now this year for the first time, a U.S. President has recognized Indigenous Peoples’ Day with a Proclamation. Here are a few of the stirring words:

Since time immemorial, American Indians, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians have built vibrant and diverse cultures — safeguarding land, language, spirit, knowledge, and tradition across the generations. On Indigenous Peoples’ Day, our Nation celebrates the invaluable contributions and resilience of Indigenous peoples. . . .

Stirred, but not shaken… hmmm.

So, Menton picked up a copy of a work written by Francis Parkman, he of Harvard University, in the nineteenth century. 

I thought I would find a few choice passages from one of my favorite history books, France and England in North America. This multi-thousand-page opus was written by Harvard historian Francis Parkman over the course of several decades in the nineteenth century. Among many other things, It contains several hundred pages sourced from accounts written by French Jesuit missionaries about their experiences in the first half of the seventeenth century, upon encountering and living among the native tribes of what are now upstate New York and Eastern Canada.

What does Parkman tell us?

The salient fact is that the tribes were engaged in ongoing and endless wars of extermination against each other, waged in the most brutal possible way with the weapons available. 

For instance, Menton quotes Parkman’s description of the vibrant and diverse indigenous cultures:

A band of Algonquins, late in the autumn of 1641, set forth from Three Rivers [then a tiny French outpost in what is now Quebec] on their winter hunt, and, fearful of the Iroquois, made their way far northward, into the depths of the forests that border the Ottawa. Here they thought themselves safe, built their lodges, and began to hunt the moose and beaver. But a large party of their enemies, with a persistent ferocity that is truly astonishing, had penetrated even here, found the traces of the snow-shoes, followed up their human prey, and hid at nightfall among the rocks and thickets around the encampment. At midnight, their yells and the blows of their war-clubs awakened their sleeping victims. In a few minutes all were in their power. They bound the prisoners hand and foot, rekindled the fire, slung the kettles, cut the bodies of the slain to pieces, and boiled and devoured them before the eyes of the wretched survivors.

The Iroquois were not finished:

The Iroquois with their captives then began a march home of well over a hundred miles. Here’s an account of one event along the way:

[A]fter a short rest, [the conquerors] began their march homeward with their prisoners. Among these were three women, of whom the narrator was one, who had each a child of a few weeks or months old. At the first halt, their captors took the infants from them, tied them to wooden spits, placed them to die slowly before a fire, and feasted on them before the eyes of the agonized mothers, whose shrieks, supplications, and frantic efforts to break the cords that bound them were met with mockery and laughter.

And also:

[T]hey entered the town, leading the captive Algonquins, fast bound, and surrounded by a crowd of men, women, and children, all singing at the top of their throats. . . . On the following morning, [the prisoners] were placed on a large scaffold, in sight of the whole population. It was a gala-day. Young and old were gathered from far and near. Some mounted the scaffold, and scorched them with torches and firebrands; while the children, standing beneath the bark platform, applied fire to the feet of the prisoners between the crevices. The Algonquin women were told to burn their husbands and companions; and one of them obeyed, vainly thinking to appease her tormentors. The stoicism of one of the warriors enraged his captors beyond measure. “Scream! why don’t you scream?” they cried, thrusting their burning brands at his naked body. “Look at me,” he answered; “you cannot make me wince. If you were in my place, you would screech like babies.” At this they fell upon him with redoubled fury, till their knives and firebrands left in him no semblance of humanity. He was defiant to the last, and when death came to his relief, they tore out his heart and devoured it; then hacked him in pieces, and made their feast of triumph on his mangled limbs.

A few facts that put the lie to efforts to portray these indigenous people as noble savages.

Organized Retail Theft

This will brighten up your day; or, maybe it won’t. As the saying goes, policies have consequences. In large cities like San Francisco and even New York, the soft on crime approach to policing and prosecution has produced an explosion of crime. Looting and robbing have gotten out of control. Who would have thunk it?

The result, major retail drug store chains are closing. The woke crime coddlers have produced what they seem to have wanted to produce. Doing business in certain neighborhoods in New York and San Francisco has become too expensive. 

So, naturally, residents of poorer neighborhoods now find themselves lacking drug stores. Then again, one assumes that they voted for the politicians who have visited these disastrous policies on them, so one’s outrage is mitigated. In a democratic political system, you have every right to vote against your own self-interest. And no one is going to shed a tear.

The New York Post reports on what has now been dubbed: “organized retail crime:”

Walgreens is closing five more San Francisco locations as drug stores from the Bay Area to the Big Apple are besieged by rampant shoplifting and lax enforcement.

San Fran shoplifters have been emboldened by a referendum that lowered the penalty for stealing goods worth less than $950 from a felony to a misdemeanor, cops and prosecutors have said.

A spokesperson for the company confirmed the latest closures to SFGate.

“Organized retail crime continues to be a challenge facing retailers across San Francisco, and we are not immune to that,” Walgreens spokesperson Phil Caruso told the outlet.

The companies tried to increase security, to no avail:

“Retail theft across our San Francisco stores has continued to increase in the past few months to five times our chain average. During this time to help combat this issue, we increased our investments in security measures in stores across the city to 46 times our chain average in an effort to provide a safe environment.”

The retailer had previously shuttered 17 stores in San Francisco during the past five years, Fox News reported.

So, Walgreens is leaving San Francisco. It is not quite as momentous as the loss or Tesla or Hewlett Packard or Oracle, but it directly impacts the everyday lives of residents:

A member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors said the new closures will “significantly impact” the community.

“I am completely devastated by this news – this Walgreens is less than a mile from seven schools and has been a staple for seniors, families and children for decades,” Ahsha Safai tweeted Tuesday.

Apparently, New York City has seen the beginnings of a serious problem:

Drug store theft in New York City has spiraled into a similar crisis. Last week, The Post visited a dozen Walgreens, CVS, Duane Reade and Rite Aid locations to find largely barren shelves where staples like tampons, toothpaste, face wash and hand sanitizer should have been stocked.

“They’ve all been stolen,” a CVS employee said.

In San Francisco it’s all about making shoplifting a misdemeanor, but it must also be about the fact that the people running the city, like Mayor London Breed and leftist radical prosecutor Chesa Boudin believe that crime is a form of righteous protest.

Hot Air explained:

Once California effectively decriminalized shoplifting of goods worth less than $950, making the offense a misdemeanor instead of a felony, the welcome mat was rolled out for organized gangs of thieves as well as individual junkies and other shoplifters. Since these are now considered “minor crimes” that don’t warrant bail, gang members and other criminals know that they can loot the stores at will. Store policies prohibit employees from trying to thwart these thefts out of fear of being accused of racism. And even if they do manage to get caught somehow, they will be back out on the street in under an hour, after which most of them will simply ignore their summons to appear in court.

Most of these stores report that insurance companies will no longer cover them against theft. Or if they do, they drive up the insurance premiums so high as to be unaffordable. (This also drives up the cost of everyone else’s insurance as well.) It’s not a sustainable business model when you can no longer expect the public to act in a civilized fashion and pay for their purchases.

In New York City, it's about the bail reform law, which becomes a catch and release program for criminals. 

Police Commissioner Dermot Shea has blamed the shoplifting surge on the state’s “disastrous bail reform law.”

“Insanity,” the top cop tweeted earlier this month in response to a Post exposé about a prolific Queens shoplifter who was arrested 46 times in 2021, only to be released to continue stealing under Albany’s bail reform overhaul.

The city recorded 3,709 retail theft complaints in August, the most the boroughs have ever seen in a single month.

If you want to look at the brighter side, the Bill de Blasio administration will be over and done with early next year. One can only hope that New York's incoming mayor will show some good sense and crack down on crime.

Wednesday, October 13, 2021

More Biden Family Corruption

In truth, I have no expertise into, and even less understanding of tax law. So I will not opine on the matter of Joe and Hunter Biden’s intricate financial arrangements. I do believe that the story just published by The Daily Mail looks like yet another instance of Biden family corruption. 

It will not come as a surprise to many of you. And I trust that the mainstream media will bury the story as quickly as it can. In addition, given the level of corruption made manifest in Merrick Garland’s work at the Justice Department, the chances of Biden family derelictions leading to a just outcome are very slim indeed.

So, here is the opening of the Daily Mail article. The paper has provided the email evidence, for your delectation:

President Joe Biden could become embroiled in an FBI investigation of Hunter's finances, experts say, as emails reveal the father and son shared accounts and paid each other's bills. 

Emails recovered by from Hunter's abandoned laptop between Hunter and Eric Schwerin, his business partner at consultancy Rosemont Seneca, show Schwerin was working on Joe's taxes, discussing the father and son paying each other's household bills, and even fielding requests for a book deal for the then-vice president, as well as managing the donation of Joe's senate papers to the University of Delaware.

It is unclear why Schwerin had this intimate role in the vice president's affairs rather than government officials in the Office of the Vice President.

Hunter's claim that he and his father shared a bank account also raises serious questions whether funds from the alleged joint account were used for Hunter's May 2018 week-long bender with a prostitute in a Hollywood hotel.

Last December, Hunter admitted in a public statement that he was under federal investigation over his tax affairs.

A former federal prosecutor and expert on money laundering and criminal tax law tells that if money was flowing between Hunter and his father, that could make Joe a target of the probe – but that investigators would have a tough time sitting down with the president.

Sally Rooney's Anti-Semitism

I have never read a book by Sally Rooney. Until yesterday I had not even heard of her. Apparently, I have not missed much.

But, Rooney, an Irish novelist of dubious talent, recently made news by refusing to allow her latest book-- I forgot the title-- to be translated into Hebrew. By her dim lights she wanted to make an anti-Israeli statement, in support of the notoriously anti-Semitic Boycott Divestment Sanction movement, an effort by leftist Westerners to destroy the Jewish state.

Being as I have never read Rooney’s books, I needed to find a writer who was sufficiently cranky and caustic to offer a definitive commentary. Naturally, the first name that popped into mind was-- Julie Burchill. She has not only cornered the market in cranky and caustic, but she is a marvelously talented wordsmith.

One remarks that the New York Times is covering the Rooney story. Since it ignored the weekend visit of Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump to Jerusalem to celebrate the success of the Abraham Accords, one can only surmise that it is covering the Rooney question because it is happy to give Rooney a platform where she can defame and malign Israel. And you did not know that the Times has been steeped in anti-Semitism.

Anyway, Burchill has offered up some comments about the latest Sally Rooney kerfuffle in the Spectator.

I recently had to read a book by Sally Rooney in a work capacity, and my goodness that was half an hour of my life I’ll never get back. Come on, how could I be expected to read the whole darn thing when I’d already had the pleasure of Conversations with Friends and come to the conclusion that once you’ve read one book about people getting naked and saying stuff about the pointlessness of life, you’ve read them all?

Her writing is so blank that in parts it reads like a children’s starter book — Janet and John Get Naked and Say Stuff about the Pointlessness of Existence. Rooney describes herself as a Marxist and she doesn’t use speech marks. Is the concept of ‘a plot’ itself a bourgeois construct? Reading Rooney, you might think so.

Burchill describes the Marxist Rooney as Little Miss Sunshine and describes the BDS movement that Rooney so passionately supports:

Little Miss Sunshine is, predictably, a follower of the profoundly joyless and hypocritical Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions movement which appears to believe that a nation’s rough treatment of certain sections of society only counts as a crime against humanity if Israelis do it: about as logical as believing that there are no calories in food if you eat standing up, with the fridge door open.

And yet, two Rooney works have already been translated into Hebrew, which makes her current bigotry less plausible and less rational:

The Israeli publisher Modan translated Rooney’s first two books, making the situation even less straightforward — and more predictable, as boycotting Israel is never done at the start of showbiz careers (whether the moping Marxist miss likes it or not, she is in showbiz after the phenomenon of the TV adaptation of her second novel Normal People). It happens once the artist is established and in the position to pick (on) and choose.

Ah yes, the moping Marxist miss-- a nice turn of phrase.

Apparently, in certain precincts of the international left, cue the Squad and today’s Democratic Party, hating Israel is de rigueur:

Boycotting Israel is also the fashionable position for rich and famous cry-bullies to take to the tiny state, so as to show they’re down wit da kidz. Da kidz, that is, who are amusingly ignorant about this issue: in 2019 a survey of students at the University of Berkeley in California found that while most claimed to ‘care deeply’ about the Palestinian plight, ‘75 per cent of those students cannot locate those territories on a map and 84 per cent cannot name the decade (let alone the year) in which that occupation began,’ the academic Ron Hassner concluded.

Since Israel represents the power of free enterprise and democratic institutions, and since it has been targeted for extinction by various Arab states since it first came into being, Rooney despises it. It's her Marxist duty.

She considers Palestinian terrorists as her heroes, for asserting their rights. As it happens, and to the dismay of people who run the New York Times, the Palestinians forfeited their rights decades ago in one of the world’s most obscene lost causes.

After all, thanks to the Abraham Accords more and more Muslim states are seeing that Israel is the solution, not the problem in the region. As the states that signed the Abraham Accords made clear that they are not going to allow themselves to be dragged into the muck by a lost cause, the little Marxist miss seems to want to make a deeply ideological and idiotic point.

For our edification, Burchill quotes Rooney’s statement:

I understand that not everyone will agree with my decision, but I simply do not feel it would be right for me under the present circumstances to accept a new contract with an Israeli company that does not publicly distance itself from apartheid and support the UN-stipulated rights of the Palestinian people. 

In the meantime I would like to express once again my solidarity with the Palestinian people in their struggle for freedom, justice and equality.’

Everyone with a functioning brain understands that the Palestinian cause is to destroy the state of Israel and, via the Hamas charter, to kill as many Jews as possible in the meantime. Hamas has no interest whatever in freedom, justice or equality. It is a terror state that oppresses women and murders gays.

So, Rooney is virtue signaling. In Julie Burchill she has met her match, and has come out looking like the fool that she is.

Allow Burchill, who has been studying Hebrew herself,  the final word:

Whatever the ins and outs, after two decades of Hebrew study, my conclusion is that Rooney’s banal words are not worthy of this ancient and beautiful language.