All day today, people demanded that Rachel Maddow address the sexual assault charges against Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, and that her guest Michael Moore explain why he'd helped post bail for Assange.
Maddow opened by saying that by their very nature, leaks tend to make us believe them. We'll believe a leak almost because it was leaked, she said, because someone brought information to light that was supposed to be kept secret. And then she turned to the Assange question:
The timing could not be more suspicious. The man accused says he's being pursued for political reasons. But even if you're suspicious about the timing, there are two women who went to the police with what are essentially date-rape charges against this guy.
This doesn't fit on a bumper sticker.
Can your suspicion about the forces arrayed against Julian Assange and Wikileaks -- your suspicion about the timing and pursuit of these charges -- coexist with respect for the women making these accusations against him and with a commitment to take rape allegations seriously, even when the person accused is someone that for other reasons you like?
As you'll see from this rushed clip -- transcript's coming -- Moore said he's concerned that there's a "concerted attempt" to stop Wikileaks and others who are trying to tell the truth about what he calls America's six wars. As for the charges against Assange, Moore noted that he helped start a rape-crisis center in his hometown of Flint, Michigan, and said the charges against Assange should be fully examined.
"Every woman who claims to have been sexually assaulted or raped has to be, must be, taken seriously. Those charges have to be investigated to the fullest extent possible," Moore said. "For too long, and too many women have been abused in our society , because they were not listened to, and they just got shoved aside. . . .So I think these two alleged victims have to be taken seriously and Mr. Assange has to answer the questions."
Second half of the interview's after the jump.
Leave a Comment:
On her second in a series of live broadcasts from the 92nd Street Y in New York City, the world famous icon of Jewish culture, the Young Men's Hebrew Association, Rachel Maddow proved that she didn't know that glorious institution was not a YMCA. It apparently wasn't a goof, it was an outrageous lack of knowledge.
Here's how it happened: Her guest Michael Moore says with appropriate comic chagrin that he considers himself a good Christian. "I hope I can say that here." The audience laughs. Then Maddow says: "Of course you can say it here. This is the YMCA, and the C stands for Christian!"
The emphatic way she said it, the way she obviously didn't get Moore's little witticism, the way she said both Christian and the letter C in one sentence, and the whole thrust of the sentence proves that she had no idea that she is doing her show this week from The Young Men (and women's) Hebrew Association.
(Yes, the same legendary, enormous cultural institution that has hosted such events as Dylan Thomas reading "Under Milkwood" in the '50s.)
All week long, MSNBC is trumpeting the venue as the 92 Street Y, with no mention of the H, or the word Hebrew. Slight anti-Semitism, or just total and massive lack of cultural knowledge? Probably in both Maddow's and MSNBC's cases, it is the latter. But what an ugly thing that stupidity is.
Daniel Gewertz
Somerville MA
This is the YMCA, and the C stands for Christian!
No she didn't. She said "do you want to guess what the C stands for?"
http://www.92y.org/content/frequently_asked_questions.asp
Bleh browser froze. If the 92nd Y was in fact part of the YMCA this would be correct. Don't jump to the conclusion that it's anti-semitism. People believe the 92nd Y is affiliated with the YMCA enough that they had to put it on their FAQ page. Step off, bro.
Daniel ~ If you are, as stated below, a great fan of Ms Maddow's and you view her show with any great regularity, you must admit that she is a highly intelligent individual and about as far from bigoted or biased as one could possibly be. I have to assume that she, like most commentators, relies heavily on support staff to provide the 'intimate' details of many things including physical locations and their histories.
I believe the most she to be guilty of is 'association'; many people, myself included, upon hearing the term "Y" e.g., I stayed at the Y, I'm going to the Y to work out, My venue is at the 92nd St. Y, etc. immediately associate it with the YMCA or YWCA organizations. It is nothing more than a Pavlovian blunder on any of our parts; no slight intended.
I will venture to guess that RM will either Twitter, Blog or make her apologies on tomorrow's broadcast.............as we have all seen previously, she has no problem accepting ownership for her errors or "Debunking" herself.
Thanks, though, for I too learned just this evening that the 92nd Y is the Young Men's/Young Women's Hebrew Association. I like living & learning.
Even though I'm a "staunch Democrat," I've never been a rah-rah Michael Moore fan. He's a little too cooky for my tastes and I really think he's bordering on treason here. I think his 15 minutes are up. I was relieved to see that most of the audience was not applauding him. I am so tired of defending my Democratic beliefs to my Republican friends who hang on the words of Fox News. I want MSNBC to separate themselves from anything other than the truth. I think our country deserves that and I think the first network who embraces that will be at the top...not rocket science!!!
Over the past 10 or 20 years, I've noticed that a lot of organization with faith-based origins are adopting a more 'generic' Public Face, maybe for political correctness, but more likely, to show more inclusivity. The Boy and Girl Scouts, YMCA/YWCA, YMHA/YWHA, Salvation Army, JFCS (Jewish Family and Childrens Services), and many more, don't even display their religious basis prominently on their home webpages, or in their commercials anymore.
Our local JFCS advertises it's services on radio and tv, without metioning the word 'Jewish' or even religion; Most "Y's" call themselves just that - the letter 'Y', the Salvation Army's advertisements requesting volunteers doesn't mention Religion, despite the fact that it IS a Christian denomination (in fact, the World's Largest Army, I believe), and the Boy and Girl Scouts don't mention religion much, if at all.
Although these organizations may have Religious foundations, their goals are generally 'Community Service' or 'Public Service' to ALL, regardless of Religion - I'm not certain whether this is a good or bad thing. The YMCA used to be a place where only Christian Males were welcomed, sort of a 'Guy's Retreat', where males didn't have to worry about offending women, and the YWCA was 'Women Only' where females could exercise and interact with other women, free of male 'Ogling' or other intrusions - Now, they're both 'Whole Family Oriented', as are the YMHA/YWHA - Being exclusive to Males or Females did have some advantages that are becoming harder to find these days, although I am seeing more 'Ladies-Only' Gyms ("Victory Lady" comes to mind).
Ah well, as they say, "The Good Old Days Ain't What They Used To Be....and What's More, They Never Were!".
I'm just amazed out of all of the interviews and what we learned from them your number one complaint is recognition for the building. I don't live in NY and it could have meant 92nd street and Y as far as I know. Now that I know what the building is it still doesn't matter to me. I tuned in to see the interviews not a history of the place they would be held. It's kind of like seeing a concert on TV at the Nutter Center. I bet you don't what the Nutter Center is or care you just want to see the concert.
If the show had given an entire history of that building before the show started. I bet someone would get on here and complain that the carpet used to be blue not green when they replaced it. WHO freaking cares. I'm so sick of people picking at the dumbest things, and losing sight of what really matters. Let it go seriously, life is too short.
As far as Michael Moore. I have always stuck up for him and supported his projects against my Republican friends. I think he is going overboard this time. He may have jumped to quick on this one. He actually bailed the guy out on a rape charge not a wikileaks charge, and he said some stuff that is borderline treason. I still respect what he does, but I am pulling away from this one.
"icon of Jewish culture, the Young Men's Hebrew Association,"
Who knew, Daniel?
But to spin that into "slight anti-semitism" is as far out there as the wing-nuts running around saying that if you say "happy Holidays" you are anti-christian.
Nice bit of trivia. And I agree with Mellow and Chris. All this from one reference on the environment Moore was raised in. I don't share the same faith as Moore, but I'm still wary to share my faith with others, including here. Silly really.
Back to the issue at hand: Did you get her point? Was the intent accurate?
Intent & purpose is often lost when we spend all our time quibbling over nomenclature. It has always been referred to as the "Y" ....as in YMCA, thus, Rachel was correct in her comment. The building is the "Y". The fact that the "Y " may house the Young Men's Hebrew Asso. was really not the point nor was it even relevant. It would have been relevant, only had Rachel, or her guest, in this case Michael Moore, displayed anti-semitic behavior or language, such was not the case.
If all you meant (@Daniel Gewerth) was to enlighten people, then thank you. However, your comment came off as self righteous and arrogant. And that kind of arrogance is akin to stupidity, of which you so loudly bespeak.
daniel - ignorance & stupidity are 2 diff things. TRMS was evidently ignorant re the YMHA...or r u 2 stupid 2 know the diff? merry xmas )
I totally brushed off the YMCA thing as nothing more than a cringeworthy "d'oh!" moment. Although I would like to hear her correct it but ultimately, no biggie. I mean she even SAID she was nervous. It's cool.
But I wanna go all HULKSMASH on the whole "well MY Christian butt never heard of it so it MUST be TOTALLY obscure!" line of thought. Oh, maybe it's a YMCA that rents space to a Jewish organization. Yeah that's it. Argh.
And yet on Monday's show, according to the transcript (and my ears) she said, at the top of the Taibbi interview "And yet, and yet, sometimes, the Senate takes action that even hard-boiled cynics think they are not capable of with 9/11 repeal."
I don't think she's ignorant of the fact that the events of 9/11 can't be repealed. Would that they could - but they can't. And she knows that. Undoubtedly, given the earlier part of the show, and the vote on the weekend, she meant to reference DADT repeal.
She mis-spoke. It happens. Especially when you're doing a live broadcast in front of a thousand people and hundreds of thousands of live viewers and in a new environment and when you're trying to keep an over-stuffed hour of information and conversation with top thinkers all in your head.
I know the 92nd St Y and its great history well, having actually worked there for several years. It's an extraordinary cultural institution - and a heavyweight on the NYC and American cultural landscape. Daniel - you're absolutely right about that. And I might even go so far as to say that its institutional foundation in Jewish culture is not coincidental as far as that goes, making Daniel's point even more relevant.
In fact, it's a point well taken to make the correction, but I agree with the majority of the posters here that to take it to mean anything more significant than a slip-up is a mistake. Yes, clearly the "what do you think the C stands for" comment makes it clear that, in the moment, she was forgetting which "Y" she was in, but she certainly was not forgetting "Y" she was there and what she was there to do. To take it as a mark of ignorance, or a slight, seems an over-reaction. Ignorant and Rachel Maddow are two concepts difficult to hold in one sentence.
I'll be delighted, and unsurprised, if she offers a correction, on-air or online. But hardly offended or disappointed if she does not.
So awesome Rachel addressed the seriousness of all rape charges. But this: "As for the charges against Assange, Moore said he helped start a rape-crisis center in his hometown of Flint, Michigan." What? Those are two separate things: there are rape charges against someone who is not me, so look what I did for rape victims? Very confusing.
Hey, I tweaked that sentence just now. You're right that they're two separate things, and I don't think I relayed Moore's remarks quite right in the first go-around.
I love his passion, but don't always agree with his reasoning. I agree with you, I didn't understand the connection. However, later he stated that there seemed to be a political effort to shut down wikileaks. And I understood him as saying this legit issue was one tool to do that.
Great! It wasn't your phrasing that bothered me, it was that Mr. Moore responded to the treatment of rape victims and charges in our culture and his own complicity in perpetuating that with his as of yet uncorrected statements ridiculing the charges with his past anti-rape activism. As if the two are somehow the same. I totally was not attacking your account of what he said, just his conflation of his two disparate actions in response to Rachel's question. He seemed to not actually answer it.
Thanks magsdiver, for pointing this out.
So true and one of the oldest tricks in the book.
Absolutely! So many people - mainly men - have responded with a similar line... They state that they have worked with survivors of sexual assault, or that they are a feminist, or that they are against rape, or that all allegations of sexual assault must be taken seriously... and then they throw in a "BUT" and proceed to deride the women, make fun of the allegations, or perpetuate myths and stereotypes about rape.
It's like someone starting out a sentence with "I'm not racist BUT..."
Glad folks are calling out Moore on it!
I've watched the whole interview a couple of times now, and in the second half of the interview Moore says (02:46)
It seems pretty clear from that statement that he is not excusing what Mr Assange is accused of in Sweden, but thinks that the issuance of an EU arrest warrant at this time is suspicious.
As far as I know the UK will only agree to extradite if the crime for which the extradition warrant has been issued is also a crime under British law. So for him to be extradited to Sweden it can't be under a nuance in Swedish law that "99% of the western world wouldn't understand as rape". I would like to think that the British judiciary would not be swayed by political goals, however given our desperation to continue the "Special Relationship" between our two countries nothing would surprise me any more.
Micheal Moore was NOT trying to change the subject when it came to the rape charges .....he was merely establishing that these were two separate issues ....1 being the leaks ...2 being the rape charges against Assange.
He was further showing, as he felt it necessary to show/prove rather than merely state, that while he (Michael Moore) was totally behind Assange when it came to the 'leaks' issue, he (Michael Moore) was reframing from comment or judgement on the rape charges because he (Michael Moore) is not privy to any information on those charges and if true (the rape charges) then Mr. Moore would there part ways w/Mr. Assange as Mr. Moore has a strong background of being an ally to women and has done much (and does) to assist rape victims and champion their rights.
Michael Moore has taken the most American of all stands ..... Innocent until proven guilty, but if found guilty, then punishment to the fullest extent!
The point that he was making is proven well by the fact that many here are becoming sidetracted by the rape charges. The timing seems more that suspicious. Now everyone is thinking that Assange is a bad person because he is guilty of rape, when in truth, he has merely been accused, not tried and convicted. It does, however, overshadow the bigger picture, the fact that he has been charged and arrested for the 'leaks'. Moore's point!
What Moore said on Rachel's show last night regarding was a total 180 from what he said on Countdown last week. He felt he knew enough about the charges then to call them "hooey" and claim it was all about a broken condom.
This blog post has a link to the Countdown segment as well as a transcript of the relevant section: http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2010/12/michael-moore-doubles-down-on-rape.html
I think a lot of people taking these allegations seriously also recognize that the diligence with which they are being pursued is politically motivated. but that is no reason to dismiss them. and moore DID dismiss and mischaracterize them.
In the larger context of his previous statements and the criticism he has come under for them and his lack of any sort of acknowledgement that what he said earlier WAS dismissive, starting off with "oh when i was 19 i helped start a rape crisis center" sounds a lot like, as Sandra said above "I'm not a racist but..." or "I have no problem with gay people but..."
Did Moore answer Maddow's question about why he posted Assange's bail? I listened twice more after the initial broadcast and I am not certain that he answered her.
He answered this last week I believe. His reasoning was that Assange was being held without official charges filed. They were holding him for questioning. There really is no good reason to hold someone captive if you just want to ask them questions.
+ 7:15
So if that is the case, why do you suppose that Moore was unable to articulate this reasoning on TRMS tonight? He talked all around the issue without actually addressing what would seem to be a simple explanation, IMO.
Indeed he did-talked all around it nervously, too.
I think Moore stated his reason well when he made referrence to N-berg trials. (If someone sees a wrong/evil committed during times of war, he must speak out.) That someone, the one that speaks out, should not then be further punished, as is the case of the private who has spent 7 mns in soliditary.
It is far better to shine the light on the wrong, in order to correct the situation, than to pretend or ignore the wrong and then justify it as 'national security'. The Nazi's perpetrated their horrors under the guise of 'national security'. We never want to become what we hate .....that was Michael Moore's point.
Another great show. Thanks.
Thank you, Rachel Maddow, for addressing the Mooreandme protest, although not by name. Thank you for discussing this with Mr. Moore.
I appreciate his response. I do. But. When he talks of speaking the truth, I would have liked to hear him say "I have not always spoke the truth, and I am sorry for the dissemination of falsities I encouraged and perpetrated."
Otherwise... it sounded a little hollow to me. But I'll take it - it's better than complete denial.
Thank you, Rachel Maddow, for addressing this very important issue. Thank you.
I was shocked at the comment about the Y being YMCA I gave you much more credit than that. Furthermore, not correcting the mistake before the show ended.
I appreciate that Moore is someone who Rachel respects, and that this blog isn't the place to lodge attacks on his character. But in light of the entire context of the #mooreandme protest, I think the credit here goes more to Rachel for setting a tone before he even walked on stage that rape accusations ALWAYS need to be taken seriously. What Moore said after is what he should of been saying from the get go - complete 180 from his statement that the claims were "hooey" last week.
THANK YOU, Rachel, for listening and taking those requests seriously. I didn't think my admiration for you could get much huger than it already is, but gosh darn it you managed to raise it to a new level.
Michael Moore's strength and his weakness is that he lets his emotions guide him to the meat of his stories. It's a strength because it gives him the guts to go after things others wouldn't bother with. It's a weakness because occasionally he never gets past his emotions regarding a given story to explore the story from an appropriately rational angle. I feel that's what has happened in the Assange case. Moore is caught up in his emotions about the wrong-headedness of our foreign policy and his belief in the need for transparency to illuminate the foreign policy wrongs. As a result, I don't think he knows how to address the complications that don't play a part in his emotional narrative. The rape charges only cater to his narrative to the extent that they seem to Mr. Moore to be timed to discredit Assange and keep him in check. Now that he's been called out on the way he's dismissed the actual possibility there were rapes here, he's having to backtrack, but honestly, I think it's got him confused and embarrassed. And as some have pointed out, he's not the type to apologize (unlike Rachel), at least unless he is proven wrong.
Michael Moore is a compelling movie maker, very intelligent, but he should probably stay out of punditry.
I know I'm sticking my neck way out here, and I am great fans of both Moore and Maddow. But the way she posed this whole intro to Moore (with the Assange rape case) was not honest. And it was a bit like a set-up. (And the fact that he didn't want to address this issue proves he's more savvy and cautious than I am.) But most of you know that what Assange was charged with would not be called rape in 99% of the world. Essentially it was having sex without a condom, after saying he'd put one on, and then skipping town before taking a test for STDs or AIDS. I'm not saying he is a good guy. But even the two women, who had him stay in their homes AFTER the incident, only initially went to the authorities to get him to take a test. Even now, the authorities just wanted him for back in Sweden for questioning. I can't forgive his behavior, but as far as a plot against him, you can't really charge paranoia when the world wants you dead. It made for hot-button TV, but it wasn't straight-shotting by either Maddow or Moore.
First of all, both the UK Guardian & the NYT have posted lengthy articles about the accusations against Assange and it's about a lot more than sex w/o a condom.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/19/world/europe/19assange.html?_r=1
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange-sweden
Second, what Rachel was pointing out is that EVEN IF the diligence with which these claims are being pursued is politically motivated (which they most likely are, because when do rape charges ever get taken this seriously?) that does not mean that the women are lying or that their stories should be discredited - something that Moore overtly did last week on Countdown.
In my part of the world, if I tell my partner they MUST wear a condom for sex, and they wait until I am asleep and then proceed to initiate sex, while i am ASLEEP and can't give consent, that's rape. If I'm having sex with my partner and the condom breaks and I say to stop and they don't, that's rape.
And also, sometimes it takes days or even weeks or even months to report an assault or a rape. sometimes we live with the people who raped us. sometimes we blame ourselves and downplay what happened and convince ourselves it wasn't rape. gee...i wonder why?
The fact that we can use these "it wasn't rape-rape" arguments is a symptom of the rape culture we live in, not a reflection on the veracity of the claims.
Get your facts straight. Assange is being accused of much more than this. There's a list of the accusations on the Tiger Beatdown blog with links to sources. Pinning a woman down to have sex with her is considered rape in most Western countries (i presume that's what you consider "99% of the world"). Having sex with a woman who was asleep is sexual assault.
Explain why she and the other woman BOASTED of having sex with Assange until each found out about the other? By their own admission, the sex was completely consensual, and they other got into a snit when they realized they weren't the only on he was involved with.
No, actually, that's not "by their admission" if you've read the police reports that are easily available from by the New York Times and the Guardian. Please see the above comment.
Daniel,
If you watch Maddow speak for even two minutes, you can see she is far, far from stupid. She didn't realize it was a YMHA rather than YMCA. When she prepares for interviews, she probably doesn't have the time to look into the history of the buildings she is in. And, furthermore, she is not a New Yorker, so it's understandable that she might not know what the full name is. Most people understand "the Y" to be "the Young Men's Christian Association."
If you think this is an example of stupidity, I can't imagine what you think of people who can't find their own states on a U.S. map or who don't know who the vice president of the U.S. is.
A gracious person would let it go; he certainly would not comment on how ugly stupidity is. Rachel is only ever on the side of people who need help and she only ever conducts herself with compassion, class and intelligence. Do you not think you should choose your battles more wisely? Why call a person like this stupid? How about just mistaken?
Class is underrated.
Â
Â
Â
Class *is* underrated. It's hip to be a punk. Class doesn't seem to get you anywhere anymore in a lot of circles.
Great interview. One complaint: Again, left me in state of issue reconsideration because he sparked more questions. Such as, OIG's WPP?
More questions.... I dislike thinking. It's exhausting. Darn you Michael Moore!
Aniko,
First off, I don't think Rachel Maddow is stupid. I watch her all the time for her incisive style. I can't even imagine being polite and calm while interviewing some monster like that leader from Uganda who wants to kill all his country's gays. I thought that was classy beyond belief. In this YMHA deal, I think this is probably a case of the show's staff fault. I cannot imagine choosing to shoot a show all week at a cultural icon like the 92nd Street Y w/o doing a bit of research. Even going on the web page. No mention of YMHA was on any of the ads or crawls or screen-shots. I was thinking yesterday: are they trying to ignore it? Odd. It seems very strange to go to these lengths to move a week' s worth of Maddow show to a famous site w/o knowing a bit about the institution. It seemed odd and shocking. My late (Jewish) father went to the 92nd Street Y when he was young, in the 30s, and I think of it as part of a great (secular) Jewish heritage, a place to feel proud of. When half the political pundits of Jewish background on cable TV (in recent years) are right-wing nut-cases, the YMHA is a reminder of a better era of cultural richness. So I blame the staff. Just don't know how it would happen. So I over-reacted and called it stupidity.
Sort of ironic that some folks on the far right say anti-Semitic things towards Rachel for being even distantly Jewish.
Daniel,
Thanks for your explanation.
I do think, as you acknowledge, that you overreacted. I understand expecting TV hosts to know general facts about where they are taping shows. However, it's unrealistic to think that with the abundance of reading and research she has to do and the amount of info she has to imbibe before a program simply to get through interviews in her usual incredibly competent manner that she wouldn't occasionally miss something tangential to the interview. As a matter of fact, if she misses something it should be something tangential to the topics discussed. This would be one of those things, regardless of its iconic stature. It had nothing to do with Moore or Assange so it's silly even that we're discussing it at such length.
I don't really understand why you say that you feel she's been "classy beyond belief." I mean, I agree; that's her default mode. She's by nature very classy. My last statement in my previous post was a reference to anyone who would write the criticism you did in the manner in which you did it.
But, again, I can say I truly appreciate your response. It's always heartening to find people who appreciate Maddow's show and her very reasonable, smart point of view.
Best.
Look at the case of José Padilla. It isn't that he was innocent, but justice was not done. Putting a man on trial after you've beaten his brains out and he cannot assist in his own defense is un-American no matter who he is or what he has done.
The US and her allies has been kidnapping and torturing people outside any rule of law or code of war. Assagne could easily be one of them. I'm glad Moore bailed him out and I hope he sees actual justice.
And no, I'm not defending Assagne. "No" means "no." But civilized people don't lynch people w/o trial. Let him have his day in court and defend himself.
I heard on Democracy Today that the two women went to the police to just ask if he could be tested for STDs - and the police decided to charge him with rape.
Yeah, and as Rachel Maddow has pointed out before: Everything that's on the Internet and the media is true... Go check out jender13's comment at 11.1 above to get your facts straight!
We should also realize that Rachel, culturally, if not religiously, was raised JEWISH. A common failing we Jews have, especially non-New Yorkers, comes from being brainwashed as a kid in thinking the entire culture is Christian.
Please note that Rachel is not Jewish. She was raised Roman Catholic.
You're both wrong. She's Canadian.
(No really, raised Roman Catholic and distantly Jewish.)
(I'm kidding about the Canadian thing.)
(I also heard she was part Lebanese.)
(The second line of this post is the only one that's true.)
@ GrrrlRomeo
Her mom was from Newfoundland, Canada, and Jewish lineage is traditionally traced maternally, ergo, Canadian....sort of!
2 points for the 'Lebanese' reference, and has anyone heard whether she has a 'Thespian' background?
;-)
I have read in several online and print articles that Rachel's mother is Canadian, of Irish descent, strict Roman Catholic and some of her sisters (Rachel's aunts) are nuns. I am also familiar with Rachel's "distantly Jewish" comment in her interview with Tracey Ullmann. But as Sean points out, it's a matrilineal thing - a person is Jewish only if one's mother if Jewish (discounting conversion to Judaism of course).
Always confused me-I always said I was 1/2 Jewish (dad) until I learned not too long ago that I am not at all Jewish-has to be matrilineal-wish someone can explain that fully??
Chris-os, in traditional religious law a Jew is the child of a Jewish mother, period. Not all Jews follow this law. In Reform Judaism (which the majority of American Jews are) the child of a non-Jewish mother and a Jewish father can be considered Jewish if they are raised and consider themselves as such. I know some who do and some who don't. It's a very personal thing. Frankly, the anti-"half Jewish" thing is a form of prejudice. A way of disparaging others' identity and self-understanding because it doesn't fit one's preconceived ideology. I think you should ignore it.
Founded in 1874 as the Young Men's Hebrew Association where Jewish men could find harmony and good fellowship, 92nd Street Y today has evolved into a world-renowned community and cultural center; an organization of exhilarating vitality and remarkable diversity; a proudly Jewish institution that reaches out to people of every race, ethnicity, religion, age and economic class. This was on the About US page of the 92nd Street Y website. The TRMS staff should have Rachel do a brief background on this cultural icon in New York City along with a simple apology about the slip...
Here's why I disagree with Michael Moore about Wikileaks. Julian Assange has publicly stated that his goal is not transparency, it's to bring down the US government. He is not an American citizen so that can't be considered treason. So yes, I agree with Joe Biden that he's a cyber terrorist. I believe in free speech. I don't believe it means that everyone gets to know everything and say anything. I wonder why that's not part of the conversation.
I think Rachel's thoughts tended that way as well. Not only did she state that she didn't quite agree with Moore, but she allowed him to talk for most of the interview while maintaining--so it seemed to me--a skeptical countenance. I think it is correct to interpret her expression as skepticism because Rachel prides herself and the show on obsessive fact-checking. And she began the interview by illustrating with the Cuba "Sicko" article that Wikileaks is not reliable, only to have Moore dismiss the inaccuracy and praise the site nevertheless. She did try to press Moore on the point of why the man currently in Guantanamo should be able to declassify documents unrelated to the particular grievance he had wished to address, but Moore essentially shrugged it off. Having never seen any of his films, having only seen him interviewed once before--his last interview with Rachel, in fact--but specifically listening to his interview this time, Moore comes off as a sensationalist and a panderer to conspiracy theorists. Not terribly rational, in other words, and I think perhaps Rachel was uncomfortable with his responses. I certainly was.
On this
I agree with you. Not convinced he's a cyber terrorist, however, but that's in part because I'm sick of the term "terrorist" being bandied about willy-nilly for political expediency.
Well, if nothing else, the History of the "92nd Street Y" has received a LOT of Light, Publicity, and a Renewed Understanding of it's background of Public Service!
Michael Moore sponsoring a Rape Crisis Center is a Good Thing, separate from all other questions.
The allegations of Sexual Assault should be Fully and Fairly Investigated on their own merits, based only on Facts, as best can be determined, and appropriate action taken, if warranted. Who Assange is, his fame, and the leaks should not be taken into account regarding the Facts, although although they may have to be considered only as they relate to the credibility of all of the people involved - Considering the fact that the acts in question happened in a private settting, only the people present will ever know the actual facts of what took place, and they may even differ somewhat, depending on the point of view of the two principles involved in each case.
Whether the Leaks were Legal or Illegal, Right or Wrong, Moral or Immoral, and a Good or Bad thing will probably be debated ad infinitum. Whether Assange should be incarcerated for the Leaks will also probably be argued for many, many years, never to everyone's satisfaction or agreement.
What I take away from Wikileaks is keep way too much information secret that doesn't need to be. And that much trivial information being kept secret was bound to result in complacency and then a security breech. I mean, there were a few important nuggets buried in a bunch of diplomatic gossip.
On the leaked video... War is always messy and there are always civilian casualties. Anyone who thought otherwise is a dolt. Maybe the American people have been shown a sanitized version of war that allows them to forget how very messy it is. Yes, real people get killed. So, there better be a good damn reason for getting into it. That's my argument...without Moore's Nuremberg Trials reference because I don't think the US Military is like the S.S.
In this story, Michael Moore plays Mr. Assange's tool. I wouldn't go so far as to say Assange is a terrorist, but I don't think he's one of the good guys either. I think Assange is an anarchist, a narcissist, and a womanizer if not a rapist.
What a fine, obedient citizen you are to poo-poo the deliberate slaughter of civilians as OOPS! Mistakes happen!
How fair of you to judge Assange a womanizer, if not a rapist, for daring to have consensual sex with women.
J. Edgar Hoover would've been so proud of you. Cheney would be so proud of you.
Thanks. I do my best.
You have a funny definition of consent if you think a person can consent to anything while they're asleep. Although my opinion of him being a womanizer is from his oh so lovely "dating" profiles he left around the Internet.
Have a super day!
Had I left out my digs at Assange, would you have been able to properly comprehend my first paragraph? I'm against unnecessary wars because civilians always die in wars. That was my point.
Donald: I for one could care less about the Assange accusations until the investigation is complete. It is a separate issue.
But I am curious why Manning and any other whistleblowers "giving" information to Wikileaks didn't utilize OIG, and why it wasn't more discretionary or selective. There is a responsible way to do anything, of which neither displayed interest or concern.
Oh Rachel, I am SO embarrassed for you! Guess none of your studies included social and working class movements in the US? How could you not even know what building you are using?
Please, please don't use the "not a New Yorker" excuse unless it's OK for New Yorkers to think Coit Tower is a tribute to clean carpets!
ahhh... but for one to think that Coit Tower is a tribute to clean carpets, one would have to be from the Bay Area, no?
I do not agree with Michael Moore. I think that the military analyst who delivered all the information is guilty of treason against the US and should be tried as such. I feel no empathy either the analyst or Mr. Moore.
We don't know that Manning is the person responsible of giving all the leaked information. He has been accused of it, but he has never been tried and there is currently no evidence proving that all the leaked information was by him. The only information we can say is pinned on Manning is the leaked video of the 2 journalists and other Iraqi civilians being killed. There is also no evidence that any of the information released, including the video, have "aided the enemy" which is the definition of treason. Manning deserves a trial and should not have been imprisoned until he was tried and convicted. Whether you agree with his leaking of the video or not doesn't mean that how we're treating him is ethical. Nor does it mean the accusations by our country are accurate and justified. Until the Defense Department can prove, in a court of law, that Manning actually committed treason, accusing him as such on your behalf or mine is wrong. Until the Defense Department can prove that Manning caused the deaths of US civilians in a non-combat zone for political reasons, you cannot call him a terrorist and neither can I (being that, once again, that is the definition of terrorism).
While rape allegations should be heeded, these particular allegations and their timing MUST be a part of the investigation, for using phony rape allegations as a means to discredit a whistleblower like Assange is not only an offense to the whistleblower, but also to women everywhere seeking justice against those who violate them...
If these allegations prove criminality, yes, prosecute. But if they are specious, those bringing them falsely should also be prosecuted TO THE FULLEST EXTENT OF THE LAW, and journalists should report THIS as well...
What was missing from this discussion was the highly suspicious timing and circumstances of these allegations, which are quite similar to those lodged against Daniel Ellsberg as mentioned in an interview on your very show...
YOU, Rachel, should have been MORE journalist than to merely accept these allegations against Assange at face value, as your discussion progressed with Moore... Also, your affect appeared to be that of a liar -- and that's just MY 'suspicion' about what appears to be not your first cave-in to establishment efforts to discredit Assange and Wikileaks...
You get an 'F' for that.
Sooo, you're really upset she didn't initiate a standing ovation for Assange?
Can you explain this statement, bbbbmer?
Just a heads up and I'm not checking to see if it's been mentioned, but Julian Assange has not been accused of rape, or even date rape. The best-fit English term is 'sex by surprise,' which a Swedish friend of mine informs me is inelegant.
The maximum charge for it is about $715.
This is not rape. It's closer to breach of contract. Could one of the show's researchers get onto affirming the actual charges, rather than parroting the knee-jerk headline?
The New York Times says the maximum penalty is 4 years if you're talking about the allegation that he initiated sex with a woman while she was asleep. Which, by the way, would be date rape in the US.
Under American Law, maybe, under Swedish Law, which would apply, since that is where the alleged offenses took place, I'm less sure - I believe both adhere to the 'Due Process' standards of Common Law, including "Mens Rea", which translates to 'Guilty Mind', or more fully, "the act does not make a person guilty unless the mind be also guilty" - It will be complicated to determine the truth, and appropriate charges, much less guilt, under any circumstances.
I feel sorry for everyone involved, Assange, the two women, the Police Investigators, the Prosecutors, etc - It's going to be messy, and I fear no-one will ever be fully satisfied that justice was served, whatever the eventual outcome.
I would encourage you to read this: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/10/AR2010121002571.html
"Let's get this out of the way: Sweden does not have a "broken condom" law. WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange was not arrested because his contraception failed mid-coitus. Nor is he charged with 'sex by surprise.'"
Additional links refuting the "broken condom/sex by surprise" stories have also been provided in this thread.