Cosmopolitan New Yorkers that we are, Jewdar is not among the crowd that considers the paper of record to be the "New York Nazi Times." Sometimes, however–as with their editorial on the murder of Daniel Pearl, in which they managed to completely avoid mentioning the part where he was killed for being a Jew– the Times does seem to demonstrate a certain discomfort level with the whole "Ewjay" thing. Consider Friday’s piece on the attack at the Chabad House in Mumbai:
"It is not known if the Jewish Center was strategically chosen, or if it was an accidental hostage scene."
Now, some might argue that technically, this was true. It was "not known." On the other hand, this is equally true for all the other targets. And wouldn’t it have been a little smarter just to have left this out and let the reader draw his or her own conclusions? Or should we presume that after planning this complex and highly coordinated operation, one terrorist said at the last minute, "You know, Muhammed, I know we’ve got a tight schedule, but do you think we could get a little sightseeing in before we get to the hotel?" and then they just happened to end up at the Chabad House where they coincidentally murdered the parents of Moshe Holtzberg (above) and four other Jews?
Jewdar is not among the crowd that considers the paper of record to be the “New York Nazi Times.”
You know damned well that the Jewish community has good reason to be wary of the Times. Historically, they have been unbelievably obtuse when it come
Tattoo Tattoo
Tattoos Tattoos
Tattoo Designs Tattoo Designs
Tattoo Cross Tat