Daily Dolt: Sheila Simon Should Wear Pearls

If Tom Roeser didn’t exist a satirist would have to invent him. 

…Sheila Simon has evidently chosen to stress the same plainness-and she has a lot of plainness to dramatize. Spectacles remind people of her father: there are such things as contact lenses-her neglect of them is no accident. Toothiness is a trademark of the Kennedys as, in lesser known degree, of the Simons, her father and mother.

She need not stick with toothiness; there is an industry known as dental cosmetics but she has chosen to. No woman needs to surrender to plainness willingly. Eleanor Roosevelt was told by her mother that she had to offset her plainness with charm and anything else she could muster. She did. She became-take my word for it-one of the most charming women alive, wore pearls to offset a long, scrawny neck, had her teeth straightened and pulled inward from outward, her hair done by a highly-paid professional and wore higher heels than normal to emphasize height which gave her great dignity (all of which she had in abundance when I met her). Sheila Simon would be advised to go the Eleanor Roosevelt way. Everybody knows she’s Paul Simon’s kid anyhow; while married, she has chosen to carry the family name.

This man hosts a weekly radio show.  Why?

He also attempts to back up his claim that Wright is antisemitic:

The “occupation” applies to Gaza and the West Bank. When the Egyptians owned the West Bank nobody charged them with being occupiers nor did people so assail the Jordanians who held the West Bank and much of Jerusalem for the same length of time. After Israel won a war over those who wish to drive it into the sea, they became “occupiers.” What about us with California and Texas-does Dr. Wright want us to return these to Mexico? What about France and Alsace-Lorraine, should France return it to Germany?

Now, one must assume he means the Gaza Strip in relation to the Egypt.

But more to the point, George Bush believes that the West Bank and Gaza should become an independent state as the 1948 partition meant to do.  The Palestineans have been screwed by Arab governments and, in fact, treated more harshly often by the Jordanians. The basic problem is Jordan no longer controls the West Bank and hasn’t since 1967.  Even more problematic for the argument is that Jordan formally recognized Israel and signed a peace treaty in 1994 and argues for a two-state solution.
The challenge in the case of the West Bank is Syria and internal rebellion within the occupied territories.  Complaining that someone identifies an occupied territory as occupied is bizarre.

The problem is how to provide a second state while guaranteeing security for Israel. I think Dr. Wright oversimplifies the situation and understand why the occupation continues in terms of Israeli security, but it is an occupation and like all occupations undertaken by democratic governments, it hurts the occupier and its own civil liberties.

The point being is that while Roeser’s addled brain claims Wright is anti-Jewish, Roeser never offers any evidence that Wright is anti-Jewish other than to claim that those seeking to have a two state solution, claim that all muslims seek to destroy Israel (not true–see above) which doesn’t address anything Wright  said, and finally, that Wright should be criticizing Jordan for it’s occupation forty years ago.

IOW, look over there…quick…while I realize my argument is silly so I’ll bluster and whine.