Spacemilk wrote: It's all about the tone; I figure you might already know this since you just called Philwelch a "golden retriever".
Nope, you misread. Take another look. I suggested he might benefit from taking a golden retriever as a pet. Mistakes of that kind make me less impressed with attempts to analyze my tone. Get the declarative meaning right and you'll have more credibility talking about the connotative.
The initial story was chuckleworthy but also pityworthy, because what is more ironic and sad than hating what made you, you?
Except of course that there's never been any evidence that the man hates Jews. That's just slander passing for fact. Doesn't like Zionism, says dumb things about the Holocaust -- although there, again, mostly about the way the Holocaust has been used to justify Zionism. He has never claimed the Jews are all-powerful or greedy or all of one mind (1). Nor has he claimed that Jews are stupid, or not clean, or inherently violent (those are all examples of racist beliefs about Arabs affirmed by seventy percent or more of Israelis under 25). There's no evidence he hates Jews, it's simply a claim that certain people who hate him like to repeat over and over.
Anyway can we stop the bickering and the snide insults, please?
1. I checked some news accounts, and apparently he made a speech to the UN General Assembly in 2008 in which he is said to have alluded to "Zionist control of international finance." If that's an accurate representation of what he said (the news articles do not give a direct quote) I'd consider that an anti-Semitic remark.
"Reasonable – that is, human – men will always be capable of compromise, but men who have dehumanized themselves by becoming the blind worshipers of an idea or an ideal are fanatics whose devotion to abstractions makes them the enemies of life."
-- Alan Watts, "The Way of Zen"