For the record, there is a difference between “money grubbers” and “those with good business sense”. But stereotypes, period, are not a good thing.

You are absolutely right that anti-semitic stereotypes and opinions exist regardless of political affiliation. There are anti-semites on the left as well as on the right, unquestionably. So why did I indulge in that (admittedly snarky) dig at reactionary right-wing politics? Because there is a very well-defined and influential segment of the (Christian) religious right that rabidly supports their counterparts in Israel (hawkish, right-wing Israelis, and the right-wing government of Netanyahu) — and they do this in the specific context of claiming to be oh so pro-Israel, and so shocked and appalled at the anti-Semitism of the Arab world, and they themselves are such strong supporters of the Jewish State's right to exist — and meanwhile they are all a bunch of raging hypocrites. They “support” Israel for reasons of their own that have nothing to do with anti-Semitism or the Jewish people's right to their own nation. In fact, their motivations are rooted in quite the opposite ideology: it comes out of a very extreme “Christian Reconstructionist” ideology that is premised, actually, on the destruction and/or mass conversion of all Jews in the so-called “End Times.” Yet, these are the very people who are the quickest to condemn even the most moderate and rational criticism of Israel's actions in its conflict with the Palestinians as “anti-Semitic.” Even worse, they do not hesitate to call people like me — who support a Palestinian state existing alongside the Jewish state, equal in rights and with security for both Israelis and Palestinians — “self-hating Jews” or worse.

It's bad enough when that comes from other Jews, but it's truly insufferable when the same Southern Baptists and other right-wing Christian fundamentalists who hand out Christian materials at synagogues during the High Holy Days trying to convert Jews on the most sacred days of our religious calendar, have the NERVE to tell Jewish supporters of a two-state solution that we are “anti-Semitic” and/or “self-hating Jews.”

So that's the explanation for my heightened sensitivity to anti-Semitic remarks coming from the reactionary right, although I do know that anti-Semitism also exists on the left, and among any number of Americans who are completely apolitical.

All of the above having been said, I should have made this personal context clearer than I did. I actually did not make it clear at all. I apologize for that.

One: The Torah is not exactly the same as the Old Testament. The Torah is the first five books of the Old Testament::Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. And the Talmud is not the Old Testament or the Bible at all. The Talmud is a collection of writings from rabbinic authorities, interpreting and giving extended opinions on Jewish law. Here is the article at Wikipedia about the Talmud.

Two: I would be most appreciative if you could provide a specific cite from Leviticus where the Jews are being advised to be frugal with money and good stewards of business.

There IS an historical explanation, or perhaps an historical origin would be better phrased, for the “Jews are money grubbers” stereotype, but to the best of my knowledge that origin is not Leviticus.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwtwo/na…

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?page=…

http://judaism.suite101.com/article.cfm/why_jew…

My point is that this is an age-old stereotype, and it has most certainly *not* been seen as a good thing. The prevalence of Jewish people in industries like banking were part of the “The Jewish Question” and the so-called conspiracy of Jews to take over the world that Hitler used so many times in Mein Kamf. Ugly, ugly history here.

My mother was born in 1926 and lived through the Great Depression. She is very careful with her money and taught my brother and me to be careful with money too. Mom has also always been generous and taught us to give to the community and anyone who is in less fortunate positons than us.

I can't help but notice that Mom thinks we spend too much money and yet I think many people spend WAY too much money. It seems that people in each generation away from the Great Depression spend more money than the previous generation.

Anyway I think it's a fine trait to spend money wisely. But that doesn't mean one is greedy or miserly.

Via CNN: “If it were not for the strong support of the Jewish community for this war with Iraq, we would not be doing this,” said Moran, whose remarks were first reported by the Reston Connection newspaper. “The leaders of the Jewish community are influential enough that they could change the direction of where this is going, and I think they should.”

One the intellectual traps of opinion journalism is looking only at the extremists on the other side, then generalizing.

Of course, as Kathy correctly noticed, any GOOD quality in a culture can be put into the negative, and all prejudices are wrong. Just because the Jewish culture states to be frugal, doesn't mean ALL Jews are.

Well said, Shannon.

Who wants to pick on this guy?

It's not my intention to divert from the topic, but what I find interesting is that I don't hear anyone criticizing the Democratic State Senator (Bakari Sellers) for advocating more pork-barrel spending.

Of course not, its all about partisan sound bites not policy silly.

There really isn't any such thing as a “positive” stereotype. “Positive” stereotypes are just the flip side of negative stereotypes. “Jews know how to take care of the pennies so the dollars take care of themselves” may sound like a compliment, but it's surprisingly easy to go from that to “Jews are miserly and stingy.” Shylock in The Merchant of Venice is the personification of the “Jews are thrifty… miserly… will do anything to save a buck… will have their pound of flesh” phenomenon.

Federal taxpayer dollars should be used for national purposes, not state purposes. If DeMint refuses to bring back the bacon to his state due to a philosophical opposition to earmarks (and I don't know if this is entirely the case; I'm only going by Sellers' article), then he should be encouraged, not criticized.

Sellers makes his criticism of DeMint by defending Section 302a of the 1974 Budget Act, which sets discretionary spending levels of appropriations bills before the politicians even propose their federally financed pet projects. As Sellers points out:

After these spending amounts are set, the appropriations deliberations begin. This is important, because it means that refusing to request or secure earmarks for one's constituents does not save a penny of taxpayer dollars.

Think about the way this process works. First politicians decide how much they're going to spend. Then they come up with pet projects until all the allocated money is used up. It's completely backwards! What politicians should is coming up with a list of projects that are absolute priorities and are national in scope. In an ear of skyrocketing deficits, the last thing politicians should be doing is tacking on earmarks in an attempt to fund pet projects in their own state.

As always, pundits and the media are going to play up the whole “were the chairmen's comments antisemitic?” story rather than paying attention to the more important problem, which is the fiscal irresponsibility of the pork-barrel spenders in congress during times of ballooning deficits.