If I recall correctly, in book 1 of the Republic, Socrates jokingly observes that dogs are philosophers, because they determine who their friends are based on knowledge. If American Jews had a fix on who their friends are, I doubt that 70 percent of them would continue to constitute themselves among the core of the Democratic Party. One would think that the presence of Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Cynthia McKinney, John Conyers, Jimmy Carter and their ilk among the honored members of the party, or Michael Moore as the party’s intellectual lodestar, would prompt some serious second thoughts. Richard Baehr picks up the thread with the mock-impeachment hearing over which John Conyers presided last week: “The Democrats sign up with the anti-Semites.”
UPDATE: I have revised this post to remove what was intended to be a humorous takeoff on Plato’s joke. I happen to be Jewish and am not as sensitive to the slight perceived by some of our readers. I apologize for any offense caused to our usual reades by the previous version of this post.
On the other hand, the sensitivity of alleged slights to Jews professed by our moonbat readers seems misplaced to me. It would be deeply touching if they devoted themselves to dealing with the rot among their friends holding high office, such as Rep. Conyers: “Democrats play House to rally against the war.” Until they do, I will consider their alleged concerns to constitute more evidence of their intellectual bad faith.
UPDATE 2: Reader Dan Curry comments:
The discussion of “affective” dogs in Plato’s Republic occurs in Book 2 at 376d and following. It is a favorite passage, and a close reading will reveal that no offense is rendered to someone compared to a canine behaving in the sense indicated by Plato. It reads even better in somewhat larger context, beginning with perhaps 374e: “But nevertheless, we mustn’t be cowardly, at least as far as it’s in our power.”