PROFILES IN COURAGE: Anti-Semitism Resolution Doesn’t Name Omar ‘Because It’s Not About Her,’ Says Pelosi.

Related: That’s a wrap! Ilhan Omar votes yes on House Dems’ resolution and then has ‘a good laugh.’

“The resolution was a joke and they humiliated Pelosi. I’d laugh too,” Allahpundit tweets.

“Omar Knows Exactly What She Is Doing,” Bret Stephens wrote earlier today at the New York Times:

The goal is not to win the argument, at least not anytime soon. Yet merely by refusing to fold, Omar stands to shift the range of acceptable discussion — the so-called Overton window — sharply in her direction. Ideas once thought of as intellectually uncouth and morally repulsive have suddenly become merely controversial. It’s how anti-Zionism has abruptly become an acceptable point of view in reputable circles. It’s why anti-Semitism is just outside the frame, bidding to get in.

* * * * * * * *

It says something about the progressive movement today that it has no trouble denouncing Republican racism, real and alleged, every day of the week but has so much trouble calling out naked anti-Semite in its own ranks. This is how progressivism becomes Corbynism. It’s how the left finds its own path toward legitimizing hate. It’s how self-declared anti-fascists develop their own forms of fascism.

As Neo writes, “Anti-Semitism: it’s all the rage:”

I don’t think Democrats much care if they lose the Jewish vote, because the number of Jews in the US is small and highly concentrated in places that are and will remain Democratic enclaves even without the Jewish vote. Plus, many Jews today are secular and have replaced any allegiance to Judaism with an allegiance to leftism, so perhaps this won’t even alienate them. I also believe that most of the Jewish donors to the Democratic Party are probably more of that latter frame of mind, and therefore perhaps the calculation is that the party can afford that, too—although I would imagine some of the leaders of the party (Pelosi and Schumer) are none too happy about the possibility of the loss of support.

This would be a great topic for this Sunday’s Beltway chat shows. Just think of the media as Democratic Party operatives with Chyrons, if it doesn’t come up.

HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO HORTICULTURALIST LUTHER BURBANK: Born this day in 1849, he brought us hundreds of new varieties of plums, raspberries, cherries, peaches, apples, figs, walnuts, strawberries, potatoes, grapes, quinces, and nectarines.

“I WON’T LISTEN TO MICHAEL JACKSON’S MUSIC ANYMORE. BUT I’LL STILL WATCH WOODY ALLEN’S MOVIES. HERE’S WHY.” A presumably left-leaning media critic at The Week named Jeva Lange justifies her entertainment choices:

To summarily dismiss “Woody Allen films” because Allen himself is accused of despicable behavior is to also inadvertently write off the symphonic city shots of Gordon Willis in Manhattan, the zany costumes designed by Ruth Morley for Annie Hall, or the underrated Ingrid Bergman-esque performance by Geraldine Page in Interiors. Perhaps you believe that one bad apple spoils the barrel; I would strongly caution that this dismissal often brushes off the contributions particularly of women, whose incredible work is all too frequently in non-directorial positions. To never watch Polanski’s Chinatown or Rosemary’s Baby is to erase, likewise, some of the best work of costume designer Anthea Sylbert, or performances by Faye Dunaway and Mia Farrow.

Music, though, is neater than the messy collaborative efforts of filmmaking. Although creating an album is indisputably also a group effort — think of Quincy Jones’ work producing Thriller — music is generally a much more individual effort than filmmaking, and especially so in the case of a solo artist like Jackson. While I regret not being able to appreciate Jones’ work on Thriller by cutting it out of my life, I am lying to myself if I claim it is not Jackson’s voice that I am actually enjoying when I listen to the album. Filmmaking, by its very nature, is much more ambiguous.

Separate and apart from continuing to listening to his music, I’m not at all sure that this is an appropriate analogy, at least for Jackson. A band like Led Zeppelin (whose surviving members must be absolutely thanking their lucky stars in today’s #metoo era that they achieved superstardom before social media) was remarkably self-contained, with in-house songwriters, an in-house producer (Jimmy Page) and arranger (John Paul Jones), and used outside session musicians very infrequently, mostly to add strings to sweeten a handful of their more epic songs.

But Jackson’s records — particularly Thriller — were the audio equivalents of the same sort of film productions that Lange mentions above. That album took nearly six months to record, about the same length of time it takes Allen to write, shoot and supervise the editing of a film. Jackson is credited with writing the music and lyrics on only four of the album’s 13 songs, and “writing the music” simply means he supplied at least the top line melody and chord changes. The album’s credits boast not just Quincy Jones as producer (and veteran engineer Bruce Swedien as engineer, mixer, and Jones’ second set of ears), plus a roster of first-call L.A. session musicians and arrangers. Wikipedia lists nearly 50 of them appearing on Thriller. Lange’s comments dismissing their contributions is reminiscent of a scene early on in the 2002 documentary Standing in the Shadows of Motown, a film that explored the vital contributions of the Funk Brothers, Motown’s house band, whose members played (in various combinations) on virtually every song Motown recorded in the 1960s. But prior to that movie’s release, the public at large had no idea the Funk Brothers even existed:

As for Woody Allen, I can’t fault anyone for enjoying what Allen himself, in his grousing 1980 film Stardust Memories dubbed his “earlier, funnier movies.” Regarding the incident that permanently transformed his audience’s perception of Allen (well, what was left of that audience, after Allen blew up his own domestic career with Stardust Memories), as Rod Dreher quipped yesterday, in a post titled, “The Bonfire Of Michael Jackson,” “Allen made it easy to quit watching his movies after his creepy Soon-Yi affair became public. Why? He stopped making good movies. Still, even when I go back and watch his old good ones, I can’t get out of my head what he did. It took all the joy out of Manhattan for me. This wasn’t so much a moral decision as it was one of involuntary disgust.”

Exit question from Dreher: “About Jackson, what are the rest of you going to do? Keep listening to him? Swear off of him? Not sure? Whatever your choice, please explain your reasoning.”

FASTER, PLEASE: Potential new therapy for Crohn’s, colitis identified.

CHANGE: Audi Q5, A7, and A8 Plug-In Hybrids Are Coming to the U.S. in 2020.

HOW GREEN WAS MY VALLEY? Twitter thread: Unsold Tesla cars being charged with mobile diesel generators.

I’d comment on this, but it’s best we run it past the lawyers first.

DO DEMS DISAVOW? STARRY-EYED DAVID DUKE JUST CALLED ILHAN OMAR ‘THE MOST IMPORTANT MEMBER OF THE US CONGRESS.’

Exit quote: “Sorry, @BarackObama, but @IlhanMN is the real uniter. She has brought David Duke and Farrakhan together in support of her anti-Semitism.”

It’s the ultimate example of Blair’s Law, as coined by pioneering Aussie blogger Tim Blair: “The ongoing process by which the world’s multiple idiocies are becoming one giant, useless force.”

This Sunday’s Beltway chat shows will be fascinating to watch, though perhaps as a Kremlinologist, to observe what’s not being mentioned:

THE BABYLON BEE MUST BE BUTTER: because they’re on a roll!

“Ilhan Omar Withdraws Support From Bill To Save The Earth After Learning That’s Where Israel Is.”

TAMARA KEEL: CCW Training: Are We Practicing the Wrong Skills?

AT AMAZON, Save On Top Rated Products.

Also, Shop Amazon Warehouse Deals – Deep Discounts on Open-box and Used Sports Equipment.

BUT OF COURSE: Roll Call Hit Piece Uses SPLC Disinformation to Smear Pro-Israel Conservative Groups. “The groups are calling for Rep. Ilhan Omar’s ouster from the House Foreign Affairs Committee.”

GOOD LORD: Is Erdogan’s airport dream turning into nightmare?

Months of delays have prevented the airport from opening, which might be the best possible outcome:

As explained in the official introductory video published Oct. 29, the land chosen for the project was previously the site of coal mines, with uneven surfaces, wetlands and coastal sand dunes. It took 750 million cubic meters (980 million cubic yards) of soil to fill and even it out — something the video portrays as an engineering conquest. Images captured from the sky may impress ordinary observers, but experts are concerned about the site’s durability and safety.

An engineer from the Ministry of Transportation who spoke to Al-Monitor on condition of anonymity said, “I would not want any of my family members to even set foot in this airport. The project was started against all warnings and continued without meeting proper standards. For example, initially the recommendation was to [build] at least 105 meters [344 feet] above sea level. Then they reduced it to 90 meters, and finally it ended up at 60 meters. The ground is not stable; it’s built on underground wetlands. There is not enough soil in the world to fill it safely.”

The engineer explained that the 105-meter height from sea level is directly linked to flight safety.

Seriously, I hope they never open this thing — or raze it, either. If the airport really is this unsafe, it should stand empty as a monument to Erdogan’s ego and incompetence.

UNEXPECTEDLY! Good News: Opioid Prescribing Fell. The Bad? Pain Patients Suffer, Doctors Say.

NEWS YOU CAN USE? The Making of a Limousine Liberal: A 12 Step Program.

FLASHBACK: On Being a Jewish Conservative.

This is Karol Markowicz in 2015:

It was easier for me to be conservative in NYC than it might be for others since my community, Soviet-born Jews, tends to lean right, but it was still wasn’t easy. People who barely knew me were downright hateful to me. I never hid who I was, even when it was difficult or uncomfortable. I was confident in my beliefs, unafraid to be open about them when engaged. If someone didn’t want to be friends with me because I believe in lower taxes or a strong foreign policy, that was their bad.

In the last year, my pride at being a Jewish conservative has been at an all-time high. Last summer, when Israel and Gaza flared up, I watched liberal Jewish friends lose their bearings. Who were they? Who were their friends? I’d watch them get into arguments and see their surprise that their friends thought Israel should just accept a few rockets and kidnapped teenagers. The confusion often turned to despair. They couldn’t believe they had to explain again and again why it was imperative for Israel to defend itself, why the discovery of the tunnels was a huge deal, why the barrage of rockets mattered. They were sad and I truly was sad for them.

Me? I watched my conservative non-Jewish friends change their Twitter avatar and Facebook profile pictures to Israeli flags.

Karol also says, “If you’re an American Jew, you’re not actually on the front-lines of this fight,” but that’s changing.

SHOCKING NEWS FROM THE WORLD OF SCIENCE: Study: Eating healthy on a budget is possible.

SUNSHINE IS THE BEST DISINFECTANT: Documents related to pedophile Jeffrey Epstein may be unsealed.

The documents were collected when Virginia Giuffre sued Epstein’s former girlfriend, British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell, in 2015 for publicly denying that she lured her as an underage girl into Epstein’s harem.

Giuffre and Maxwell settled the case on the eve of the trial in 2017, sealing 167 documents that would have been aired in a courtroom.

At a hearing on Wednesday, a panel of three judges suggested they may rule in favor of unsealing at least some of the documents, which include 29 depositions.

“Is there anything that can be unsealed in this case?” Judge Jose Cabranes asked a lawyer for Maxwell, who was arguing the documents should remain under seal.

“I don’t think,” lawyer Ty Gee responded before being interrupted by Cabranes.

“You can’t possibly be serious?” Cabranes asked.

I suspect that all this secrecy is less to protect Epstein than it is to protect his wide circle of powerful friends.

AT AMAZON, save on Software.

CASE CLOSED: The great Over or Under question has been definitively answered.

ANNALS OF LEFTIST AUTOPHAGY, CONT’D:

Well, in her defense, these days it is pretty hard to tell the New York Times from David Duke.

Related: Linda Sarsour: Pelosi is “Doing the Dirty Work of Powerful White Men” in Condemning Anti-Semitism.

PEACEFUL INDIGENOUS CULTURES: More than 140 children may have had their hearts removed in ancient sacrifice in Peru.

BIG DEAL, WE USED INFLATABLE TANKS BEFORE D-DAY: The Army Dressed Up Older Armored Vehicles to Impersonate Russian Tanks.

WHAT HAPPENS UNDER VEGAS STAYS UNDER VEGAS: Las Vegas convention authority wants The Boring Company to build 2-mile loop.

WHEN LAW PROFESSORS ARE ALARMIST: In Prof. Garrett Epps’ comments about New York Times v. Sullivan, we are told, “Thomas managed to attack the basis of American press freedom.”

The basis of American press freedom is the First Amendment. New York Times v. Sullivan rests on an interpretation of the First Amendment that Thomas thinks is wrong. To believe that New York Times v. Sullivan is the basis of American press freedom, one must believe that the American press was not free for the 175 years or so the country was in existence before Sullivan was decided.

Honestly, and this is very much an admission against interest, I think Thomas has a point.

It is a fair critique of sorts to argue that Thomas often goes his own way, telling the Supreme Court that its jurisprudence is wrong, and sometimes that it’s been wrong for a century or more. He sticks to his own interpretations, making him a sort of anti-William J. Brennan, who was famously flexible in the process of assembling the necessary 5 votes to reach a desired outcome. As with lefties who wish conservatives on the Court followed a “living Constitution” methodology, wishing that Thomas were more like Brennan seems . . . unwise.

But there’s good advice for President Trump here: If you want to maximize your influence on the Court over time, appoint justices who are more collaborative in their approach.

UPDATE: In response to the comments, Brennan was collaborative in approach, but inflexible in his goals. Contrary to, say, John Roberts.