This is what I had hoped for when the Israelis unilaterally pulled out of Gaza three and a half years ago.
That is, since they had absolved themselves completely of the responsibility for governing and providing for a populace that was inalterably opposed to their (Jews’, that is) very existence, let alone their presence in Gaza, they would thereby reserve for themselves the right to conduct military incursions into the Strip whenever they deemed it necessary.
Unfortunately, they never seemed to believe that incursions were warranted, despite the incessant barrage of unprovoked terrorist rocket attacks from Gazan soil.
Until now.
I’m not entirely certain as to what precipitated this unprecedented response (which, to be certain, is exactly what it is: a purely defensive response. Not even preemptory: purely defensive). I surmise that, more than the electoral implications, it takes advantage of the transition period between the Obama and Bush administrations while at the same time giving a rather grand middle-finger salute to the US State Department, which, for all intents and purposes, has yet to recognize that the 1947 UN partition plan gave the Jews a homeland/state (although they obviously recognize their Arab counterparts’ land rights).
If the Israelis are smart and don’t repeat their mistake of letting up as they did in the 2006 Lebanon War, they will continue to bomb Gaza at least until the day Obama takes office, or until the entire Hamas leadership is dead or replaced with a governing body that will not tolerate the conduction of any terrorist activity from its soil.
Now what happens with the inevitable question of civilians, such as when Secretary Rice called for recognition of "the urgent humanitarian needs of the innocent people of Gaza"?
This time, there are no innocent civilians in Gaza. And it’s Rice’—and this Administration’s—fault, because they insisted upon the imposition of “democratic” elections before a fully functioning society was running in the Strip. This terror-ridden failed-state Hamas-driven entity was chosen by its people, and they bear the responsibility for the actions of their leaders, which they undoubetedly approve of wholeheartedly. The war IS with the Gazan population, and the Israelis have nothing to lose by saying so.
It was said around the time of the 2006 Lebanon War that a new set of “facts on the ground” could result. They did, but not in Israel’s favor. This time, let’s hope the Israelis have the fortitude to follow through.
Saturday, December 27, 2008
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Madoff
As if the current economic situation wasn't enough of an impetus to bring the "white-wing"-ers out of the woodwork blaming the Jews for everything, now comes a bonafide scandal involving a committed and involved Orthodox Jew. I couldn't have even begun to formulate a response to these events; then I saw this from Naomi Ragen.
In the aftermath, the rise of anti-Semitic chatter on the internet has
reached new, ominous levels. But I read one talkback--on a Madoff site full of vicious anti-Semitic remarks by seemingly educated and 'liberal' people -- which made sense. The writer said that it wasn't fair to blame all Jews, but it was certainly true that there were many, many Jews who were talented in business and finance, and therefore disproportionately represented in those fields. What a shame, therefore, he wrote, that the Jewish community had not made more of an effort to instill the values of the Torah in its members, which would have meant decency and honesty and absolute integrity would have guided the worlds of business and finance, saving the world so much misery.
Well done.
This was my repsonse.
It obviously has not been made clear in the general culture that Torah stands as much for fiduciary as ritual purity, and the fault, in this case, is not with the anti-semites. When one says "values of Torah", "decency and honesty and absolute integrity" are rarely the first things to come to anyone's mind. Even among the most decent Torah-observant.
The Orthodox community and its institutions need to come up with a foolproof series of background checks and prophylactic policies vis-a-vis philantropists regarding their fiduciary reliability before exminaing their religious bona fides (easier said than done, but nonetheless).
I would even go as far as coming up with a method of public shaming of proven thieves, even creating a virtual "mitzvah" of reporting them to the secular authorities. However, we see how much luck we've had in rooting out sexual predators; how much moreso rooting out financial malefactors, who usually can buy their way out of anything until they run out of money. Like Madoff.
In the aftermath, the rise of anti-Semitic chatter on the internet has
reached new, ominous levels. But I read one talkback--on a Madoff site full of vicious anti-Semitic remarks by seemingly educated and 'liberal' people -- which made sense. The writer said that it wasn't fair to blame all Jews, but it was certainly true that there were many, many Jews who were talented in business and finance, and therefore disproportionately represented in those fields. What a shame, therefore, he wrote, that the Jewish community had not made more of an effort to instill the values of the Torah in its members, which would have meant decency and honesty and absolute integrity would have guided the worlds of business and finance, saving the world so much misery.
Well done.
This was my repsonse.
It obviously has not been made clear in the general culture that Torah stands as much for fiduciary as ritual purity, and the fault, in this case, is not with the anti-semites. When one says "values of Torah", "decency and honesty and absolute integrity" are rarely the first things to come to anyone's mind. Even among the most decent Torah-observant.
The Orthodox community and its institutions need to come up with a foolproof series of background checks and prophylactic policies vis-a-vis philantropists regarding their fiduciary reliability before exminaing their religious bona fides (easier said than done, but nonetheless).
I would even go as far as coming up with a method of public shaming of proven thieves, even creating a virtual "mitzvah" of reporting them to the secular authorities. However, we see how much luck we've had in rooting out sexual predators; how much moreso rooting out financial malefactors, who usually can buy their way out of anything until they run out of money. Like Madoff.
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
I'm Gonna Have To Say Something About Prop 8
When I started this blog, I essentially explained its raison d’etre in the equivalent of three pages when I could have explained it one sentence. To wit: I am ostensibly a self-hating conservative who is forever trying to intellectually justify my conservative positions as exceptions to my imagined ingrained liberalism.
Prop 8 provides an illustration of said phenomenon.
As a believing Orthodox Jew, knowing what I know about the sources of Jewish Law and its legal system, I consider myself intellectually bound to believe in its truth. I will not even try to argue with anyone who considers my views on Prop 8 to be homophobic; in today’s political climate, they probably are. I also personally believe there is no way to mitigate the Jewish legal prohibitions vis-a-vis homosexuality with any degree of intellectual honesty. But that’s another discussion (see the last article below).
So I'll say this:
Other than the purely theological, there is no truly logical reason to morally oppose homosexual relations between consenting adults.
Anyone claiming otherwise is either intellectually dishonest or self-delusional.
So, again for the record, had I been in the voting booth in California, I would not have pulled the lever in either direction, for the simple reason that no salient non-theological argument has been proffered in its favor. I count myself to be on the side of Prop 8’s proponents (certainly, those who voted “no” would put me there, even if—or possibly because—I would have abstained). However, the burden of proof of the proposition’s non-theological moral saliency is clearly on its proponents, and they have not come close to meeting it.
Below are four articles that illustrate just how far they are. (And, if you read Lisa Miller’s Newsweek article (fourth below), you’ll see how tenuous the theological argument is.)
An Orthodox Jewish religious perspective:
'MARRIED' AND THE MOB, Rabbi Avi Shafran
It seems clearer than ever that gay activists are not, as was once thought, interested only on being left alone, or, as was later thought, on being granted the same privileges as others. They are fixated, in fact, on creating a society where traditional religious perspectives on homosexuality and marriage are regarded, in law and in social dialogue, as the equivalent of racial or ethnic bias.
The scenario of religious people - and institutions like churches, synagogues and mosques - being branded as bigoted simply for affirming deeply-held religious convictions is around the corner. And eventual prosecution of the same for voicing those convictions is only another corner or two away.
What began as a plea for "rights" is rapidly, and noisily, morphing into an assault on freedom of speech and conscience.
Jews who take their religious tradition seriously will not allow the shifting sands of societal mores to obscure the fact that the Torah forbids homosexual acts, and sanctions only the union of a man and a woman in matrimony. They know, further, that the Talmud and Midrash teach that a saving grace of human society throughout the ages has been its refusal to formalize unions between males.
A politically conservative “natural law” perspective:
California Proposition 8 and Natural Law Rights
Natural law morality guided by conscience preserves and strengthens those relationships and social bonds, builds trust, inhibits our selfishness. We need to regain an appreciation of the morality of natural law as the foundation for our law, both domestically and internationally, and the courts must self-police in recognizing the consequent inherent limitations on their powers, or the grand aspirations of the American Declaration will have come to naught.
The People of California need to reassert their natural law rights against a State Supreme Court that has disdained and disregarded them. They need to overrule the Court’s decision to redefine marriage according to a morality that sees only libertine license as good, with no counterbalancing duties and responsibilities. A State, any State, is a poor substitute for responsible self-governance, self-control, and self-discipline. Nothing less than freedom, true freedom, is at stake, for our children and grandchildren, if not for ourselves.
Please, California, enact Proposition 8. Much more than marriage is at stake, and not just on your fair shores. Help protect our children’s and grandchildren’s marriages, and in doing so, help us take back our Constitution from those who were sworn to preserve it but have been its greatest undoing.
A secular law perspective:
Democracy, Religion and Proposition 8
Geoffrey R. Stone
Does Proposition 8 violate the Constitution? There are several arguments one might make for this position. One might argue that Proposition 8 discriminates against gays and lesbians in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. One might argue that Proposition 8 unconstitutionally limits the fundamental right to marry. One might argue that Proposition 8 violates the separation of church and state. It is this last argument that interests me.
Laws that violate the separation of church and state usually take one of two forms. Either they discriminate against certain religions (“Jews may not serve as jurors”), or they endorse particular religions (“school children must recite the Lord’s Prayer”). Proposition 8 does not violate the principle of separation of church and state in either of these ways. It neither restricts religious freedom nor endorses religious expression.
What it does do, however, is to enact into law a particular religious belief. Indeed, despite invocations of tradition, morality and family values, it seems clear that the only honest explanation for Proposition 8 is religion.
[]
Proposition 8 was a highly successful effort of a particular religious group to conscript the power of the state to impose their religious beliefs on their fellow citizens, whether or not those citizens share those beliefs. This is a serious threat to a free society committed to the principle of separation of church and state.
And, the best argument against Prop 8 from the religious angle, which shows how tenuous even the
theological argument might be.
Our Mutual Joy
Lisa Miller
Let's try for a minute to take the religious conservatives at their word and define marriage as the Bible does. Shall we look to Abraham, the great patriarch, who slept with his servant when he discovered his beloved wife Sarah was infertile? Or to Jacob, who fathered children with four different women (two sisters and their servants)? Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon and the kings of Judah and Israel—all these fathers and heroes were polygamists. The New Testament model of marriage is hardly better. Jesus himself was single and preached an indifference to earthly attachments—especially family. The apostle Paul (also single) regarded marriage as an act of last resort for those unable to contain their animal lust. "It is better to marry than to burn with passion," says the apostle, in one of the most lukewarm endorsements of a treasured institution ever uttered. Would any contemporary heterosexual married couple—who likely woke up on their wedding day harboring some optimistic and newfangled ideas about gender equality and romantic love—turn to the Bible as a how-to script?
Prop 8 provides an illustration of said phenomenon.
As a believing Orthodox Jew, knowing what I know about the sources of Jewish Law and its legal system, I consider myself intellectually bound to believe in its truth. I will not even try to argue with anyone who considers my views on Prop 8 to be homophobic; in today’s political climate, they probably are. I also personally believe there is no way to mitigate the Jewish legal prohibitions vis-a-vis homosexuality with any degree of intellectual honesty. But that’s another discussion (see the last article below).
So I'll say this:
Other than the purely theological, there is no truly logical reason to morally oppose homosexual relations between consenting adults.
Anyone claiming otherwise is either intellectually dishonest or self-delusional.
So, again for the record, had I been in the voting booth in California, I would not have pulled the lever in either direction, for the simple reason that no salient non-theological argument has been proffered in its favor. I count myself to be on the side of Prop 8’s proponents (certainly, those who voted “no” would put me there, even if—or possibly because—I would have abstained). However, the burden of proof of the proposition’s non-theological moral saliency is clearly on its proponents, and they have not come close to meeting it.
Below are four articles that illustrate just how far they are. (And, if you read Lisa Miller’s Newsweek article (fourth below), you’ll see how tenuous the theological argument is.)
An Orthodox Jewish religious perspective:
'MARRIED' AND THE MOB, Rabbi Avi Shafran
It seems clearer than ever that gay activists are not, as was once thought, interested only on being left alone, or, as was later thought, on being granted the same privileges as others. They are fixated, in fact, on creating a society where traditional religious perspectives on homosexuality and marriage are regarded, in law and in social dialogue, as the equivalent of racial or ethnic bias.
The scenario of religious people - and institutions like churches, synagogues and mosques - being branded as bigoted simply for affirming deeply-held religious convictions is around the corner. And eventual prosecution of the same for voicing those convictions is only another corner or two away.
What began as a plea for "rights" is rapidly, and noisily, morphing into an assault on freedom of speech and conscience.
Jews who take their religious tradition seriously will not allow the shifting sands of societal mores to obscure the fact that the Torah forbids homosexual acts, and sanctions only the union of a man and a woman in matrimony. They know, further, that the Talmud and Midrash teach that a saving grace of human society throughout the ages has been its refusal to formalize unions between males.
A politically conservative “natural law” perspective:
California Proposition 8 and Natural Law Rights
Natural law morality guided by conscience preserves and strengthens those relationships and social bonds, builds trust, inhibits our selfishness. We need to regain an appreciation of the morality of natural law as the foundation for our law, both domestically and internationally, and the courts must self-police in recognizing the consequent inherent limitations on their powers, or the grand aspirations of the American Declaration will have come to naught.
The People of California need to reassert their natural law rights against a State Supreme Court that has disdained and disregarded them. They need to overrule the Court’s decision to redefine marriage according to a morality that sees only libertine license as good, with no counterbalancing duties and responsibilities. A State, any State, is a poor substitute for responsible self-governance, self-control, and self-discipline. Nothing less than freedom, true freedom, is at stake, for our children and grandchildren, if not for ourselves.
Please, California, enact Proposition 8. Much more than marriage is at stake, and not just on your fair shores. Help protect our children’s and grandchildren’s marriages, and in doing so, help us take back our Constitution from those who were sworn to preserve it but have been its greatest undoing.
A secular law perspective:
Democracy, Religion and Proposition 8
Geoffrey R. Stone
Does Proposition 8 violate the Constitution? There are several arguments one might make for this position. One might argue that Proposition 8 discriminates against gays and lesbians in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. One might argue that Proposition 8 unconstitutionally limits the fundamental right to marry. One might argue that Proposition 8 violates the separation of church and state. It is this last argument that interests me.
Laws that violate the separation of church and state usually take one of two forms. Either they discriminate against certain religions (“Jews may not serve as jurors”), or they endorse particular religions (“school children must recite the Lord’s Prayer”). Proposition 8 does not violate the principle of separation of church and state in either of these ways. It neither restricts religious freedom nor endorses religious expression.
What it does do, however, is to enact into law a particular religious belief. Indeed, despite invocations of tradition, morality and family values, it seems clear that the only honest explanation for Proposition 8 is religion.
[]
Proposition 8 was a highly successful effort of a particular religious group to conscript the power of the state to impose their religious beliefs on their fellow citizens, whether or not those citizens share those beliefs. This is a serious threat to a free society committed to the principle of separation of church and state.
And, the best argument against Prop 8 from the religious angle, which shows how tenuous even the
theological argument might be.
Our Mutual Joy
Lisa Miller
Let's try for a minute to take the religious conservatives at their word and define marriage as the Bible does. Shall we look to Abraham, the great patriarch, who slept with his servant when he discovered his beloved wife Sarah was infertile? Or to Jacob, who fathered children with four different women (two sisters and their servants)? Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon and the kings of Judah and Israel—all these fathers and heroes were polygamists. The New Testament model of marriage is hardly better. Jesus himself was single and preached an indifference to earthly attachments—especially family. The apostle Paul (also single) regarded marriage as an act of last resort for those unable to contain their animal lust. "It is better to marry than to burn with passion," says the apostle, in one of the most lukewarm endorsements of a treasured institution ever uttered. Would any contemporary heterosexual married couple—who likely woke up on their wedding day harboring some optimistic and newfangled ideas about gender equality and romantic love—turn to the Bible as a how-to script?
Friday, December 12, 2008
Someone's Paying Attention
In my July 24 post Dirty Laundry I discussed the phenomenon of ostensible enforced silence regarding certain uncomfortable cultural phenomena in the furthest-right Orthodox communities. I specifically didn't deal with abuse of children at that time; that was--and remains--the touchstone phenomenon.
So it was encourgaing to see this, from VosIzNeias, advertised as "The Voice Of The Orthodox Jewish Community":
http://www.vosizneias.com/24091/2008/12/11/borough-park-ny-charedi-girl-molested-on-way-to-school-hiknd-kudos-to-family-for-reporting-it-to-law-enforcement-hynes-speaks-out/
Chareidi Girl Molested On Way To School; Hikind: Kudos To Family For Reporting It to Law Enforcement; Hynes Speaks Out
Borough Park, NY - Last week, in the shadow of the Mumbai massacre, a significant battle in the ongoing war against sexual abuse in the Orthodox community was begun.
A Chasidic resident of Borough Park, beard, conservative clothes and all, lured early morning a Chasidic girl on her way to school into his home off the street in broad daylight under the pretext of needing some assistance. He then proceeded to force and molest his victim, who is under the age of 13.
According to State Assemblyman Dov Hikind, who has championed the cause of abuse victims in recent months, the family first reported the incident to his office. They then contacted four community rabbonim to ask whether they were halachically permitted to report the perpetrator to the authorities. Three rabbonim allegedly said they didn't want to get involved. The fourth, in contrast, permitted them, and apparently strongly urged them to proceed.
The family then reported the incident to the offices of Kings County DA Charles Hynes, which shortly ordered the arrest of the perpetrator. The perpetrator has been Arrested and charged with Sexual Abuse in the Second Degree and Endangering the Welfare of a Child, and is awaiting trial.
VIN News praises the "heimishe" family, as Assemblyman Hikind describes them, for coming forward. VIN News also gives high marks to the courageous, forward-thinking rabbi who allowed the incident's reportage to the authorities. Praises goes out once again to the courage of Assemblyman Hikind for publicizing the issue. And a special recognition needs to go out to Rabbi Yaakov Horowitz Menhal Of Yehsiva Darchai Noam In Monsey, NY who has been speaking out publicly on this subject for many years.
[Editors Note: For those who question why VosizNeias posts columns on the matter of abuse; our response is that discussing problems is the first step in solving them. In fact, Rabbi Yakov Horowitz addresses this very question in his column Why I Write Columns on Abuse which appears in this week's issue of The Jewish Press. His words speak for themselves -- and for the editors of VosizNeias]
VIN News reminds its readers that this incident was perpetrated in the heart of Borough Park, in daylight hours, by a presentable, average-looking Chosid and community member—in contrast to the abuser stereotype of a sinister-looking stranger from the street.
Investigators believe there are more victims of the same perpetrator. VIN News joins investigators' call for victims and their families to come forward. Abuse crimes may be reported to the offices of Assemblyman Hikind or DA Hynes.
In related news, DA Hynes denied charges by a victim's father that Orthodox community leaders pressured him into lightening charges against his child's abuser. In a TV report last night by New York's PIX 11, Hynes argued that he was working hard to prosecute abusers. "There is a suspicion that the orthodox community will hide its sins," he told an interviewer. "I have not found that to be true. They know that I am very, very aggressive on this stuff."
However, in an anonymous interview in the same report, the victim's father insisted that Hynes had been pressured into lessening charges against the accused perpetrator. "I was actually forced to agree to that," he said. "The rabbis in the Jewish community tell the District Attorney, 'Back off.' "
Countered Hynes: "I have two signed statements from parents—they don't want to put their kids through the torture of a trial." The report added that Hynes is pushing for a change in extradition laws with Israel to allow old flights from justice to be returned to American courts for trial.
Perhaps most significantly, the report mentioned that Hynes "would like to sign a memo of understanding" with Orthodox community leaders that they would turn over allegations of abuse to his office instead of trying to handle them within the community—similar to the 2002 agreement with the Catholic Church in the wake of its abusive-priests scandal. VIN is unsure yet cautiously optimistic about this latter development.
So it was encourgaing to see this, from VosIzNeias, advertised as "The Voice Of The Orthodox Jewish Community":
http://www.vosizneias.com/24091/2008/12/11/borough-park-ny-charedi-girl-molested-on-way-to-school-hiknd-kudos-to-family-for-reporting-it-to-law-enforcement-hynes-speaks-out/
Chareidi Girl Molested On Way To School; Hikind: Kudos To Family For Reporting It to Law Enforcement; Hynes Speaks Out
Borough Park, NY - Last week, in the shadow of the Mumbai massacre, a significant battle in the ongoing war against sexual abuse in the Orthodox community was begun.
A Chasidic resident of Borough Park, beard, conservative clothes and all, lured early morning a Chasidic girl on her way to school into his home off the street in broad daylight under the pretext of needing some assistance. He then proceeded to force and molest his victim, who is under the age of 13.
According to State Assemblyman Dov Hikind, who has championed the cause of abuse victims in recent months, the family first reported the incident to his office. They then contacted four community rabbonim to ask whether they were halachically permitted to report the perpetrator to the authorities. Three rabbonim allegedly said they didn't want to get involved. The fourth, in contrast, permitted them, and apparently strongly urged them to proceed.
The family then reported the incident to the offices of Kings County DA Charles Hynes, which shortly ordered the arrest of the perpetrator. The perpetrator has been Arrested and charged with Sexual Abuse in the Second Degree and Endangering the Welfare of a Child, and is awaiting trial.
VIN News praises the "heimishe" family, as Assemblyman Hikind describes them, for coming forward. VIN News also gives high marks to the courageous, forward-thinking rabbi who allowed the incident's reportage to the authorities. Praises goes out once again to the courage of Assemblyman Hikind for publicizing the issue. And a special recognition needs to go out to Rabbi Yaakov Horowitz Menhal Of Yehsiva Darchai Noam In Monsey, NY who has been speaking out publicly on this subject for many years.
[Editors Note: For those who question why VosizNeias posts columns on the matter of abuse; our response is that discussing problems is the first step in solving them. In fact, Rabbi Yakov Horowitz addresses this very question in his column Why I Write Columns on Abuse which appears in this week's issue of The Jewish Press. His words speak for themselves -- and for the editors of VosizNeias]
VIN News reminds its readers that this incident was perpetrated in the heart of Borough Park, in daylight hours, by a presentable, average-looking Chosid and community member—in contrast to the abuser stereotype of a sinister-looking stranger from the street.
Investigators believe there are more victims of the same perpetrator. VIN News joins investigators' call for victims and their families to come forward. Abuse crimes may be reported to the offices of Assemblyman Hikind or DA Hynes.
In related news, DA Hynes denied charges by a victim's father that Orthodox community leaders pressured him into lightening charges against his child's abuser. In a TV report last night by New York's PIX 11, Hynes argued that he was working hard to prosecute abusers. "There is a suspicion that the orthodox community will hide its sins," he told an interviewer. "I have not found that to be true. They know that I am very, very aggressive on this stuff."
However, in an anonymous interview in the same report, the victim's father insisted that Hynes had been pressured into lessening charges against the accused perpetrator. "I was actually forced to agree to that," he said. "The rabbis in the Jewish community tell the District Attorney, 'Back off.' "
Countered Hynes: "I have two signed statements from parents—they don't want to put their kids through the torture of a trial." The report added that Hynes is pushing for a change in extradition laws with Israel to allow old flights from justice to be returned to American courts for trial.
Perhaps most significantly, the report mentioned that Hynes "would like to sign a memo of understanding" with Orthodox community leaders that they would turn over allegations of abuse to his office instead of trying to handle them within the community—similar to the 2002 agreement with the Catholic Church in the wake of its abusive-priests scandal. VIN is unsure yet cautiously optimistic about this latter development.
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Republi-Karma Coda: Blagojevich and Plunkitt
Gov. Rod Blagojevich seems to have directly bypassed traditional Illinois machine politics in managing his career. Instead , one might find a well-worn copy of George Washington Plunkitt’s 1905 Series of Very Plain Talks on Very Practical Politics: “There's an honest graft, and I'm an example of how it works. I might sum up the whole thing by sayin': 'I seen my opportunities and I took 'em.'"
(For the record, Plunkitt did believe there was such a thing as "Dishonest Graft", according to Plunkitt, would be using influence to have a project built on land after the land had been purchased. In any case, he may not have objected to Blajo's practice of selling offices to the highest bidder, as this was a Tammany staple. However, if Blajo actually did read Plunkitt's treatise, it would be unlikely that he would have progressed as far as a passage decrying anything as "dishonest".)
Has the “liberal” media been engaged in an attempt at a massive cover-up of the messianic mess? Unlikely. It seems like they’ve been asking the “hard questions” and then jumping to answer for Obama, but that may be just because there isn’t anything traceably fungible between Rod’s and Barack’s camps. As this investigation had been going on for five years, which pre-dates Jack Ryan’s implosion and Obama’s cakewalk of a Senate election versus GOP heavyweight Alan Keyes, one can safely surmise that Obama was smart enough to stay away.
Additionally, had there been anything substantive and the Republicans gotten wind of it, one thinks that they would have been able to make charges of rank corruption stick; even they hadn’t been simultaneously so brazen and incompetent. In any case, the conservative media has been behaving in exemplary fashion since the election; most “serious” outlets (e.g., not including Limbaugh and Coulter) have essentially been saying the same thing: We Blew It. The realization has set in that they had their moment—28 years of it—and now its over. In terms of political capital, conservatism is certainly experiencing its own recession, and nobody is about to bail them out. Still, even while appearing to be duly chastened, conservatives on whole have been genuinely gracious.
Gary Hart owes Gov. Goniv a thank-you note for one-upping “follow me around; you’ll be very bored”. Hell, Blagojevich even makes Nixon look good; at least Tricky Dick didn’t tell anyone he’d been taping until he was forced to, and besides, JFK was actually the one who had installed the system in the first place.
But to dare the authorities to wiretap you? And after 9/11? The only explanation I can come up with is that Blajo was laying the groundwork for what might turn out to be a successful insanity defense.
Too bad Plunkitt isn't available to defend him.
(For the record, Plunkitt did believe there was such a thing as "Dishonest Graft", according to Plunkitt, would be using influence to have a project built on land after the land had been purchased. In any case, he may not have objected to Blajo's practice of selling offices to the highest bidder, as this was a Tammany staple. However, if Blajo actually did read Plunkitt's treatise, it would be unlikely that he would have progressed as far as a passage decrying anything as "dishonest".)
Has the “liberal” media been engaged in an attempt at a massive cover-up of the messianic mess? Unlikely. It seems like they’ve been asking the “hard questions” and then jumping to answer for Obama, but that may be just because there isn’t anything traceably fungible between Rod’s and Barack’s camps. As this investigation had been going on for five years, which pre-dates Jack Ryan’s implosion and Obama’s cakewalk of a Senate election versus GOP heavyweight Alan Keyes, one can safely surmise that Obama was smart enough to stay away.
Additionally, had there been anything substantive and the Republicans gotten wind of it, one thinks that they would have been able to make charges of rank corruption stick; even they hadn’t been simultaneously so brazen and incompetent. In any case, the conservative media has been behaving in exemplary fashion since the election; most “serious” outlets (e.g., not including Limbaugh and Coulter) have essentially been saying the same thing: We Blew It. The realization has set in that they had their moment—28 years of it—and now its over. In terms of political capital, conservatism is certainly experiencing its own recession, and nobody is about to bail them out. Still, even while appearing to be duly chastened, conservatives on whole have been genuinely gracious.
Gary Hart owes Gov. Goniv a thank-you note for one-upping “follow me around; you’ll be very bored”. Hell, Blagojevich even makes Nixon look good; at least Tricky Dick didn’t tell anyone he’d been taping until he was forced to, and besides, JFK was actually the one who had installed the system in the first place.
But to dare the authorities to wiretap you? And after 9/11? The only explanation I can come up with is that Blajo was laying the groundwork for what might turn out to be a successful insanity defense.
Too bad Plunkitt isn't available to defend him.
Saturday, December 6, 2008
Bailing Myself Out
I didn’t expect that actually trying to keep up with the election was gonna depress me so much that I would get so sick of it, to the point where I couldn’t bring myself to vote for either candidate.
(Well, I won’t go so far as to say I fell into depression. Maybe a recession, and it took till now to get myself bailed out).
I was spoiled the first time I voted in a Presidential (actually, any) election, in 1992. At that point, being pro-Israel dovetailed perfectly with the politics of the Democratic Party; the convention in New York was described as one of the most overtly pro-Israel in years.
Contrast that with the fact that only four years before, in Atlanta, Jesse Jackson and his minions (e.g., Alton Maddox and Vernon Mason) had hijacked the proceedings and practically made the pre-Oslo Arafat Dukakis’ running mate; add to that the image of Pat Buchanan making the keynote speech in Houston at the 1992 GOP convention. The choice for a pro-Israel voter was ostensibly as obviously Democratic then as Republican now. In 1992 it wasn’t all that difficult to be liberal and pro-Israel.
What made the 2008 cycle ultimately so depressing was that it became increasingly more difficult to intellectually justify my vote beyond the Israel factor, especially since I continue to bend over backwards to try to convince myself and others that I’m not conservative. After watching the Katie Couric interviews with Sarah Palin (forget the Supreme Court decisions---couldn’t name a NEWSPAPER or MAGAZINE???? Hell-LLLO?!?!?) it became well-nigh impossible.
(I’ve concluded that Bristol Palin preganacy was not the result of her lack of access to sex ed. She got pregnant because she didn’t have access to ANY ed. Her mother’s knowledge of current events was so lacking, one can only imagine what her daughter’s intellectual proclivities were.)
The good thing about this election is that it seems that the truly toxic partisan elements of our political culture seem to have played themselves out. Granted, things in general are a lot messier now than they were in 2000 and 2004, and there seems to be at least some salient idea, however nebulous, of what’s at stake, and that we all may be on the same side, after all.
(Well, I won’t go so far as to say I fell into depression. Maybe a recession, and it took till now to get myself bailed out).
I was spoiled the first time I voted in a Presidential (actually, any) election, in 1992. At that point, being pro-Israel dovetailed perfectly with the politics of the Democratic Party; the convention in New York was described as one of the most overtly pro-Israel in years.
Contrast that with the fact that only four years before, in Atlanta, Jesse Jackson and his minions (e.g., Alton Maddox and Vernon Mason) had hijacked the proceedings and practically made the pre-Oslo Arafat Dukakis’ running mate; add to that the image of Pat Buchanan making the keynote speech in Houston at the 1992 GOP convention. The choice for a pro-Israel voter was ostensibly as obviously Democratic then as Republican now. In 1992 it wasn’t all that difficult to be liberal and pro-Israel.
What made the 2008 cycle ultimately so depressing was that it became increasingly more difficult to intellectually justify my vote beyond the Israel factor, especially since I continue to bend over backwards to try to convince myself and others that I’m not conservative. After watching the Katie Couric interviews with Sarah Palin (forget the Supreme Court decisions---couldn’t name a NEWSPAPER or MAGAZINE???? Hell-LLLO?!?!?) it became well-nigh impossible.
(I’ve concluded that Bristol Palin preganacy was not the result of her lack of access to sex ed. She got pregnant because she didn’t have access to ANY ed. Her mother’s knowledge of current events was so lacking, one can only imagine what her daughter’s intellectual proclivities were.)
The good thing about this election is that it seems that the truly toxic partisan elements of our political culture seem to have played themselves out. Granted, things in general are a lot messier now than they were in 2000 and 2004, and there seems to be at least some salient idea, however nebulous, of what’s at stake, and that we all may be on the same side, after all.
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Blame the Jews?
Ironic, isn’t it, that the first ones to blame the Jews if Obama loses will be… the Jews.
Obama’s Jewish poll numbers seem to approach that of Carter, the last Democratic candidate not to get a majority of the Jewish vote. This is undoubtedly due to the fact that, to religious Zionist Jews like me, his campaign betrays a decided leftist bent reminiscent of every utopian socio-political fad that ultimately was destructive not only to us, but to the country and, in many cases, the “world order”, for lack of a better term.
For Jews who subscribe to a different set of commandments, their support of Obama is undoubtedly due to the fact that his campaign portrays a decided leftist bent reminiscent of every utopian socio-political fad that ultimately was destructive not only to us, but to the country and, in many cases, the “world order”, for lack of a better term.
“Different set of commandments”?
Absolutely.
I’ve come to the conclusion that, because I’m the one who holds myself accountable to a set of religious principles over and above a set of nebulous ethics that have become as axiomatic--if not more--than any fundamentalist religious doctrine, I am more tolerant and more open-minded than any of my co-religionists who subscribe to the contemporary liberal creed. And, make no mistake about it, contemporary liberalism is a creed.
I didn’t like being preached at during my long and extensive religious education. I don’t like being preached at when I read religious texts for my own edification. However, I never forget that what I’m reading is designed—whoever is responsible for the design—to do exactly that: preach, and preach from a Judeo-centric point of view. It is ultimately up to me to decide what morally and intellectually binds me as a result.
However, I’ll say it again: the Jews who throw an alternative moral code at me are no less self-righteous—or fundamentalist—than the farthest right-wingers with the longest beards. There are certain liberal tenets I can accept, but the beauty of liberal doctrine was supposed to be that it would be up to me to decide what would be morally binding.
That no longer being the case, I can handle the implication that my Judaism—especially when combined with my support for Israel—ipso facto renders me morally suspect, as far as liberals are concerned. I should have expected that long ago. What I suppose I’m going to have to get used to is the implication that my being Jewish should actually morally bind me to leftist doctrines, and that my refusal to do so renders me the wrong kind of Jew, or insufficiently Jewish.
If Sarah Silverman wants to be my Rabbi, where was she when I was in high school?
Obama’s Jewish poll numbers seem to approach that of Carter, the last Democratic candidate not to get a majority of the Jewish vote. This is undoubtedly due to the fact that, to religious Zionist Jews like me, his campaign betrays a decided leftist bent reminiscent of every utopian socio-political fad that ultimately was destructive not only to us, but to the country and, in many cases, the “world order”, for lack of a better term.
For Jews who subscribe to a different set of commandments, their support of Obama is undoubtedly due to the fact that his campaign portrays a decided leftist bent reminiscent of every utopian socio-political fad that ultimately was destructive not only to us, but to the country and, in many cases, the “world order”, for lack of a better term.
“Different set of commandments”?
Absolutely.
I’ve come to the conclusion that, because I’m the one who holds myself accountable to a set of religious principles over and above a set of nebulous ethics that have become as axiomatic--if not more--than any fundamentalist religious doctrine, I am more tolerant and more open-minded than any of my co-religionists who subscribe to the contemporary liberal creed. And, make no mistake about it, contemporary liberalism is a creed.
I didn’t like being preached at during my long and extensive religious education. I don’t like being preached at when I read religious texts for my own edification. However, I never forget that what I’m reading is designed—whoever is responsible for the design—to do exactly that: preach, and preach from a Judeo-centric point of view. It is ultimately up to me to decide what morally and intellectually binds me as a result.
However, I’ll say it again: the Jews who throw an alternative moral code at me are no less self-righteous—or fundamentalist—than the farthest right-wingers with the longest beards. There are certain liberal tenets I can accept, but the beauty of liberal doctrine was supposed to be that it would be up to me to decide what would be morally binding.
That no longer being the case, I can handle the implication that my Judaism—especially when combined with my support for Israel—ipso facto renders me morally suspect, as far as liberals are concerned. I should have expected that long ago. What I suppose I’m going to have to get used to is the implication that my being Jewish should actually morally bind me to leftist doctrines, and that my refusal to do so renders me the wrong kind of Jew, or insufficiently Jewish.
If Sarah Silverman wants to be my Rabbi, where was she when I was in high school?
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Back to School
I was going to write that I had thought Sarah Palin’s obvious weaknesses could have been converted to strengths.
I was going to write that her obvious inexperience in foreign policy—or, any real policy outside of Alaska—would be blunted by controversy surrounding Obama’s “community organizing”, either because of its purported lack of gravitas or the unsavory characters Obama associated with in these organizations. (This despite the fact that Obama’s Chicago “communities’” populations might have approached the total population of Alaska).
I has hoped that Gov. Palin’s sex would serve to a) reintroduce gender into the race after the Obama campaign thought it had cleared that hurdle by beating Hillary, at the same time that it would b) serve as a living breathing rejoinder to hard Left Marxist gynocentrism that remains a fundamental part of the current Democratic zeitgeist, in spite of—or even because of—her Assembly of G-d-driven outlook (vis-Ã -vis abortion, sex education, etc.).
I had surmised that her lack of policy experience, her relatively short political c.v. and her deeply held, unabashed belief system would be less vulnerable to generic political charges of flip-flopping, because she hadn’t had enough opportunities to do it.
I was going to theorize that the combination of these factors, and the fact that she (credibly) holds herself out as a working-class mom with a regular family (and, a certainly “imperfect” family, which could only work in her favor) and rising from the PTA to the governor’s mansion would resonate more widely with the American public than Obama’s tale of growing up with a single mother in, while not privileged, certainly a unique set of circumstances that relate to American life in much narrower (and, certainly his case, more “elite”) sense.
I hoped, once I had ceased being a swing voter and committed to the McCain-Palin ticket, that all of this would coalesce into a solid electoral asset for the ticket; especially with an economic crisis afoot where the conventional wisdom and general perception is that it is a Republican creation, her impression of a complete political and economic outsider could only help the ticket’s prospects.
I couldn’t decide whether she had handled, or been handled, in her interviews with Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric. However, it was evident that she had been able, to q certain degree, deflect their obvious biases, if not highlight them, so those were, at worst, a draw for her.
Then I watched tonight’s debates and saw what exactly she was up against.
It was obvious that she is being kept on a short leash.
It was clear that the hope was that, unlike her appearance onstage in Minneapolis where she truly shined, that she would simply not screw up.
It was revealed that she was truly a national policy neophyte who needed her talking points scripted and that she, unlike her counterpart, was breaking her teeth selling them in an arena where the playing field was actually level.
More importantly, it was the first time the people running the McCain campaign were really in a no-win situation, realized it, but realized they couldn’t do anything about it.
Obama sounded like a Senator. McCain sounded like a Senator. Biden sounded like a Senator.
Sarah Palin sounded like a schoolmarm, or at best, a parochial high-school social studies teacher conducting a current events lesson.
Now I might be biased, because there was only one social studies teacher I ever liked/had a crush on, and she looked nothing like Sarah Palin. I don’t think that was the case, however; I didn’t get the impression that she was being overbearing. It made her look like she wanted to finish the lesson before the class became inevitably unruly.
This time, Biden took her back to school.
I have written off the McCain campaign before, even as I had been leaning to (and am now committed to) voting for the McCain ticket.
I’m not doing that now. Up until now, Palin was an unqualified asset to the ticket. And, now that she has been freed from this social obligation of the electoral season, its time for the ticket to take off the leash and let her do what she does best.
Attack.
Republi-Karma III: Economics
In the simplest sense, the economic crisis is the result of the perfect convergence of Republican deregulation and Democratic affirmative action.
To wit, the removal of barriers between, and oversight from, investment and commercial banking, which was the true culmination of deregulatory impulses stemming back to the 1980’s, combined with the policy of handing out loans deliberately to those who were more likely to default, but whose entitlement to said loans was influenced by other factors.
One may not even have to “stoop” to identifying said factor as ethnicity; it seems as if the borrower’s likely inability to pay was the deciding factor in actually lending the money. This is paradigmatic “acqusitionism”: EVERYONE has a RIGHT to OWN a home, no matter who has to pay for it. Just like health care and education.
(This also might raise questions about whether need-based “affirmative action” in academia and elsewhere is a more reasonable policy than ethnicity-based admissions/placement. I still think it is, especially with regards education, particularly due to its more intangible benefits. )
However, there are two reasons why this crisis, beyond the stereotypical Republican-as-Wall-Street-versus-Democrat-as-Main-Street stereotype, is going to hurt the Republicans more than the Democrats.
The first reason is that, while housing was the primary catalyst is precipitating this crisis, it was more a symptom than cause, particularly because while profits were being made no one was going to complain too loudly, or at least do anything about it. The Republican claim of warnings issued about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, whether they are true or not, lack credibility because the culture of deregulation is undoubtedly their creation.
The second reason is that, like 1968, the already hemorrhaging treasury is being simultaneously drained by an unpopular and divisive war. The party in charge paid for it then, and may pay for it now.
It also seems that the Democrats have gotten over their fear of playing politics to win; Nancy Pelosi seems willing to drag out the crisis long enough to allow the playing field to be tilted further in the Democrats favor. However, this naked tactic is certainly not unknown on the other side of the aisle; after 9/11, the Wall Street Journal advised Bush and his administration to use the events to his political advantage (although Rove, Cheney and his minions would have, and did, do exactly that in any case).
The only question is whether Congress is having fun grandstanding while the Treasury drains. There is no question of whether they care. They don’t.
To wit, the removal of barriers between, and oversight from, investment and commercial banking, which was the true culmination of deregulatory impulses stemming back to the 1980’s, combined with the policy of handing out loans deliberately to those who were more likely to default, but whose entitlement to said loans was influenced by other factors.
One may not even have to “stoop” to identifying said factor as ethnicity; it seems as if the borrower’s likely inability to pay was the deciding factor in actually lending the money. This is paradigmatic “acqusitionism”: EVERYONE has a RIGHT to OWN a home, no matter who has to pay for it. Just like health care and education.
(This also might raise questions about whether need-based “affirmative action” in academia and elsewhere is a more reasonable policy than ethnicity-based admissions/placement. I still think it is, especially with regards education, particularly due to its more intangible benefits. )
However, there are two reasons why this crisis, beyond the stereotypical Republican-as-Wall-Street-versus-Democrat-as-Main-Street stereotype, is going to hurt the Republicans more than the Democrats.
The first reason is that, while housing was the primary catalyst is precipitating this crisis, it was more a symptom than cause, particularly because while profits were being made no one was going to complain too loudly, or at least do anything about it. The Republican claim of warnings issued about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, whether they are true or not, lack credibility because the culture of deregulation is undoubtedly their creation.
The second reason is that, like 1968, the already hemorrhaging treasury is being simultaneously drained by an unpopular and divisive war. The party in charge paid for it then, and may pay for it now.
It also seems that the Democrats have gotten over their fear of playing politics to win; Nancy Pelosi seems willing to drag out the crisis long enough to allow the playing field to be tilted further in the Democrats favor. However, this naked tactic is certainly not unknown on the other side of the aisle; after 9/11, the Wall Street Journal advised Bush and his administration to use the events to his political advantage (although Rove, Cheney and his minions would have, and did, do exactly that in any case).
The only question is whether Congress is having fun grandstanding while the Treasury drains. There is no question of whether they care. They don’t.
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Gynocentrists Have No Real Principles
No one should expect that any doctriniare feminists will decry the atrocity chronicled here.
But a very loud "Where Were You When....?" should be waved in the face of anyone who attacks Sarah Palin for not subscribing to gynocentrism.
Every time.
from:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080928/wl_afp/afghanistanunrestwomenpolice
Taliban kill Afghanistan's most high-profile policewoman
by Nasrat Shoaib
Sun Sep 28, 9:32 AM ET
KANDAHAR, Afghanistan, Sept 28, 2008 (AFP) - Taliban gunmen shot dead the most high profile female police officer in Afghanistan and wounded her teenaged son as she left home to go to work Sunday, officials and the militia said.
Attackers waiting outside the home of Malalai Kakar, head of the city of Kandahar's department of crimes against women, opened fire on her car as she left, Kandahar government spokesman Zalmay Ayoobi told AFP.
"Today between 7 am and 8 am when she was (in her car) outside her house and going to her job, some gunmen attacked," Ayoobi said.
"Malalai Kakar died in front of her house. Her son was wounded."
A doctor in the city's main hospital said Kakar, in her late 40s, had been shot in the head.
"She died on the spot and her son was badly injured and is in a coma," he said on condition of anonymity.
Her son, aged 15, had been driving Kakar to work, police said. The boy later came out of the coma but was in a serious condition.
A spokesman for the extremist Taliban movement, which targets government officials as part of a growing deadly insurgency, said that the assassins were from his group.
"We killed Malalai Kakar," spokesman Yousuf Ahmadi told AFP. "She was our target, and we successfully eliminated our target."
President Hamid Karzai condemned the attack, saying in a statement that it was an "act of cowardice" by the "enemies of the peace and welfare and reconstruction of Afghanistan."
The European Mission branch in Afghanistan said Kakar had been an "example" in her country and her murder was "particularly abhorrent."
The interior ministry praised her as a "brave hero and loyal to her profession."
Kakar, a mother of six, was regularly profiled in international media and was known for her courage in one of Afghanistan's most conservative provinces.
A captain in the police force and the most senior policewoman in Kandahar, she headed a team of about 10 women police officers and had reportedly received numerous death threats.
Kandahar is the birthplace of the extremist Taliban, who are mounting a growing insurgency that targets government officials.
During their 1996-2001 hold on power, the Taliban stopped women from working outside the home and even leaving home without a male relative and an all-covering burqa.
Kakar was the first woman to enrol in the Kandahar police force after the 2001 ouster of the Taliban and had been involved in investigating crimes against women and children, and conducting house searches.
The head of Kandahar province's women's affairs department was killed in a similar way two years ago.
And in June gunmen shot dead a female police officer in the western province of Herat in what was believed to be the first assassination of a female police officer in the war-torn country.
Bibi Hoor, 26, was on her way home when two armed men on motorbikes opened fire, killing her instantly. It was not clear who killed her or why.
Afghanistan's police force was destroyed by the time the Taliban were removed and is being rebuilt with international assistance. It numbers about 80,000 people, including a few hundred women.
About 750 policemen have been killed in the past six months, mostly in insurgency-linked violence sweeping the country.
But a very loud "Where Were You When....?" should be waved in the face of anyone who attacks Sarah Palin for not subscribing to gynocentrism.
Every time.
from:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080928/wl_afp/afghanistanunrestwomenpolice
Taliban kill Afghanistan's most high-profile policewoman
by Nasrat Shoaib
Sun Sep 28, 9:32 AM ET
KANDAHAR, Afghanistan, Sept 28, 2008 (AFP) - Taliban gunmen shot dead the most high profile female police officer in Afghanistan and wounded her teenaged son as she left home to go to work Sunday, officials and the militia said.
Attackers waiting outside the home of Malalai Kakar, head of the city of Kandahar's department of crimes against women, opened fire on her car as she left, Kandahar government spokesman Zalmay Ayoobi told AFP.
"Today between 7 am and 8 am when she was (in her car) outside her house and going to her job, some gunmen attacked," Ayoobi said.
"Malalai Kakar died in front of her house. Her son was wounded."
A doctor in the city's main hospital said Kakar, in her late 40s, had been shot in the head.
"She died on the spot and her son was badly injured and is in a coma," he said on condition of anonymity.
Her son, aged 15, had been driving Kakar to work, police said. The boy later came out of the coma but was in a serious condition.
A spokesman for the extremist Taliban movement, which targets government officials as part of a growing deadly insurgency, said that the assassins were from his group.
"We killed Malalai Kakar," spokesman Yousuf Ahmadi told AFP. "She was our target, and we successfully eliminated our target."
President Hamid Karzai condemned the attack, saying in a statement that it was an "act of cowardice" by the "enemies of the peace and welfare and reconstruction of Afghanistan."
The European Mission branch in Afghanistan said Kakar had been an "example" in her country and her murder was "particularly abhorrent."
The interior ministry praised her as a "brave hero and loyal to her profession."
Kakar, a mother of six, was regularly profiled in international media and was known for her courage in one of Afghanistan's most conservative provinces.
A captain in the police force and the most senior policewoman in Kandahar, she headed a team of about 10 women police officers and had reportedly received numerous death threats.
Kandahar is the birthplace of the extremist Taliban, who are mounting a growing insurgency that targets government officials.
During their 1996-2001 hold on power, the Taliban stopped women from working outside the home and even leaving home without a male relative and an all-covering burqa.
Kakar was the first woman to enrol in the Kandahar police force after the 2001 ouster of the Taliban and had been involved in investigating crimes against women and children, and conducting house searches.
The head of Kandahar province's women's affairs department was killed in a similar way two years ago.
And in June gunmen shot dead a female police officer in the western province of Herat in what was believed to be the first assassination of a female police officer in the war-torn country.
Bibi Hoor, 26, was on her way home when two armed men on motorbikes opened fire, killing her instantly. It was not clear who killed her or why.
Afghanistan's police force was destroyed by the time the Taliban were removed and is being rebuilt with international assistance. It numbers about 80,000 people, including a few hundred women.
About 750 policemen have been killed in the past six months, mostly in insurgency-linked violence sweeping the country.
Self-Explanatory
It's pretty clear to most readers of this blog that I'm voting for McCain.
From the domestic angle, I'm convinced that Obama and his minions are unabashed socialists. But that's another story.
I think the follwing article excerptexplains everything from the foreign-policy angle. I don't have to say anything else.
from:
Obama, McCain and Israel
Who really stands by Israel? Obama's, McCain's worldviews provide the answer
09.27.08, 14:13 / Israel Opinion
Yoram Ettinger
How would the worldview of Obama, McCain and their advisors shape US policy toward Israel?
1. According to McCain, World War III between Western democracies and Islamic terror/rogue regimes is already in process. According to Obama, the conflict is with a radical Islamic minority, which could be dealt with through diplomacy, foreign aid, cultural exchanges and a lower US military profile. Thus, McCain's worldview highlights – while Obama's worldview downplays – Israel's role as a strategic ally. McCain recognizes that US-Israel relations have been shaped by shared values, mutual threats and joint interests and not by frequent disagreements over the Arab-Israeli conflict.
2. According to Obama, the US needs to adopt the worldview of the Department of State bureaucracy (Israel's staunchest critic in Washington,) pacify the knee-jerk-anti-Israel-UN, move closer to the Peace-at-any-Price-Western Europe and appease the Third World, which blames the West and Israel for the predicament of the Third World and the Arabs. On the other hand, McCain contends that the US should persist – in defiance of global odds - in being the Free World's Pillar of Fire, ideologically and militarily.
3. According to Obama, Islamic terrorism constitutes a challenge for international law enforcement agencies and terrorists should be brought to justice. According to McCain, they are a military challenge and should be brought down to their knees. Obama's passive approach adrenalizes the veins of terrorists and intensifies Israel's predicament, while McCain's approach bolsters the US' and Israel's war on terrorism.
4. Obama and his advisors assume that Islamic terrorism is driven by despair, poverty, erroneous US policy and US presence on Muslim soil in the Persian Gulf. On the other hand, McCain maintains that Islamic terrorism is driven by ideology, which considers US values (freedom of expression, religion, media, movement, market and Internet) and US power a most lethal threat that must be demolished. McCain's worldview supports Israel's battle against terrorism, demonstrating that the root cause of the Arab-Israel conflict is not the size – but the existence - of Israel.
5. Contrary to McCain, Obama is convinced – just like Tony Blair - that the Palestinian issue is the core cause of Middle East turbulence and anti-Western Islamic terrorism, and therefore requires a more assertive US involvement, exerting additional pressure on Israel. The intriguing assumption that a less-than-100 year old Palestinian issue is the root cause of 1,400 year old inter-Arab Middle East conflicts and Islamic terrorism, would deepen US involvement in Israel-Palestinians negotiations and transform the US into more of a neutral broker and less of a special ally of Israel, which would drive Israel into sweeping concessions.
Obama's worldview would be welcomed by supporters of an Israeli rollback to the 1949 ceasefire lines, including the repartitioning of Jerusalem and the opening of the "Pandora Refugees' Box." On the other hand, McCain's worldview adheres to the assumption that an Israeli retreat would convert the Jewish State from a power of deterrence to a punching bag, from a producer – to a consumer – of national security and from a strategic asset to a strategic burden in the most violent, volatile and treacherous region in the world.
From the domestic angle, I'm convinced that Obama and his minions are unabashed socialists. But that's another story.
I think the follwing article excerptexplains everything from the foreign-policy angle. I don't have to say anything else.
from:
Obama, McCain and Israel
Who really stands by Israel? Obama's, McCain's worldviews provide the answer
09.27.08, 14:13 / Israel Opinion
Yoram Ettinger
How would the worldview of Obama, McCain and their advisors shape US policy toward Israel?
1. According to McCain, World War III between Western democracies and Islamic terror/rogue regimes is already in process. According to Obama, the conflict is with a radical Islamic minority, which could be dealt with through diplomacy, foreign aid, cultural exchanges and a lower US military profile. Thus, McCain's worldview highlights – while Obama's worldview downplays – Israel's role as a strategic ally. McCain recognizes that US-Israel relations have been shaped by shared values, mutual threats and joint interests and not by frequent disagreements over the Arab-Israeli conflict.
2. According to Obama, the US needs to adopt the worldview of the Department of State bureaucracy (Israel's staunchest critic in Washington,) pacify the knee-jerk-anti-Israel-UN, move closer to the Peace-at-any-Price-Western Europe and appease the Third World, which blames the West and Israel for the predicament of the Third World and the Arabs. On the other hand, McCain contends that the US should persist – in defiance of global odds - in being the Free World's Pillar of Fire, ideologically and militarily.
3. According to Obama, Islamic terrorism constitutes a challenge for international law enforcement agencies and terrorists should be brought to justice. According to McCain, they are a military challenge and should be brought down to their knees. Obama's passive approach adrenalizes the veins of terrorists and intensifies Israel's predicament, while McCain's approach bolsters the US' and Israel's war on terrorism.
4. Obama and his advisors assume that Islamic terrorism is driven by despair, poverty, erroneous US policy and US presence on Muslim soil in the Persian Gulf. On the other hand, McCain maintains that Islamic terrorism is driven by ideology, which considers US values (freedom of expression, religion, media, movement, market and Internet) and US power a most lethal threat that must be demolished. McCain's worldview supports Israel's battle against terrorism, demonstrating that the root cause of the Arab-Israel conflict is not the size – but the existence - of Israel.
5. Contrary to McCain, Obama is convinced – just like Tony Blair - that the Palestinian issue is the core cause of Middle East turbulence and anti-Western Islamic terrorism, and therefore requires a more assertive US involvement, exerting additional pressure on Israel. The intriguing assumption that a less-than-100 year old Palestinian issue is the root cause of 1,400 year old inter-Arab Middle East conflicts and Islamic terrorism, would deepen US involvement in Israel-Palestinians negotiations and transform the US into more of a neutral broker and less of a special ally of Israel, which would drive Israel into sweeping concessions.
Obama's worldview would be welcomed by supporters of an Israeli rollback to the 1949 ceasefire lines, including the repartitioning of Jerusalem and the opening of the "Pandora Refugees' Box." On the other hand, McCain's worldview adheres to the assumption that an Israeli retreat would convert the Jewish State from a power of deterrence to a punching bag, from a producer – to a consumer – of national security and from a strategic asset to a strategic burden in the most violent, volatile and treacherous region in the world.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Liberal Jews: Dual Loyalties?
Some friendly advice to our Obama-supporting friends: When your interests are aligned with those of Iran's President and Hitler-wannabe Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, it's time for some re-assessment of priorities… There is something very wrong with a party that insists on sitting down with Ahmadinejad without preconditions, but refuses to share a stage with the Republican Party candidate for Vice President of the United States of America.
From: Democrats give Ahmadinejad reason to smile
Abraham Katsman and Kory Bardash Sep. 24, 2008 http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1222017379006&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Jewish American voters should consider carefully whether opposing a woman who opposes the abortion of fetuses is really more important than standing up for the right of already born Jews to continue to live and for the Jewish state to continue to exist. Because this week it came to that.
From:
Caroline Glick, Sep 22, 2008 www.jpost.com caroline@carolineglick.com
I agree with both of these sentiments. My only question is whether the writers of these articles are expressing any surprise along with their outrage, either toward Jewish Liberals (Glick) or Liberals in general (Katsman and Bardash).
Katsman, Bardash and Glick are missing some of the impeti behind this (relatively) new Zeitgeist.
Regarding Katsman and Bardash’s assessment, one must see that the Democrats are not going to make the same mistakes they did in 2000 or 2004, when they felt compelled to take the ostensible moral high road at the highest political cost: the presidency.
Regarding Glick’s piece, unfettered access to abortion is undoubtedly the closest thing the Democrat left has to a sacrament, and it dovetails quite nicely with the aforementioned political urgency, inasmuch as the Republican Party platform calls for a Constitutional amendment protecting the fetus, and the current Republican VP candidate is on the record opposing abortion in all circumstances including rape and incest.
For doctrinaire liberal Jews, and certainly for doctrinaire liberals, there is no conflict in either case. And, in a certain sense, we shouldn’t expect there to be; it really is a very small majority of Jews—and I include myself among them---whose Jewish identity is central enough to their political identity that it overrides other political sentiments. I say override because I am still not comfortable with many conservative tenets, nor am I convinced that conservatives are our friends any more than I am convinced liberals are our implacable enemies. (We just have to hope that our penchant for self-destruction stops somewhere short of liberals’.)
Irrespective of how the recission of Palin’s invitation to the rally was handled, and the liberal/Democratic pressures that went along with it, I’m not so sure it ultimately would have been a good idea to have only Palin there with no Democratic balance. (I’m not saying that this was anyone’s fault but the Democrats, but bear with me.) The last thing anyone needs right now is for anyone to think that fighting terror is a uniquely conservative concern. Especially in this political climate.
The 1980 election was the last time Jews abandoned the Democrats in a national election; the notion that Carter was hostile toward Israel (if not Jews) has seemed to bear that out. In 1992, however, the Democrats took advantage of Bush I's perceived hostility toward the Jewish state (if not Jews as well, again) and were amply rewarded. I registered as a Democrat in that election, the first election I voted in.
Regarding the question of whether it is better for Jews to be liberal or conservative. I would say a Jew should never be forced to make that choice. I would also cringe when Jews assert that one side of the political fence, or the other, is ipso facto compatible with Judaism, whichever version. I would assert with equal force that Jews who adopt one political doctrine, or the other, as a set of personal sacraments, should be aware of what they are getting themselves into.
I'm ceratinly not going to tell them.
From: Democrats give Ahmadinejad reason to smile
Abraham Katsman and Kory Bardash Sep. 24, 2008 http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1222017379006&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Jewish American voters should consider carefully whether opposing a woman who opposes the abortion of fetuses is really more important than standing up for the right of already born Jews to continue to live and for the Jewish state to continue to exist. Because this week it came to that.
From:
Caroline Glick, Sep 22, 2008 www.jpost.com caroline@carolineglick.com
I agree with both of these sentiments. My only question is whether the writers of these articles are expressing any surprise along with their outrage, either toward Jewish Liberals (Glick) or Liberals in general (Katsman and Bardash).
Katsman, Bardash and Glick are missing some of the impeti behind this (relatively) new Zeitgeist.
Regarding Katsman and Bardash’s assessment, one must see that the Democrats are not going to make the same mistakes they did in 2000 or 2004, when they felt compelled to take the ostensible moral high road at the highest political cost: the presidency.
Regarding Glick’s piece, unfettered access to abortion is undoubtedly the closest thing the Democrat left has to a sacrament, and it dovetails quite nicely with the aforementioned political urgency, inasmuch as the Republican Party platform calls for a Constitutional amendment protecting the fetus, and the current Republican VP candidate is on the record opposing abortion in all circumstances including rape and incest.
For doctrinaire liberal Jews, and certainly for doctrinaire liberals, there is no conflict in either case. And, in a certain sense, we shouldn’t expect there to be; it really is a very small majority of Jews—and I include myself among them---whose Jewish identity is central enough to their political identity that it overrides other political sentiments. I say override because I am still not comfortable with many conservative tenets, nor am I convinced that conservatives are our friends any more than I am convinced liberals are our implacable enemies. (We just have to hope that our penchant for self-destruction stops somewhere short of liberals’.)
Irrespective of how the recission of Palin’s invitation to the rally was handled, and the liberal/Democratic pressures that went along with it, I’m not so sure it ultimately would have been a good idea to have only Palin there with no Democratic balance. (I’m not saying that this was anyone’s fault but the Democrats, but bear with me.) The last thing anyone needs right now is for anyone to think that fighting terror is a uniquely conservative concern. Especially in this political climate.
The 1980 election was the last time Jews abandoned the Democrats in a national election; the notion that Carter was hostile toward Israel (if not Jews) has seemed to bear that out. In 1992, however, the Democrats took advantage of Bush I's perceived hostility toward the Jewish state (if not Jews as well, again) and were amply rewarded. I registered as a Democrat in that election, the first election I voted in.
Regarding the question of whether it is better for Jews to be liberal or conservative. I would say a Jew should never be forced to make that choice. I would also cringe when Jews assert that one side of the political fence, or the other, is ipso facto compatible with Judaism, whichever version. I would assert with equal force that Jews who adopt one political doctrine, or the other, as a set of personal sacraments, should be aware of what they are getting themselves into.
I'm ceratinly not going to tell them.
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Palintology vs. Obama-ssianism
Palin's presence on the ticket is such that many voters have been entranced by her enough to ignore the "scarier" elements of her political agenda. Even liberals--especially liberal women--are taken in (read the most recent Newsweek). That's why the hard Left and the Obamaniacs are so up in arms: she is not only a "heretic" (as an "anti-feminist" woman) who stands as a rebuke against everything they stand for (see: Eve Ensler, Matt Damon), but she has stolen Obama's charisma factor from right under him. Not to mention that she reopens the gender-race battle that Obama thought he'd already won.
Also, if Democrats are hoping that the current economic crisis will spell electroal success fro them the way it did in 1992, they aren;t paying attention. Only the hard Left has really been able to effectively tag McCain as W's inevitable third term; Wall Street's straits might elicit some stronger anti-corporate and anti-capitalist schadenfreude among the American public, but any real socialist-influenced advocacy of soaking the rich will be blunted by the message that there is nothing left to collect from.
I wrote off McCain way too early (in particular, in Republi-Karma). This is no longer Obama's election to lose.
Also, if Democrats are hoping that the current economic crisis will spell electroal success fro them the way it did in 1992, they aren;t paying attention. Only the hard Left has really been able to effectively tag McCain as W's inevitable third term; Wall Street's straits might elicit some stronger anti-corporate and anti-capitalist schadenfreude among the American public, but any real socialist-influenced advocacy of soaking the rich will be blunted by the message that there is nothing left to collect from.
I wrote off McCain way too early (in particular, in Republi-Karma). This is no longer Obama's election to lose.
Monday, September 15, 2008
United Nazi-ons
No, that's not a misprint. I insist on that being the correct spelling.
Dave Barry has opined that the raison d'etre of the UN is to "denounce Israel for everything, including sunspots."
I suppose I betray my ostensible knee-jerk pro-Israel sentiment when I counter-"bash" the UN.
Never mind that its "Committee on Human Rights" has seated, in no particular order, China, Syria, Lybia, Cuba, Sudan, and other shining beacons of liberty.
Never mind that its troops just sat on their hands during the Rwanda massacres in 1994.
Never mind that there were pictures of the UN commander in Srebrenica drinking with Bosnian Serb commander Ratko Mladic the night before Mladic's troops massacred at least 7,000 Bosnian Muslims.
Then there's the outright undisguised hostility towards Jews (let alone Israel), never more in display than during the Durban "Anti-Racism" Conferences in 2001.
But I don't need to burden you with the details. Pedro Sanjuan's The UN Gang and Dore Gold's Tower of Babble document all of the above in a more devastatingly effective manner than I ever could.
However, just when one thinks the UN can't outdo itself, comes this bit of news, courtesy of Michael Freund of the Jerusalem Post (forwarded from Naomi Ragen):
The war in Lebanon may have ended two years ago, but that hasn't stopped the UN from exploiting the conflict to besmirch Israel. In a move that harks back to the bad old days of UN hypocrisy and double standards vis-Ã -vis the Jewish state, Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon is reportedly set to demand that Israel reimburse Lebanon and Syria for damage caused during the war against Hizbullah.
Yes, you read that correctly. The UN wants Israel to pay for having the gall to defend itself.
I'm trying to weigh historical parallels. It seems Ban is trying to draw an analog between 2006 Israel and 1918 Germany (not too farfetched, as the Nazi analog has been bandied about by Israel's enemies almost since the birth of the Jewish state.)
I would venture a different parallel--Ban has taken a page from Hermann Goering's playbook. Here's a retelling of the aftermath of Kristallnacht:
Following Kristallnacht, on November 12, 1938, Hermann Goering called a meeting of the top Nazi leadership to assess the damage done during the night and place responsibility for it. Present at the meeting were Goering, Goebbels, Reinhard Heydrich, Walter Funk and other ranking Nazi officials. The intent of this meeting was two-fold: to make the Jews responsible for Kristallnacht and to use the events of the preceding days as a rationale for promulgating a series of antisemitic laws which would, in effect, remove Jews from the German economy. It was decided at the meeting that, since Jews were to blame for these events, they be held legally and financially responsible for the damages incurred by the pogrom. Accordingly, a "fine of 1 billion marks was levied for the slaying of Vom Rath, and 6 million marks paid by insurance companies for broken windows was to be given to the state coffers." (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/kristallnacht.html)
Yes, it is spelled United Nazi-ons.
Dave Barry has opined that the raison d'etre of the UN is to "denounce Israel for everything, including sunspots."
I suppose I betray my ostensible knee-jerk pro-Israel sentiment when I counter-"bash" the UN.
Never mind that its "Committee on Human Rights" has seated, in no particular order, China, Syria, Lybia, Cuba, Sudan, and other shining beacons of liberty.
Never mind that its troops just sat on their hands during the Rwanda massacres in 1994.
Never mind that there were pictures of the UN commander in Srebrenica drinking with Bosnian Serb commander Ratko Mladic the night before Mladic's troops massacred at least 7,000 Bosnian Muslims.
Then there's the outright undisguised hostility towards Jews (let alone Israel), never more in display than during the Durban "Anti-Racism" Conferences in 2001.
But I don't need to burden you with the details. Pedro Sanjuan's The UN Gang and Dore Gold's Tower of Babble document all of the above in a more devastatingly effective manner than I ever could.
However, just when one thinks the UN can't outdo itself, comes this bit of news, courtesy of Michael Freund of the Jerusalem Post (forwarded from Naomi Ragen):
The war in Lebanon may have ended two years ago, but that hasn't stopped the UN from exploiting the conflict to besmirch Israel. In a move that harks back to the bad old days of UN hypocrisy and double standards vis-Ã -vis the Jewish state, Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon is reportedly set to demand that Israel reimburse Lebanon and Syria for damage caused during the war against Hizbullah.
Yes, you read that correctly. The UN wants Israel to pay for having the gall to defend itself.
I'm trying to weigh historical parallels. It seems Ban is trying to draw an analog between 2006 Israel and 1918 Germany (not too farfetched, as the Nazi analog has been bandied about by Israel's enemies almost since the birth of the Jewish state.)
I would venture a different parallel--Ban has taken a page from Hermann Goering's playbook. Here's a retelling of the aftermath of Kristallnacht:
Following Kristallnacht, on November 12, 1938, Hermann Goering called a meeting of the top Nazi leadership to assess the damage done during the night and place responsibility for it. Present at the meeting were Goering, Goebbels, Reinhard Heydrich, Walter Funk and other ranking Nazi officials. The intent of this meeting was two-fold: to make the Jews responsible for Kristallnacht and to use the events of the preceding days as a rationale for promulgating a series of antisemitic laws which would, in effect, remove Jews from the German economy. It was decided at the meeting that, since Jews were to blame for these events, they be held legally and financially responsible for the damages incurred by the pogrom. Accordingly, a "fine of 1 billion marks was levied for the slaying of Vom Rath, and 6 million marks paid by insurance companies for broken windows was to be given to the state coffers." (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/kristallnacht.html)
Yes, it is spelled United Nazi-ons.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Patriots, Pigs and Palin
In the two days since I just pulled the ideology of "acquisitionism" from various nether regions, a number of things have happened that have served to simultaneously buttress my theories send me in search of further refinement.
As I said at the close of my last post, a key element of "acquisitionism", or at least its most salient American characteristic, is that you can't win unless someone else loses. In other words, the real final American frontier is schadenfreude.
As a Jet fan, I am experiencing this in spades right now with the season-ending injury to Patriot superstar Tom Brady. Curt Schilling was right on the money when he said that New York fans were practically salivating over this.
(It isn't so much that I was praying for Brady to get hurt (though, while watching Sunday's Jets-Miami game, I was waiting for some Jet defender to send Chad Pennington back to the operating table, and during Dan Marino's playing days, I openly rooted for someone to take him out), but since the Jets have certainly experienced more than their fair share of season-killing injuries, and since possibly the biggest such incident in recent history occurred in a game against the Pats (Vinny Testaverde in 1999), there seems to be some element of Divine payback at work here.)
I think that Americans like to see anyone doing better than they are taken down in the most publicly humiliating manner possible. This is as obvious by-product of our cleberity-driven culture, but a particularly vicious brand of schadenfreude is the current fulcrum of our political system. As I have described, this for the most part has fueled the Right's Clinton-hatred, and the Left's current Bush-hatred, more than any real policy differences.
I've also mentioned that in the current political climate, the Right adopted these attitudes as their electoral and governing strategy, and it worked for them for more than a decade, before ostensibly blowing up in their face.
Well, there seems to have been a much quicker turnaround than I had anticipated. The nomination of Sarah Palin has brought out the Left's most vicious attack-dog tactics, and they all seem to be backfiring. One can say that the Democrats have now suffered from their "acquisitionist" impulses twice in the same election cycle: first, when Hillary did not get the "coronation" she has been expecting and felt she was entitled to, and now Obama, whose anointment as the Left's messiah has been put on hold.
Not only that, but by making him fight the race-gender battle all over again, and this time truly across ideological lines, Palin has served to pull the rug out from what supposed to be his historical moment. Which is why he had to know better than to make his pig lipstick comment: even if he didn't intend it as a slap at Palin--which I believe is possible--he had to know that this was going to come back to bite him in the ass very quickly. Palin has knocked him off his pedestal, but more importantly for the Republicans, she's changed the game.
In theory, Palin should be more careful, because all this proves that payback is always imminent; if you climb on a pedestal, particularly if constructed upon religious platitudes, people are really going to enjoy watching you getting knocked down, if they can't manage to do it themselves. However, I think given that she has truly bared herself fully on a personal, if not political, level, the Left's attempts to score political points by pinning the "bridge to nowhere" on her are, well, a bridge to nowhere.
Hillary just wore pants. Palin is the real deal.
As I said at the close of my last post, a key element of "acquisitionism", or at least its most salient American characteristic, is that you can't win unless someone else loses. In other words, the real final American frontier is schadenfreude.
As a Jet fan, I am experiencing this in spades right now with the season-ending injury to Patriot superstar Tom Brady. Curt Schilling was right on the money when he said that New York fans were practically salivating over this.
(It isn't so much that I was praying for Brady to get hurt (though, while watching Sunday's Jets-Miami game, I was waiting for some Jet defender to send Chad Pennington back to the operating table, and during Dan Marino's playing days, I openly rooted for someone to take him out), but since the Jets have certainly experienced more than their fair share of season-killing injuries, and since possibly the biggest such incident in recent history occurred in a game against the Pats (Vinny Testaverde in 1999), there seems to be some element of Divine payback at work here.)
I think that Americans like to see anyone doing better than they are taken down in the most publicly humiliating manner possible. This is as obvious by-product of our cleberity-driven culture, but a particularly vicious brand of schadenfreude is the current fulcrum of our political system. As I have described, this for the most part has fueled the Right's Clinton-hatred, and the Left's current Bush-hatred, more than any real policy differences.
I've also mentioned that in the current political climate, the Right adopted these attitudes as their electoral and governing strategy, and it worked for them for more than a decade, before ostensibly blowing up in their face.
Well, there seems to have been a much quicker turnaround than I had anticipated. The nomination of Sarah Palin has brought out the Left's most vicious attack-dog tactics, and they all seem to be backfiring. One can say that the Democrats have now suffered from their "acquisitionist" impulses twice in the same election cycle: first, when Hillary did not get the "coronation" she has been expecting and felt she was entitled to, and now Obama, whose anointment as the Left's messiah has been put on hold.
Not only that, but by making him fight the race-gender battle all over again, and this time truly across ideological lines, Palin has served to pull the rug out from what supposed to be his historical moment. Which is why he had to know better than to make his pig lipstick comment: even if he didn't intend it as a slap at Palin--which I believe is possible--he had to know that this was going to come back to bite him in the ass very quickly. Palin has knocked him off his pedestal, but more importantly for the Republicans, she's changed the game.
In theory, Palin should be more careful, because all this proves that payback is always imminent; if you climb on a pedestal, particularly if constructed upon religious platitudes, people are really going to enjoy watching you getting knocked down, if they can't manage to do it themselves. However, I think given that she has truly bared herself fully on a personal, if not political, level, the Left's attempts to score political points by pinning the "bridge to nowhere" on her are, well, a bridge to nowhere.
Hillary just wore pants. Palin is the real deal.
Monday, September 8, 2008
American Socialism: Acquisitionism
The Cognitive Dissident is not very financially or economically savvy. His parents worked hard and saved so that he wouldn’t have to. So he doesn’t.
As far as economics are concerned, it seems to me that the true meaning of supply and demand is that wherever there’s a supply, I demand to get a hand in it.
The news surrounding the government’s bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac basically underscores this general attitude of entitlement that seems to pervade American political and socio-economic culture. In other words, people don’t just have a right to a roof over their heads: they have a right to OWN the roof and everything under it, even before it is even close to being paid for.
In this sense, it seems that American has gone even one step beyond baseline socialism. One might say that it is a distorted analog to Manifest Destiny: when we ran out of frontiers to conquer, we turned to our own backyards. Instead of capitalism, we might call it acquisitionism.
This acquisitionist position has extended to two very important social goods: health care and education. The existence of a system of public education is predicated on the notion that a basic “free, appropriate” education should be available to all. The systems of “socialized” medicine that exists in much of Europe applies the same notion to health care.
From the little I know about economics, by designating health care and education as “rights”, by extension it means that demand is infinite, which means that supply will never catch up. More importantly, it also means that someone will always be compelled to pay for someone else’s goods.
Aside from the blurry billing, there’s the issue of ostensible “moral hazard”. The lines have always been drawn between progressives’ complaints of “corporate welfare” (Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac, S & L, airlines, bailouts, tax cuts for the rich) and conservatives’ fears of creeping socialized just-about anything (higher taxes, education, health care, welfare, “war on poverty”). Don’t be fooled: the American Left is just as acquisitionist as the American Right.
The lesson of all this? Unless you find yourself as a real outlier on the great American socio-economic bell curve, you will probably be getting an output somewhat proportional to your input. There are just two things you wont be able to do: one, discern a necessarily direct connection between your efforts and rewards; and two, control who may benefit as a result of your efforts.
Ultimately, the latter is probably the unique defining characteristic of American “socialism”. In capitalism, you have to invest. In acquisitionism, you get someone else to. You can’t win unless someone else loses.
That is the acquisitionist ethos.
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Republi-Karma Redux
The McCain campaign just can’t get a break.
The selection of Sarah Palin as McCain’s running mate was an inspired choice, to be sure. The announcement coming so soon after the Investiture at Invesco also showed that the McCainiacs don’t lack for a sense of timing; it may have served to blunt the effects of any post-convention bounce.
However, in the current political climate, the familial baggage attached to Palin has only magnified the target on her back, however unjustified the attacks are.
Personally, I would venture that the fact that she has been so successful while dealing with such family difficulty should resonate with most Americans, who may actually be more likely to have familial difficulties unlike hers without the personal success she has experienced. For some reason, that doesn’t seem to be happening.
As if the announcement of Bristol Palin’s travails weren’t enough to disrupt what might have been inspired timing, Hurricane Gustav made landfall to remind everyone of this administration’s biggest failure and the actual turning point in its political fortune.
Additionally, the Pentagon has—quietly—traded “Global War on Terror” for “Long War Against Violent Extremist Movements.” In other words, somebody finally dispensed with “Mission Accomplished” as a battle plan and consequently pulled the rug out from under this administration’s raison d’etre. Even such a conservative eminence grise as Rich Lowry now characterizes this administration as having “w[on] a disputed election and botch[ed] a foreign occupation” (in yesterday’s New York Post).
Ironically, the conservatives had been complaining all along that American military successes were never reported; now even they can’t stand the good tidings. An anonymous operative on the Republican convention floor was reported as having said the best thing about the convention was that it would be over soon. Conservatives can only wish the same could be true about a policy nightmare largely of their own making.
On a tangential note, I wrote in these pages (“Prime Time Prognosis: Fertile”, July 21) that maybe a new, more effective model of related social services would result from a seeming spate of very public pop-culture pregnancies.
Irrespective of the political fallout resulting from Bristol Palin’s pregnancy, this may finally be where that tipping point occurs, because it shows that it can happen in an otherwise upstanding, stable, even religious family.
Someone must be paying attention.
The selection of Sarah Palin as McCain’s running mate was an inspired choice, to be sure. The announcement coming so soon after the Investiture at Invesco also showed that the McCainiacs don’t lack for a sense of timing; it may have served to blunt the effects of any post-convention bounce.
However, in the current political climate, the familial baggage attached to Palin has only magnified the target on her back, however unjustified the attacks are.
Personally, I would venture that the fact that she has been so successful while dealing with such family difficulty should resonate with most Americans, who may actually be more likely to have familial difficulties unlike hers without the personal success she has experienced. For some reason, that doesn’t seem to be happening.
As if the announcement of Bristol Palin’s travails weren’t enough to disrupt what might have been inspired timing, Hurricane Gustav made landfall to remind everyone of this administration’s biggest failure and the actual turning point in its political fortune.
Additionally, the Pentagon has—quietly—traded “Global War on Terror” for “Long War Against Violent Extremist Movements.” In other words, somebody finally dispensed with “Mission Accomplished” as a battle plan and consequently pulled the rug out from under this administration’s raison d’etre. Even such a conservative eminence grise as Rich Lowry now characterizes this administration as having “w[on] a disputed election and botch[ed] a foreign occupation” (in yesterday’s New York Post).
Ironically, the conservatives had been complaining all along that American military successes were never reported; now even they can’t stand the good tidings. An anonymous operative on the Republican convention floor was reported as having said the best thing about the convention was that it would be over soon. Conservatives can only wish the same could be true about a policy nightmare largely of their own making.
On a tangential note, I wrote in these pages (“Prime Time Prognosis: Fertile”, July 21) that maybe a new, more effective model of related social services would result from a seeming spate of very public pop-culture pregnancies.
Irrespective of the political fallout resulting from Bristol Palin’s pregnancy, this may finally be where that tipping point occurs, because it shows that it can happen in an otherwise upstanding, stable, even religious family.
Someone must be paying attention.
Thursday, August 28, 2008
W. Doesn’t Care. He Doesn’t Have To.
Lyndon Johnson just wanted to be popular.
Despite all of his landmark legislation and accomplishments in office—at least before the Vietnam war and the events of 1968 left his legacy in tatters—LBJ couldn’t get anyone to like him. (When he asked one of his advisers why no one liked him, the adviser told him point black: “Because, Mr. President, you’re not a very likeable man.”)
Bill Clinton has succeeded where LBJ failed. His performance and reception at the DNC last night reminded us—and him—that his likeability is his greatest political and personal asset, and ultimately is his best tool in solidifying his legacy.
Regarding our current President, it’s hard to fathom what motivates him beyond his need to overtake his father and the rest of his family. Much has been made of his religious convictions and his recovery from alcoholism (and possibly worse), but a case could be made that he needed to adopt some salient system of discipline if he was ever going to amount to anything, and at age 40, these were the best options available.
I think W. is, and remains, the slacking underachiever who had other people always do his work for him, had his greatest success as a figurehead governor with no real power, and governed as President much the same way by serving as spokesperson and figurehead for people and forces larger than himself and not having to engage in effort beyond a certain level.
He also, aside from (and maybe even because of) his apparent thin skin regarding what his father thinks of him, is probably impervious to any kind of criticism from any other quarters, and doesn’t really give a damn about his poll numbers or if he truly bears any responsibility for the shape he’s leaving the country in, if indeed it even occurs to him that things are much messier now than they were in 2000.
None of that matters to him. He’s already been the Most Powerful Man In the (Free) World for two terms (take that, Dad), and all he had to do was play to the camera.
W. was never “dumb”. He might be the most intellectually lazy occupant of the Oval Office in American history, and I would venture that said indolence far outweighs his actual intellectual limits. He was, and is, generally oblivious to any notions of empathy, almost as if he had a political—if not clinical—form of Aspbereger’s syndrome. When he said he “didn’t do nuances”, it wasn’t that he weighed and rejected the notion; it was that it just wouldn’t register it anywhere in his mind.
Kanye West said that Bush didn’t care about Black people. He was half right. Bush doesn’t really care about any people. He doesn’t care if he’s liked or not. He doesn’t even care about his legacy.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Bara-calculus
Barack Obama is apparently miscalculating twice over by allowing the Hillary Clinton roll call and by giving the Clintons quality face time at the convention. This came essentially from the same people who declared his trips abroad to have been ultimately self-defeating.
These notions are reflective of a considerable degree of conservative wishful thinking.
What they should find more frightening is the possibility that Obama may be taking strategies from the Karl Rove playbook, and that they might work: first, by shoring up his base, and second, by actually campaigning as a “uniter” when he has no intention of governing as one.
He has been shoring up his base in two ways: first, by actually acknowledging the considerable historical import of the Clinton campaigns—Bill and Hillary both—without worrying that they might overshadow him. By giving them such floor time he links his campaign with the only Democratic success story of the past 40 years (the Carter administration emphatically does NOT figure in this equation). In other words, Yes [H]e Can, just Like They Did.
Additionally, by allowing even the idea that he didn’t get a majority of the popular vote to float about the convention floor, he gives credence to the notion that sometimes the electoral system does NOT always necessarily directly reflect the will of the people, and that just like W. won his office that way, the Democrats should acknowledge that they might need their own version of 2000 to win, and they should have no qualms about it.
His travels abroad actually had a similar effect. Europeans obviously can’t vote for him, and his immediate poll numbers may have suffered in the short-term. However, by playing to the multi- and internationalists back home, he demonstrated that he would govern with them primarily in mind, at least as far as foreign affairs are concerned.
Finally, despite some of his more recent “flip-flops” and ostensible moves to the center, Obama essentially remains an income-redistributing internationalist who intends to bring American socialism into the political mainstream the way Reagan brought solid conservatism into the mainstream, and then to the “permanent majority” so eagerly sought by the Rovian minions.
Generally, the Democrats’ attempts at tit-for-tat payback for the Republicans’ shenanigans during the Clinton years—from the “irrational” hatred of the sitting President to the impeachment threats—have not worked in their favor. This time they may actually succeed.
At the convention last night, Teddy Kennedy asserted that Obama would “close the book on old politics.” Kennedy couldn’t have been more wrong. Obama’s campaign may yet rewrite the book on “old politics”.
Thursday, August 21, 2008
The Convention: Regular Season Begins
“Politics [is] allegedly a non-contact sport and certainly not much of a spectator sport…our political conventions are by and large devoid of drama and suspense.”
In the above quote, the late David Halberstam was trying to explain why Americans are more inclined to watch football, rather than, say, baseball, the Oscars, or the political conventions.
I don’t watch the political conventions for the same reasons that I don’t really watch the Oscars. If I want to hear speeches I can go to the synagogue; as much as congregations complain, no sermon ever goes on for four hours with commercial breaks, even (and especially) on Yom Kippur.
In any case, it’s no accident that Halberstam compares politics to football, or even that the conventions are planned so close to football season. It has been said that politics is show business for ugly people; I would venture that it more resembles athletics for the uncoordinated. The sport to which it has been most compared to, is of course, football, which follows somewhat from the obvious military imagery (the suitcase with our country’s nuclear launch codes is the “football”) to Sen. Eugene McCarthy’s assertion that running for office was like coaching football: one had to be smart enough to understand the game and dumb enough to think it was actually important.
However, the most salient features of today’s politics are more reflective of whose “team” one is on more than what one’s true beliefs or ideals really are. In the United States, that for the most part leaves us with a two-team league. Unfortunately, this means that every game pits the same two teams against each other, over and over again. This reminds me of how much I was suffering during this past year’s Super Bowl week: as a rabid Jet fan, I had to choose between the Pats and Giants. Imagine that every game, every week, on every channel (Basic! Premium! IO! DTV! Satellite!) was Pats vs Giants. Pre-season. Regular season. Playoffs. Super Bowl. Now maybe one understands why partisan politics drive Americans nuts.
Although, it should be said, most football fans would watch even the NFL even if it only had two teams. Including me. I suppose one might say a similar phenomenon exists in politics. Somebody's going to watch the conventions.
For the record, I rooted for the Pats in the Super Bowl. I didn’t want to have to deal with the consequences of a (possible [CHOKE]) Giant upset. I also was hoping that the Pats would finally knock the Miami Dolphins off the “undefeated” pedestal. Besides, to my mind, Don Shula embodies football evil incarnate far more than Bill Belichick. And Shula didn’t need a hoodie to radiate malevolence; ask any NFL official who had to deal with him. Or Walt Michaels.
(Imagine this presidential election: Belichick vs Shula. I'd write in for Parcells.)
In the above quote, the late David Halberstam was trying to explain why Americans are more inclined to watch football, rather than, say, baseball, the Oscars, or the political conventions.
I don’t watch the political conventions for the same reasons that I don’t really watch the Oscars. If I want to hear speeches I can go to the synagogue; as much as congregations complain, no sermon ever goes on for four hours with commercial breaks, even (and especially) on Yom Kippur.
In any case, it’s no accident that Halberstam compares politics to football, or even that the conventions are planned so close to football season. It has been said that politics is show business for ugly people; I would venture that it more resembles athletics for the uncoordinated. The sport to which it has been most compared to, is of course, football, which follows somewhat from the obvious military imagery (the suitcase with our country’s nuclear launch codes is the “football”) to Sen. Eugene McCarthy’s assertion that running for office was like coaching football: one had to be smart enough to understand the game and dumb enough to think it was actually important.
However, the most salient features of today’s politics are more reflective of whose “team” one is on more than what one’s true beliefs or ideals really are. In the United States, that for the most part leaves us with a two-team league. Unfortunately, this means that every game pits the same two teams against each other, over and over again. This reminds me of how much I was suffering during this past year’s Super Bowl week: as a rabid Jet fan, I had to choose between the Pats and Giants. Imagine that every game, every week, on every channel (Basic! Premium! IO! DTV! Satellite!) was Pats vs Giants. Pre-season. Regular season. Playoffs. Super Bowl. Now maybe one understands why partisan politics drive Americans nuts.
Although, it should be said, most football fans would watch even the NFL even if it only had two teams. Including me. I suppose one might say a similar phenomenon exists in politics. Somebody's going to watch the conventions.
For the record, I rooted for the Pats in the Super Bowl. I didn’t want to have to deal with the consequences of a (possible [CHOKE]) Giant upset. I also was hoping that the Pats would finally knock the Miami Dolphins off the “undefeated” pedestal. Besides, to my mind, Don Shula embodies football evil incarnate far more than Bill Belichick. And Shula didn’t need a hoodie to radiate malevolence; ask any NFL official who had to deal with him. Or Walt Michaels.
(Imagine this presidential election: Belichick vs Shula. I'd write in for Parcells.)
Friday, August 15, 2008
Disengagement, Three Years On
There is a concept in Kabbalah that when an engaged couple calls off a wedding, both parties have to ask forgiveness from each other to avoid possible uncomfortable cosmic consequences.
The third anniversary of Israel’s “disengagement” from the Gaza Strip occurs today, August 15th. The question of the disengagement’s advisability has been inexorably tied to many larger issues at the forefront of the Israeli and Middle Eastern scene, so it continues to be debated vigorously inside and outside Israel.
Recently an Israeli soldier anonymously published an open letter apologizing to the former residents of the Gaza Strip for her participation in evacuating the settlers from their homes and ruining their lives. She invited former residents to air their feelings to her via email.
I would posit the soldier has nothing to feel bad about. One might retort the Gaza settlers should apologize to the rest of the Israeli nation for what might be termed as an act of political blackmail. In any case, though, any time for apologies has long passed.
It might be true that there has been incessant political bungling following the disengagement which reflects badly on the execution of the disengagement and its aftermath, but that shouldn’t necessarily reflect on the saliency of the idea that it was carried out in Israel’s best interests and no one else’s. I don’t say this because I am a partisan proponent of the “peace process”. Far from it. I don’t think any legitimate “Palestinian” political or geographic entity exists, certainly not one that entails a state that encompasses two geographically disparate territories. For the record, I would have loved to have seen Israel unilaterally annex the West Bank and Jerusalem after the disengagement, but that would have been a political impossibility. Unfortunately.
However, it just might be that the Arab—or non-Jewish populations—in either respective territory posses some degree of political self-determination. With the Arab population in Gaza outnumbering the Jewish population in Gaza on the order of at least 75 to 1, and the disparate allocation of security and defense resources to protect a civilian population that made up 1/500 of Israel’s population was becoming politically and morally untenable. Additionally, whether or not there was a “demographic time bomb” that truly threatened Israel’s existence as a democracy and a Jewish state, the evacuation took a large chunk of that number out of play, especially since the Gazan birth rate is undoubtedly faster (in spite of the area’s intense economic stresses).
What made the Israeli population and government so angry and unsympathetic toward the Gazans was not just their insistence that their civilian presence was critical, but the impression they gave that said presence was religiously mandated, which only served to add fuel to the fire. Additionally, any argument that the disengagement was a natural consequence of the Oslo process and a stepping stone toward the establishment of either a bi-territorial Palestinian state, a secular “bi-national” Palestinian entity, or worse, an Islamic emirate was rather spurious if not outright disingenuous. Sharon spokesman Dov Weisglas’ slip regarding the cessation of all territorial withdrawal after the Gaza disengagement should have given the lie to both of the Gaza settlers’ purported grievances. The disengagement was not about creating a viable Palestinian entity; it was about Israel unilaterally absolving herself of any responsibility for the administration of the Strip, even if (and probably because) it would render the Strip a political no man’s land.
Irrespective of whether or not the disengagement was a good idea that was bungled, the question remains is Israel better off without having a civilian settlement in the Gaza Strip? I would say that it gives Israel one less headache, though one could credibly assert that is has incurred worse ailments as a result.
I am not unsympathetic to the individuals and families suffering as a result of the forced evacuation, in spite of my absolute opposition to their political stance. However, I think a harsh lesson can be learned by everybody here, as to why expectations of remorse are irrelevant, if not counterproductive:
The government is not your friend, no matter who or where you are.
The third anniversary of Israel’s “disengagement” from the Gaza Strip occurs today, August 15th. The question of the disengagement’s advisability has been inexorably tied to many larger issues at the forefront of the Israeli and Middle Eastern scene, so it continues to be debated vigorously inside and outside Israel.
Recently an Israeli soldier anonymously published an open letter apologizing to the former residents of the Gaza Strip for her participation in evacuating the settlers from their homes and ruining their lives. She invited former residents to air their feelings to her via email.
I would posit the soldier has nothing to feel bad about. One might retort the Gaza settlers should apologize to the rest of the Israeli nation for what might be termed as an act of political blackmail. In any case, though, any time for apologies has long passed.
It might be true that there has been incessant political bungling following the disengagement which reflects badly on the execution of the disengagement and its aftermath, but that shouldn’t necessarily reflect on the saliency of the idea that it was carried out in Israel’s best interests and no one else’s. I don’t say this because I am a partisan proponent of the “peace process”. Far from it. I don’t think any legitimate “Palestinian” political or geographic entity exists, certainly not one that entails a state that encompasses two geographically disparate territories. For the record, I would have loved to have seen Israel unilaterally annex the West Bank and Jerusalem after the disengagement, but that would have been a political impossibility. Unfortunately.
However, it just might be that the Arab—or non-Jewish populations—in either respective territory posses some degree of political self-determination. With the Arab population in Gaza outnumbering the Jewish population in Gaza on the order of at least 75 to 1, and the disparate allocation of security and defense resources to protect a civilian population that made up 1/500 of Israel’s population was becoming politically and morally untenable. Additionally, whether or not there was a “demographic time bomb” that truly threatened Israel’s existence as a democracy and a Jewish state, the evacuation took a large chunk of that number out of play, especially since the Gazan birth rate is undoubtedly faster (in spite of the area’s intense economic stresses).
What made the Israeli population and government so angry and unsympathetic toward the Gazans was not just their insistence that their civilian presence was critical, but the impression they gave that said presence was religiously mandated, which only served to add fuel to the fire. Additionally, any argument that the disengagement was a natural consequence of the Oslo process and a stepping stone toward the establishment of either a bi-territorial Palestinian state, a secular “bi-national” Palestinian entity, or worse, an Islamic emirate was rather spurious if not outright disingenuous. Sharon spokesman Dov Weisglas’ slip regarding the cessation of all territorial withdrawal after the Gaza disengagement should have given the lie to both of the Gaza settlers’ purported grievances. The disengagement was not about creating a viable Palestinian entity; it was about Israel unilaterally absolving herself of any responsibility for the administration of the Strip, even if (and probably because) it would render the Strip a political no man’s land.
Irrespective of whether or not the disengagement was a good idea that was bungled, the question remains is Israel better off without having a civilian settlement in the Gaza Strip? I would say that it gives Israel one less headache, though one could credibly assert that is has incurred worse ailments as a result.
I am not unsympathetic to the individuals and families suffering as a result of the forced evacuation, in spite of my absolute opposition to their political stance. However, I think a harsh lesson can be learned by everybody here, as to why expectations of remorse are irrelevant, if not counterproductive:
The government is not your friend, no matter who or where you are.
Friday, August 8, 2008
Polygamy and the FDLS: American Sacred Prostitution
About a decade ago, there was widespread press coverage of a purported phenomenon in the Orthodox Jewish community whereby the practice of taking a concubine in addition to one’s current wife had been revived in some circles for the first time in nearly a millennium. After further research it had been determined that the gentlemen in said circles were likely having enough trouble procuring one wife, let alone multiples. That they refused to identify themselves, or that their proclamations had no credible basis in any Jewish legal framework, was anticlimactic. In more ways than one.
Recently, the FDLS/Yearning for Zion ranchers seem to have garnered an inexplicable level of sympathy for their obviously self-inflicted plight. Last week, the New York Times Magazine published a photo essay of its residents, and John Stossel ran a very sympathetic, if not outright supportive, op-ed in the Sun. Stossel quotes “polygamy activist” (!) Mark Henkel: “Someone like a Hugh Hefner will have a successful television show with three live-in girlfriends! …But suddenly, if that man was to marry them, then suddenly he's a criminal. That's insane!”
First of all, the women in Hefner’s life can walk out at any time (though that’s obviously easier said than done). The “liberating” aspects of the Playboy Mansion lifestyle for women are eminently debatable; the flexibility of their relationship with Hef, as opposed to any woman in a bigamist marriage, is not.
Second, there is no doubt at all that Hef and the Playmates are either NOT trying to have children, or trying to NOT have children. Consequently, familial collateral damage is nonexistent. This is obviously not the case in polygamy, where the “wives” are often children themselves.
During the Tom Green bigamy trial in 2002, Nat Hentoff wrote in the Village Voice that he was surprised that more liberal groups (read: ACLU) were not rushing to Green’s defense. Hentoff thought that a parallel could be drawn from polygamy to other cases of “unconventional” relationships (read: gay marriage). Hentoff seemed to be ignoring the fact that the level of consent between parties in polygamous relationships was not a factor in play the way it was in the other ones, as can be proven by the dynamics of the marriages, not to mention the behaviors of its most prominent practitioners.
A stark illustration of such lack of consent was provided in the August 4 New Yorker story by William Dalrymple about the persistence of sacred prostitution in some Indian states, from which two strong analogs to the practice of modern-day polygamy can be drawn. One, the obvious lack of consent involved in contracting underage polygamous marriages—whether the consent of the underage bride or “consent” of the original wife—and the analog in contracting a sale of one’s daughter or sister into prostitution. Two, the familial collateral damage incurred on the part of any children locked into either of these systems should be obvious.
Stossel should be ashamed of himself. Henkel should be investigated and prosecuted. And all FDLS men in bigamist marriages should be jailed for decades, lose all parental rights to their children, have all their marriages annulled retroactively, and suffer the stigma of being labeled sex offenders in public for life.
Recently, the FDLS/Yearning for Zion ranchers seem to have garnered an inexplicable level of sympathy for their obviously self-inflicted plight. Last week, the New York Times Magazine published a photo essay of its residents, and John Stossel ran a very sympathetic, if not outright supportive, op-ed in the Sun. Stossel quotes “polygamy activist” (!) Mark Henkel: “Someone like a Hugh Hefner will have a successful television show with three live-in girlfriends! …But suddenly, if that man was to marry them, then suddenly he's a criminal. That's insane!”
First of all, the women in Hefner’s life can walk out at any time (though that’s obviously easier said than done). The “liberating” aspects of the Playboy Mansion lifestyle for women are eminently debatable; the flexibility of their relationship with Hef, as opposed to any woman in a bigamist marriage, is not.
Second, there is no doubt at all that Hef and the Playmates are either NOT trying to have children, or trying to NOT have children. Consequently, familial collateral damage is nonexistent. This is obviously not the case in polygamy, where the “wives” are often children themselves.
During the Tom Green bigamy trial in 2002, Nat Hentoff wrote in the Village Voice that he was surprised that more liberal groups (read: ACLU) were not rushing to Green’s defense. Hentoff thought that a parallel could be drawn from polygamy to other cases of “unconventional” relationships (read: gay marriage). Hentoff seemed to be ignoring the fact that the level of consent between parties in polygamous relationships was not a factor in play the way it was in the other ones, as can be proven by the dynamics of the marriages, not to mention the behaviors of its most prominent practitioners.
A stark illustration of such lack of consent was provided in the August 4 New Yorker story by William Dalrymple about the persistence of sacred prostitution in some Indian states, from which two strong analogs to the practice of modern-day polygamy can be drawn. One, the obvious lack of consent involved in contracting underage polygamous marriages—whether the consent of the underage bride or “consent” of the original wife—and the analog in contracting a sale of one’s daughter or sister into prostitution. Two, the familial collateral damage incurred on the part of any children locked into either of these systems should be obvious.
Stossel should be ashamed of himself. Henkel should be investigated and prosecuted. And all FDLS men in bigamist marriages should be jailed for decades, lose all parental rights to their children, have all their marriages annulled retroactively, and suffer the stigma of being labeled sex offenders in public for life.
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
Oil-As-Food
Is there anyone who thinks that there is a genuine debate in Congress and between the Presidential candidates regarding offshore drilling and energy issues?
The US government, despite all protestations to the contrary, doesn't view oil as an addicition.
It's much worse.
It's seen as the economic equivalent of a food staple. Because man cannot live by bread alone.
Consequently:
There will never be any offshore drilling.
There are too many interests on both sides of the political divide on energy issues that have a stake in keeping the status quo as is.
Specifically:
Big Oil and the doctrinaire environmentalists both benefit from ridiculous oil prices and restricted drilling; Big Oil because of profits, environmentalism because it allows them to maintain a semblance of doctrinary credibility.
Big Coal/Big Natural Gas and the environmenatlists both benefit from stalling progress on the nuclear front; Coal/Gas because holding the US energy grid hostage to an anachronistic technology maintains the industry's survival, environmetalism because reducing pollution takes a backseat to the tenet of a blanket ban on any nuclear/atomic technology.
(There is a difference between doctrinary credibility and consistency; the latter isn't a real concern. Al Gore's and Laurie David's respective carbon footprints are paradigms of this phenomenon.)
And while you get gassed, these people laugh all the way to the bank.
The energy industry will make sure that they use up every drop of oil, every last piece of coal, every last molecule of gas (and now include the farm industry and their subsidies too--every last ear of corn), until there is nothing left to profit from.
Congresspersons of both parties will continue to pocket subsidies from all industry lobbies, while they can pander to their various constituencies for votes.
And the Presidential candidates? Taking on Big Oil?
They're not over the barrel. They're in it.
The US government, despite all protestations to the contrary, doesn't view oil as an addicition.
It's much worse.
It's seen as the economic equivalent of a food staple. Because man cannot live by bread alone.
Consequently:
There will never be any offshore drilling.
There will never be any new exploration.
There will never be any upgrading of refineries.
There will never be a Manhattan Project for alternative energy sources.
There will never be a comprehensive conversion to nuclear power.
There are too many interests on both sides of the political divide on energy issues that have a stake in keeping the status quo as is.
Specifically:
Big Oil and the doctrinaire environmentalists both benefit from ridiculous oil prices and restricted drilling; Big Oil because of profits, environmentalism because it allows them to maintain a semblance of doctrinary credibility.
Big Coal/Big Natural Gas and the environmenatlists both benefit from stalling progress on the nuclear front; Coal/Gas because holding the US energy grid hostage to an anachronistic technology maintains the industry's survival, environmetalism because reducing pollution takes a backseat to the tenet of a blanket ban on any nuclear/atomic technology.
(There is a difference between doctrinary credibility and consistency; the latter isn't a real concern. Al Gore's and Laurie David's respective carbon footprints are paradigms of this phenomenon.)
And while you get gassed, these people laugh all the way to the bank.
The energy industry will make sure that they use up every drop of oil, every last piece of coal, every last molecule of gas (and now include the farm industry and their subsidies too--every last ear of corn), until there is nothing left to profit from.
Congresspersons of both parties will continue to pocket subsidies from all industry lobbies, while they can pander to their various constituencies for votes.
And the Presidential candidates? Taking on Big Oil?
They're not over the barrel. They're in it.
Monday, August 4, 2008
Republi-Karma
I've avoided writing about this election, because as it stands now, the election is about Obama and his skin color. The issues are almost irrelevant; even the polls are almost irrelevant. The current political climate is the perfect storm the Democrats could have hoped for.
But when the McCain campaign utilized Paris Hilton as an analog to Obama's purported governmental IQ and didn't realize that her mother was one of their donors, I couldn't help myself.
I realized there is only one plotline:
Obama can say anything he wants to and it won't impact him negatively. McCain, on the other hand, can't say anything that will help him.
I predict the McCainiacs will pull the race card about 2 weeks before Election Day, utilizing a ploy similar to what the Helms campaign did to Harvey Gantt in 1990. I can't picture exactly what tactic they would use, only that it would have to be something a lot more nefarious than white hands or even Willie Horton.
It also will entail a much greater risk; even if the tactic succeeds in throwing the election to McCain, the Republican party will be painted as racist for a generation.
I don't particularly believe this administration or the Republicans in general have been as bad as they have been made out to be. But I do believe that there seems to be some form of Divine retribution in play here for the kind of political climate that is undoubtedly their creation, at least from the 1994 elections but probably as far back as the Lee Atwater era. Karl Rove was just following in their footsteps.
But when the McCain campaign utilized Paris Hilton as an analog to Obama's purported governmental IQ and didn't realize that her mother was one of their donors, I couldn't help myself.
I realized there is only one plotline:
Obama can say anything he wants to and it won't impact him negatively. McCain, on the other hand, can't say anything that will help him.
I predict the McCainiacs will pull the race card about 2 weeks before Election Day, utilizing a ploy similar to what the Helms campaign did to Harvey Gantt in 1990. I can't picture exactly what tactic they would use, only that it would have to be something a lot more nefarious than white hands or even Willie Horton.
It also will entail a much greater risk; even if the tactic succeeds in throwing the election to McCain, the Republican party will be painted as racist for a generation.
I don't particularly believe this administration or the Republicans in general have been as bad as they have been made out to be. But I do believe that there seems to be some form of Divine retribution in play here for the kind of political climate that is undoubtedly their creation, at least from the 1994 elections but probably as far back as the Lee Atwater era. Karl Rove was just following in their footsteps.
Payback's a bitch. Only the whole country is gonna pay for this.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Red(shirt) Start
The Cognitive Dissident skipped first grade.
He blamed all his social and academic travails that followed on that (although he no longer blames his parents; they’ve both engaged in serious self-flagellant penitence for years since. Basically they just confused prodigy and prodigal…but what Jewish parent doesn’t?)
As a result of my educational experiences, I have become a big fan of the opposite approach: “academic redshirting”, or holding children back a year at the beginning of school.
Now, according the front page bold-type article in Monday’s New York Sun, “’Lengthening Childhood’ Has Ill Effect: Harvard Study Details Costs of Delaying School.”
Just in time for my birthday—which was Monday—I have my most salient excuse for living pulled out from under me.
Not so fast.
The article details two specific concerns on the part of the researchers: one, that there is more of a chance that public school kids will drop out if they start later, and when they do drop out, it will be with one year less education. Two, starting later means one year less in the workforce, which means one year less salary.
The second concern is easy enough to parry. If redshirting has the effect it is supposed to, the time these kids spend in the workforce should be more productive, e.g. they’ll earn more and be promoted faster, thus canceling out the “lost” year.
The first issue is more complicated to deal with, but I will assert that the effect has less to do with the effect of the redshirting than it does with the way primary and secondary academia are structured. Aside from the obvious issues—the day is too long, the classes are overcrowded, the unions are communo-fascist —one might say the time has come to make the school system more like university education. This means that some kids should have lighter workloads, attend on a part-time basis, spread classes over more years, etc.
Until the system becomes more flexible among the aforementioned lines, the issues described above will persist. Which means the study’s conclusion about redshirting will always be inconclusive at best, and if a parent is weighing factors in whether to redshirt a child, taking this study into account would be of dubious value.
He blamed all his social and academic travails that followed on that (although he no longer blames his parents; they’ve both engaged in serious self-flagellant penitence for years since. Basically they just confused prodigy and prodigal…but what Jewish parent doesn’t?)
As a result of my educational experiences, I have become a big fan of the opposite approach: “academic redshirting”, or holding children back a year at the beginning of school.
Now, according the front page bold-type article in Monday’s New York Sun, “’Lengthening Childhood’ Has Ill Effect: Harvard Study Details Costs of Delaying School.”
Just in time for my birthday—which was Monday—I have my most salient excuse for living pulled out from under me.
Not so fast.
The article details two specific concerns on the part of the researchers: one, that there is more of a chance that public school kids will drop out if they start later, and when they do drop out, it will be with one year less education. Two, starting later means one year less in the workforce, which means one year less salary.
The second concern is easy enough to parry. If redshirting has the effect it is supposed to, the time these kids spend in the workforce should be more productive, e.g. they’ll earn more and be promoted faster, thus canceling out the “lost” year.
The first issue is more complicated to deal with, but I will assert that the effect has less to do with the effect of the redshirting than it does with the way primary and secondary academia are structured. Aside from the obvious issues—the day is too long, the classes are overcrowded, the unions are communo-fascist —one might say the time has come to make the school system more like university education. This means that some kids should have lighter workloads, attend on a part-time basis, spread classes over more years, etc.
Until the system becomes more flexible among the aforementioned lines, the issues described above will persist. Which means the study’s conclusion about redshirting will always be inconclusive at best, and if a parent is weighing factors in whether to redshirt a child, taking this study into account would be of dubious value.
Monday, July 21, 2008
Prime Time Prognosis: Fertile
Juno. Jamie Lynn. And now, teen pregnancy comes to prime time.
We’ve been here before, notably when Murphy Brown’s single motherhood ignited the election-year brouhaha regarding “cultural elites”. Knocked Up didn't quite elicit the same response, but then came Juno, whose smash critical and box office success was said to glorify teen pregnancy, which is somewhat analogous to believing that Nabakov’s erudition on display in Lolita served to glorify pedophilia.
Now, it’s no accident that Murphy, Juno, Alison and Amy are all white and live in rather stable socio-economic environments, although that may have more to do with target audiences than any residual ethno-cultural biases. However, there has been ample documentation beyond the Moynihan Report and the welfare rolls that there are pervasive beliefs regarding out-of wedlock conception and the consequent atomization of the nuclear family as unquestionable social progress. There is also more than ample documentation that the belief is put into practice far more often outside the demographics of Juno and The Secret Life of the American Teenager, never mind Knocked Up or Murphy Brown.
Murphy Brown and Alison Scott's characters' obviously have the wherewithal to care for their progeny; consequently, any notions of crisis regarding their pregnacies are rather tempered. In Juno's and Amy's cases, the pregnancies are unquestioningly treated as crises but the protagonists are never overtly stigmatized. This would be treated as problematic by both doctrinaire progressives (“cultural elites”?) who would assert that crises surrounding teen pregnancy are socially manufactured, and social conservatives who would decry any portrayal of any out-of-wedlock (and certainly teenage) pregnancy without the attachment of moral stigma.
Can this terrain be navigated in popular culture? This may be the first time someone has tried with any modicum of repeated success. Maybe a new, more effective model of related social services will result.
We’ve been here before, notably when Murphy Brown’s single motherhood ignited the election-year brouhaha regarding “cultural elites”. Knocked Up didn't quite elicit the same response, but then came Juno, whose smash critical and box office success was said to glorify teen pregnancy, which is somewhat analogous to believing that Nabakov’s erudition on display in Lolita served to glorify pedophilia.
Now, it’s no accident that Murphy, Juno, Alison and Amy are all white and live in rather stable socio-economic environments, although that may have more to do with target audiences than any residual ethno-cultural biases. However, there has been ample documentation beyond the Moynihan Report and the welfare rolls that there are pervasive beliefs regarding out-of wedlock conception and the consequent atomization of the nuclear family as unquestionable social progress. There is also more than ample documentation that the belief is put into practice far more often outside the demographics of Juno and The Secret Life of the American Teenager, never mind Knocked Up or Murphy Brown.
Murphy Brown and Alison Scott's characters' obviously have the wherewithal to care for their progeny; consequently, any notions of crisis regarding their pregnacies are rather tempered. In Juno's and Amy's cases, the pregnancies are unquestioningly treated as crises but the protagonists are never overtly stigmatized. This would be treated as problematic by both doctrinaire progressives (“cultural elites”?) who would assert that crises surrounding teen pregnancy are socially manufactured, and social conservatives who would decry any portrayal of any out-of-wedlock (and certainly teenage) pregnancy without the attachment of moral stigma.
Can this terrain be navigated in popular culture? This may be the first time someone has tried with any modicum of repeated success. Maybe a new, more effective model of related social services will result.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Morally Offended
I suppose as a responsible blogger I should weigh in on the controversy surrounding the most recent cover of the New Yorker depicting Obama bin Barack and his wife Angela Davis.
It was offensive.
It was funny.
It was funny precisely because it was offensive.
In theory, it would be even funnier if it were offensive to everyone, as ostensibly it was if you believe both McCain and Obama's moral harrumphing. Personally, I think they both got a chuckle out of it but probably think it would politically suspect to even give hint they might find it funny. (Then again, nothing impairs a politician's sense of humor more severely than losing, and since it seems that both think that something like this could cost either one in the polls, I could be wrong.)
However, as far as I'm concerned, this whole brouhaha is paradigmatic of the fact that "Moral Offense" is an oxymoron.
To wit: if something is immoral, it remains immoral irrespective of its offensiveness. If something is offensive, that probably has nothing to do with its morality, or lack thereof.
More specifically: if you find something wrong, and it really IS wrong, I don't care if it offends you. If something offends you, morally or otherwise, don't assume that everyone must agree with your calling it wrong.
The confusion of morality with offense (and vice-versa?) is probably the single most toxic element of contmeporary political discourse. In theory, one should really not have a problem with that; in fact, it might be what makes political discourse intoxicating in the first place. The inability to draw a line between immoral and offensive is symptomatic of one needing treatment in some sort of political detox.
Oh wait, that sounds like political re-education. Never mind.
It was offensive.
It was funny.
It was funny precisely because it was offensive.
In theory, it would be even funnier if it were offensive to everyone, as ostensibly it was if you believe both McCain and Obama's moral harrumphing. Personally, I think they both got a chuckle out of it but probably think it would politically suspect to even give hint they might find it funny. (Then again, nothing impairs a politician's sense of humor more severely than losing, and since it seems that both think that something like this could cost either one in the polls, I could be wrong.)
However, as far as I'm concerned, this whole brouhaha is paradigmatic of the fact that "Moral Offense" is an oxymoron.
To wit: if something is immoral, it remains immoral irrespective of its offensiveness. If something is offensive, that probably has nothing to do with its morality, or lack thereof.
More specifically: if you find something wrong, and it really IS wrong, I don't care if it offends you. If something offends you, morally or otherwise, don't assume that everyone must agree with your calling it wrong.
The confusion of morality with offense (and vice-versa?) is probably the single most toxic element of contmeporary political discourse. In theory, one should really not have a problem with that; in fact, it might be what makes political discourse intoxicating in the first place. The inability to draw a line between immoral and offensive is symptomatic of one needing treatment in some sort of political detox.
Oh wait, that sounds like political re-education. Never mind.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Pseudo-Intellectual
An intellectual has been defined as one who, because he/she is an expert in one area, assumes he/she is by extension an expert in everything. (Noam Chosmky’s generalizing of linguistics to politics comes to mind.)
The pseudo-intellectual, however, an actual expert in no area, professes to therefore be an expert in whatever area he/she happens to be professing about at that very moment. The Cognitive Dissident has no problem being categorized as such. Of course, I make no pretensions about my lack of pretension, owing in no small part to my Ivy League “pedigree” (Penn BA, Columbia MA)--possibly because said pedigree is all I have left to hang on to.
Anyway, I found it interesting enough that Atlantic Monthly dedicated its July/August cover story to how the internet is changing the way our brains work (or, in their parlance, whether “Google[was] making us Stoopid”). Several historical parallels were drawn. To make it ridiculously simple: when writing became widespread, there was worry that people would stop trying to memorize information and use their brains less. When the printing press was invented, there was worry that people would stop writing information down and use their brains less. Similar things happened with the advent of photography, moving pictures, radio, and television. In short, it has always been believed that there is a directly inverse relationship between the accessibility of information and the quality of either a) the use to which the information can be put, b) the quality of the people accessing/using the information, or c) both.
In other words, the internet is making everyone a potential pseudo-intellectual.
All this would merely prove that the internet has changed nothing beyond the speed with which all of this occurs. Irrespective of the internet’s actual impact on our collective cognitive function, it is highly unlikely that there will be much of a shift in the proportion between true intellectuals and pseudo intellectuals. And to those who would add moral or religious complaints to the socio-intellectual ones, let me quote Scripture (Ecclesiastes 7:10): “Don’t say, ‘Why were the former days better than these?’ For you do not ask wisely about this.”
In other words: nostalgia is nothing more than a disease. Trust me. Google it.
The pseudo-intellectual, however, an actual expert in no area, professes to therefore be an expert in whatever area he/she happens to be professing about at that very moment. The Cognitive Dissident has no problem being categorized as such. Of course, I make no pretensions about my lack of pretension, owing in no small part to my Ivy League “pedigree” (Penn BA, Columbia MA)--possibly because said pedigree is all I have left to hang on to.
Anyway, I found it interesting enough that Atlantic Monthly dedicated its July/August cover story to how the internet is changing the way our brains work (or, in their parlance, whether “Google[was] making us Stoopid”). Several historical parallels were drawn. To make it ridiculously simple: when writing became widespread, there was worry that people would stop trying to memorize information and use their brains less. When the printing press was invented, there was worry that people would stop writing information down and use their brains less. Similar things happened with the advent of photography, moving pictures, radio, and television. In short, it has always been believed that there is a directly inverse relationship between the accessibility of information and the quality of either a) the use to which the information can be put, b) the quality of the people accessing/using the information, or c) both.
In other words, the internet is making everyone a potential pseudo-intellectual.
All this would merely prove that the internet has changed nothing beyond the speed with which all of this occurs. Irrespective of the internet’s actual impact on our collective cognitive function, it is highly unlikely that there will be much of a shift in the proportion between true intellectuals and pseudo intellectuals. And to those who would add moral or religious complaints to the socio-intellectual ones, let me quote Scripture (Ecclesiastes 7:10): “Don’t say, ‘Why were the former days better than these?’ For you do not ask wisely about this.”
In other words: nostalgia is nothing more than a disease. Trust me. Google it.
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
Cognitive Dissidence 101
What’s a cognitive dissident?
Well, in the simplest sense, it means I’m weird, and I admit it.
OK, what else does it tell you that’s not on my Facebook profile?
Let’s put it in political terms.
I might be a swing voter.
I remain a registered Democrat, although as I get older I find myself in accord with the Churchillian (or was it Clemenceauan? (is that the correct proper adjective?)) notion that one who is not a socialist at 20 has no heart, one who is a socialist at 40 has no brains. Or, maybe, I’m just getting closer a simpler notion expounded by the brother of a friend of mine: “Nobody dies a liberal.” (He was commenting more on the fact that his brother was attending an Ivy League school while he had graduated from a city school, but nonetheless.)
Yet, despite the fact that I find the positions expounded by the standard bearers of the Democratic Party increasingly rub me the wrong way, I find myself reluctant to a) admit that I might be (gulp) conservative, b) change my political affiliation, c) and even if I did change my political affiliation, admit it in public. All this despite the fact that I fast approach my 15th college reunion, and a decade and a half should be enough time to cure myself of youthful political sentiment based on…sentiment.
Politics are always sentiment with an admixture of self-interest. The balances are always in question: witness the liberals’ complaint that the working uneducated poor consistently vote against their economic interest because of, at best, religious sentiments or, at worst, unlettered bigoted sentiments; ditto conservatives' complaints that rich liberals vote their vague notions of guilt. (Or, in the case of people like George Soros, they have enough good people working for ‘em that they’ll never have to pay the tax hikes they advocate, so it becomes a question of apperances.)
I suppose, then, that the past 15 years leave me with a solid core of what I, for lack of a more accurate description, would call a vague caucasian/Jewish guilt-progressive-Democratic-hollywood-rock and roll-pop culture-sentiment. (Actually, forget the “lack of…”—if I had any more adjectives to add that would be as far as possible from conservative, I’d use those too. Further on, I probably will.)
In addition to the above political conundrum I’ve conveniently placed myself in, I also am (or claim to be) fiercely Judeocentric.
(That could mean a lot of things, but lets set two criteria for clarity’s sake: I am a Jew. I am pro-Israel. I realize that has probably discredited any liberal credentials I might claim to have, but bear with me.)
So much of my politics—particularly any positions I advocate as a result of my Judeocentrism—may lean toward what I would call apparently conservative, although some doctrinaire conservatives—particularly those of the paleo- variety—would be all too happy to disavow any conservative credentials I might claim even faster than doctrinaire leftists would disqualify my liberal notions. However, as I freely admit, were I to actually seek to place myself in one camp of the other, I would much rather be called liberal than conservative. It may be that no one dies a liberal, but I assume that no one wants to live as a fascist. (Unless one really has that kind of power. Or money. Like George Soros.)
As I realize that this is all of my own making, and I freely admit it, I become a dissident in whatever camp I place myself. If I get the chance to place myself in any camp at all. (The pro-Israel Judeocentric camp, maybe, but as I’ll give you the chance to read in the future, I may be a cognitive dissident in those camps as well. As some of you may already know, the politics within that bailiwick has a life—and mind—of its own.)
In a nutshell, this is probably the best way I can describe myself in political terms, and also to prepare you for what you are going to read on this blog. And, while there will be plenty of personal, one shouldn’t be surprised. As the doctrinaire (or, as I suppose might be more appropriate in my case, and as I will probably use from now on, “orthodox”) feminists used to say “the personal is political”. While that may or my not be true, bear in mind that the converse (or was it inverse?) definitely is true: the political is always personal.
That’s what the cognitive dissident is getting at.
(Oh, by the way, as I’m sure you’ve noticed by now, I have a tendency to (over)use parentheses. You tell me—you rather I use footnotes? I’m not gonna write any less.)
Well, in the simplest sense, it means I’m weird, and I admit it.
OK, what else does it tell you that’s not on my Facebook profile?
Let’s put it in political terms.
I might be a swing voter.
I remain a registered Democrat, although as I get older I find myself in accord with the Churchillian (or was it Clemenceauan? (is that the correct proper adjective?)) notion that one who is not a socialist at 20 has no heart, one who is a socialist at 40 has no brains. Or, maybe, I’m just getting closer a simpler notion expounded by the brother of a friend of mine: “Nobody dies a liberal.” (He was commenting more on the fact that his brother was attending an Ivy League school while he had graduated from a city school, but nonetheless.)
Yet, despite the fact that I find the positions expounded by the standard bearers of the Democratic Party increasingly rub me the wrong way, I find myself reluctant to a) admit that I might be (gulp) conservative, b) change my political affiliation, c) and even if I did change my political affiliation, admit it in public. All this despite the fact that I fast approach my 15th college reunion, and a decade and a half should be enough time to cure myself of youthful political sentiment based on…sentiment.
Politics are always sentiment with an admixture of self-interest. The balances are always in question: witness the liberals’ complaint that the working uneducated poor consistently vote against their economic interest because of, at best, religious sentiments or, at worst, unlettered bigoted sentiments; ditto conservatives' complaints that rich liberals vote their vague notions of guilt. (Or, in the case of people like George Soros, they have enough good people working for ‘em that they’ll never have to pay the tax hikes they advocate, so it becomes a question of apperances.)
I suppose, then, that the past 15 years leave me with a solid core of what I, for lack of a more accurate description, would call a vague caucasian/Jewish guilt-progressive-Democratic-hollywood-rock and roll-pop culture-sentiment. (Actually, forget the “lack of…”—if I had any more adjectives to add that would be as far as possible from conservative, I’d use those too. Further on, I probably will.)
In addition to the above political conundrum I’ve conveniently placed myself in, I also am (or claim to be) fiercely Judeocentric.
(That could mean a lot of things, but lets set two criteria for clarity’s sake: I am a Jew. I am pro-Israel. I realize that has probably discredited any liberal credentials I might claim to have, but bear with me.)
So much of my politics—particularly any positions I advocate as a result of my Judeocentrism—may lean toward what I would call apparently conservative, although some doctrinaire conservatives—particularly those of the paleo- variety—would be all too happy to disavow any conservative credentials I might claim even faster than doctrinaire leftists would disqualify my liberal notions. However, as I freely admit, were I to actually seek to place myself in one camp of the other, I would much rather be called liberal than conservative. It may be that no one dies a liberal, but I assume that no one wants to live as a fascist. (Unless one really has that kind of power. Or money. Like George Soros.)
As I realize that this is all of my own making, and I freely admit it, I become a dissident in whatever camp I place myself. If I get the chance to place myself in any camp at all. (The pro-Israel Judeocentric camp, maybe, but as I’ll give you the chance to read in the future, I may be a cognitive dissident in those camps as well. As some of you may already know, the politics within that bailiwick has a life—and mind—of its own.)
In a nutshell, this is probably the best way I can describe myself in political terms, and also to prepare you for what you are going to read on this blog. And, while there will be plenty of personal, one shouldn’t be surprised. As the doctrinaire (or, as I suppose might be more appropriate in my case, and as I will probably use from now on, “orthodox”) feminists used to say “the personal is political”. While that may or my not be true, bear in mind that the converse (or was it inverse?) definitely is true: the political is always personal.
That’s what the cognitive dissident is getting at.
(Oh, by the way, as I’m sure you’ve noticed by now, I have a tendency to (over)use parentheses. You tell me—you rather I use footnotes? I’m not gonna write any less.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)