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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)