One sees, on occasion, bumper stickers [usually courtesy of Code Pink, but the sentiment probably predates them] proclaiming that "War Is Terrorism". The unspoken corollary should be "Pacifism is Murder". It might be ironic that another longtime ally of the US, South Korea, has been forced by political consideration involving matters outside of its own security to be forced to sit tight while under direct attack from a historical sworn existential enemy. I guess it isn't just Israel.
One personage who didn't buy into the classic doctrinaire pacifist fallacy was Yitzchak Rabin; despite, with great misgivings, having decided to embark on the Oslo process, he realized two things that have eluded other [if not all] peace processors: one, you make peace with your enemies, not your friends--meaning that said enemies don't suddenly become your friends; and, two, peacemaking is, counterintuitively, a messy business [as evidenced by his comment in the immediate aftermath of Oslo that "Arab governments do not operate on Western democratic principles". He knew who he was working with, and wasn't suffering from the illusion that a "new Middle East" was about to be created.]
Certainly we don't need to be reminded of the fallacies of doctrinaire pacifism and peace processors. But everyone else does.
Thursday, November 25, 2010
Saturday, November 6, 2010
Corrections
WE NOW KNOW that the Obama Administration was planning nall along to drag the political center as far left as possible, and when he made overtones during his inaugural about governing from the center, this is what he meant to happen.
WE NOW KNOW that the American people don’t want this, but the Administrsation and its leaders really didn’t care. This was a case, as they saw it, of enacting a program of social justice with or without anyone’s consent.
WE NOW KNOW that the Tea Party may become a force to be reckoned with on par with what the Christian Coalition used to be. Even if it remains an idea more than a movement, without a clear leader or tangible center of gravity [other than Sarah Palin], conservatives ignore it at their peril. Despite the fact that a few of their more visible prominent candidates lost high profile races [specifically, the O’Donnell and Angle losses], Tea Party gains far outweighed the losses.
WE NOW KNOW that Sarah Palin is not necessarily a lightweight on the order of a Dan Quayler, or even a Dubya. She has been positioning herself to run for it all ever since the last election ended, and she’s figured out how to do it…and get rich at the same time.
WHAT WE DON’T KNOW yet is whether there is a possibility of an analog to Clintonian “triangulation” occurring, whether Obamans plan to work with the new majority or take the stance of becoming a new party of “no”—that is, “no” to compromising with the new class. [Dick Morris has written that Obama’s program is so far left that no compromise, and hence no triangulation, is possible.]
It might just be right at this moment that Obama believes so strongly in his program that he’s willing to sacrifice his second term the same way he sacrificed 15 percent of his party’s House seats and the Speaker’s gavel. When LBJ passed the Civil rights Act, he commented that the Democrats had lost the South for generations. One wonders whether Obama thinks his program’s element of social justice is as lofty as Johnson’s and therefore worth the political price. Judging from the sympathetic media [CNN. MSNBC, et al] attempts to whitewash the magnitude of the electoral correction, one would think that the media certainly hopes not, but the question would remain when the President would ever get an inkling that he harbors two contradictory concepts in his head: social engineering and further electoral success.
WE NOW KNOW that the American people don’t want this, but the Administrsation and its leaders really didn’t care. This was a case, as they saw it, of enacting a program of social justice with or without anyone’s consent.
WE NOW KNOW that the Tea Party may become a force to be reckoned with on par with what the Christian Coalition used to be. Even if it remains an idea more than a movement, without a clear leader or tangible center of gravity [other than Sarah Palin], conservatives ignore it at their peril. Despite the fact that a few of their more visible prominent candidates lost high profile races [specifically, the O’Donnell and Angle losses], Tea Party gains far outweighed the losses.
WE NOW KNOW that Sarah Palin is not necessarily a lightweight on the order of a Dan Quayler, or even a Dubya. She has been positioning herself to run for it all ever since the last election ended, and she’s figured out how to do it…and get rich at the same time.
WHAT WE DON’T KNOW yet is whether there is a possibility of an analog to Clintonian “triangulation” occurring, whether Obamans plan to work with the new majority or take the stance of becoming a new party of “no”—that is, “no” to compromising with the new class. [Dick Morris has written that Obama’s program is so far left that no compromise, and hence no triangulation, is possible.]
It might just be right at this moment that Obama believes so strongly in his program that he’s willing to sacrifice his second term the same way he sacrificed 15 percent of his party’s House seats and the Speaker’s gavel. When LBJ passed the Civil rights Act, he commented that the Democrats had lost the South for generations. One wonders whether Obama thinks his program’s element of social justice is as lofty as Johnson’s and therefore worth the political price. Judging from the sympathetic media [CNN. MSNBC, et al] attempts to whitewash the magnitude of the electoral correction, one would think that the media certainly hopes not, but the question would remain when the President would ever get an inkling that he harbors two contradictory concepts in his head: social engineering and further electoral success.
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
From Republikarma to Barackarma
He plugs one leak, and a bigger one develops. The President might want to conjure up the spirit of Nixon and call the plumbers.
One can never truly say whether the tide has turned, and whether the various conservative tendencies that used to pop up to bite Republicans in the ass has abated somewhat, and now the Democrats’ almost genetic propensity for political self-destruction will now assert itself in its truest form. The President, who was such a beneficiary of the Republican refusal to play by their own rules and the economic mess that resulted, now has created himself a dual quagmire, almost completely of his own volition.
The first irony involves BP. No one can blame him directly for the disaster, and the culture of deregulation and corner-cutting that led to it is a particularly conservative invention; but, Republicans will not be blamed for it, because even when the disaster reached the proportions that it did because they did not see the need to perform any mea culpa for it [it helps immensely that they were the minority power]. Instead, the President looked both impotent and hypocritical, because he couldn’t stop the leak faster and he was loath to actually punish BP too publicly, oil companies—even foreign ones—being not only too big but too important to fail. This despite the fact that he was considered to be a true environmentalist president.
The second irony involves the Afghanistan war and the leaks surrounding both this and the previous Administration’s conduct thereof, which seems to be reminiscent of the incidents surrounding the Pentagon Papers’ revelations of a Democratic administration’s prosecution of a war they believed to be unwinnable. If this the moment where the President has truly assumed ownership of this war, it was certainly not in the way he intended: he will be saddled with the responsibility of things he had no control over at the time [Bush’s policies] because the current leaks indicate he has no control over events now, if he ever did. Attempts to blame the previous administration—which even Nixon realized wouldn’t work in 1971, which was why he tried to quash the Papers—will not only backfire; it would remind the public that there was another war that everyone was making a fuss about that seems to have been forgotten about will continue to be forgotten about, and Obama will find out just how recursive karma is.
In short, Obama has succeeded in taking what might have been once been considered two major conservative-created failures and making them his own. At this point, Republicans might actually best be advised to rest on their laurels to a point, because if they don’t and they continue their infighting, they might remind the electorate of why they became the minority party in the first place. Instead, if they sit back and let the Democrats continue to fail the way Rush hoped they would, they might reap the greatest benefit come November 2010, and maybe 2012.
One can never truly say whether the tide has turned, and whether the various conservative tendencies that used to pop up to bite Republicans in the ass has abated somewhat, and now the Democrats’ almost genetic propensity for political self-destruction will now assert itself in its truest form. The President, who was such a beneficiary of the Republican refusal to play by their own rules and the economic mess that resulted, now has created himself a dual quagmire, almost completely of his own volition.
The first irony involves BP. No one can blame him directly for the disaster, and the culture of deregulation and corner-cutting that led to it is a particularly conservative invention; but, Republicans will not be blamed for it, because even when the disaster reached the proportions that it did because they did not see the need to perform any mea culpa for it [it helps immensely that they were the minority power]. Instead, the President looked both impotent and hypocritical, because he couldn’t stop the leak faster and he was loath to actually punish BP too publicly, oil companies—even foreign ones—being not only too big but too important to fail. This despite the fact that he was considered to be a true environmentalist president.
The second irony involves the Afghanistan war and the leaks surrounding both this and the previous Administration’s conduct thereof, which seems to be reminiscent of the incidents surrounding the Pentagon Papers’ revelations of a Democratic administration’s prosecution of a war they believed to be unwinnable. If this the moment where the President has truly assumed ownership of this war, it was certainly not in the way he intended: he will be saddled with the responsibility of things he had no control over at the time [Bush’s policies] because the current leaks indicate he has no control over events now, if he ever did. Attempts to blame the previous administration—which even Nixon realized wouldn’t work in 1971, which was why he tried to quash the Papers—will not only backfire; it would remind the public that there was another war that everyone was making a fuss about that seems to have been forgotten about will continue to be forgotten about, and Obama will find out just how recursive karma is.
In short, Obama has succeeded in taking what might have been once been considered two major conservative-created failures and making them his own. At this point, Republicans might actually best be advised to rest on their laurels to a point, because if they don’t and they continue their infighting, they might remind the electorate of why they became the minority party in the first place. Instead, if they sit back and let the Democrats continue to fail the way Rush hoped they would, they might reap the greatest benefit come November 2010, and maybe 2012.
Thursday, July 8, 2010
There Will Be Peace--When:
I mostly—no, completely--disagree with Nick Kristof’s take on the Arab-Jew conflict. And I definitely disagree with his conclusions drawn in his column in today’s NY Times.
However, I found one paragraph particularly instructive, if counterintuitively so.
I reprinted the particular paragraph as it was, then replaced “Israel” with “Islam” and “Palestinian” with “Jew”.
When a salient paragraph can be written the second way, there MIGHT be peace in the Middle East.
Kristof:“The most cogent critiques of Israel’s treatment of Palestinians invariably come from Israel’s own human rights organizations. The most lucid unraveling of Israel’s founding mythology comes from Israeli historians. The deepest critiques of Israel’s historical claims come from Israeli archeologists. This more noble Israel, refusing to retreat from its values even in times of fear and stress, is a model for the world. “
Me:“The most cogent critiques of Islam’s treatment of Jews invariably come from Islam’s own human rights organizations [sic!]. The most lucid unraveling of Islam’s founding mythology comes from Islam’s historians. The deepest critiques of Islam’s historical claims come from Islam’s archeologists. This more noble Islam, refusing to retreat from its values even in times of fear and stress, is a model for the world. “
However, I found one paragraph particularly instructive, if counterintuitively so.
I reprinted the particular paragraph as it was, then replaced “Israel” with “Islam” and “Palestinian” with “Jew”.
When a salient paragraph can be written the second way, there MIGHT be peace in the Middle East.
Kristof:“The most cogent critiques of Israel’s treatment of Palestinians invariably come from Israel’s own human rights organizations. The most lucid unraveling of Israel’s founding mythology comes from Israeli historians. The deepest critiques of Israel’s historical claims come from Israeli archeologists. This more noble Israel, refusing to retreat from its values even in times of fear and stress, is a model for the world. “
Me:“The most cogent critiques of Islam’s treatment of Jews invariably come from Islam’s own human rights organizations [sic!]. The most lucid unraveling of Islam’s founding mythology comes from Islam’s historians. The deepest critiques of Islam’s historical claims come from Islam’s archeologists. This more noble Islam, refusing to retreat from its values even in times of fear and stress, is a model for the world. “
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Shul Cake
Shul cake, for those of you who haven’t had the experience of going to a Kiddush, is generally the cheapest sponge cake available next to the schnapps and herring. Sometimes one can sing “Happy Birthday” to the cake. Personally, I love Shul Cake. But not the kind I’m about to describe.
In this pages I’ve definitely been critical of all three of the “great” monotheisms. From the outset, I have not spared my own co-religionists, especially when it comes to “washing dirty laundry in public” when trying to give the impression that one’s laundry never gets dirty in the first place.
At the risk of employing another cliché, it seems certain groups of Rabbis want to eat their cake and have it too. [Talmudic of me; that actually is the way the statement is supposed to go]. Two incidents in the news this week underscore the salience of said cliché.
The first story has to do with the brouhaha surrounding the synagogue in Syracuse that had the “temerity”, as an Orthodox congregation, to appoint TWO women as president of the lay synagogue board. Not, mind you, Rabbis, or Rabbas, or any other perceived hidden equivalent: this was the lay board. It seems in response, the National Council of Young Israel has decided to expel the congregation, and in thesponse to THAT, there has been a vote of no confidence tabled by nearly 150 member congregations of the council.
Now, I’m not one to raise issues of Jewish law unless they seem to be absolutely clear, and this isn’t one of those cases. I personally believe there shouldn’t be a problem with this even from the perspective of Orthodox law, but I could be wrong. However, what the NCYI has done is to avoid the question and claim that the expulsion has to do with unpaid dues. This is one of those cases where, for whatever the reason, those in charge of the Council should be forced to stand up and state their position and not hide behind technicalities. If you believe this is wrong, you’ll endure the dissolution of your organization, like Rabbi Naftali Berlin did when the Russian authorities tried to take over the Volozhin Yeshiva; he closed it. You can’t eat your cake and have it too.
More disturbing was the next story, that the Rabbinical Board of Queens—the “Va’ad”—allowed a member under a cloud of suspicion that he has “inappropriate contact” with students was allowed to resign—in October!!!—without any reference to said “cloud” hanging over him. A prominent religious psychologist accurately called out the Va’ad on this by claiming that they had “protect[ed] one of their own” by “g[iving] him a hekhser and ma[king] him kosher”. No further explanation is necessary. No one should give credence to any reason given for allowing this rabbi to stay on; if the board wants to avoid a defamation suit, it can pay him to do nothing, like the rubber room teachers.
My reasons for publiczing events like this and contributing to the pressure upon these bodies—aside from possible personal reasons, as I was victimized as a child by staff in two different right-wing Orthodox settings—is that Orthodoxy MUST be morally consistent, and they MUST learn to adjust to the fact that their behavior will be placed under a microscope, because their way of life announces automatically that its adherents are held to an ostensibly “higher” standard of conduct.
There would be nothing wrong if there would be an admission that some of our co-religionists stray from even basic human standards; it happens. But when disingeuousness is the order of the day, the very goal of the religious behaviors are not only short-circuited, they are re-presented as the height of hypocrisy. Adding fuel to the fire are then accusation emanating from clerical quarters that the bad press is simply the result of a hostile culture and media, almost as if these issues would go away of the media and culture would go away. Well, they’re not, and in this case, they may be part of the solution if they force certain powers that be to pay attention.
No cake for you.
In this pages I’ve definitely been critical of all three of the “great” monotheisms. From the outset, I have not spared my own co-religionists, especially when it comes to “washing dirty laundry in public” when trying to give the impression that one’s laundry never gets dirty in the first place.
At the risk of employing another cliché, it seems certain groups of Rabbis want to eat their cake and have it too. [Talmudic of me; that actually is the way the statement is supposed to go]. Two incidents in the news this week underscore the salience of said cliché.
The first story has to do with the brouhaha surrounding the synagogue in Syracuse that had the “temerity”, as an Orthodox congregation, to appoint TWO women as president of the lay synagogue board. Not, mind you, Rabbis, or Rabbas, or any other perceived hidden equivalent: this was the lay board. It seems in response, the National Council of Young Israel has decided to expel the congregation, and in thesponse to THAT, there has been a vote of no confidence tabled by nearly 150 member congregations of the council.
Now, I’m not one to raise issues of Jewish law unless they seem to be absolutely clear, and this isn’t one of those cases. I personally believe there shouldn’t be a problem with this even from the perspective of Orthodox law, but I could be wrong. However, what the NCYI has done is to avoid the question and claim that the expulsion has to do with unpaid dues. This is one of those cases where, for whatever the reason, those in charge of the Council should be forced to stand up and state their position and not hide behind technicalities. If you believe this is wrong, you’ll endure the dissolution of your organization, like Rabbi Naftali Berlin did when the Russian authorities tried to take over the Volozhin Yeshiva; he closed it. You can’t eat your cake and have it too.
More disturbing was the next story, that the Rabbinical Board of Queens—the “Va’ad”—allowed a member under a cloud of suspicion that he has “inappropriate contact” with students was allowed to resign—in October!!!—without any reference to said “cloud” hanging over him. A prominent religious psychologist accurately called out the Va’ad on this by claiming that they had “protect[ed] one of their own” by “g[iving] him a hekhser and ma[king] him kosher”. No further explanation is necessary. No one should give credence to any reason given for allowing this rabbi to stay on; if the board wants to avoid a defamation suit, it can pay him to do nothing, like the rubber room teachers.
My reasons for publiczing events like this and contributing to the pressure upon these bodies—aside from possible personal reasons, as I was victimized as a child by staff in two different right-wing Orthodox settings—is that Orthodoxy MUST be morally consistent, and they MUST learn to adjust to the fact that their behavior will be placed under a microscope, because their way of life announces automatically that its adherents are held to an ostensibly “higher” standard of conduct.
There would be nothing wrong if there would be an admission that some of our co-religionists stray from even basic human standards; it happens. But when disingeuousness is the order of the day, the very goal of the religious behaviors are not only short-circuited, they are re-presented as the height of hypocrisy. Adding fuel to the fire are then accusation emanating from clerical quarters that the bad press is simply the result of a hostile culture and media, almost as if these issues would go away of the media and culture would go away. Well, they’re not, and in this case, they may be part of the solution if they force certain powers that be to pay attention.
No cake for you.
Monday, June 21, 2010
Oil, Water, and Other Strange Bedfellows
The ongoing disaster in the Gulf of Mexico has given rise to all sorts of “obvious” conclusions to be drawn, specifically that America’s addiction to oil is a proximate—if not THE proximate—cause of all environmental and natural despoliation, and only drastic legislative measures to curb said hankering for fossil fuels will ensure the continued survival of the human race.
More specifically, if there was a more propitious opportunity to pass so called “climate-change” legislation, one might be hard pressed to find it.
Really, one shouldn’t have to overtax one’s mental faculties to discern reasons why this ain’t necessarily so. However, in case one might need some sort of “learning aid” to help one clear the muddy [if not oily] waters of such thinking, consider the recent rumors that the “Oracle” of environmentalism—former Vice-President Al Gore—has taken the notion of “common cause” to its most logical conclusion with fellow traveler and Gulfstream environmentalist extraordinaire Laurie David, the woman who fought the scourge of the SUV from her private jet.
It seems as if Gore, whose carbon footprint is notoriously nearly as wide as David’s, has finally provided a salient analog for his purported “environmental science”: it’s as solid as his 40-year marriage to Tipper. Then again, one might wonder whether the Gore’s ill-advised PDA at the 2000 Democratic National Convention also provided a prescient analog to oil spills: the ick factor.
In any case, the Obamans—ostensibly the most pro-environment and anti-corporate administration in US history—have progressively more tightly bound their already rather securely tied hands until mere attempts indignant wringing have induced sympathy arthritis in even the President’s most avowed political enemies. Said spectacle really serves to illustrate two notions which are, nevertheless, as elementary as they are contradictory.
One is that, as much as we NEED our oil, there’s a LOT of it out there [for once, we can’t seem to get it to stop flowing], and much of it rather inconveniently located [hello—Middle East?] There is no reason—even in the face of the current environmental tragedy [and let’s face it, that’s what it is, and you can be a global warming “denier” like this writer is and still understand that]—that we not make any and all attempts to locate and drill for oil wherever we can find it in places other than the Fertile and Golden Crescents…IF—and this is a big IF—
--we figure out how to REGULATE, how to actually implement required legal safeguards and basic procedures, which by all accounts, seem to have been blatantly discarded by BP which directly led to the current mess.
As previously noted in these pages, Big Oil isn't going anywhere. Alternative energy strategies will be pursued when we have no other alternative, pace Churchill’s observation that Americans do the right thing when they’ve exhausted all other possibilities. However, if Big Oil were smart, they could turn this crisis somewhat to their advantage by working with legislators to allow some semblance of independent regulation and monitoring into the industry by throwing BP under the bus, by saying, in effect, “We don’t want this to happen again; who wants to waste all that oil? What BP did was greedy AND stupid. We may be greedy, but if keeping the landscape clean will save our profits, we’re all for helping clean this up. Do to BP what you want; we’ll help make sure this never repeats itself.” If the public is actually prepared to expect and accept this level of disingenuousness, it may be the first step towards an eventual win-win: more oil and less disaster.
It won’t happen any other way.
More specifically, if there was a more propitious opportunity to pass so called “climate-change” legislation, one might be hard pressed to find it.
Really, one shouldn’t have to overtax one’s mental faculties to discern reasons why this ain’t necessarily so. However, in case one might need some sort of “learning aid” to help one clear the muddy [if not oily] waters of such thinking, consider the recent rumors that the “Oracle” of environmentalism—former Vice-President Al Gore—has taken the notion of “common cause” to its most logical conclusion with fellow traveler and Gulfstream environmentalist extraordinaire Laurie David, the woman who fought the scourge of the SUV from her private jet.
It seems as if Gore, whose carbon footprint is notoriously nearly as wide as David’s, has finally provided a salient analog for his purported “environmental science”: it’s as solid as his 40-year marriage to Tipper. Then again, one might wonder whether the Gore’s ill-advised PDA at the 2000 Democratic National Convention also provided a prescient analog to oil spills: the ick factor.
In any case, the Obamans—ostensibly the most pro-environment and anti-corporate administration in US history—have progressively more tightly bound their already rather securely tied hands until mere attempts indignant wringing have induced sympathy arthritis in even the President’s most avowed political enemies. Said spectacle really serves to illustrate two notions which are, nevertheless, as elementary as they are contradictory.
One is that, as much as we NEED our oil, there’s a LOT of it out there [for once, we can’t seem to get it to stop flowing], and much of it rather inconveniently located [hello—Middle East?] There is no reason—even in the face of the current environmental tragedy [and let’s face it, that’s what it is, and you can be a global warming “denier” like this writer is and still understand that]—that we not make any and all attempts to locate and drill for oil wherever we can find it in places other than the Fertile and Golden Crescents…IF—and this is a big IF—
--we figure out how to REGULATE, how to actually implement required legal safeguards and basic procedures, which by all accounts, seem to have been blatantly discarded by BP which directly led to the current mess.
As previously noted in these pages, Big Oil isn't going anywhere. Alternative energy strategies will be pursued when we have no other alternative, pace Churchill’s observation that Americans do the right thing when they’ve exhausted all other possibilities. However, if Big Oil were smart, they could turn this crisis somewhat to their advantage by working with legislators to allow some semblance of independent regulation and monitoring into the industry by throwing BP under the bus, by saying, in effect, “We don’t want this to happen again; who wants to waste all that oil? What BP did was greedy AND stupid. We may be greedy, but if keeping the landscape clean will save our profits, we’re all for helping clean this up. Do to BP what you want; we’ll help make sure this never repeats itself.” If the public is actually prepared to expect and accept this level of disingenuousness, it may be the first step towards an eventual win-win: more oil and less disaster.
It won’t happen any other way.
Monday, June 7, 2010
A Proportionate Response to Helen Thomas
Lost in the dark cloud of the unjustifiable brouhaha surrounding the terrorist-supporting Gaza-bound flotilli [if that sounds bacterial, even better] is the silver lining of the swift retribution meted out to that erstwhile pillar of the Fourth Estate, Helen Thomas, for her revealing antisemitic ramble.
One might actually take heart [warily, to be sure, but still] in the fact that some diatribes aimed at Jews, Israel and their supporters are still considered out of bounds enough that said diatribes and their utterers are stigmatized and that a measure [however insufficent] of opprobrium is elicited.
Following a modicum of give and take on my facebook stati regarding my rather draconian ill wishes for Ms. Thomas, based loosely on Yiddishist sentiments ["She should live to 120. And spend every second of those 30 years in endless pain and agony"] and the subsquent commentary ad loc regarding the apparently disporoportionate nature of my statements and wishes, I finally arrived at a formulaic response to Ms. Thomas' comments:
Helen Thomas should get the HELL out of this country and go back where SHE came from, which, I think, is Lebanon.
I'm sure her commentary will be much appreciated there.
One might actually take heart [warily, to be sure, but still] in the fact that some diatribes aimed at Jews, Israel and their supporters are still considered out of bounds enough that said diatribes and their utterers are stigmatized and that a measure [however insufficent] of opprobrium is elicited.
Following a modicum of give and take on my facebook stati regarding my rather draconian ill wishes for Ms. Thomas, based loosely on Yiddishist sentiments ["She should live to 120. And spend every second of those 30 years in endless pain and agony"] and the subsquent commentary ad loc regarding the apparently disporoportionate nature of my statements and wishes, I finally arrived at a formulaic response to Ms. Thomas' comments:
Helen Thomas should get the HELL out of this country and go back where SHE came from, which, I think, is Lebanon.
I'm sure her commentary will be much appreciated there.
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
If Anyone Else Did That....
Were I a true professional, I would have said everything that appears in the following article by Jonathan Kay about the "humanitarian" flotilla that tried to run the Gaza blockade.
As it is, I have only one thing to add: the Hamastan entity in Gaza--a theocratic, fascist, Judeo-cidal [if not non-Muslicidal] quasi-state that would be more accurately described as a gang territory--is in a state of DECLARED war with anything Jews and Jewish, never mind its stance toward Israel. Therefore, as the blockade of the Gaza coast is a defensive response to said posture, any attempt to run the blockade is tantamount to an act of war on the part of the runners, no matter whether they are state actors, NGO's, or "humanitarians". The boats were legally subject to a summary sinking, not a seizure. We all know why the Israelis don't do that, but the "activists" are lucky all their lives weren't automatically forfeit. As Kay points out, one can only imagine what would happen if "activists" tried a mass seaborne humanitarian mission to the 3 million starving citizens of North Korea.
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/05/31/jenin-on-the-high-seas/#ixzz0pc5cf2MR
Jenin on the high seas
By Jonathan Kay
If Israel truly had wanted to “massacre” the Hamas sympathizers and fellow travellers aboard a six-ship Gaza-bound flotilla, the operation would not have been complicated. The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) would have used the trusty North Korean solution: Torpedo the ships and watch them sink to the bottom of the sea.
Even Israel arguably would have been within its rights to seize and destroy a ship being sent toward Gazan waters in defiance of an embargo, especially after giving abundant warnings to the leaders of the largely Turkish-based Free Gaza Movement, which had sent the flotilla, that they would not be permitted to sail to Hamas-controlled territory.
But that’s not how Israel operates. Instead, it sent commandos to seize control of the ships and bring them safely to Israeli waters. Israeli officials had even prepared air-conditioned accommodations for the activists, and had made arrangements to deliver legitimate aid supplies to Gaza.
According to the IDF, not all of the activists on board the ships were the pacifists they claimed to be. Though the Free Gaza leaders said they would not resist Israeli enforcement of the embargo, some of them fought the Israeli boarding parties with iron clubs — as confirmed by video that has been made available to the media. More seriously, it is claimed that at least one of the activists took two handguns from the Israelis and fired at the soldiers. In the melee, at least 10 activists were believed to have been killed, and several Israeli commandos wounded.
“They beat us up with metal sticks and knives,” one Israeli commando told the Los Angeles Times. “There was live fire at some point against us. … They were shooting at us from below deck.” Based on the same source, the Times also reported that “activists tossed some of the soldiers from the top deck to the lower deck and the soldiers jumped in the water to save themselves. Activists grabbed some soldiers and tried to hold them hostage, stripping them of their helmets and equipment.”
If this narrative stands up, then every drop of blood spilled on Monday morning rests on the hands of those activists who initiated the deadly exchange. When you attack Israeli soldiers — or at any soldiers — with lethal force, they will respond in kind.
As for the events that unfolded after the deadly exchange commenced, we don’t know how much of the ensuing bloodshed was avoidable. Like all civilized nations, Israel likes to conduct its anti-terrorist operations in a measured, deliberate fashion. But that’s difficult in the close confines of a crowded ship, where combat takes place at the range of a few metres — especially, in the case of the Free Gaza flotilla, which was populated by a diverse mob spanning the gamut from naive Jewish grandmothers to full-fledged Islamist radicals.
For most of the world, of course, these facts won’t matter: Like the bogus Jenin massacre, this episode will be used as just another stick to beat the Jewish state — even by those same pundits and activists who can’t be roused to say a single word when genuine “massacres” unfold in other parts of the world, such as the slaughter of more than 90 members of the Ahmadi sect in Pakistan. On sea, as on land, this is the double-standard that Israel always must battle when it acts to defend itself against terrorists and their media-savvy enablers.
jkay@nationalpost.com
As it is, I have only one thing to add: the Hamastan entity in Gaza--a theocratic, fascist, Judeo-cidal [if not non-Muslicidal] quasi-state that would be more accurately described as a gang territory--is in a state of DECLARED war with anything Jews and Jewish, never mind its stance toward Israel. Therefore, as the blockade of the Gaza coast is a defensive response to said posture, any attempt to run the blockade is tantamount to an act of war on the part of the runners, no matter whether they are state actors, NGO's, or "humanitarians". The boats were legally subject to a summary sinking, not a seizure. We all know why the Israelis don't do that, but the "activists" are lucky all their lives weren't automatically forfeit. As Kay points out, one can only imagine what would happen if "activists" tried a mass seaborne humanitarian mission to the 3 million starving citizens of North Korea.
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/05/31/jenin-on-the-high-seas/#ixzz0pc5cf2MR
Jenin on the high seas
By Jonathan Kay
If Israel truly had wanted to “massacre” the Hamas sympathizers and fellow travellers aboard a six-ship Gaza-bound flotilla, the operation would not have been complicated. The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) would have used the trusty North Korean solution: Torpedo the ships and watch them sink to the bottom of the sea.
Even Israel arguably would have been within its rights to seize and destroy a ship being sent toward Gazan waters in defiance of an embargo, especially after giving abundant warnings to the leaders of the largely Turkish-based Free Gaza Movement, which had sent the flotilla, that they would not be permitted to sail to Hamas-controlled territory.
But that’s not how Israel operates. Instead, it sent commandos to seize control of the ships and bring them safely to Israeli waters. Israeli officials had even prepared air-conditioned accommodations for the activists, and had made arrangements to deliver legitimate aid supplies to Gaza.
According to the IDF, not all of the activists on board the ships were the pacifists they claimed to be. Though the Free Gaza leaders said they would not resist Israeli enforcement of the embargo, some of them fought the Israeli boarding parties with iron clubs — as confirmed by video that has been made available to the media. More seriously, it is claimed that at least one of the activists took two handguns from the Israelis and fired at the soldiers. In the melee, at least 10 activists were believed to have been killed, and several Israeli commandos wounded.
“They beat us up with metal sticks and knives,” one Israeli commando told the Los Angeles Times. “There was live fire at some point against us. … They were shooting at us from below deck.” Based on the same source, the Times also reported that “activists tossed some of the soldiers from the top deck to the lower deck and the soldiers jumped in the water to save themselves. Activists grabbed some soldiers and tried to hold them hostage, stripping them of their helmets and equipment.”
If this narrative stands up, then every drop of blood spilled on Monday morning rests on the hands of those activists who initiated the deadly exchange. When you attack Israeli soldiers — or at any soldiers — with lethal force, they will respond in kind.
As for the events that unfolded after the deadly exchange commenced, we don’t know how much of the ensuing bloodshed was avoidable. Like all civilized nations, Israel likes to conduct its anti-terrorist operations in a measured, deliberate fashion. But that’s difficult in the close confines of a crowded ship, where combat takes place at the range of a few metres — especially, in the case of the Free Gaza flotilla, which was populated by a diverse mob spanning the gamut from naive Jewish grandmothers to full-fledged Islamist radicals.
For most of the world, of course, these facts won’t matter: Like the bogus Jenin massacre, this episode will be used as just another stick to beat the Jewish state — even by those same pundits and activists who can’t be roused to say a single word when genuine “massacres” unfold in other parts of the world, such as the slaughter of more than 90 members of the Ahmadi sect in Pakistan. On sea, as on land, this is the double-standard that Israel always must battle when it acts to defend itself against terrorists and their media-savvy enablers.
jkay@nationalpost.com
Friday, May 21, 2010
Taking the Fifth with a Fifth
Conservatives, who more often than not sing the praises of the Consititution, “original intent”, and “strict constructionalism”, seem to want to take the concept of self-incrimination to its furthest possible conclusion.
Once upon a time “watch what you say” was a Republican mantra, attributable most famously to Ari Fleischer in the immediate aftermath of 9/11.
While the stakes certainly are different now, and the issues in which conservatives are ignoring their own advice cannot be truly raised to that level of importance, it might behoove them to pay more attention, if only because they might stop their own tendencies to political self-destruction once more endemic to their opponents.
The recent primary victory of Rand Paul in Kentucky and the immediate aftermath of his commentary on Rachel Maddow are a case in point. While there might be some truth to the assertion that the “liberal”/”MSM” would like nothing more than to portray tea-partiers as inveterate racist corporatists, it doesn’t help when the conservative quarry walks right into the trap. Sarah Palin can [almost] be forgiven for the “ambush” perpetrated upon her by Katie Couric re Supreme Court decisions, names of periodicals, etc. No one else has an excuse.
Its possible that questions about the Civil Rights Act were legitimate would be laughable—if Paul hadn’t tried to allow for the notion that it MIGHT have been at cross-purpose with his political principles. If he felt compelled to open his mouth and muse aloud that it might not have been the greatest idea, only he can be held responsible for the ensuing opprobrium, as he invited it. Similarly, when he feels compelled to defend corporate interests such as BP and the mining industry at a time like this, while he might be the victim of bad timing, any defense of those interests are ill considered, and he then pays a political price for defending them, it’s no one fault but his. Unfortunately for conservatives, their interests will only further suffer as a result.
In a similar vein, conservative carping about “affirmative action” regarding the first-time crowning of an Arab-Muslim woman as Miss USA are truly fighting the wrong battle. For one thing, if there’s any chance of the emergence of a “moderate” Islam, this is where it was going to come from: where a self-identified religio-ethnic fully participates in an event according to the rules of THAT EVENT. I’m sure al-Qaeda and the mullahs aren’t overly heartened by a bikini-clad co-religionist serving as the icon of everything they profess to be wrong with the world. [Funny, they haven’t blamed the Jews yet].
Now, if Miss USA had either a] worn a chador and insisted that she still be allowed the same chance to win, or b] had manifested some other sartorial item that served as an iconic support of Dar-al-Harb [say, a sword, Islamic flag, or dynamite vest], then accusations of affirmative action might have been salient.
On that note, it behooves a true Judeocentrist like this writer to weigh in on the controversy surrounding the purported offensiveness of Comedy Central’s I.S.R.A.E.L. robot/game. Until someone at Comedy Central has the brass to develop a suicide bombing robot game called I.S.L.A.M., the Jews are right.
If you target everyone equally, you may be funny. If you don't, or can't, you're either racist or spineless. Or both.
Once upon a time “watch what you say” was a Republican mantra, attributable most famously to Ari Fleischer in the immediate aftermath of 9/11.
While the stakes certainly are different now, and the issues in which conservatives are ignoring their own advice cannot be truly raised to that level of importance, it might behoove them to pay more attention, if only because they might stop their own tendencies to political self-destruction once more endemic to their opponents.
The recent primary victory of Rand Paul in Kentucky and the immediate aftermath of his commentary on Rachel Maddow are a case in point. While there might be some truth to the assertion that the “liberal”/”MSM” would like nothing more than to portray tea-partiers as inveterate racist corporatists, it doesn’t help when the conservative quarry walks right into the trap. Sarah Palin can [almost] be forgiven for the “ambush” perpetrated upon her by Katie Couric re Supreme Court decisions, names of periodicals, etc. No one else has an excuse.
Its possible that questions about the Civil Rights Act were legitimate would be laughable—if Paul hadn’t tried to allow for the notion that it MIGHT have been at cross-purpose with his political principles. If he felt compelled to open his mouth and muse aloud that it might not have been the greatest idea, only he can be held responsible for the ensuing opprobrium, as he invited it. Similarly, when he feels compelled to defend corporate interests such as BP and the mining industry at a time like this, while he might be the victim of bad timing, any defense of those interests are ill considered, and he then pays a political price for defending them, it’s no one fault but his. Unfortunately for conservatives, their interests will only further suffer as a result.
In a similar vein, conservative carping about “affirmative action” regarding the first-time crowning of an Arab-Muslim woman as Miss USA are truly fighting the wrong battle. For one thing, if there’s any chance of the emergence of a “moderate” Islam, this is where it was going to come from: where a self-identified religio-ethnic fully participates in an event according to the rules of THAT EVENT. I’m sure al-Qaeda and the mullahs aren’t overly heartened by a bikini-clad co-religionist serving as the icon of everything they profess to be wrong with the world. [Funny, they haven’t blamed the Jews yet].
Now, if Miss USA had either a] worn a chador and insisted that she still be allowed the same chance to win, or b] had manifested some other sartorial item that served as an iconic support of Dar-al-Harb [say, a sword, Islamic flag, or dynamite vest], then accusations of affirmative action might have been salient.
On that note, it behooves a true Judeocentrist like this writer to weigh in on the controversy surrounding the purported offensiveness of Comedy Central’s I.S.R.A.E.L. robot/game. Until someone at Comedy Central has the brass to develop a suicide bombing robot game called I.S.L.A.M., the Jews are right.
If you target everyone equally, you may be funny. If you don't, or can't, you're either racist or spineless. Or both.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
The Real “Boobs”: Jon Stewart and James Jones
Reknowned physicist Stephen W. Hawking has attempted to put a damper upon any future intergalactic ecumenicism by making two declarations about the purported existence of extraterrestrial life: that “aliens” likely do exist and are either less evolved, unintelligent, or both; and, more recently, that it would likely not be a good idea to attempt to make contact with them, as their intentions toward us would likely be simultaneously hostile and predatory.
One might be forgiven for thinking that Hawking might have been making a more general statement of principles about erstwhile “intelligent” life on this planet.
Emblematic of the week’s events was “Boobquake”, blogger Jen McCreight’s successful uniting of irreverence and scientific method as a satirical rejoinder to a prominent Iranian cleric’s claim that immodest dress was responsible for the recent spate of tremors. One has to give real credit where it is due: first of all, the purported levels of “immodesty” on display for the project might actually qualify as demure—or even straitlaced—in some contexts; but, more importantly, McCreight’s project was laudable in two respects. The first was that it was simultaneously brainy and yet didn’t take itself too seriously, as might otherwise be expected from an otherwise atheistic-driven irreverent response to any religious sentiment; she avoided what might have otherwise been another knee-jerk anti-clerical response that was just as “fundamentalist” as her targets. The second was that she had the audacity to make her primary target an Islamic cleric; there were certainly no shortage of outrageous emanations from religious eminences following the Haiti earthquake, most of whom were not Muslim; however, McCreight avoided the usually strong leftist impulse to grant a pass to Islam while excoriating more “Western” faiths.
Sadly, Jon Stewart had an opportunity to make a similar statement when he discussed the recent controversy surrounding the censorship of a depiction of Mohammed on South Park. Watch the video: he seems to be spending most of the 10 minute segment trying to make up his mind as to whether a] making fun of Islam is a good idea and b] whether he has to come to terms with a certain level of discomfort in even entertaining the motion, because, in the current liberal-progressive zeitgeist, Islam is in need of protection from its bigoted and religiously [if not ethnically] biased enemies. Even the “montage” of cuts lacerating all faiths at once fell way short: Islam was at the receiving end of one barb [although other non-Western faiths received more, which should put the lie to notions that any attack on Islam is ipso-facto ethnically motivated]. The segment closer—Stewart leading a “gospel choir” in an obscene chant—was, again, a cop-out: by forcing equivalences between Islamic threats and other religious radicalism, Stewart further contributed to the general cultural blindness to the fact that contemporary Islam is unique among said radical faith groups in going beyond making egregious statements to making—and carrying out—assorted felony murders. Stewart “hinted” at the idea that Islam was getting a “free pass”—but couldn’t bring himself to actually issue a condemnation.
While one comic was failing in his satirical duties, an very high ranking official in a government responsible for the promulgation of appeasing Islamism made a bumbling foray into comedy. It needs to be said that the issue isn’t necessarily the “offensiveness” of the joke, which was mild at best [I actually laughed initially]; the question, of course, is one of both timing and credibility. In addition to the fact that General Jones is working for an administration whose courage in issue like standing up to Iran doesn’t measure up to the Boobquakers who took them on directly, Press Secretary Gibbs’ statements to the effect that Jones should be given a pass because his remarks weren’t in the written text [i.e., he didn’t write ‘em, so he didn’t say ‘em], indicate something more sinister at work: an attempt of the administration’s part to raise the question of “dual loyalty” and attach that stigma to supporters of Israel who are critical of White House policy.
So maybe let’s reframe the “Special Relationship” between the US and Israel, at least for as long as our current President is in office. Let’s assume for a moment that the “common attributes” of Westernism and democracy that are ostensibly shared between the two countries are overplayed somewhat. Let’s even assume for a moment that, yes, even if only for economic reasons, US and Israel’s interests don’t necessarily always coalesce. [At least a personage like the late Texas Governor and Senator John Connally was forthright enough to state publicly that the spectre of dead Jews was problematic for American energy policy. In this administration’s case, they might even be willing to tolerate dead Americans. But that’s a separate issue.]
Instead, let’s take Connally’s approach and turn it on its head: US support for Israel—at least in the monetary sense—is predicated upon the US covering its ass so that the business it does do with the sworn mortal enemies of Jews doesn’t leave the entire basis of the US economy on blood money, from the blood of dead Jews; because the US [never mind the UN and the rest of the international community] has sat in its hands more than once while known genocides were in progress, against Jews and others.
Should the spectre of dual loyalties are raised, the counter-spectre of Jew murder should be the response. The US needs to keep its business partners and the Islamist friends it seems to be chasing from engaging in the mass murder they repeatedly threaten to commit. Therefore: it is a distinct US interest to be seen as not willing to tacitly condone a second genocide, or, at the very least, the US should be forced to see that it become one: e.g., in one specific case, the US has to decide between a genocidal nuclear Iran and a possible economic crisis that would result from an Israeli peremptory strike.
Transcendent blackmail isn’t a good way to make friends; however, the time to assume that the Jewish people haven’t been “de-friended” by this administration may be long past. The question of actual anti-semitism on the part of the President and his advisors—regardless of Jones’ and Gibbs’ behavior--is almost irrelevant: the two Presidents who arguably did the most for Jews and the Jewish state—Truman and Nixon—also arguably harbored the most anti-semitic personal sentiments of any White House occupant while serving in office. However, whether the result of transcendent blackmail or some genuine moral sense they were willing to draw the line at wholesale massacre of Jews.
I don’t care if this administration “likes” Israel or the Jews. But it is my right—if not duty—to remind them of the possible moral consequences of their likes/dislikes, and embarrass them into compliance.
One might be forgiven for thinking that Hawking might have been making a more general statement of principles about erstwhile “intelligent” life on this planet.
Emblematic of the week’s events was “Boobquake”, blogger Jen McCreight’s successful uniting of irreverence and scientific method as a satirical rejoinder to a prominent Iranian cleric’s claim that immodest dress was responsible for the recent spate of tremors. One has to give real credit where it is due: first of all, the purported levels of “immodesty” on display for the project might actually qualify as demure—or even straitlaced—in some contexts; but, more importantly, McCreight’s project was laudable in two respects. The first was that it was simultaneously brainy and yet didn’t take itself too seriously, as might otherwise be expected from an otherwise atheistic-driven irreverent response to any religious sentiment; she avoided what might have otherwise been another knee-jerk anti-clerical response that was just as “fundamentalist” as her targets. The second was that she had the audacity to make her primary target an Islamic cleric; there were certainly no shortage of outrageous emanations from religious eminences following the Haiti earthquake, most of whom were not Muslim; however, McCreight avoided the usually strong leftist impulse to grant a pass to Islam while excoriating more “Western” faiths.
Sadly, Jon Stewart had an opportunity to make a similar statement when he discussed the recent controversy surrounding the censorship of a depiction of Mohammed on South Park. Watch the video: he seems to be spending most of the 10 minute segment trying to make up his mind as to whether a] making fun of Islam is a good idea and b] whether he has to come to terms with a certain level of discomfort in even entertaining the motion, because, in the current liberal-progressive zeitgeist, Islam is in need of protection from its bigoted and religiously [if not ethnically] biased enemies. Even the “montage” of cuts lacerating all faiths at once fell way short: Islam was at the receiving end of one barb [although other non-Western faiths received more, which should put the lie to notions that any attack on Islam is ipso-facto ethnically motivated]. The segment closer—Stewart leading a “gospel choir” in an obscene chant—was, again, a cop-out: by forcing equivalences between Islamic threats and other religious radicalism, Stewart further contributed to the general cultural blindness to the fact that contemporary Islam is unique among said radical faith groups in going beyond making egregious statements to making—and carrying out—assorted felony murders. Stewart “hinted” at the idea that Islam was getting a “free pass”—but couldn’t bring himself to actually issue a condemnation.
While one comic was failing in his satirical duties, an very high ranking official in a government responsible for the promulgation of appeasing Islamism made a bumbling foray into comedy. It needs to be said that the issue isn’t necessarily the “offensiveness” of the joke, which was mild at best [I actually laughed initially]; the question, of course, is one of both timing and credibility. In addition to the fact that General Jones is working for an administration whose courage in issue like standing up to Iran doesn’t measure up to the Boobquakers who took them on directly, Press Secretary Gibbs’ statements to the effect that Jones should be given a pass because his remarks weren’t in the written text [i.e., he didn’t write ‘em, so he didn’t say ‘em], indicate something more sinister at work: an attempt of the administration’s part to raise the question of “dual loyalty” and attach that stigma to supporters of Israel who are critical of White House policy.
So maybe let’s reframe the “Special Relationship” between the US and Israel, at least for as long as our current President is in office. Let’s assume for a moment that the “common attributes” of Westernism and democracy that are ostensibly shared between the two countries are overplayed somewhat. Let’s even assume for a moment that, yes, even if only for economic reasons, US and Israel’s interests don’t necessarily always coalesce. [At least a personage like the late Texas Governor and Senator John Connally was forthright enough to state publicly that the spectre of dead Jews was problematic for American energy policy. In this administration’s case, they might even be willing to tolerate dead Americans. But that’s a separate issue.]
Instead, let’s take Connally’s approach and turn it on its head: US support for Israel—at least in the monetary sense—is predicated upon the US covering its ass so that the business it does do with the sworn mortal enemies of Jews doesn’t leave the entire basis of the US economy on blood money, from the blood of dead Jews; because the US [never mind the UN and the rest of the international community] has sat in its hands more than once while known genocides were in progress, against Jews and others.
Should the spectre of dual loyalties are raised, the counter-spectre of Jew murder should be the response. The US needs to keep its business partners and the Islamist friends it seems to be chasing from engaging in the mass murder they repeatedly threaten to commit. Therefore: it is a distinct US interest to be seen as not willing to tacitly condone a second genocide, or, at the very least, the US should be forced to see that it become one: e.g., in one specific case, the US has to decide between a genocidal nuclear Iran and a possible economic crisis that would result from an Israeli peremptory strike.
Transcendent blackmail isn’t a good way to make friends; however, the time to assume that the Jewish people haven’t been “de-friended” by this administration may be long past. The question of actual anti-semitism on the part of the President and his advisors—regardless of Jones’ and Gibbs’ behavior--is almost irrelevant: the two Presidents who arguably did the most for Jews and the Jewish state—Truman and Nixon—also arguably harbored the most anti-semitic personal sentiments of any White House occupant while serving in office. However, whether the result of transcendent blackmail or some genuine moral sense they were willing to draw the line at wholesale massacre of Jews.
I don’t care if this administration “likes” Israel or the Jews. But it is my right—if not duty—to remind them of the possible moral consequences of their likes/dislikes, and embarrass them into compliance.
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Dowd’s Dilemma and the Four Sons
Most people familiar with Jewish traditions are familiar with the “Four Questions” to be asked at the Passover Seder, a role usually reserved for the youngest child.
Less immediately familiar is the tradition regarding the allegory of the “Four Sons” recited at the Seder, which usually correspond to four distinct stereotypes: the “Wise” child, simultaneously familiar with but still intellectually curious; the “Wicked” child, who more or less demonstrates a mind that will stay made up in the face of inconvenient facts; the “Simple” child, whose query[s] haven’t yet progressed beyond “What Is This”?, and the “One Who Does Know How To Ask”, who, the complier of the Seder Haggadah, needs to be prodded in the right direction.
It occurred to me over the course of the past Passover that, in light of the ongoing crisis in the Middle East, I might be able to draw a parallel between these four traditional children and four players from the more contemporary scene [after all, what was the Exodus other than the first Middle East crisis involving the Jews?]
The first two players—“Wise” and “Wicked”—came almost right away: General David Petraeus and Vice-President Biden, respectively. After the brouaha surrounding the Biden visit to Jerusalem; he had apparently told Netanyahu that “what you’re doing here undermines the security of our troops who are fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan”. Knowing the current administration’s policy inclinations, there was some surprise at the tone of the admonition, but less so at the fact that it was delivered. There was, however, some worry when some reported that this concern was shared—and directly addressed—by General Petraeus, hinting that U.S. support for Israel directly hinders America’s national security interests. Petraeus himself put the lie to this: “There is no mention of lives anywhere in there. I actually reread the statement. It doesn’t say that at all.” He said the only point was that moderate Arab leaders are worried about a lack of progress in the peace process.
There are your first two players: the “Wicked” child who insists upon a version of events that are not in consonance with the facts—or even his closest military advisers. With the series of clarifications that had to be issued by the General, it became increasingly clear that Biden was merely a stand-in for the rest of the Administration and its appeasement bent, and was willing to sacrifice the crediblity of those who actually are defending the country.
One caveat: With all respect due General Petraeus, he doesn’t go far enough. While I certainly would argue as a matter of opinion that American and Israeli interests coalesce, I would not be so bold as insist that that statement be raised to the level of a doctrine; to a degree, I would almost hope that that was not automatically the case. However, as long as he demonstrates a belief that there are “moderate” Arab leaders, and that he must account for their illegitimate pretensions to involvement in anything having to do with Israeli politics, he still hasn’t used the power of his office to do what should be done for American interests, NOT Israeli. Then again, the Haggadah does state quite clearly that even the Wise child hasn’t learned everything yet.
But—if we have our wise and wicked children, what about the other two? It turned only one actor was needed for both roles: Maureen Dowd.
Over the course of approximately the past six weeks, Maureen Dowd wrote a series of four or five columns devoted to two subjects. The first involved a series of treatments of the ostensible [inevitable?] Westernization of Saudi Arabia; the second was the ongoing scnadal of pastoral pedophilia that persists in the Roman church.
The apparent motivation behind Dowd's willingness to print the claim of Prince Saud al-Faisal that “we are breaking away from the shackles of the past…we are moving in the direction of a liberal society” seemed to be juts so she could ascribe equal credibility to his claim that “what is happening in Israel is the opposite”. There was your “One Who Does Know How To Ask”: willing to take a patently absurd assertion at face value, even as she simultaneously attempted to qualify it: “[P]rogress is measured by a sundial in this stunted desert kingdom”.
That said, from a typical “liberal” perspective, however, I have to at least grudgingly congratulate her on mainitaining a modicum of consistency on another front: having proven that, like most “secular progressives”, she is more inclined to favor a cultural system of non-Western origin [i.e., Saudi Wahhabiism] over one tagged as “Western” [Israel], Dowd might be even more critical of the leadership of the Catholic faith in which she was raised for their ongoing refusal to see their pedophilia crisis for what it is, or in the parlance of the Simple Child, “What Is It [?]”.
Ironically, Dowd has spent so much time holding herself up as an expert in Islam, Islamists and Middle East crises, when she can actually focus on an area where her credibility might do some good. However, at the very least, one must say that she at least is as [if not more] critical of another “Western” religion as she is of Judaism/Zionism; and, one that happens to be her own, at that.
[Dowd also made a point of criticizing the Vatican spokespersons who compared the pressure being applied on the Church to Holocaust-level anti-Semitism. While the insanity of such an analog should be obvious to those who don’t consider the entire crisis engulfing Rome to be a Jewish plot, I wonder if Dowd is subtly trying to deflect the inevitable questions of anti-Zionist—if not anti-Semitic—bias that would attach to her fawning treatment of Wahhabi Saudiism. AS far as this writer is concerned—should one have questions about my biases and an ostensible willingness to bury the “sins” of my co-religionists—a perusal of my early entry Dirty Laundry? should lay that notion to rest.]
The Dowdian dilemma, then, might illustrate what happens when those not equipped to reach certain levels of wisdom think too hard: they confuse themselves. To conjure up a holiday that Dowd might find more familiar: forgive them, for they know not what they ask...or how to.
Less immediately familiar is the tradition regarding the allegory of the “Four Sons” recited at the Seder, which usually correspond to four distinct stereotypes: the “Wise” child, simultaneously familiar with but still intellectually curious; the “Wicked” child, who more or less demonstrates a mind that will stay made up in the face of inconvenient facts; the “Simple” child, whose query[s] haven’t yet progressed beyond “What Is This”?, and the “One Who Does Know How To Ask”, who, the complier of the Seder Haggadah, needs to be prodded in the right direction.
It occurred to me over the course of the past Passover that, in light of the ongoing crisis in the Middle East, I might be able to draw a parallel between these four traditional children and four players from the more contemporary scene [after all, what was the Exodus other than the first Middle East crisis involving the Jews?]
The first two players—“Wise” and “Wicked”—came almost right away: General David Petraeus and Vice-President Biden, respectively. After the brouaha surrounding the Biden visit to Jerusalem; he had apparently told Netanyahu that “what you’re doing here undermines the security of our troops who are fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan”. Knowing the current administration’s policy inclinations, there was some surprise at the tone of the admonition, but less so at the fact that it was delivered. There was, however, some worry when some reported that this concern was shared—and directly addressed—by General Petraeus, hinting that U.S. support for Israel directly hinders America’s national security interests. Petraeus himself put the lie to this: “There is no mention of lives anywhere in there. I actually reread the statement. It doesn’t say that at all.” He said the only point was that moderate Arab leaders are worried about a lack of progress in the peace process.
There are your first two players: the “Wicked” child who insists upon a version of events that are not in consonance with the facts—or even his closest military advisers. With the series of clarifications that had to be issued by the General, it became increasingly clear that Biden was merely a stand-in for the rest of the Administration and its appeasement bent, and was willing to sacrifice the crediblity of those who actually are defending the country.
One caveat: With all respect due General Petraeus, he doesn’t go far enough. While I certainly would argue as a matter of opinion that American and Israeli interests coalesce, I would not be so bold as insist that that statement be raised to the level of a doctrine; to a degree, I would almost hope that that was not automatically the case. However, as long as he demonstrates a belief that there are “moderate” Arab leaders, and that he must account for their illegitimate pretensions to involvement in anything having to do with Israeli politics, he still hasn’t used the power of his office to do what should be done for American interests, NOT Israeli. Then again, the Haggadah does state quite clearly that even the Wise child hasn’t learned everything yet.
But—if we have our wise and wicked children, what about the other two? It turned only one actor was needed for both roles: Maureen Dowd.
Over the course of approximately the past six weeks, Maureen Dowd wrote a series of four or five columns devoted to two subjects. The first involved a series of treatments of the ostensible [inevitable?] Westernization of Saudi Arabia; the second was the ongoing scnadal of pastoral pedophilia that persists in the Roman church.
The apparent motivation behind Dowd's willingness to print the claim of Prince Saud al-Faisal that “we are breaking away from the shackles of the past…we are moving in the direction of a liberal society” seemed to be juts so she could ascribe equal credibility to his claim that “what is happening in Israel is the opposite”. There was your “One Who Does Know How To Ask”: willing to take a patently absurd assertion at face value, even as she simultaneously attempted to qualify it: “[P]rogress is measured by a sundial in this stunted desert kingdom”.
That said, from a typical “liberal” perspective, however, I have to at least grudgingly congratulate her on mainitaining a modicum of consistency on another front: having proven that, like most “secular progressives”, she is more inclined to favor a cultural system of non-Western origin [i.e., Saudi Wahhabiism] over one tagged as “Western” [Israel], Dowd might be even more critical of the leadership of the Catholic faith in which she was raised for their ongoing refusal to see their pedophilia crisis for what it is, or in the parlance of the Simple Child, “What Is It [?]”.
Ironically, Dowd has spent so much time holding herself up as an expert in Islam, Islamists and Middle East crises, when she can actually focus on an area where her credibility might do some good. However, at the very least, one must say that she at least is as [if not more] critical of another “Western” religion as she is of Judaism/Zionism; and, one that happens to be her own, at that.
[Dowd also made a point of criticizing the Vatican spokespersons who compared the pressure being applied on the Church to Holocaust-level anti-Semitism. While the insanity of such an analog should be obvious to those who don’t consider the entire crisis engulfing Rome to be a Jewish plot, I wonder if Dowd is subtly trying to deflect the inevitable questions of anti-Zionist—if not anti-Semitic—bias that would attach to her fawning treatment of Wahhabi Saudiism. AS far as this writer is concerned—should one have questions about my biases and an ostensible willingness to bury the “sins” of my co-religionists—a perusal of my early entry Dirty Laundry? should lay that notion to rest.]
The Dowdian dilemma, then, might illustrate what happens when those not equipped to reach certain levels of wisdom think too hard: they confuse themselves. To conjure up a holiday that Dowd might find more familiar: forgive them, for they know not what they ask...or how to.
Monday, March 15, 2010
The Rest Is Details
In 1967, two days before the beginning of the Six Day War between Arabs and Israelis, French president General Charles de Gaulle decreed an arms embargo that disrupted what had been strong military cooperation between France and Israel since the Jewish state was created. Five months later, in a televised news conference, De Gaulle described the Jews as "this elite people, sure of themselves and domineering".
That was one turning point in Israel’s history of alliances. We may now be witnessing a new one.
In case anyone needed a clear indication that this administration is hostile to the Zionist project [which is ALWAYS ongoing], the events surrounding the recent Israel visit of the Vice-President and the resulting “insult” should remove all doubt. The rest is just details.
Now for some of the details. These include:
…the only reason to possibly be critical of Israel in this event at all: contrary to the conventional wisdom, the issue is not really a question of the timing of the housing announcement more than whether Netanyahu was truly “blindsided” by the announcement. If the housing minister “pre-empted” Netanyahu—either for reasons of pandering to a political constituency or for a misperceived “religious obligation” to further cement the Jewish claim to Jerusalem—one hopes that Netnayahu gets onto that page, presents a unified front to the US, and deals with the local political fallout later.
…that the real “apartheid” state in the region would be a newly created “Palestine” [to go with the other 21—or 22—non-Jewish states in the Fertile and Golden Crescents], due to their insistence on a state that is “Judenrein”, or that this [or any] US administration cares about this. With the State Department in the lead—as it always has been—the Administration has increasingly seized upon an outmoded, but persistent, combination of “self-determination” and pan-Arabism to inform its position. These are the positions that need to be attacked before questions of antisemitism are addressed, no matter how plausible those claims are.
…whether this Administration is truly going out of its way to present itself as pro-Arab and/or –Muslim. If Obama’s Cairo speech wasn’t enough, Biden’s blunt claim that the a Jewish presence in [East] Jerusalem “undermines the security of our troops who are fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan” is a further indication of whose side the Administration would like to be on, even if it isn’t quite there yet. The last time something like this happened was during Gulf War I, when Israel was forced to restrain itself from responding to Iraq’s Scud attacks. Twenty years later, Israel’s enemies are much more equipped to commit genocide, and this Administration seeks any excuse to sideline itself [and Israel] from a legitimate defense.
…whether one even needs to raise the question of antisemitism, especially as increasing numbers of Israel’s enemies turn out to be Jewish [e.g., Tony Judt, Naomi Klein, et al]. Rather, one should raise issues of inconsistencies in the purported ideologies of these critics, especially as they bend over backward to support polities and belief systems that run the gamut between theocratic and totalitarian, if not both. Not that one should ever expect to win conversions from those in that camp, who are as ideologically rigid and fundamentalist as the worst Islamists [even if they don’t kill anyone directly]; however, some “independents”—if there are any left—might be enlightened.
…whether or not this President is “foreign”, or “Muslim”, or otherwise “unfit” for his office. For reasons of credibility, use of that notion should be avoided as a political tactic by Israel and her allies. There are enough plausible lines of attack on policy issues to not have to resort to ad hominem attacks [although it might actually not be that bad an idea to remain “neutrally silent” when such attacks emanate from the further reaches of the Right, analogous to the “neutral silence” on the left when Islamist atrocities are perpetrated.]
…and, finally, whether there would be any truth to the notion that the only real obvious black mark against this Administration is its now undoubted hostility toward Zionism. There might have been a two-day window when there was some truth to that sentiment [though it would be hard to ascertain exactly when that might have been]. At this point, however, it no longer matters. Even “liberal” supporters of Israel who were loath to ask questions about this Administration should start now.
That was one turning point in Israel’s history of alliances. We may now be witnessing a new one.
In case anyone needed a clear indication that this administration is hostile to the Zionist project [which is ALWAYS ongoing], the events surrounding the recent Israel visit of the Vice-President and the resulting “insult” should remove all doubt. The rest is just details.
Now for some of the details. These include:
…the only reason to possibly be critical of Israel in this event at all: contrary to the conventional wisdom, the issue is not really a question of the timing of the housing announcement more than whether Netanyahu was truly “blindsided” by the announcement. If the housing minister “pre-empted” Netanyahu—either for reasons of pandering to a political constituency or for a misperceived “religious obligation” to further cement the Jewish claim to Jerusalem—one hopes that Netnayahu gets onto that page, presents a unified front to the US, and deals with the local political fallout later.
…that the real “apartheid” state in the region would be a newly created “Palestine” [to go with the other 21—or 22—non-Jewish states in the Fertile and Golden Crescents], due to their insistence on a state that is “Judenrein”, or that this [or any] US administration cares about this. With the State Department in the lead—as it always has been—the Administration has increasingly seized upon an outmoded, but persistent, combination of “self-determination” and pan-Arabism to inform its position. These are the positions that need to be attacked before questions of antisemitism are addressed, no matter how plausible those claims are.
…whether this Administration is truly going out of its way to present itself as pro-Arab and/or –Muslim. If Obama’s Cairo speech wasn’t enough, Biden’s blunt claim that the a Jewish presence in [East] Jerusalem “undermines the security of our troops who are fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan” is a further indication of whose side the Administration would like to be on, even if it isn’t quite there yet. The last time something like this happened was during Gulf War I, when Israel was forced to restrain itself from responding to Iraq’s Scud attacks. Twenty years later, Israel’s enemies are much more equipped to commit genocide, and this Administration seeks any excuse to sideline itself [and Israel] from a legitimate defense.
…whether one even needs to raise the question of antisemitism, especially as increasing numbers of Israel’s enemies turn out to be Jewish [e.g., Tony Judt, Naomi Klein, et al]. Rather, one should raise issues of inconsistencies in the purported ideologies of these critics, especially as they bend over backward to support polities and belief systems that run the gamut between theocratic and totalitarian, if not both. Not that one should ever expect to win conversions from those in that camp, who are as ideologically rigid and fundamentalist as the worst Islamists [even if they don’t kill anyone directly]; however, some “independents”—if there are any left—might be enlightened.
…whether or not this President is “foreign”, or “Muslim”, or otherwise “unfit” for his office. For reasons of credibility, use of that notion should be avoided as a political tactic by Israel and her allies. There are enough plausible lines of attack on policy issues to not have to resort to ad hominem attacks [although it might actually not be that bad an idea to remain “neutrally silent” when such attacks emanate from the further reaches of the Right, analogous to the “neutral silence” on the left when Islamist atrocities are perpetrated.]
…and, finally, whether there would be any truth to the notion that the only real obvious black mark against this Administration is its now undoubted hostility toward Zionism. There might have been a two-day window when there was some truth to that sentiment [though it would be hard to ascertain exactly when that might have been]. At this point, however, it no longer matters. Even “liberal” supporters of Israel who were loath to ask questions about this Administration should start now.
Thursday, March 4, 2010
“The Politics Will Catch Up”—Part I
Is the President so dissatisified with his guaranteed historical electoral legacy? Could he be trying to cash in on an instant political legacy at the expense of his party, and even his reelection prospects?
Conventional historical wisdom holds that the passage of the Civil Rights Bill of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 turned the American South into permanent republican territory. Legend has it that he put down his pen after singing the 1964 Act, Lyndon Johnson told an aide ''We have lost the South for a generation." Similarly, the political price of forcing the legislation of a federally mandated system of health care has become increasingly clear to anyone with any political sensibility. However, a modicum of foresight might indicate the inevitablity of some kind of electoral “correction” to the current Democratic supermajority, as may or may have not been heralded by the special election of Scott Brown.
When White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs hopes that “that the politics will catch up”, he seems to have an eye on the above analog, if he is not praying that health care legislation ends up with the historical import of civil rights. However, a more directly relevant and/or accurate analog might be embodied in Senator Mitch McConnell’s claim that the Democrats “want to pass this anyway just to basically ignore the opinion of the American population and go ahead with this bill.”
In that vein, it might be more useful to employ another historical analogy. In the past century, there have been three instances of Democrats seizing control of Congress, and then the White House, in direct reaction to Republican crises: the 1930 midterms and 1932 general elections—in response to the Wall Street Crash and Great Depression; the 1974 midterms and 1976 general elections—in response to Watergate; and the 2006 midterms and 1980 general elections—in response to Katrina, Foleygate, Abramoff/Neygate, and finally, the housing crash. The question would seem to be: would one find that the contemporary situation mirrors 1930-2 or 1974-6 more closely?
One would obviously hope that the Great Recession “stays” a recession, which is actually mostly likely; as related in Liaquat Ahamed’s “Lords of Finance”, one of the reasons for the Depression’s severity was that the Federal Government of the 1920’s and 1930’s simply wasn’t equipped—read: big enough [!]—to handle the consequences of out-of-control economic indicators. Similarly, no one would compare any of the aforementioned “-gates” to the original, other than doctrinaire “W. Was The Worst President Ever” types [and, in that case, the politics will almost certainly catch up, eventually.]
To answer the questions I posed at the top of this post, this incessant drive to pass any type of “health-care reform” may simply be a case of the President’s personal inability to delay legacy gratification. This might be a direct side effect of the undeniable historical moment of his election and his possibly suffering a sort of withdrawal from the “high” of that moment; he needs to recapture that moment as fast as he possibly can with the least amount of effort and cement it forever.
Ironic, then, that it’s going to take health care for him to get his fix. [I'm sure someone came up with that before, but still...]
Conventional historical wisdom holds that the passage of the Civil Rights Bill of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 turned the American South into permanent republican territory. Legend has it that he put down his pen after singing the 1964 Act, Lyndon Johnson told an aide ''We have lost the South for a generation." Similarly, the political price of forcing the legislation of a federally mandated system of health care has become increasingly clear to anyone with any political sensibility. However, a modicum of foresight might indicate the inevitablity of some kind of electoral “correction” to the current Democratic supermajority, as may or may have not been heralded by the special election of Scott Brown.
When White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs hopes that “that the politics will catch up”, he seems to have an eye on the above analog, if he is not praying that health care legislation ends up with the historical import of civil rights. However, a more directly relevant and/or accurate analog might be embodied in Senator Mitch McConnell’s claim that the Democrats “want to pass this anyway just to basically ignore the opinion of the American population and go ahead with this bill.”
In that vein, it might be more useful to employ another historical analogy. In the past century, there have been three instances of Democrats seizing control of Congress, and then the White House, in direct reaction to Republican crises: the 1930 midterms and 1932 general elections—in response to the Wall Street Crash and Great Depression; the 1974 midterms and 1976 general elections—in response to Watergate; and the 2006 midterms and 1980 general elections—in response to Katrina, Foleygate, Abramoff/Neygate, and finally, the housing crash. The question would seem to be: would one find that the contemporary situation mirrors 1930-2 or 1974-6 more closely?
One would obviously hope that the Great Recession “stays” a recession, which is actually mostly likely; as related in Liaquat Ahamed’s “Lords of Finance”, one of the reasons for the Depression’s severity was that the Federal Government of the 1920’s and 1930’s simply wasn’t equipped—read: big enough [!]—to handle the consequences of out-of-control economic indicators. Similarly, no one would compare any of the aforementioned “-gates” to the original, other than doctrinaire “W. Was The Worst President Ever” types [and, in that case, the politics will almost certainly catch up, eventually.]
To answer the questions I posed at the top of this post, this incessant drive to pass any type of “health-care reform” may simply be a case of the President’s personal inability to delay legacy gratification. This might be a direct side effect of the undeniable historical moment of his election and his possibly suffering a sort of withdrawal from the “high” of that moment; he needs to recapture that moment as fast as he possibly can with the least amount of effort and cement it forever.
Ironic, then, that it’s going to take health care for him to get his fix. [I'm sure someone came up with that before, but still...]
Saturday, February 6, 2010
Neither Rahm Nor Rush Need Repent
The apology wars have resurfaced, ensnaring—however briefly—Rahm and Rush.
Rahm’s use of the word “retarded” and Rush’ reference to “people on Wall Street [who] are Jewish” started their own respective brouhahas.
As an ex-special educator [MA, Teacher’s College, Columbia, 2002; eight years in the field] the Palin-Emanuel imbroglio struck a chord with me; however, it was not the way one might expect. I don’t particularly find the term “retarded” offensive, and apparently, neither do the fields of special education, psychology, medicine, or any other service oriented toward the betterment of individuals with developmental and related challenges. I found it particularly funny when one of my charges—a 20-year old fellow with Down’s syndrome—called me a “retard” in crowded room once years ago. [For reasons, I can’t explain, I was the only one in the room who seemed unafraid to laugh.]
I will admit through increasingly easing but still clenched teeth that Sarah Palin is remaking herself as a viable Presidential candidate—after all, this country put Dan Quayle and George W. Bush into high office—and, since I have nothing to lose this early in the cycle, I will predict that her VP choice will come down to Newt [as a Cheney foil] or Scott Brown [for ticket balance and the Obama mirror that Palin was supposed to be, but wasn’t, for John McCain]. However, she is going to have to learn to become more thick skinned as she undergoes her well-funded media training. She may understandably be sensitized to the indiscriminate use of the “retarded” owing to her toddler Trig’s condition [I’m still waiting for Daily Kos-types to say “We’re not talking about Trig. We’re talking about her.” I certainly won’t have been the first or last]; however, aside from the fact that she has been she also will have to learn to remain somewhat more socio-culturally. Her family foibles have become public fodder precisely because they present as contradistinct from her professed worldview, and when said worldview is grounded in fundamentally conservative—or conservatively fundamentalist—values, especially religious ones, the margin for error vis-à-vis inconsistency or hypocrisy is necessarily narrow.
Furthermore, her taking offense places her in a political “tradition” that is definitely not one her side of the political fence. One of the reasons [there are many] that I ended up leaving the special education was that there was an institutional leaning towards theories of individuals such as Thomas Szasz, who assert that all disability exists only in the minds of those who consider themselves “normal”, and therefore the problems experienced by individuals with “challenges” are truly ours, not theirs. This is certainly qualifies as a far-Left perspective; and, while assigning certain stigmas to anyone—especially those will “challenges”—is never appropriate, the denial of the existence of said “challenges” is equally inappropriate. Obviously, this is not what Palin intends—but again—her credibility, such as it is, will be inexorably tied to her ability to remain consistent. Unfair, perhaps, but if she aspires to the Presidency [and I might vote for her, as my interests align less and less with Obama administration policy, if they ever did in the first place] she will have to find a better way to deal with all this than to agitate for apologies and resignations when they are completely unwarranted.
The same applies, in a more limited sense, to Abraham Foxman. I appreciate, as an identifying Jew, that there is a professional watchdog keeping an eye out for any kind of antisemitic activity. No, we can’t be too careful. However, I think Foxman is off the mark here; Limbaugh seems to have gone out of his way to clearly distinguish between the fact that there are bankers who are Jews, as opposed to using a “Jewish banker[s]” stereotype. It really is no more offensive than him pointing out that Jews were overwhelmingly Obama voters. I don’t like that he implied the stereotype was being employed by the Obama administration; however, while the implication might be unfair, I wouldn’t go so far as to call it offensive.
To be sure, antisemitism does exist on the right and I have written extensively here and elsewhere about how any firm alliances with the religious, if not political Right, will not work as much in Jews’ favor as Jewish conservatives wish. However, one must note that the variety of antisemitism prevalent on today’s Right [with the possible exception of individuals like Pat Buchanan and Taki Theodoracopulos] is generally eschatological, so it deals with far-off future events that may never happen. The Left’s antisemites are more pernicious because a] they deny their bias, and mostly get away with the denial; b] they lend aid and comfort to movements that are openly eliminationist [I would include the PLO in this category], whether directly or indirectly. Rush’s statements don’t come close to fitting any of the above categories.
Rahm’s use of the word “retarded” and Rush’ reference to “people on Wall Street [who] are Jewish” started their own respective brouhahas.
As an ex-special educator [MA, Teacher’s College, Columbia, 2002; eight years in the field] the Palin-Emanuel imbroglio struck a chord with me; however, it was not the way one might expect. I don’t particularly find the term “retarded” offensive, and apparently, neither do the fields of special education, psychology, medicine, or any other service oriented toward the betterment of individuals with developmental and related challenges. I found it particularly funny when one of my charges—a 20-year old fellow with Down’s syndrome—called me a “retard” in crowded room once years ago. [For reasons, I can’t explain, I was the only one in the room who seemed unafraid to laugh.]
I will admit through increasingly easing but still clenched teeth that Sarah Palin is remaking herself as a viable Presidential candidate—after all, this country put Dan Quayle and George W. Bush into high office—and, since I have nothing to lose this early in the cycle, I will predict that her VP choice will come down to Newt [as a Cheney foil] or Scott Brown [for ticket balance and the Obama mirror that Palin was supposed to be, but wasn’t, for John McCain]. However, she is going to have to learn to become more thick skinned as she undergoes her well-funded media training. She may understandably be sensitized to the indiscriminate use of the “retarded” owing to her toddler Trig’s condition [I’m still waiting for Daily Kos-types to say “We’re not talking about Trig. We’re talking about her.” I certainly won’t have been the first or last]; however, aside from the fact that she has been she also will have to learn to remain somewhat more socio-culturally. Her family foibles have become public fodder precisely because they present as contradistinct from her professed worldview, and when said worldview is grounded in fundamentally conservative—or conservatively fundamentalist—values, especially religious ones, the margin for error vis-à-vis inconsistency or hypocrisy is necessarily narrow.
Furthermore, her taking offense places her in a political “tradition” that is definitely not one her side of the political fence. One of the reasons [there are many] that I ended up leaving the special education was that there was an institutional leaning towards theories of individuals such as Thomas Szasz, who assert that all disability exists only in the minds of those who consider themselves “normal”, and therefore the problems experienced by individuals with “challenges” are truly ours, not theirs. This is certainly qualifies as a far-Left perspective; and, while assigning certain stigmas to anyone—especially those will “challenges”—is never appropriate, the denial of the existence of said “challenges” is equally inappropriate. Obviously, this is not what Palin intends—but again—her credibility, such as it is, will be inexorably tied to her ability to remain consistent. Unfair, perhaps, but if she aspires to the Presidency [and I might vote for her, as my interests align less and less with Obama administration policy, if they ever did in the first place] she will have to find a better way to deal with all this than to agitate for apologies and resignations when they are completely unwarranted.
The same applies, in a more limited sense, to Abraham Foxman. I appreciate, as an identifying Jew, that there is a professional watchdog keeping an eye out for any kind of antisemitic activity. No, we can’t be too careful. However, I think Foxman is off the mark here; Limbaugh seems to have gone out of his way to clearly distinguish between the fact that there are bankers who are Jews, as opposed to using a “Jewish banker[s]” stereotype. It really is no more offensive than him pointing out that Jews were overwhelmingly Obama voters. I don’t like that he implied the stereotype was being employed by the Obama administration; however, while the implication might be unfair, I wouldn’t go so far as to call it offensive.
To be sure, antisemitism does exist on the right and I have written extensively here and elsewhere about how any firm alliances with the religious, if not political Right, will not work as much in Jews’ favor as Jewish conservatives wish. However, one must note that the variety of antisemitism prevalent on today’s Right [with the possible exception of individuals like Pat Buchanan and Taki Theodoracopulos] is generally eschatological, so it deals with far-off future events that may never happen. The Left’s antisemites are more pernicious because a] they deny their bias, and mostly get away with the denial; b] they lend aid and comfort to movements that are openly eliminationist [I would include the PLO in this category], whether directly or indirectly. Rush’s statements don’t come close to fitting any of the above categories.
Friday, January 15, 2010
Sarah and Harry
As I’ve mentioned repeatedly, I’ve had an axe to grind with Sarah Palin, and it has nothing to do with her politics, per se. It’s a combination of how more credible conservatives like Peggy Noonan view her [as she was caught saying on an open mike after the VP nomination] and the fact that I was smitten with her until I saw the Couric interviews.
Sarah Palin is now going to Fox, exactly where she belongs. She’s showing a lot more initiative than W. ever did in 1999 and 2000; not that she’s any less “incurious”, but this is the smartest, if not the only way, for her to polish herself and her skills for 2012. She got burned in the only campaign arena than mattered; she’s gearing herself up for it. [OK, I joked about her “writing” her book. Just to be fair—JFK won a Pulitzer for a “history” book he admitted he never wrote. And no one “writes” their own “auto”-biography.]
In theory, she also in a way redeems herself for her abrupt resignation of the Alaska governorship, if she becomes the first pundit to actually go [back] into public service. Conservatives might be heartened if some of their more popular pundits [e.g. Rush, Beck] start to follow her example and try for Washington.
[BTW, stop with the Palin “hotness”. Anne Coulter is a lot “hotter” than Palin—and a lot smarter and more educated [Princeton vs Idaho? Helllooo?] Would you really want to see Palin in Coulter-length minis? By 2012 Palin will be as “hot” as Hillary Clinton was in 1992. All feminist tenets aside, there are a lot of reasons that shouldn't be a factor.]
Speaking of the only arena that matters in politics, Michael Steele has to say what he did about Harry Reid’s comments about Obama’s skin tone and articulation, but even he knows better than to try to force parallels with Trent Lott. Reid’s comments were descriptive and plaintive; Lott’s were prescriptive and nostalgic. Conservatives have been trying to force a “Well-If-A-Democrat-Had-Said-It” analogy, but despite all truisms about the “liberal media”, it really doesn’t apply here.
Sarah Palin is now going to Fox, exactly where she belongs. She’s showing a lot more initiative than W. ever did in 1999 and 2000; not that she’s any less “incurious”, but this is the smartest, if not the only way, for her to polish herself and her skills for 2012. She got burned in the only campaign arena than mattered; she’s gearing herself up for it. [OK, I joked about her “writing” her book. Just to be fair—JFK won a Pulitzer for a “history” book he admitted he never wrote. And no one “writes” their own “auto”-biography.]
In theory, she also in a way redeems herself for her abrupt resignation of the Alaska governorship, if she becomes the first pundit to actually go [back] into public service. Conservatives might be heartened if some of their more popular pundits [e.g. Rush, Beck] start to follow her example and try for Washington.
[BTW, stop with the Palin “hotness”. Anne Coulter is a lot “hotter” than Palin—and a lot smarter and more educated [Princeton vs Idaho? Helllooo?] Would you really want to see Palin in Coulter-length minis? By 2012 Palin will be as “hot” as Hillary Clinton was in 1992. All feminist tenets aside, there are a lot of reasons that shouldn't be a factor.]
Speaking of the only arena that matters in politics, Michael Steele has to say what he did about Harry Reid’s comments about Obama’s skin tone and articulation, but even he knows better than to try to force parallels with Trent Lott. Reid’s comments were descriptive and plaintive; Lott’s were prescriptive and nostalgic. Conservatives have been trying to force a “Well-If-A-Democrat-Had-Said-It” analogy, but despite all truisms about the “liberal media”, it really doesn’t apply here.
Sunday, January 10, 2010
The Aughts vs. the Tweens: Stating The Obvious
According to most historians, the 20th century began in earnest with the commencements of WWI, when Europe’s monarchical balance-of-power system in place since the Congress of Vienna collapsed upon itself, and ended in 1989, with the fall of the Berlin Wall, the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact and the end of the Cold War. Similarly, a history professor at Penn, Dr. Thomas Sugrue, opined in a class I took that the 60’s really began in 1954, with the fall of Dien Bien Phu [the real beginning of the Vietnam War], and ended in 1974, with Watergate and the Nixon resignation.
A similar discussion could be discerned in some ostensibly less “discerning” publications [see the end-of year issues of Rolling Stone and New York] regarding what to call the “00’s”; “the aughts” seemed to be the general consensus. In that spirit, I’ve decided that the most appropriate term for this new decade—at least right now—would be the tweens. My rationale, aside from the aforementioned examples of history not being limited to actual chronology, is that the century seems to be in that period where it hasn’t even begun its adolescence yet, even if one might think that circumstances should have forced us to “grow up” faster.
As if that weren’t enough, conventional wisdom holds that adolescence is usually prolonged during recessions, as more people go to--and stay in—school [as I am, currently, on my second masters and third career change]. This, in addition to what another Penn history professor, Michael Zuckerman, referred to loosely as a general cultural zeitgeist of an across the board adolescence [in case you haven’t figured it out, I was a history major at Penn]. In the middle of the previous decade, Time magazine referred to these hybrids as “Twixters” or “kidults”, New York magazine as “grups”. “Tweens” describes the new decade perfectly.
In keeping with the spirit of a general refusal to grow up, I have discovered that some of the most salient observations one can make in a socio-political or cultural sense are, counterintuitively, the most obvious ones. Addditionally, it is sometimes the most obvious points that need to be reiterated, especially in a cultural setting where the general population needs to have everything explained, diagrammed, powerpointed, mapped out and illustrated with cartoons.
Obvious point number one:
Big Government is not going anywhere. Whether of a conservative bent—one requiring a strong defense and military-intelligence apparatus; or of a more liberal bent—requiring funding of all various elements of a “welfare state”—all government, especially the Federal branches, will never get to the point where one can “drown it in the bathtub”, as Grover Norquist would have it.
Obvious point number two:
By extension, the welfare state isn’t going anywhere either. One can debate whether governmental welfare goes to the “undeserving poor” or “’rapacious corporation”—but the fact of the matter is, the government will always be doling out funds to somebody. Just realize that the arguably most liberal administration in American history began its tenure by bailing out the banking and automotive industries. If that wasn’t corporate welfare, what is?
Obvious point number three:
Government and business/finance are inexorably tied, and ever have been since at least the creation of the Federal Reserve; and when government gets involved in business, there will be—and should be—regulations. Regulating business is NOT a socialist concept, no matter how much the Sarah Palin wing of the Republican party screams that it is [not to mention that Palin probably understands less finance and economics than I do.] The New Yorker’s most recent issue—which includes a treatment of the schisms becoming evident in the Chicago School of economics, heretofore ground zero of fundamentalist deregulationary free-market orthodoxy—better illustrate this point.
Obvious point number four:
Even if a stubborn unemployment rate and a questionable recession persists through the 2010 midterms and beyond, its actual impact on the political fortunes of the Obama administration will be limited—though there may be some shakeup in Congress, which is to be expected; one might call it a “correction” not all that unlike when a market “corrects” itself. It will remain a truism in the forseeable future that economic misfortunes are the fault of conservatives and Republicans.
Obvious point number five:
Similarly, the Democrats have not earned themselves any credibility vis-à-vis national security. It might be that they don’t care, that they are so bent toward another “correction”, that of America’s image in the Muslim world. However, the reaction to the underwear bomber indicates that Obama and his minions know that they can’t turn a complete blind eye to the danger without suffering political consequences. A series of further Northwest Airline flights and Fort Hoods will start to do to the Democrats what Lehman Brothers did to the McCain campaign.
Obvious point number six:
Sarah Palin is, right now, politically salient in a way that is all out of proportional to her personal talents and intelligence. That not only may not matter; it may almost help, especially with a base that has serious misgivings with anyone smarter than they are. To be fair—and I personally haven’t been, because my falling for the pre-Couric interview Palin cost me a ton of credibility—Palin is probably closer to a female Dubya than a hybrid of Dan Quayle and Jessica Simpson, as I had previously described her. There is a less-than-subtle difference.
Obvious point number seven:
Despite the series of leaked emails from East Anglia, the truism that there is a phenomenon called “global warming” and that it is caused primarily by our consumption of coal and oil will hold for some time into the future, irrespective of how the “real” science bears out. It also may be equally true that no one country is going to be willing to give up their consumption privilieges. I personally wish this aspect of the environmental movement many more Copenhagens.
Obvious point number eight:
I am biased. So is everyone else.
Happy decade.
A similar discussion could be discerned in some ostensibly less “discerning” publications [see the end-of year issues of Rolling Stone and New York] regarding what to call the “00’s”; “the aughts” seemed to be the general consensus. In that spirit, I’ve decided that the most appropriate term for this new decade—at least right now—would be the tweens. My rationale, aside from the aforementioned examples of history not being limited to actual chronology, is that the century seems to be in that period where it hasn’t even begun its adolescence yet, even if one might think that circumstances should have forced us to “grow up” faster.
As if that weren’t enough, conventional wisdom holds that adolescence is usually prolonged during recessions, as more people go to--and stay in—school [as I am, currently, on my second masters and third career change]. This, in addition to what another Penn history professor, Michael Zuckerman, referred to loosely as a general cultural zeitgeist of an across the board adolescence [in case you haven’t figured it out, I was a history major at Penn]. In the middle of the previous decade, Time magazine referred to these hybrids as “Twixters” or “kidults”, New York magazine as “grups”. “Tweens” describes the new decade perfectly.
In keeping with the spirit of a general refusal to grow up, I have discovered that some of the most salient observations one can make in a socio-political or cultural sense are, counterintuitively, the most obvious ones. Addditionally, it is sometimes the most obvious points that need to be reiterated, especially in a cultural setting where the general population needs to have everything explained, diagrammed, powerpointed, mapped out and illustrated with cartoons.
Obvious point number one:
Big Government is not going anywhere. Whether of a conservative bent—one requiring a strong defense and military-intelligence apparatus; or of a more liberal bent—requiring funding of all various elements of a “welfare state”—all government, especially the Federal branches, will never get to the point where one can “drown it in the bathtub”, as Grover Norquist would have it.
Obvious point number two:
By extension, the welfare state isn’t going anywhere either. One can debate whether governmental welfare goes to the “undeserving poor” or “’rapacious corporation”—but the fact of the matter is, the government will always be doling out funds to somebody. Just realize that the arguably most liberal administration in American history began its tenure by bailing out the banking and automotive industries. If that wasn’t corporate welfare, what is?
Obvious point number three:
Government and business/finance are inexorably tied, and ever have been since at least the creation of the Federal Reserve; and when government gets involved in business, there will be—and should be—regulations. Regulating business is NOT a socialist concept, no matter how much the Sarah Palin wing of the Republican party screams that it is [not to mention that Palin probably understands less finance and economics than I do.] The New Yorker’s most recent issue—which includes a treatment of the schisms becoming evident in the Chicago School of economics, heretofore ground zero of fundamentalist deregulationary free-market orthodoxy—better illustrate this point.
Obvious point number four:
Even if a stubborn unemployment rate and a questionable recession persists through the 2010 midterms and beyond, its actual impact on the political fortunes of the Obama administration will be limited—though there may be some shakeup in Congress, which is to be expected; one might call it a “correction” not all that unlike when a market “corrects” itself. It will remain a truism in the forseeable future that economic misfortunes are the fault of conservatives and Republicans.
Obvious point number five:
Similarly, the Democrats have not earned themselves any credibility vis-à-vis national security. It might be that they don’t care, that they are so bent toward another “correction”, that of America’s image in the Muslim world. However, the reaction to the underwear bomber indicates that Obama and his minions know that they can’t turn a complete blind eye to the danger without suffering political consequences. A series of further Northwest Airline flights and Fort Hoods will start to do to the Democrats what Lehman Brothers did to the McCain campaign.
Obvious point number six:
Sarah Palin is, right now, politically salient in a way that is all out of proportional to her personal talents and intelligence. That not only may not matter; it may almost help, especially with a base that has serious misgivings with anyone smarter than they are. To be fair—and I personally haven’t been, because my falling for the pre-Couric interview Palin cost me a ton of credibility—Palin is probably closer to a female Dubya than a hybrid of Dan Quayle and Jessica Simpson, as I had previously described her. There is a less-than-subtle difference.
Obvious point number seven:
Despite the series of leaked emails from East Anglia, the truism that there is a phenomenon called “global warming” and that it is caused primarily by our consumption of coal and oil will hold for some time into the future, irrespective of how the “real” science bears out. It also may be equally true that no one country is going to be willing to give up their consumption privilieges. I personally wish this aspect of the environmental movement many more Copenhagens.
Obvious point number eight:
I am biased. So is everyone else.
Happy decade.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)