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.

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.