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...]
Thursday, March 4, 2010
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.
Monday, December 28, 2009
Jets-Colts 40 Year Redux
I’ve generally avoided writing about sports on this blog unless there I thought there was a useful political metaphor; in my approximately 16 months at this, I’ve probably written about five or six pieces that feature sports prominently. The temptation would be even greater than doing pieces that are blatantly pro-Jewish or pro-Israel, owing not only to the fact that in my more obviously Judeocentric pieces I’ve usually been quoting someone else directly [who would say what I wanted to better than I could] but also because I know how out-of-hand my lifelong obsession with the New York Jets [which would explain a lot] can get. I didn’t want to end up writing only about the Jews and the Jets.
This season, it turns out there may be even stronger parallels between the two. [Now, just in case any of you want to get REALLY self-righteous about this, no, there’s no comparison. Just call it a VERY loose illustration. And if you’re really offended, don’t read any further. Or read my Morally Offended and get a clue.]
Anyway…anyone familiar with Jewish and Jetish history will recognize the common thread of suffering that runs between the two, sometimes involving a certain degree of self-infliction. However, can anyone deny an element of Divine intervention after Sunday’s game in Indianapolis? [Here’s my foray into self-righteousness: I don’t believe in “football gods”. G-d can do this all by Himself.]
In either case, some [football] issues need to be addressed:
The only person who was cheated out of anything here was Peyton Manning. The guy deserved a shot at a perfect season, particularly since, as was proven Sunday, the only reason the Colts were anywhere near that precipice was because of him. As I’ve written before The Convention: Regular Season Begins I have a bias against the Miami Dolphins and Don Shula bordering on xenophobia [owing to the Mud Bowl/’83 AFC Championship] which was one reason I rooted for the Pats in SB XLII [aside from my almost equal bias against the Giants, for winning SB XXI when 1986 should have been the Jets’ year.] But while watching the Colts self-destruct in a Jet-like manner, I had this epiphany about the Fish' perfect 1972 season: while they might not have beaten any playoff teams—and only one team with a record over .500 [the Giants, who finished 8-6 that year]—I suddenly remembered that, of Miami’s 17 wins in ’72, the quarterback of record in 11 of them was a 38-year-old backup, Earl Morrall. I suddenly had a grudgingly newfound [short-lived, to be sure] respect for the job Don Shula did that season.
Now, as far as others who think that this is an earth-shattering event:
Colts fans DO have reason to boo. And they’ll be REALLY mad if this turns out to actually cost them playoff momentum and/or the Super Bowl, like it may have in ’05. However, recent NFL history is inconclusive: just look at the ’04 Colts, who rested everyone in the last game at Denver and got blown out 33-14, and then came back against the same Broncos the next week in the wildcard game in Indy and won 49-24. [Jet fans like me were really angry: that game almost cost the Jets a playoff spot, though they may have deserved to lose it after going 5-6 following a 5-0 start.] There’s also the classic case of the ’96 Broncos who started resting vets in week 14 after clinching the top seed and lost their playoff opener to the expansion Jaguars. [Having learned his lesson, Mike Shanahan won the two Super Bowls after that.] As far as the ’07 Pats playing for perfection, we’ll never know because they lost the Super Bowl, but that had more to do with the nature of the Giants’ blitz than any veteran fatigue.
So, Peyton was cheated out of a piece of history. No one else deserves it. And, as Rex Ryan put it, “this football team beat 14 teams, so they earned the right to play it the way they wanted to”.
I also refer back to the ’04 Colts-Broncos finale because apparently fans of five other teams are up in arms that both the Colts and Bengals are laying down for the Jets. Grow up. If the Jets hadn’t found ridiculously creative ways to lose in SIX of their seven losses—[pick sixes and dropped field-goal snaps come to mind]—no one would be having this conversation. The breaks finally evened out.
This especially goes for Dolphins fans. Yeah, you guys swept the Jets this year. Remember all those seasons the Jets swept the Fish and still finished behind them in the standings? 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981, 1993, 1999, 2000, 2001…and in four of those seasons, the Fish made the playoffs and the Jets didn’t. So go jump into Biscayne Bay, Fishfaces. Payback’s a bitch, especially when she’s a New Yorker.
In conclusion: forty years ago, the Jets were going up against a Colts team that was being touted as the best ever. The Jets had no chance. [And the Colts starter was their backup—Earl Morrall.]
We know how that game turned out. And it was played in Miami.
See how this all works out?
This season, it turns out there may be even stronger parallels between the two. [Now, just in case any of you want to get REALLY self-righteous about this, no, there’s no comparison. Just call it a VERY loose illustration. And if you’re really offended, don’t read any further. Or read my Morally Offended and get a clue.]
Anyway…anyone familiar with Jewish and Jetish history will recognize the common thread of suffering that runs between the two, sometimes involving a certain degree of self-infliction. However, can anyone deny an element of Divine intervention after Sunday’s game in Indianapolis? [Here’s my foray into self-righteousness: I don’t believe in “football gods”. G-d can do this all by Himself.]
In either case, some [football] issues need to be addressed:
The only person who was cheated out of anything here was Peyton Manning. The guy deserved a shot at a perfect season, particularly since, as was proven Sunday, the only reason the Colts were anywhere near that precipice was because of him. As I’ve written before The Convention: Regular Season Begins I have a bias against the Miami Dolphins and Don Shula bordering on xenophobia [owing to the Mud Bowl/’83 AFC Championship] which was one reason I rooted for the Pats in SB XLII [aside from my almost equal bias against the Giants, for winning SB XXI when 1986 should have been the Jets’ year.] But while watching the Colts self-destruct in a Jet-like manner, I had this epiphany about the Fish' perfect 1972 season: while they might not have beaten any playoff teams—and only one team with a record over .500 [the Giants, who finished 8-6 that year]—I suddenly remembered that, of Miami’s 17 wins in ’72, the quarterback of record in 11 of them was a 38-year-old backup, Earl Morrall. I suddenly had a grudgingly newfound [short-lived, to be sure] respect for the job Don Shula did that season.
Now, as far as others who think that this is an earth-shattering event:
Colts fans DO have reason to boo. And they’ll be REALLY mad if this turns out to actually cost them playoff momentum and/or the Super Bowl, like it may have in ’05. However, recent NFL history is inconclusive: just look at the ’04 Colts, who rested everyone in the last game at Denver and got blown out 33-14, and then came back against the same Broncos the next week in the wildcard game in Indy and won 49-24. [Jet fans like me were really angry: that game almost cost the Jets a playoff spot, though they may have deserved to lose it after going 5-6 following a 5-0 start.] There’s also the classic case of the ’96 Broncos who started resting vets in week 14 after clinching the top seed and lost their playoff opener to the expansion Jaguars. [Having learned his lesson, Mike Shanahan won the two Super Bowls after that.] As far as the ’07 Pats playing for perfection, we’ll never know because they lost the Super Bowl, but that had more to do with the nature of the Giants’ blitz than any veteran fatigue.
So, Peyton was cheated out of a piece of history. No one else deserves it. And, as Rex Ryan put it, “this football team beat 14 teams, so they earned the right to play it the way they wanted to”.
I also refer back to the ’04 Colts-Broncos finale because apparently fans of five other teams are up in arms that both the Colts and Bengals are laying down for the Jets. Grow up. If the Jets hadn’t found ridiculously creative ways to lose in SIX of their seven losses—[pick sixes and dropped field-goal snaps come to mind]—no one would be having this conversation. The breaks finally evened out.
This especially goes for Dolphins fans. Yeah, you guys swept the Jets this year. Remember all those seasons the Jets swept the Fish and still finished behind them in the standings? 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981, 1993, 1999, 2000, 2001…and in four of those seasons, the Fish made the playoffs and the Jets didn’t. So go jump into Biscayne Bay, Fishfaces. Payback’s a bitch, especially when she’s a New Yorker.
In conclusion: forty years ago, the Jets were going up against a Colts team that was being touted as the best ever. The Jets had no chance. [And the Colts starter was their backup—Earl Morrall.]
We know how that game turned out. And it was played in Miami.
See how this all works out?
Sunday, December 27, 2009
Almost All Apologies
It’s too easy to say that Jimmy Carter’s “apology” to the Jews is due to his not wanting to throw up any obstacles to his grandson Jason Carter’s budding political career. It is, however unquestionable that he is being disingenuous. All the evidence one needs to that effect is his rather tortuous explanation of the meaning behind the title of his tome Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid [“The former president said that he had attempted to conflate into a single title his belief that Palestine, not Israel, should control the West Bank, and that apartheid, not peace, would prevail were that not to happen. Apartheid was a predictor, he said, not a description; such an outlook was not inconsistent with Israeli leaders and pro-Israel groups.”] THAT should pretty much serve as an indicator of how gullible he considers Jews who are otherwise completely supportive of his political weltanschuung and how little he cares about those who don’t, Jewish or otherwise.
As far as I’m concerned, Carter is about as genuine about his regret as Henry Ford was about his in 1927, after he’d practically single-handedly made the Protocols of the Elders of Zion an international best-seller. One should also remember that long after said apology was issued—and the publication of The Dearborn Independent, the American version and forerunner to Der Sturmer, ceased publication under pressure—Ford was awarded accepted the highest medal that Nazi Germany could bestow on a foreigner, the Grand Cross of the German Eagle was In July 1938. Not for nothing did Adolf Hitler tell a reporter "I regard Henry Ford as my inspiration" two years before he became Chancellor. I would predict that similar public accolades for Carter from terrorists and their supporters will not cease because of this “apology”. Some of them actually read history too, before they revise and deny it.
In the meantime, as Rosner from the Jerusalem Post puts it: “1. Jewish organizations have to congratulate him and pretend to believe him. Jewish writers don't. 2. Jewish politicians and Israeli politicians have to act as if he means what he says. Jews with no political aspirations don't.” That—and the timing of the apology with the Jason Carter’s budding political career—should serve, for now at least, as a positive sign: that the idea that some “criticisms” of Israel are disingenuous and motivated by anti-semitism are still politically trenchant enough that they have to be reckoned with.
Which is why the appointment of Hannah Rosenthal as President Obama’s “Anti-Semitism Czar”—and her immediate jumping into the fray by publicly siding with the J Street version of Israel “support”—is, to be sure, at least mildly alarming, but certainly not surprising. As I’ve said before, Obama plan to govern from the center by dragging the center to the left and making that the new “center”, and this fits his plan perfectly. Like Carter, she has said some of the right things [see her Ha’aretz interview] but her belief [which is essentially the J Street outlook] that when sacrifices for “peace” have to be made, it’s the Jews that are going to have to be doing the sacrificing, because that is our destiny. This is why is this case Rosner is wrong when he writes that “Instead of being an asset to Obama, she's a burden”, because when he writes right before that “Rosenthal is now officially a member of the look-at-them-and-you'll-know-why-we-don't-trust-Obama team”—he’s absolutely correct. Rosenthal is the embodiment of the Obama House Jew. [He’s got lots of those.]
I don’t think Obama is an anti-Semite. While he may be a lot more sympathetic to Islam [and Islamists, and even terrorists] than is politically healthy to let on [for him], one could posit [albeit, in a somewhat strained manner] that: a] the Islam he grew up with in Indonesia is not necessarily the same as the Wahhabi/Taliban version and b] he’s as religious a Moslem as Reagan was a Chrisitian [e.g., openly supportive of their political agenda while not ever going to services himself]. However, even given that possible allowance—and like I said, it’s both generous and strained at the same time—Obama’s attempt to realign the US interest with international Islam and other elements of Edward Said-influenced political correctness and have that rebranded as centrism is certainly fraught with peril for all Americans [if not everyone else]. Rosenthal’s appointment fits into that program perfectly.
As far as I’m concerned, Carter is about as genuine about his regret as Henry Ford was about his in 1927, after he’d practically single-handedly made the Protocols of the Elders of Zion an international best-seller. One should also remember that long after said apology was issued—and the publication of The Dearborn Independent, the American version and forerunner to Der Sturmer, ceased publication under pressure—Ford was awarded accepted the highest medal that Nazi Germany could bestow on a foreigner, the Grand Cross of the German Eagle was In July 1938. Not for nothing did Adolf Hitler tell a reporter "I regard Henry Ford as my inspiration" two years before he became Chancellor. I would predict that similar public accolades for Carter from terrorists and their supporters will not cease because of this “apology”. Some of them actually read history too, before they revise and deny it.
In the meantime, as Rosner from the Jerusalem Post puts it: “1. Jewish organizations have to congratulate him and pretend to believe him. Jewish writers don't. 2. Jewish politicians and Israeli politicians have to act as if he means what he says. Jews with no political aspirations don't.” That—and the timing of the apology with the Jason Carter’s budding political career—should serve, for now at least, as a positive sign: that the idea that some “criticisms” of Israel are disingenuous and motivated by anti-semitism are still politically trenchant enough that they have to be reckoned with.
Which is why the appointment of Hannah Rosenthal as President Obama’s “Anti-Semitism Czar”—and her immediate jumping into the fray by publicly siding with the J Street version of Israel “support”—is, to be sure, at least mildly alarming, but certainly not surprising. As I’ve said before, Obama plan to govern from the center by dragging the center to the left and making that the new “center”, and this fits his plan perfectly. Like Carter, she has said some of the right things [see her Ha’aretz interview] but her belief [which is essentially the J Street outlook] that when sacrifices for “peace” have to be made, it’s the Jews that are going to have to be doing the sacrificing, because that is our destiny. This is why is this case Rosner is wrong when he writes that “Instead of being an asset to Obama, she's a burden”, because when he writes right before that “Rosenthal is now officially a member of the look-at-them-and-you'll-know-why-we-don't-trust-Obama team”—he’s absolutely correct. Rosenthal is the embodiment of the Obama House Jew. [He’s got lots of those.]
I don’t think Obama is an anti-Semite. While he may be a lot more sympathetic to Islam [and Islamists, and even terrorists] than is politically healthy to let on [for him], one could posit [albeit, in a somewhat strained manner] that: a] the Islam he grew up with in Indonesia is not necessarily the same as the Wahhabi/Taliban version and b] he’s as religious a Moslem as Reagan was a Chrisitian [e.g., openly supportive of their political agenda while not ever going to services himself]. However, even given that possible allowance—and like I said, it’s both generous and strained at the same time—Obama’s attempt to realign the US interest with international Islam and other elements of Edward Said-influenced political correctness and have that rebranded as centrism is certainly fraught with peril for all Americans [if not everyone else]. Rosenthal’s appointment fits into that program perfectly.
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
All Yours, Now
I have written ["W. Doesn’t Care. He Doesn’t Have To."] that Obama’s predecessor didn’t understand enough to care about his legacy. I was somewhat wrong, to a degree; a closer examination of a number of his policy moves after the 2006 midterms indicate that he came to a belated realization that history wasn’t on the RNC payroll. This administration seems to have learned from W.’s mistake and decided to starts chasing its historical legacy right at the outset; apparently the election wasn’t enough, or it’s undisputed historicity convinced anyone in the administration—especially the President—that his legacy was already assured enough that anything he did would be automatically as historic. This kind of self-delusion has finally come full circle, as his policy centerpieces all coalesced into a perfect storm.
It started with Obama’s Nobel acceptance speech and his insistence—in the face of a “constituency” that professes a strict, if disingenuous, pacifism—that there are such things as “good wars” and that someone has to decide when and where to fight them. Obvious to us, the sentiments expressed might have served to reverse the may have served as the final salvo in Obama’s battle with the further-out left wing of his party who were disgruntled by his stance on Afghanistan. In one fell swoop, he now attached his Administration to an unpopular war, almost in the way Vietnam’s crown of thorns passed to Nixon once he bombed Cambodia. So now he acknowledges owning the war.
Soon after, Obama was in Copenhagen in an attempt to give the US a leading role in regulating carbon footprints—this after the East Anglia emails began to reveal the “science” behind global warming to be a hoax on the level of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. It’s no accident that Obama’s “science czar”, John Holdren, made his reputation as an evangelist for extreme measures in world population control, as a follower of now-discredited theories in line with Paul Ehrlich’s “Population Bomb”. In truth, any conservative criticism of liberal politicization of science is, right now, disingenuous, as long as they continue to insist on science in the service of corporate ends [as in the think tanks promoting oil and coal as non-pollutants and smoking as non-addictive] or religious ones [as in any support for “intelligent design” theory in science curricula]. However, when the time arrives that the discrediting of so-called “science” of climate change becomes the consensus position in the scientific community, the liberal progressives will be saddled with this in perpetuity.
Finally, there’s health care legislation. This is certainly going to be historic, but like what will eventually happen with climatology, it might be for the wrong reasons. Now, despite all available evidence, I am still not convinced that there are better alternatives to Keynesian economics and the existence of a welfare state, to a reasonable degree. Additionally, if no one in Congress has gotten around to reading any of the 2,000-plus pages of the bill, none of them can really comment with any accuracy about the bill, so I’ll take the high road and demur. However, despite the appearance of party unity on both sides of the divide—as evidenced by the strict party-line votes in the Senate at every stage—the infighting among Democrats surrounding the elements of the bill, including the reluctant dropping of the public option by Socialist Bernie Sanders, is probably more telling: that is, if the Republicans have become the party of “No”, the Democrats are living up to their reputation as the party of ”Anything”.
It might be that someone in the administration realized that, despite the failure of Great Society legislation and the fiasco of Vitenam [from either political vantage point], the legacy of LBJ and his administration was assured forever with the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act [which also, to be sure, split the Democratic party]. In their rush to secure the historical legacy that had almost been handed to them just by virtue of the election, they have invested way too much political capital insuring that this health care legislation will simply pass and be counted as an equivalent, maybe even for doing nothing and worse. Instead, its passage—as an exclusively Democratic bill—will secure the moment that the automatic legacy unraveled, and when [hopefully] the partisan criticisms leveled at the administration finally began to gain credibility.
It started with Obama’s Nobel acceptance speech and his insistence—in the face of a “constituency” that professes a strict, if disingenuous, pacifism—that there are such things as “good wars” and that someone has to decide when and where to fight them. Obvious to us, the sentiments expressed might have served to reverse the may have served as the final salvo in Obama’s battle with the further-out left wing of his party who were disgruntled by his stance on Afghanistan. In one fell swoop, he now attached his Administration to an unpopular war, almost in the way Vietnam’s crown of thorns passed to Nixon once he bombed Cambodia. So now he acknowledges owning the war.
Soon after, Obama was in Copenhagen in an attempt to give the US a leading role in regulating carbon footprints—this after the East Anglia emails began to reveal the “science” behind global warming to be a hoax on the level of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. It’s no accident that Obama’s “science czar”, John Holdren, made his reputation as an evangelist for extreme measures in world population control, as a follower of now-discredited theories in line with Paul Ehrlich’s “Population Bomb”. In truth, any conservative criticism of liberal politicization of science is, right now, disingenuous, as long as they continue to insist on science in the service of corporate ends [as in the think tanks promoting oil and coal as non-pollutants and smoking as non-addictive] or religious ones [as in any support for “intelligent design” theory in science curricula]. However, when the time arrives that the discrediting of so-called “science” of climate change becomes the consensus position in the scientific community, the liberal progressives will be saddled with this in perpetuity.
Finally, there’s health care legislation. This is certainly going to be historic, but like what will eventually happen with climatology, it might be for the wrong reasons. Now, despite all available evidence, I am still not convinced that there are better alternatives to Keynesian economics and the existence of a welfare state, to a reasonable degree. Additionally, if no one in Congress has gotten around to reading any of the 2,000-plus pages of the bill, none of them can really comment with any accuracy about the bill, so I’ll take the high road and demur. However, despite the appearance of party unity on both sides of the divide—as evidenced by the strict party-line votes in the Senate at every stage—the infighting among Democrats surrounding the elements of the bill, including the reluctant dropping of the public option by Socialist Bernie Sanders, is probably more telling: that is, if the Republicans have become the party of “No”, the Democrats are living up to their reputation as the party of ”Anything”.
It might be that someone in the administration realized that, despite the failure of Great Society legislation and the fiasco of Vitenam [from either political vantage point], the legacy of LBJ and his administration was assured forever with the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act [which also, to be sure, split the Democratic party]. In their rush to secure the historical legacy that had almost been handed to them just by virtue of the election, they have invested way too much political capital insuring that this health care legislation will simply pass and be counted as an equivalent, maybe even for doing nothing and worse. Instead, its passage—as an exclusively Democratic bill—will secure the moment that the automatic legacy unraveled, and when [hopefully] the partisan criticisms leveled at the administration finally began to gain credibility.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)