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?
Monday, December 28, 2009
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.
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Sarah Palin and the Other Christian Scientists
Yes, Palin is Evangelical and not a Christian Scientist, and [as certainly has been proven, at the very least, by Mary Baker Eddy’s tenets] Christian Science is a contradiction in terms. It’s also easy to be intellectually consistent when you don’t have much of an intellect to start with. Yet, it’s Palin’s W.-like intellectual incuriosity which may ultimately prove itself to be ultimately less malign than true intellectual dishonesty rampant in more rarefied quarters.
In case you have actually followed my blog history and noticed the absolute 180 I did on Palin—it was because of the Couric interviews, when I realized what Peggy Noonan had intuited: that Palin’s vacuity and absolute enthrallment with her newfound celebrity presented the worst possible public image for conservatives and conservatism, at the worst possible time. Especially for me: I was so depressed by what I saw that I couldn’t write anything for a month and a half, much less bring myself to vote for McCain; I sat out the vote]. So I have no love lost for her—because she made ME look bad just as I was starting out and I blame her for MY loss of credibility.
However, a hybrid of Dan Quayle and Jessica Simpson is an easy sell in today’s US; and, despite the general consensus [with which I agree] that even the perception of Palin as the Republican front-runner is ultimately not good for conservatism [1], the events surrounding a certain series of emails emerging from the University of East Anglia [2] actually indicate how much more dangerous intellectual dishonesty is when individuals that actually possess a certain degree of intellectual acuity misuse it for partisan ends.
In a certain sense it might be hard to fathom why the scientific community has thrown its considerable weight behind the notion that the West—particularly the US—owes reparations to everyone else, and has chosen the vehicle of reducing our reliance on technology and industry so that anyone who hasn’t been as fortunate can benefit. It also isn’t the first time that “hard” science has prostituted itself for blatantly dubious political ends, most notoriously in the first half of this century when the scientific community essentially spearheaded eugenics and was almost directly responsible for widespread racial murder. [Many a Nazi commented that they were simply picking up where Cold Spring Harbor left off.]
One wonders whether this is their convoluted way of making up for it. In the process, however, they’re in danger of becoming just a fundamentalist as Palin, turning science into Christianity. And they don’t have her excuse.
1. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124716984620819351.html
2. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/globalwarming/6636563/University-of-East-Anglia-emails-the-most-contentious-quotes.html
In case you have actually followed my blog history and noticed the absolute 180 I did on Palin—it was because of the Couric interviews, when I realized what Peggy Noonan had intuited: that Palin’s vacuity and absolute enthrallment with her newfound celebrity presented the worst possible public image for conservatives and conservatism, at the worst possible time. Especially for me: I was so depressed by what I saw that I couldn’t write anything for a month and a half, much less bring myself to vote for McCain; I sat out the vote]. So I have no love lost for her—because she made ME look bad just as I was starting out and I blame her for MY loss of credibility.
However, a hybrid of Dan Quayle and Jessica Simpson is an easy sell in today’s US; and, despite the general consensus [with which I agree] that even the perception of Palin as the Republican front-runner is ultimately not good for conservatism [1], the events surrounding a certain series of emails emerging from the University of East Anglia [2] actually indicate how much more dangerous intellectual dishonesty is when individuals that actually possess a certain degree of intellectual acuity misuse it for partisan ends.
In a certain sense it might be hard to fathom why the scientific community has thrown its considerable weight behind the notion that the West—particularly the US—owes reparations to everyone else, and has chosen the vehicle of reducing our reliance on technology and industry so that anyone who hasn’t been as fortunate can benefit. It also isn’t the first time that “hard” science has prostituted itself for blatantly dubious political ends, most notoriously in the first half of this century when the scientific community essentially spearheaded eugenics and was almost directly responsible for widespread racial murder. [Many a Nazi commented that they were simply picking up where Cold Spring Harbor left off.]
One wonders whether this is their convoluted way of making up for it. In the process, however, they’re in danger of becoming just a fundamentalist as Palin, turning science into Christianity. And they don’t have her excuse.
1. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124716984620819351.html
2. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/globalwarming/6636563/University-of-East-Anglia-emails-the-most-contentious-quotes.html
Monday, November 16, 2009
The Death Penalty: A Rebirth?
"There won’t be a lot of guilt-innocence maneuverability there."--THOMAS H. DUNN, a former defense lawyer for the Army, on possible defense strategies for Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, who is accused in the Nov. 5 shooting rampage at Fort Hood, Tex.
Mr. Dunn’s quote was almost somewhat reminiscent of Tampa Bay Buccaneers’ head coach John McKay’s comment about his team’s execution: “I’m all for it.”
Take that comment, the recent execution of John Muhammad in Virginia, and the upcoming decision to try some of the highest-value terror detainees in open court, and we may have to reset the playing field vis-à-vis the death penalty debate in this country.
Just in case, a review: From the “Right”, you hear the usual admonitions to be “tough on crime” and that the death penalty serves as the ultimate deterrent. [Contrary to conventional wisdom, there is no true “religious” consensus, at least in the US, regarding the death penalty; usually, the more Evangelical and Fundamentalist strains are in favor, the “mainline” churches less so, the Catholics inalterably opposed, and most Jewish denominations—even, as will be evidenced below, some very salient Orthodox streams—also opposed.]
From the “Left”, the usual arguments you hear have to do with the inequitable application of the penalty and the impossibility of correcting mistakes; and that’s before you arrive at the pacifist argument that taking a life at anytime for any reason by anyone is immoral.
[The “duty-to-retreat” law--which was the legal default position before the “Castle Doctrine” for all intents and purposes codified the right of self-defense through use of deadly force--while not truly “pacifist”, nevertheless indicates the difficulty of legally formulating a concept of “justifiable homicide” outside of warfare, which was a way of…”life”.]
On the eve of his inauguration as Governor of New York in 1995, George Pataki was the recipient of a unique message from the Jewish sage Rabbi Aaron Soloveichik regarding the death penalty, which Pataki had promised in his campaign to place back on the books in New York State:
“…you have the written law mandating the death penalty and the oral law, saying, in effect, that you can never apply it…Now, the death penalty should be there for use in extraordinary situations, in extraordinary threats to the public order…but if [Pataki] acts on the death penalty, he will be the leader of a bloody government.” [New York Magazine, “The 100 Smartest New Yorkers”, Jan. 30, 1995, p. 52].
Fort Hood, TX and Greenville, VA brought the penalty renewed credibility, and that was before the decision to move the terror trials to New York. While the Obama Administration’s intent is mainly to demonstrate [forcibly?] that there is no “conflict between our security and our ideals”--[to paraphrase the President’s inaugural address]--these trials, along with the Muhammad execution and upcoming Fort Hood case, may result in finally viewing how our legal system might actually work in cases where a true threat to public order is at stake, one on the level with Rabbi Soloveichik’s admonition.
In other words, these should be the exceptions that prove the rule: on the books for use in extraordinary threats to the public order. If we learn to restrict the use of the penalty to these situations and these situations alone, the country will be better off.
Mr. Dunn’s quote was almost somewhat reminiscent of Tampa Bay Buccaneers’ head coach John McKay’s comment about his team’s execution: “I’m all for it.”
Take that comment, the recent execution of John Muhammad in Virginia, and the upcoming decision to try some of the highest-value terror detainees in open court, and we may have to reset the playing field vis-à-vis the death penalty debate in this country.
Just in case, a review: From the “Right”, you hear the usual admonitions to be “tough on crime” and that the death penalty serves as the ultimate deterrent. [Contrary to conventional wisdom, there is no true “religious” consensus, at least in the US, regarding the death penalty; usually, the more Evangelical and Fundamentalist strains are in favor, the “mainline” churches less so, the Catholics inalterably opposed, and most Jewish denominations—even, as will be evidenced below, some very salient Orthodox streams—also opposed.]
From the “Left”, the usual arguments you hear have to do with the inequitable application of the penalty and the impossibility of correcting mistakes; and that’s before you arrive at the pacifist argument that taking a life at anytime for any reason by anyone is immoral.
[The “duty-to-retreat” law--which was the legal default position before the “Castle Doctrine” for all intents and purposes codified the right of self-defense through use of deadly force--while not truly “pacifist”, nevertheless indicates the difficulty of legally formulating a concept of “justifiable homicide” outside of warfare, which was a way of…”life”.]
On the eve of his inauguration as Governor of New York in 1995, George Pataki was the recipient of a unique message from the Jewish sage Rabbi Aaron Soloveichik regarding the death penalty, which Pataki had promised in his campaign to place back on the books in New York State:
“…you have the written law mandating the death penalty and the oral law, saying, in effect, that you can never apply it…Now, the death penalty should be there for use in extraordinary situations, in extraordinary threats to the public order…but if [Pataki] acts on the death penalty, he will be the leader of a bloody government.” [New York Magazine, “The 100 Smartest New Yorkers”, Jan. 30, 1995, p. 52].
Fort Hood, TX and Greenville, VA brought the penalty renewed credibility, and that was before the decision to move the terror trials to New York. While the Obama Administration’s intent is mainly to demonstrate [forcibly?] that there is no “conflict between our security and our ideals”--[to paraphrase the President’s inaugural address]--these trials, along with the Muhammad execution and upcoming Fort Hood case, may result in finally viewing how our legal system might actually work in cases where a true threat to public order is at stake, one on the level with Rabbi Soloveichik’s admonition.
In other words, these should be the exceptions that prove the rule: on the books for use in extraordinary threats to the public order. If we learn to restrict the use of the penalty to these situations and these situations alone, the country will be better off.
Friday, November 6, 2009
Turning Points?: The Elections and Fort Hood
As a conservative [no matter how reluctant I am to admit it], I was definitely happy with the GOP taking the New Jersey and Virginia statehouses this past Tuesday. I was even more gratified by the fact that such a die-hard conservative as Virginia Governor-Elect Bob McDonnell being smart enough to downplay any ties with his ostensible comrades [sic]-in-arms Ralph Reed and Sarah Palin, realizing that gaining credibility may even be more important than electoral gains.
In contrast, the response to the loss of the the 23rd Congressional district in New York—and the assertion that “we won even thought we lost”—indicates that the Republicans seem to have forgotten even how to deal with any success.
It is to be expected that conservatives may be reluctant to handle any kind of success in the current econo-political climate: already being held responsible for the mess as it is, they’re extremely reluctant to assume any more responsibility than they have to. In a sense, what this indicates is a continuing ideological purge occurring among conservatives and the GOP, which may be more analogous to a Stalinist rather than McCarthyist ideology.
Of course, one might trace this fear of success and the concomitant loss of credibility all the way back to--“Mission Accomplished”. Never mind that the wrong country may have been invaded for either manufactured or misread reasons. The simple notion that the work was done once the Iraqi army was routed may itself have been the root of the former administration’s attitude of entitlement and invincibility, and the surprise and consequent lack of preparation for everything that followed.
Add that to the “Vietnam syndrome” once again rearing its ugly head as the Penatgon dithered as the conflict went on, and the McCarthyism hurt the important cause of anticommunism a lot more than it had helped it, and the conservative attitude problem may be more trenchant than anyone thinks. I can only hope that Virginia and New Jersey would serve as the start of the tides turning. Unfortunately, the GOP is acting as if the tides have been in their favor all along.
Today’s atrocity at Fort Hood, and the media’s—and even possibly the Army’s—response to it may partially be reflected by the aforementioned paralysis and fear of responsibility, which is not restricted to conservatives, but has become an inexorable part of how important parts of the country functions. The first was demonstrated by the conflicting reports coming out of the Army regarding what happened to the shooter and the heroic woman who actually may have stopped the massacre from going too far along; the second was the Army’s reluctance to make any reference to the possible motivation of the shooter, which, when you take the historical forces attributed to Vietnamism, McCarthyism, and the political correctness paralysis that resulted, has kept the Army from even hinting at his possible ethnically and/or religiously driven “grievances”. [That was left to the “fair and balanced” Fox news.]
I’d go a step further: the major reason that Americans can no longer identify their most mortal enemy [remember that even after 9/11 President Bush was referring to the faith of the hijackers as a “religion of peace”] is that we blew our credibility so many times in the past that “bleeding hearts” with any historical consciousness can remind us of our past “sins” often enough that we who know better are either paralyzed by it or motivated to work against our own interests.
One can only hope that Fort Hood might change this particular reluctance and saddle knee-jerk Saidist/Chomskyist progressivism with the same degree of lack of credibility that the GOP currently suffers from. Unfortunately, the forces militating against that go back further than we realize. 9/11 didn’t change it; this probably won’t either.
In contrast, the response to the loss of the the 23rd Congressional district in New York—and the assertion that “we won even thought we lost”—indicates that the Republicans seem to have forgotten even how to deal with any success.
It is to be expected that conservatives may be reluctant to handle any kind of success in the current econo-political climate: already being held responsible for the mess as it is, they’re extremely reluctant to assume any more responsibility than they have to. In a sense, what this indicates is a continuing ideological purge occurring among conservatives and the GOP, which may be more analogous to a Stalinist rather than McCarthyist ideology.
Of course, one might trace this fear of success and the concomitant loss of credibility all the way back to--“Mission Accomplished”. Never mind that the wrong country may have been invaded for either manufactured or misread reasons. The simple notion that the work was done once the Iraqi army was routed may itself have been the root of the former administration’s attitude of entitlement and invincibility, and the surprise and consequent lack of preparation for everything that followed.
Add that to the “Vietnam syndrome” once again rearing its ugly head as the Penatgon dithered as the conflict went on, and the McCarthyism hurt the important cause of anticommunism a lot more than it had helped it, and the conservative attitude problem may be more trenchant than anyone thinks. I can only hope that Virginia and New Jersey would serve as the start of the tides turning. Unfortunately, the GOP is acting as if the tides have been in their favor all along.
Today’s atrocity at Fort Hood, and the media’s—and even possibly the Army’s—response to it may partially be reflected by the aforementioned paralysis and fear of responsibility, which is not restricted to conservatives, but has become an inexorable part of how important parts of the country functions. The first was demonstrated by the conflicting reports coming out of the Army regarding what happened to the shooter and the heroic woman who actually may have stopped the massacre from going too far along; the second was the Army’s reluctance to make any reference to the possible motivation of the shooter, which, when you take the historical forces attributed to Vietnamism, McCarthyism, and the political correctness paralysis that resulted, has kept the Army from even hinting at his possible ethnically and/or religiously driven “grievances”. [That was left to the “fair and balanced” Fox news.]
I’d go a step further: the major reason that Americans can no longer identify their most mortal enemy [remember that even after 9/11 President Bush was referring to the faith of the hijackers as a “religion of peace”] is that we blew our credibility so many times in the past that “bleeding hearts” with any historical consciousness can remind us of our past “sins” often enough that we who know better are either paralyzed by it or motivated to work against our own interests.
One can only hope that Fort Hood might change this particular reluctance and saddle knee-jerk Saidist/Chomskyist progressivism with the same degree of lack of credibility that the GOP currently suffers from. Unfortunately, the forces militating against that go back further than we realize. 9/11 didn’t change it; this probably won’t either.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
"Fuzzy" [!]: Bring Back Jayson Blair
In my “Gaza, Again” post [December 27, 2008], as Israel "Cast Lead", I wrote:
[Operation Cast Lead is] Rice’—and this [the Bush] Administration’s—fault, because they insisted upon the imposition of "democratic" elections before a fully functioning society was running in the Strip. This terror-ridden failed-state Hamas-driven entity was chosen by its people, and they bear the responsibility for the actions of their leaders, which they undoubtedly approve of wholeheartedly. The war IS with the Gazan population, and the Israelis have nothing to lose by saying so.
Writing about Gaza in today’s New York Times, Ethan Bronner records this startling exchange with a Gaza local:
Many of the professionals here reject Hamas’s ideology, although some voted for the party in 2006 out of rage over the corruption in Fatah…“Hamas won by a slim margin, and it was because of people like me,” said Mohamed, who comes from a Fatah family and works for a charity. “I regret voting for them. I wanted to punish Fatah.” Like nearly all in Gaza who spoke about politics, he asked that his identity be hidden for fear of what the government might do. The rules of political dissent remain fuzzy. “Israel is saying, ‘Because you elected Hamas, you should have no life,’ ” he said. “Yet people elected Hamas because of Fatah corruption. I believe in peace with Israel, but I wanted desperately to get away from the corruption. I didn’t expect Hamas to win. Next time, I won’t vote at all.”
[http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/27/world/middleeast/27gaza.html?th&emc=th]
If the Gaza locals are willing to even to BEGIN to THINK about taking responsibility for their own mess—why are their Western “allies” so insistent upon convincing them otherwise? Something to do with a “soft bigotry of lowered expectations”, perhaps? Somewhere there is a profound disconnect between the beliefs that comprise the doctrines of political correctness and the actual belief that all human beings are truly “equal”. [But we knew that already….]
Plus—does anyone buy that Bronner really believes that in Gaza “the rules of political dissent remain fuzzy”? FUZZY? Even Walter Duranty, in all his extensive "coverage" of Stalin's Moscow for the Times, was never so disingenuous. Where's Jayson Blair when you need him? He would have been the perfect Times Middle East correspondent.
And he and Howell Raines might still both have their jobs.
[Operation Cast Lead is] Rice’—and this [the Bush] Administration’s—fault, because they insisted upon the imposition of "democratic" elections before a fully functioning society was running in the Strip. This terror-ridden failed-state Hamas-driven entity was chosen by its people, and they bear the responsibility for the actions of their leaders, which they undoubtedly approve of wholeheartedly. The war IS with the Gazan population, and the Israelis have nothing to lose by saying so.
Writing about Gaza in today’s New York Times, Ethan Bronner records this startling exchange with a Gaza local:
Many of the professionals here reject Hamas’s ideology, although some voted for the party in 2006 out of rage over the corruption in Fatah…“Hamas won by a slim margin, and it was because of people like me,” said Mohamed, who comes from a Fatah family and works for a charity. “I regret voting for them. I wanted to punish Fatah.” Like nearly all in Gaza who spoke about politics, he asked that his identity be hidden for fear of what the government might do. The rules of political dissent remain fuzzy. “Israel is saying, ‘Because you elected Hamas, you should have no life,’ ” he said. “Yet people elected Hamas because of Fatah corruption. I believe in peace with Israel, but I wanted desperately to get away from the corruption. I didn’t expect Hamas to win. Next time, I won’t vote at all.”
[http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/27/world/middleeast/27gaza.html?th&emc=th]
If the Gaza locals are willing to even to BEGIN to THINK about taking responsibility for their own mess—why are their Western “allies” so insistent upon convincing them otherwise? Something to do with a “soft bigotry of lowered expectations”, perhaps? Somewhere there is a profound disconnect between the beliefs that comprise the doctrines of political correctness and the actual belief that all human beings are truly “equal”. [But we knew that already….]
Plus—does anyone buy that Bronner really believes that in Gaza “the rules of political dissent remain fuzzy”? FUZZY? Even Walter Duranty, in all his extensive "coverage" of Stalin's Moscow for the Times, was never so disingenuous. Where's Jayson Blair when you need him? He would have been the perfect Times Middle East correspondent.
And he and Howell Raines might still both have their jobs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)