He plugs one leak, and a bigger one develops. The President might want to conjure up the spirit of Nixon and call the plumbers.
One can never truly say whether the tide has turned, and whether the various conservative tendencies that used to pop up to bite Republicans in the ass has abated somewhat, and now the Democrats’ almost genetic propensity for political self-destruction will now assert itself in its truest form. The President, who was such a beneficiary of the Republican refusal to play by their own rules and the economic mess that resulted, now has created himself a dual quagmire, almost completely of his own volition.
The first irony involves BP. No one can blame him directly for the disaster, and the culture of deregulation and corner-cutting that led to it is a particularly conservative invention; but, Republicans will not be blamed for it, because even when the disaster reached the proportions that it did because they did not see the need to perform any mea culpa for it [it helps immensely that they were the minority power]. Instead, the President looked both impotent and hypocritical, because he couldn’t stop the leak faster and he was loath to actually punish BP too publicly, oil companies—even foreign ones—being not only too big but too important to fail. This despite the fact that he was considered to be a true environmentalist president.
The second irony involves the Afghanistan war and the leaks surrounding both this and the previous Administration’s conduct thereof, which seems to be reminiscent of the incidents surrounding the Pentagon Papers’ revelations of a Democratic administration’s prosecution of a war they believed to be unwinnable. If this the moment where the President has truly assumed ownership of this war, it was certainly not in the way he intended: he will be saddled with the responsibility of things he had no control over at the time [Bush’s policies] because the current leaks indicate he has no control over events now, if he ever did. Attempts to blame the previous administration—which even Nixon realized wouldn’t work in 1971, which was why he tried to quash the Papers—will not only backfire; it would remind the public that there was another war that everyone was making a fuss about that seems to have been forgotten about will continue to be forgotten about, and Obama will find out just how recursive karma is.
In short, Obama has succeeded in taking what might have been once been considered two major conservative-created failures and making them his own. At this point, Republicans might actually best be advised to rest on their laurels to a point, because if they don’t and they continue their infighting, they might remind the electorate of why they became the minority party in the first place. Instead, if they sit back and let the Democrats continue to fail the way Rush hoped they would, they might reap the greatest benefit come November 2010, and maybe 2012.
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Thursday, July 8, 2010
There Will Be Peace--When:
I mostly—no, completely--disagree with Nick Kristof’s take on the Arab-Jew conflict. And I definitely disagree with his conclusions drawn in his column in today’s NY Times.
However, I found one paragraph particularly instructive, if counterintuitively so.
I reprinted the particular paragraph as it was, then replaced “Israel” with “Islam” and “Palestinian” with “Jew”.
When a salient paragraph can be written the second way, there MIGHT be peace in the Middle East.
Kristof:“The most cogent critiques of Israel’s treatment of Palestinians invariably come from Israel’s own human rights organizations. The most lucid unraveling of Israel’s founding mythology comes from Israeli historians. The deepest critiques of Israel’s historical claims come from Israeli archeologists. This more noble Israel, refusing to retreat from its values even in times of fear and stress, is a model for the world. “
Me:“The most cogent critiques of Islam’s treatment of Jews invariably come from Islam’s own human rights organizations [sic!]. The most lucid unraveling of Islam’s founding mythology comes from Islam’s historians. The deepest critiques of Islam’s historical claims come from Islam’s archeologists. This more noble Islam, refusing to retreat from its values even in times of fear and stress, is a model for the world. “
However, I found one paragraph particularly instructive, if counterintuitively so.
I reprinted the particular paragraph as it was, then replaced “Israel” with “Islam” and “Palestinian” with “Jew”.
When a salient paragraph can be written the second way, there MIGHT be peace in the Middle East.
Kristof:“The most cogent critiques of Israel’s treatment of Palestinians invariably come from Israel’s own human rights organizations. The most lucid unraveling of Israel’s founding mythology comes from Israeli historians. The deepest critiques of Israel’s historical claims come from Israeli archeologists. This more noble Israel, refusing to retreat from its values even in times of fear and stress, is a model for the world. “
Me:“The most cogent critiques of Islam’s treatment of Jews invariably come from Islam’s own human rights organizations [sic!]. The most lucid unraveling of Islam’s founding mythology comes from Islam’s historians. The deepest critiques of Islam’s historical claims come from Islam’s archeologists. This more noble Islam, refusing to retreat from its values even in times of fear and stress, is a model for the world. “
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Shul Cake
Shul cake, for those of you who haven’t had the experience of going to a Kiddush, is generally the cheapest sponge cake available next to the schnapps and herring. Sometimes one can sing “Happy Birthday” to the cake. Personally, I love Shul Cake. But not the kind I’m about to describe.
In this pages I’ve definitely been critical of all three of the “great” monotheisms. From the outset, I have not spared my own co-religionists, especially when it comes to “washing dirty laundry in public” when trying to give the impression that one’s laundry never gets dirty in the first place.
At the risk of employing another cliché, it seems certain groups of Rabbis want to eat their cake and have it too. [Talmudic of me; that actually is the way the statement is supposed to go]. Two incidents in the news this week underscore the salience of said cliché.
The first story has to do with the brouhaha surrounding the synagogue in Syracuse that had the “temerity”, as an Orthodox congregation, to appoint TWO women as president of the lay synagogue board. Not, mind you, Rabbis, or Rabbas, or any other perceived hidden equivalent: this was the lay board. It seems in response, the National Council of Young Israel has decided to expel the congregation, and in thesponse to THAT, there has been a vote of no confidence tabled by nearly 150 member congregations of the council.
Now, I’m not one to raise issues of Jewish law unless they seem to be absolutely clear, and this isn’t one of those cases. I personally believe there shouldn’t be a problem with this even from the perspective of Orthodox law, but I could be wrong. However, what the NCYI has done is to avoid the question and claim that the expulsion has to do with unpaid dues. This is one of those cases where, for whatever the reason, those in charge of the Council should be forced to stand up and state their position and not hide behind technicalities. If you believe this is wrong, you’ll endure the dissolution of your organization, like Rabbi Naftali Berlin did when the Russian authorities tried to take over the Volozhin Yeshiva; he closed it. You can’t eat your cake and have it too.
More disturbing was the next story, that the Rabbinical Board of Queens—the “Va’ad”—allowed a member under a cloud of suspicion that he has “inappropriate contact” with students was allowed to resign—in October!!!—without any reference to said “cloud” hanging over him. A prominent religious psychologist accurately called out the Va’ad on this by claiming that they had “protect[ed] one of their own” by “g[iving] him a hekhser and ma[king] him kosher”. No further explanation is necessary. No one should give credence to any reason given for allowing this rabbi to stay on; if the board wants to avoid a defamation suit, it can pay him to do nothing, like the rubber room teachers.
My reasons for publiczing events like this and contributing to the pressure upon these bodies—aside from possible personal reasons, as I was victimized as a child by staff in two different right-wing Orthodox settings—is that Orthodoxy MUST be morally consistent, and they MUST learn to adjust to the fact that their behavior will be placed under a microscope, because their way of life announces automatically that its adherents are held to an ostensibly “higher” standard of conduct.
There would be nothing wrong if there would be an admission that some of our co-religionists stray from even basic human standards; it happens. But when disingeuousness is the order of the day, the very goal of the religious behaviors are not only short-circuited, they are re-presented as the height of hypocrisy. Adding fuel to the fire are then accusation emanating from clerical quarters that the bad press is simply the result of a hostile culture and media, almost as if these issues would go away of the media and culture would go away. Well, they’re not, and in this case, they may be part of the solution if they force certain powers that be to pay attention.
No cake for you.
In this pages I’ve definitely been critical of all three of the “great” monotheisms. From the outset, I have not spared my own co-religionists, especially when it comes to “washing dirty laundry in public” when trying to give the impression that one’s laundry never gets dirty in the first place.
At the risk of employing another cliché, it seems certain groups of Rabbis want to eat their cake and have it too. [Talmudic of me; that actually is the way the statement is supposed to go]. Two incidents in the news this week underscore the salience of said cliché.
The first story has to do with the brouhaha surrounding the synagogue in Syracuse that had the “temerity”, as an Orthodox congregation, to appoint TWO women as president of the lay synagogue board. Not, mind you, Rabbis, or Rabbas, or any other perceived hidden equivalent: this was the lay board. It seems in response, the National Council of Young Israel has decided to expel the congregation, and in thesponse to THAT, there has been a vote of no confidence tabled by nearly 150 member congregations of the council.
Now, I’m not one to raise issues of Jewish law unless they seem to be absolutely clear, and this isn’t one of those cases. I personally believe there shouldn’t be a problem with this even from the perspective of Orthodox law, but I could be wrong. However, what the NCYI has done is to avoid the question and claim that the expulsion has to do with unpaid dues. This is one of those cases where, for whatever the reason, those in charge of the Council should be forced to stand up and state their position and not hide behind technicalities. If you believe this is wrong, you’ll endure the dissolution of your organization, like Rabbi Naftali Berlin did when the Russian authorities tried to take over the Volozhin Yeshiva; he closed it. You can’t eat your cake and have it too.
More disturbing was the next story, that the Rabbinical Board of Queens—the “Va’ad”—allowed a member under a cloud of suspicion that he has “inappropriate contact” with students was allowed to resign—in October!!!—without any reference to said “cloud” hanging over him. A prominent religious psychologist accurately called out the Va’ad on this by claiming that they had “protect[ed] one of their own” by “g[iving] him a hekhser and ma[king] him kosher”. No further explanation is necessary. No one should give credence to any reason given for allowing this rabbi to stay on; if the board wants to avoid a defamation suit, it can pay him to do nothing, like the rubber room teachers.
My reasons for publiczing events like this and contributing to the pressure upon these bodies—aside from possible personal reasons, as I was victimized as a child by staff in two different right-wing Orthodox settings—is that Orthodoxy MUST be morally consistent, and they MUST learn to adjust to the fact that their behavior will be placed under a microscope, because their way of life announces automatically that its adherents are held to an ostensibly “higher” standard of conduct.
There would be nothing wrong if there would be an admission that some of our co-religionists stray from even basic human standards; it happens. But when disingeuousness is the order of the day, the very goal of the religious behaviors are not only short-circuited, they are re-presented as the height of hypocrisy. Adding fuel to the fire are then accusation emanating from clerical quarters that the bad press is simply the result of a hostile culture and media, almost as if these issues would go away of the media and culture would go away. Well, they’re not, and in this case, they may be part of the solution if they force certain powers that be to pay attention.
No cake for you.
Monday, June 21, 2010
Oil, Water, and Other Strange Bedfellows
The ongoing disaster in the Gulf of Mexico has given rise to all sorts of “obvious” conclusions to be drawn, specifically that America’s addiction to oil is a proximate—if not THE proximate—cause of all environmental and natural despoliation, and only drastic legislative measures to curb said hankering for fossil fuels will ensure the continued survival of the human race.
More specifically, if there was a more propitious opportunity to pass so called “climate-change” legislation, one might be hard pressed to find it.
Really, one shouldn’t have to overtax one’s mental faculties to discern reasons why this ain’t necessarily so. However, in case one might need some sort of “learning aid” to help one clear the muddy [if not oily] waters of such thinking, consider the recent rumors that the “Oracle” of environmentalism—former Vice-President Al Gore—has taken the notion of “common cause” to its most logical conclusion with fellow traveler and Gulfstream environmentalist extraordinaire Laurie David, the woman who fought the scourge of the SUV from her private jet.
It seems as if Gore, whose carbon footprint is notoriously nearly as wide as David’s, has finally provided a salient analog for his purported “environmental science”: it’s as solid as his 40-year marriage to Tipper. Then again, one might wonder whether the Gore’s ill-advised PDA at the 2000 Democratic National Convention also provided a prescient analog to oil spills: the ick factor.
In any case, the Obamans—ostensibly the most pro-environment and anti-corporate administration in US history—have progressively more tightly bound their already rather securely tied hands until mere attempts indignant wringing have induced sympathy arthritis in even the President’s most avowed political enemies. Said spectacle really serves to illustrate two notions which are, nevertheless, as elementary as they are contradictory.
One is that, as much as we NEED our oil, there’s a LOT of it out there [for once, we can’t seem to get it to stop flowing], and much of it rather inconveniently located [hello—Middle East?] There is no reason—even in the face of the current environmental tragedy [and let’s face it, that’s what it is, and you can be a global warming “denier” like this writer is and still understand that]—that we not make any and all attempts to locate and drill for oil wherever we can find it in places other than the Fertile and Golden Crescents…IF—and this is a big IF—
--we figure out how to REGULATE, how to actually implement required legal safeguards and basic procedures, which by all accounts, seem to have been blatantly discarded by BP which directly led to the current mess.
As previously noted in these pages, Big Oil isn't going anywhere. Alternative energy strategies will be pursued when we have no other alternative, pace Churchill’s observation that Americans do the right thing when they’ve exhausted all other possibilities. However, if Big Oil were smart, they could turn this crisis somewhat to their advantage by working with legislators to allow some semblance of independent regulation and monitoring into the industry by throwing BP under the bus, by saying, in effect, “We don’t want this to happen again; who wants to waste all that oil? What BP did was greedy AND stupid. We may be greedy, but if keeping the landscape clean will save our profits, we’re all for helping clean this up. Do to BP what you want; we’ll help make sure this never repeats itself.” If the public is actually prepared to expect and accept this level of disingenuousness, it may be the first step towards an eventual win-win: more oil and less disaster.
It won’t happen any other way.
More specifically, if there was a more propitious opportunity to pass so called “climate-change” legislation, one might be hard pressed to find it.
Really, one shouldn’t have to overtax one’s mental faculties to discern reasons why this ain’t necessarily so. However, in case one might need some sort of “learning aid” to help one clear the muddy [if not oily] waters of such thinking, consider the recent rumors that the “Oracle” of environmentalism—former Vice-President Al Gore—has taken the notion of “common cause” to its most logical conclusion with fellow traveler and Gulfstream environmentalist extraordinaire Laurie David, the woman who fought the scourge of the SUV from her private jet.
It seems as if Gore, whose carbon footprint is notoriously nearly as wide as David’s, has finally provided a salient analog for his purported “environmental science”: it’s as solid as his 40-year marriage to Tipper. Then again, one might wonder whether the Gore’s ill-advised PDA at the 2000 Democratic National Convention also provided a prescient analog to oil spills: the ick factor.
In any case, the Obamans—ostensibly the most pro-environment and anti-corporate administration in US history—have progressively more tightly bound their already rather securely tied hands until mere attempts indignant wringing have induced sympathy arthritis in even the President’s most avowed political enemies. Said spectacle really serves to illustrate two notions which are, nevertheless, as elementary as they are contradictory.
One is that, as much as we NEED our oil, there’s a LOT of it out there [for once, we can’t seem to get it to stop flowing], and much of it rather inconveniently located [hello—Middle East?] There is no reason—even in the face of the current environmental tragedy [and let’s face it, that’s what it is, and you can be a global warming “denier” like this writer is and still understand that]—that we not make any and all attempts to locate and drill for oil wherever we can find it in places other than the Fertile and Golden Crescents…IF—and this is a big IF—
--we figure out how to REGULATE, how to actually implement required legal safeguards and basic procedures, which by all accounts, seem to have been blatantly discarded by BP which directly led to the current mess.
As previously noted in these pages, Big Oil isn't going anywhere. Alternative energy strategies will be pursued when we have no other alternative, pace Churchill’s observation that Americans do the right thing when they’ve exhausted all other possibilities. However, if Big Oil were smart, they could turn this crisis somewhat to their advantage by working with legislators to allow some semblance of independent regulation and monitoring into the industry by throwing BP under the bus, by saying, in effect, “We don’t want this to happen again; who wants to waste all that oil? What BP did was greedy AND stupid. We may be greedy, but if keeping the landscape clean will save our profits, we’re all for helping clean this up. Do to BP what you want; we’ll help make sure this never repeats itself.” If the public is actually prepared to expect and accept this level of disingenuousness, it may be the first step towards an eventual win-win: more oil and less disaster.
It won’t happen any other way.
Monday, June 7, 2010
A Proportionate Response to Helen Thomas
Lost in the dark cloud of the unjustifiable brouhaha surrounding the terrorist-supporting Gaza-bound flotilli [if that sounds bacterial, even better] is the silver lining of the swift retribution meted out to that erstwhile pillar of the Fourth Estate, Helen Thomas, for her revealing antisemitic ramble.
One might actually take heart [warily, to be sure, but still] in the fact that some diatribes aimed at Jews, Israel and their supporters are still considered out of bounds enough that said diatribes and their utterers are stigmatized and that a measure [however insufficent] of opprobrium is elicited.
Following a modicum of give and take on my facebook stati regarding my rather draconian ill wishes for Ms. Thomas, based loosely on Yiddishist sentiments ["She should live to 120. And spend every second of those 30 years in endless pain and agony"] and the subsquent commentary ad loc regarding the apparently disporoportionate nature of my statements and wishes, I finally arrived at a formulaic response to Ms. Thomas' comments:
Helen Thomas should get the HELL out of this country and go back where SHE came from, which, I think, is Lebanon.
I'm sure her commentary will be much appreciated there.
One might actually take heart [warily, to be sure, but still] in the fact that some diatribes aimed at Jews, Israel and their supporters are still considered out of bounds enough that said diatribes and their utterers are stigmatized and that a measure [however insufficent] of opprobrium is elicited.
Following a modicum of give and take on my facebook stati regarding my rather draconian ill wishes for Ms. Thomas, based loosely on Yiddishist sentiments ["She should live to 120. And spend every second of those 30 years in endless pain and agony"] and the subsquent commentary ad loc regarding the apparently disporoportionate nature of my statements and wishes, I finally arrived at a formulaic response to Ms. Thomas' comments:
Helen Thomas should get the HELL out of this country and go back where SHE came from, which, I think, is Lebanon.
I'm sure her commentary will be much appreciated there.
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
If Anyone Else Did That....
Were I a true professional, I would have said everything that appears in the following article by Jonathan Kay about the "humanitarian" flotilla that tried to run the Gaza blockade.
As it is, I have only one thing to add: the Hamastan entity in Gaza--a theocratic, fascist, Judeo-cidal [if not non-Muslicidal] quasi-state that would be more accurately described as a gang territory--is in a state of DECLARED war with anything Jews and Jewish, never mind its stance toward Israel. Therefore, as the blockade of the Gaza coast is a defensive response to said posture, any attempt to run the blockade is tantamount to an act of war on the part of the runners, no matter whether they are state actors, NGO's, or "humanitarians". The boats were legally subject to a summary sinking, not a seizure. We all know why the Israelis don't do that, but the "activists" are lucky all their lives weren't automatically forfeit. As Kay points out, one can only imagine what would happen if "activists" tried a mass seaborne humanitarian mission to the 3 million starving citizens of North Korea.
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/05/31/jenin-on-the-high-seas/#ixzz0pc5cf2MR
Jenin on the high seas
By Jonathan Kay
If Israel truly had wanted to “massacre” the Hamas sympathizers and fellow travellers aboard a six-ship Gaza-bound flotilla, the operation would not have been complicated. The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) would have used the trusty North Korean solution: Torpedo the ships and watch them sink to the bottom of the sea.
Even Israel arguably would have been within its rights to seize and destroy a ship being sent toward Gazan waters in defiance of an embargo, especially after giving abundant warnings to the leaders of the largely Turkish-based Free Gaza Movement, which had sent the flotilla, that they would not be permitted to sail to Hamas-controlled territory.
But that’s not how Israel operates. Instead, it sent commandos to seize control of the ships and bring them safely to Israeli waters. Israeli officials had even prepared air-conditioned accommodations for the activists, and had made arrangements to deliver legitimate aid supplies to Gaza.
According to the IDF, not all of the activists on board the ships were the pacifists they claimed to be. Though the Free Gaza leaders said they would not resist Israeli enforcement of the embargo, some of them fought the Israeli boarding parties with iron clubs — as confirmed by video that has been made available to the media. More seriously, it is claimed that at least one of the activists took two handguns from the Israelis and fired at the soldiers. In the melee, at least 10 activists were believed to have been killed, and several Israeli commandos wounded.
“They beat us up with metal sticks and knives,” one Israeli commando told the Los Angeles Times. “There was live fire at some point against us. … They were shooting at us from below deck.” Based on the same source, the Times also reported that “activists tossed some of the soldiers from the top deck to the lower deck and the soldiers jumped in the water to save themselves. Activists grabbed some soldiers and tried to hold them hostage, stripping them of their helmets and equipment.”
If this narrative stands up, then every drop of blood spilled on Monday morning rests on the hands of those activists who initiated the deadly exchange. When you attack Israeli soldiers — or at any soldiers — with lethal force, they will respond in kind.
As for the events that unfolded after the deadly exchange commenced, we don’t know how much of the ensuing bloodshed was avoidable. Like all civilized nations, Israel likes to conduct its anti-terrorist operations in a measured, deliberate fashion. But that’s difficult in the close confines of a crowded ship, where combat takes place at the range of a few metres — especially, in the case of the Free Gaza flotilla, which was populated by a diverse mob spanning the gamut from naive Jewish grandmothers to full-fledged Islamist radicals.
For most of the world, of course, these facts won’t matter: Like the bogus Jenin massacre, this episode will be used as just another stick to beat the Jewish state — even by those same pundits and activists who can’t be roused to say a single word when genuine “massacres” unfold in other parts of the world, such as the slaughter of more than 90 members of the Ahmadi sect in Pakistan. On sea, as on land, this is the double-standard that Israel always must battle when it acts to defend itself against terrorists and their media-savvy enablers.
jkay@nationalpost.com
As it is, I have only one thing to add: the Hamastan entity in Gaza--a theocratic, fascist, Judeo-cidal [if not non-Muslicidal] quasi-state that would be more accurately described as a gang territory--is in a state of DECLARED war with anything Jews and Jewish, never mind its stance toward Israel. Therefore, as the blockade of the Gaza coast is a defensive response to said posture, any attempt to run the blockade is tantamount to an act of war on the part of the runners, no matter whether they are state actors, NGO's, or "humanitarians". The boats were legally subject to a summary sinking, not a seizure. We all know why the Israelis don't do that, but the "activists" are lucky all their lives weren't automatically forfeit. As Kay points out, one can only imagine what would happen if "activists" tried a mass seaborne humanitarian mission to the 3 million starving citizens of North Korea.
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/05/31/jenin-on-the-high-seas/#ixzz0pc5cf2MR
Jenin on the high seas
By Jonathan Kay
If Israel truly had wanted to “massacre” the Hamas sympathizers and fellow travellers aboard a six-ship Gaza-bound flotilla, the operation would not have been complicated. The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) would have used the trusty North Korean solution: Torpedo the ships and watch them sink to the bottom of the sea.
Even Israel arguably would have been within its rights to seize and destroy a ship being sent toward Gazan waters in defiance of an embargo, especially after giving abundant warnings to the leaders of the largely Turkish-based Free Gaza Movement, which had sent the flotilla, that they would not be permitted to sail to Hamas-controlled territory.
But that’s not how Israel operates. Instead, it sent commandos to seize control of the ships and bring them safely to Israeli waters. Israeli officials had even prepared air-conditioned accommodations for the activists, and had made arrangements to deliver legitimate aid supplies to Gaza.
According to the IDF, not all of the activists on board the ships were the pacifists they claimed to be. Though the Free Gaza leaders said they would not resist Israeli enforcement of the embargo, some of them fought the Israeli boarding parties with iron clubs — as confirmed by video that has been made available to the media. More seriously, it is claimed that at least one of the activists took two handguns from the Israelis and fired at the soldiers. In the melee, at least 10 activists were believed to have been killed, and several Israeli commandos wounded.
“They beat us up with metal sticks and knives,” one Israeli commando told the Los Angeles Times. “There was live fire at some point against us. … They were shooting at us from below deck.” Based on the same source, the Times also reported that “activists tossed some of the soldiers from the top deck to the lower deck and the soldiers jumped in the water to save themselves. Activists grabbed some soldiers and tried to hold them hostage, stripping them of their helmets and equipment.”
If this narrative stands up, then every drop of blood spilled on Monday morning rests on the hands of those activists who initiated the deadly exchange. When you attack Israeli soldiers — or at any soldiers — with lethal force, they will respond in kind.
As for the events that unfolded after the deadly exchange commenced, we don’t know how much of the ensuing bloodshed was avoidable. Like all civilized nations, Israel likes to conduct its anti-terrorist operations in a measured, deliberate fashion. But that’s difficult in the close confines of a crowded ship, where combat takes place at the range of a few metres — especially, in the case of the Free Gaza flotilla, which was populated by a diverse mob spanning the gamut from naive Jewish grandmothers to full-fledged Islamist radicals.
For most of the world, of course, these facts won’t matter: Like the bogus Jenin massacre, this episode will be used as just another stick to beat the Jewish state — even by those same pundits and activists who can’t be roused to say a single word when genuine “massacres” unfold in other parts of the world, such as the slaughter of more than 90 members of the Ahmadi sect in Pakistan. On sea, as on land, this is the double-standard that Israel always must battle when it acts to defend itself against terrorists and their media-savvy enablers.
jkay@nationalpost.com
Friday, May 21, 2010
Taking the Fifth with a Fifth
Conservatives, who more often than not sing the praises of the Consititution, “original intent”, and “strict constructionalism”, seem to want to take the concept of self-incrimination to its furthest possible conclusion.
Once upon a time “watch what you say” was a Republican mantra, attributable most famously to Ari Fleischer in the immediate aftermath of 9/11.
While the stakes certainly are different now, and the issues in which conservatives are ignoring their own advice cannot be truly raised to that level of importance, it might behoove them to pay more attention, if only because they might stop their own tendencies to political self-destruction once more endemic to their opponents.
The recent primary victory of Rand Paul in Kentucky and the immediate aftermath of his commentary on Rachel Maddow are a case in point. While there might be some truth to the assertion that the “liberal”/”MSM” would like nothing more than to portray tea-partiers as inveterate racist corporatists, it doesn’t help when the conservative quarry walks right into the trap. Sarah Palin can [almost] be forgiven for the “ambush” perpetrated upon her by Katie Couric re Supreme Court decisions, names of periodicals, etc. No one else has an excuse.
Its possible that questions about the Civil Rights Act were legitimate would be laughable—if Paul hadn’t tried to allow for the notion that it MIGHT have been at cross-purpose with his political principles. If he felt compelled to open his mouth and muse aloud that it might not have been the greatest idea, only he can be held responsible for the ensuing opprobrium, as he invited it. Similarly, when he feels compelled to defend corporate interests such as BP and the mining industry at a time like this, while he might be the victim of bad timing, any defense of those interests are ill considered, and he then pays a political price for defending them, it’s no one fault but his. Unfortunately for conservatives, their interests will only further suffer as a result.
In a similar vein, conservative carping about “affirmative action” regarding the first-time crowning of an Arab-Muslim woman as Miss USA are truly fighting the wrong battle. For one thing, if there’s any chance of the emergence of a “moderate” Islam, this is where it was going to come from: where a self-identified religio-ethnic fully participates in an event according to the rules of THAT EVENT. I’m sure al-Qaeda and the mullahs aren’t overly heartened by a bikini-clad co-religionist serving as the icon of everything they profess to be wrong with the world. [Funny, they haven’t blamed the Jews yet].
Now, if Miss USA had either a] worn a chador and insisted that she still be allowed the same chance to win, or b] had manifested some other sartorial item that served as an iconic support of Dar-al-Harb [say, a sword, Islamic flag, or dynamite vest], then accusations of affirmative action might have been salient.
On that note, it behooves a true Judeocentrist like this writer to weigh in on the controversy surrounding the purported offensiveness of Comedy Central’s I.S.R.A.E.L. robot/game. Until someone at Comedy Central has the brass to develop a suicide bombing robot game called I.S.L.A.M., the Jews are right.
If you target everyone equally, you may be funny. If you don't, or can't, you're either racist or spineless. Or both.
Once upon a time “watch what you say” was a Republican mantra, attributable most famously to Ari Fleischer in the immediate aftermath of 9/11.
While the stakes certainly are different now, and the issues in which conservatives are ignoring their own advice cannot be truly raised to that level of importance, it might behoove them to pay more attention, if only because they might stop their own tendencies to political self-destruction once more endemic to their opponents.
The recent primary victory of Rand Paul in Kentucky and the immediate aftermath of his commentary on Rachel Maddow are a case in point. While there might be some truth to the assertion that the “liberal”/”MSM” would like nothing more than to portray tea-partiers as inveterate racist corporatists, it doesn’t help when the conservative quarry walks right into the trap. Sarah Palin can [almost] be forgiven for the “ambush” perpetrated upon her by Katie Couric re Supreme Court decisions, names of periodicals, etc. No one else has an excuse.
Its possible that questions about the Civil Rights Act were legitimate would be laughable—if Paul hadn’t tried to allow for the notion that it MIGHT have been at cross-purpose with his political principles. If he felt compelled to open his mouth and muse aloud that it might not have been the greatest idea, only he can be held responsible for the ensuing opprobrium, as he invited it. Similarly, when he feels compelled to defend corporate interests such as BP and the mining industry at a time like this, while he might be the victim of bad timing, any defense of those interests are ill considered, and he then pays a political price for defending them, it’s no one fault but his. Unfortunately for conservatives, their interests will only further suffer as a result.
In a similar vein, conservative carping about “affirmative action” regarding the first-time crowning of an Arab-Muslim woman as Miss USA are truly fighting the wrong battle. For one thing, if there’s any chance of the emergence of a “moderate” Islam, this is where it was going to come from: where a self-identified religio-ethnic fully participates in an event according to the rules of THAT EVENT. I’m sure al-Qaeda and the mullahs aren’t overly heartened by a bikini-clad co-religionist serving as the icon of everything they profess to be wrong with the world. [Funny, they haven’t blamed the Jews yet].
Now, if Miss USA had either a] worn a chador and insisted that she still be allowed the same chance to win, or b] had manifested some other sartorial item that served as an iconic support of Dar-al-Harb [say, a sword, Islamic flag, or dynamite vest], then accusations of affirmative action might have been salient.
On that note, it behooves a true Judeocentrist like this writer to weigh in on the controversy surrounding the purported offensiveness of Comedy Central’s I.S.R.A.E.L. robot/game. Until someone at Comedy Central has the brass to develop a suicide bombing robot game called I.S.L.A.M., the Jews are right.
If you target everyone equally, you may be funny. If you don't, or can't, you're either racist or spineless. Or both.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)