I have met Muslims and they seem quite nice. Nevertheless I'm against unregulated immigration to the U.S. by Muslims.
Muslims differ. Of course they do. Muslims from Nigeria have different attitudes than Muslims from Egypt. The same can be said of Muslims from Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran, etc. All Muslims have certain attitudes in common. For example, they have no particular problem with polygamy.
That is not to say all Muslim men have more than one wife. But, if they can afford multiple wives, they may well indulge themselves. (This was once also true of Jews from Islamic countries, but the practice ended with the establishment of the State of Israel.)
Muslim women in Islamic countries who defy the wishes of their father as to whom they may, or may not, marry are in considerable danger of an "honor" killing. Although family strife can also be found in America, the dangers American women face when they seek to choose their own spouse is nowhere near as great.
Does a women who dresses immodestly rightfully subject herself to the threat of rape? This might seem like a silly question. Nevertheless, Scandinavian countries with a large influx of Muslim immigrants have found it helpful to provide classes designed to teach their Muslim immigrants that a girl seen on the street in a miniskirt is not to raped.
In countries like Germany that have been subjected to waves of Muslim immigrants, we now find that they've permitted the establishment of morality police who go through their Muslim areas not only looking to admonish immodestly dressed women, but also to stifle the playing of music, and to prohibit the consumption of alcohol.
Is that what we want to see here in America?
Saturday, December 26, 2015
Thursday, December 17, 2015
Islam -- The Elephant That Defies Definition
We all know the story of the blind men who encounter an elephant. One reaches out and takes hold of the trunk. "It's a snake," he proclaims. Another one comes across the tail. "It's a rope," he shouts. A third blind man grabs a leg, and says the beast is a tree.
That's Islam, a religion few in the west understand. What's distressing is that his is one of the world's largest religions. In America, we think of the Amish as a people who reject the use of zippers on their flies and prefer to stick with buttons. The Bahai are a peaceful people with a lovely temple in Haifa. The Bhuddists, are often seen as sitting under trees, contemplating their place in the universe. Stereotypes? No doubt, but they do relatively little harm.
But, Muslims are another matter. Are they peace loving? No doubt many are. Can they be brutal? Look at our friends, the Saudis. They flog. They decapitate. They remove hands. What don't they do? And, it's not as though they're ignorant people. Half of them are princes who have been educated at places like Harvard and Oxford. But, if you know a bit of history, you also know that the Saud family became rulers of Arabia only with the invaluable help of a Wahhabi imam and his followers. What's a few floggings and decapitations of fellow Muslims if it keeps the Wahhabis happy and allows you to continue enjoying your oil money? And, who really cares as long as the Saudis keep it within Arabia?
ISIS has proven itself a lot more ambitious than the Wahhabis. ISIS wants for the world what the Wahhabis have gotten for themselves in Saudi Arabia; namely, Islamic domination over all faiths and the implementation of Sharia law. What probably constrains the Wahhabis from embracing ISIS is the threat that the ISIS Sunnis pose to the rule of the Saud family. That is not to say that the Wahhabis don't dabble a bit in global politics. They've been extremely supportive of the Muslim Brotherhood. And, they supply Wahhabi imams to serve in mosques throughout the world -- mosques built with their oil money. Sermons by these imams are generally not what one would describe as temperate.
Do all Muslims carry this Wahhabi strain of intolerance? No, but here is where it become even more confusing. It has been suggested that Iraq be divided between the three major groups; namely, the Kurds, the Sunnis, and the Shia. And, that's probably a good idea. But, the Kurds are Sunnis, same as the ISIS people, and same as the Wahhabis. It's interesting that the ISIS people have been genocidal toward Iraq's Yazidis. The Kurds, despite also being Sunni, have protected them.
The Pakistanis are largely Sunnis and have made life difficult for the Christians and moderate Sunnis living in Pakestan. They object to educating their nation's girls. In Iran, a country of Shia, we have a relatively well educated Shia youth, who despise the Shia Mullahs who control their lives.
In America, we have a fine moderate Muslim, by the name of Dr. Zuhdi Jasser. He's a great guy. He's founded a fine organization, the Islamic Forum for Democracy. However, it should be noted that he is a member of the Muslim people known as Ahmadiyya. They are a great people. But, other Muslims don't recognize them as being Muslim. They are to Sunnis and Shia what Jews-for-Jesus people are to the Jewish people. In Pakistan, it is illegal for Ahmadiyyas to refer to themselves as Muslims.
There is one other thing that should be noted about Muslims and it is a phenomena that can be recognized in other religions. It is that practitioners of the faith vary in their views from region to region, and from country to country. In the case of Catholics, it has been observed that Catholics in Ireland have attitudes rather different than Catholics in Italy and different yet from Catholics in Latin America. In the matter of birth control, most Catholics disregard the teachings of their church.
It is much the same for Jews. The gap between Reform Jews and Orthodox Jews, as to how they understand critical matters of Jewish practice, varies enormously. Jews who managed to escape Iran and come to American have been seen exhibiting clannish attitudes quite different from Jews who have lived here for a generation or more.
Educating Americans on Islam, in general, and the Muslim people, in particular, should be one of the highest priorities of America's Muslim leaders. In this, they have failed miserably. Perhaps even more important should be teaching the Muslims of America how to be true to their faith within the context of the American culture. Organizations like CAIR, by railing against islamophobia are engaging in is a pointless exercise. Sure, there is islamophobia, but it comes out of ignorance. It's time that CAIR admitted to their own co-relionists that there are indeed aspects of Islam that are hostile to the American way of life. However, Islamic practice does not have to be incompatible with American culture. Hundreds of thousands of American Muslims have demonstrated in ways large and small that they share the American dream.
America's politicians have often acted like the storied blind men. But so have many leaders in the American Muslim community. It's time they accepted an elephant for what it is -- an elephant.
That's Islam, a religion few in the west understand. What's distressing is that his is one of the world's largest religions. In America, we think of the Amish as a people who reject the use of zippers on their flies and prefer to stick with buttons. The Bahai are a peaceful people with a lovely temple in Haifa. The Bhuddists, are often seen as sitting under trees, contemplating their place in the universe. Stereotypes? No doubt, but they do relatively little harm.
But, Muslims are another matter. Are they peace loving? No doubt many are. Can they be brutal? Look at our friends, the Saudis. They flog. They decapitate. They remove hands. What don't they do? And, it's not as though they're ignorant people. Half of them are princes who have been educated at places like Harvard and Oxford. But, if you know a bit of history, you also know that the Saud family became rulers of Arabia only with the invaluable help of a Wahhabi imam and his followers. What's a few floggings and decapitations of fellow Muslims if it keeps the Wahhabis happy and allows you to continue enjoying your oil money? And, who really cares as long as the Saudis keep it within Arabia?
ISIS has proven itself a lot more ambitious than the Wahhabis. ISIS wants for the world what the Wahhabis have gotten for themselves in Saudi Arabia; namely, Islamic domination over all faiths and the implementation of Sharia law. What probably constrains the Wahhabis from embracing ISIS is the threat that the ISIS Sunnis pose to the rule of the Saud family. That is not to say that the Wahhabis don't dabble a bit in global politics. They've been extremely supportive of the Muslim Brotherhood. And, they supply Wahhabi imams to serve in mosques throughout the world -- mosques built with their oil money. Sermons by these imams are generally not what one would describe as temperate.
Do all Muslims carry this Wahhabi strain of intolerance? No, but here is where it become even more confusing. It has been suggested that Iraq be divided between the three major groups; namely, the Kurds, the Sunnis, and the Shia. And, that's probably a good idea. But, the Kurds are Sunnis, same as the ISIS people, and same as the Wahhabis. It's interesting that the ISIS people have been genocidal toward Iraq's Yazidis. The Kurds, despite also being Sunni, have protected them.
The Pakistanis are largely Sunnis and have made life difficult for the Christians and moderate Sunnis living in Pakestan. They object to educating their nation's girls. In Iran, a country of Shia, we have a relatively well educated Shia youth, who despise the Shia Mullahs who control their lives.
In America, we have a fine moderate Muslim, by the name of Dr. Zuhdi Jasser. He's a great guy. He's founded a fine organization, the Islamic Forum for Democracy. However, it should be noted that he is a member of the Muslim people known as Ahmadiyya. They are a great people. But, other Muslims don't recognize them as being Muslim. They are to Sunnis and Shia what Jews-for-Jesus people are to the Jewish people. In Pakistan, it is illegal for Ahmadiyyas to refer to themselves as Muslims.
There is one other thing that should be noted about Muslims and it is a phenomena that can be recognized in other religions. It is that practitioners of the faith vary in their views from region to region, and from country to country. In the case of Catholics, it has been observed that Catholics in Ireland have attitudes rather different than Catholics in Italy and different yet from Catholics in Latin America. In the matter of birth control, most Catholics disregard the teachings of their church.
It is much the same for Jews. The gap between Reform Jews and Orthodox Jews, as to how they understand critical matters of Jewish practice, varies enormously. Jews who managed to escape Iran and come to American have been seen exhibiting clannish attitudes quite different from Jews who have lived here for a generation or more.
Educating Americans on Islam, in general, and the Muslim people, in particular, should be one of the highest priorities of America's Muslim leaders. In this, they have failed miserably. Perhaps even more important should be teaching the Muslims of America how to be true to their faith within the context of the American culture. Organizations like CAIR, by railing against islamophobia are engaging in is a pointless exercise. Sure, there is islamophobia, but it comes out of ignorance. It's time that CAIR admitted to their own co-relionists that there are indeed aspects of Islam that are hostile to the American way of life. However, Islamic practice does not have to be incompatible with American culture. Hundreds of thousands of American Muslims have demonstrated in ways large and small that they share the American dream.
America's politicians have often acted like the storied blind men. But so have many leaders in the American Muslim community. It's time they accepted an elephant for what it is -- an elephant.
Tuesday, December 8, 2015
What Makes Islam Different?
In the other religions with which I am familiar; namely, Protestantism, Catholicism, and Judaism, becoming more pious doesn't make you more dangerous to people of other faiths. A devout Catholic, a devout Protestant, or a devout Orthodox Jew is not dangerous to others. Rather they show a true generosity of spirit. They found hospitals. They give to the poor and they do this regardless of the faith or lack of faith of the recipient of their charity.
Pious Muslims show a similar generosity, but it is intended only for Muslims. The more devout Muslims are, the more they are troubled by individuals who do not share their faith. This, at least, was the message of the devout Muslim man and his wife who killed all those people in Bernardino, CA.
When law enforcement authorities ask the Muslim community for their help in spotting Muslims likely to be dangerous, the community gets offended. Why ask this only of Muslims? Why not of Christians or Jews? Must the answer really be spelled out? Might it be because devout Catholics, Protestants and Jews do not go about killing people of other religions. True, there have been and no doubt always will be murders by people who are not Muslim. But, these are not people of piety. They are not devout. They are not people who regularly attend a church or a synagogue. They are Christians or Jews only through the process of elimination. Yes, my Muslim friends, Islam is different.
Pious Muslims show a similar generosity, but it is intended only for Muslims. The more devout Muslims are, the more they are troubled by individuals who do not share their faith. This, at least, was the message of the devout Muslim man and his wife who killed all those people in Bernardino, CA.
When law enforcement authorities ask the Muslim community for their help in spotting Muslims likely to be dangerous, the community gets offended. Why ask this only of Muslims? Why not of Christians or Jews? Must the answer really be spelled out? Might it be because devout Catholics, Protestants and Jews do not go about killing people of other religions. True, there have been and no doubt always will be murders by people who are not Muslim. But, these are not people of piety. They are not devout. They are not people who regularly attend a church or a synagogue. They are Christians or Jews only through the process of elimination. Yes, my Muslim friends, Islam is different.
The Cloud of Ignorance Surrounding Islam
I listen to various political talk shows among which I especially enjoy Morning Joe. Okay, so Mika is a bit tough to take. But Joe Scarborough makes up for her nonsensical comments. And, while I do not agree with many of his guests, they do represent a wide spectrum of opinion.
But, this morning, in speaking of Muslims, Joe went off the rails. "We need Muslims in our fight against ISIS. If we treat them poorly they will not join us in this fight," he said as he railed against Trump's suggestion that we suspend for the moment issuing visas to Muslims.
What Joe seems oblivious to are the many different kinds of Muslims. First, let me mention some middle eastern people who need our help, but who are not Muslim. They include the Christians who are abused in virtually every Islamic country. Why can't we make a special place for them?
Then we have the Kurds. Again, not a typical Muslim people. But, they are our allies in the fight against ISIS. Yet, we have been niggardly when it comes to offering them weapons, let along visas.
Next, we have the Yazidis, a people associated with the Kurds, who have long suffered abuse at the hands of Muslims.
There are other groups, the Circassians and the Druze, who also suffered persecution under the Muslims. Why shouldn't we treat these people preferentially? We can forget the Jews, they've already been mostly driven out of Muslim countries where they lived for generations.
The last group deserving mention are the Ahmadiyyas. They are essentially Muslim, but they believe in an additional prophet who the mainstream Muslims do not acknowledge. In America, we accept their self identification as Muslims, but in places like Pakistan they are not permitted to do so. These people also deserve our special protection.
That brings us to the Sunnis and the Shiites. The Sunnis are the majority in most Muslim counties except for Iran which has an overwhelming Shiite majority. As to abusing the Sunni community -- that's already been done. America did it with its woefully misguided policy of thinking all of Iraq should be ruled by Damascus, the capital, where Shiites hold a clear majority. This incredibly stupid policy was fashioned by the recently deceased Ahmed Chalabi, a Shiite taken under his wing by Donald Rumsfeld. If you want Sunnis to ally themselves with America, treat them fairly and with respect in the places they call home. General Petraeus understood this and capitalized on it. Regrettably, the people above him never got the message.
Do Sunnis want to be admitted to America? Sure, so do Mexicans, Somalis and most of the rest of the world. But everyone's wishes can't be met. And, Muslims do present us with a special problem. They come from a culture quite different from our own, a culture of inequality for women and an intolerance for the gay community.
America can't do much more to screw the Sunnis than what's already been done to them in Iraq, and what we are apparently about to do to them in Syria.
On another talk show, I hear an American ex-counter intelligence officer explain to the TV audience that ISIS wasn't really Sunni. He pointed out that an Imam from Saudi Arabia had called an Ulama of Muslim clerics and had pronounced ISIS the enemy of all Muslims, including the Sunnis. Of course. But this wasn't a theological debate even if it was described as such. It was political. ISIS is as Sunni as the Wahabi form of Islam practiced in Saudi Arabia even if it is a tad more bloody.
Politically, however, the ISIS people would love to take over Saudi land and Saudi oil. It's all about money. And, if the Saudi form of Islam is the one that prevails worldwide, we're in as much trouble as if the ISIS people prevail. The U.S. has long provided a protective shield over Saudi Arabia. Whether we give visas to Sunni Muslims, or not, our relationship with the Sunnis will not change. We allow the Saudis to build as many mosques in America as they wish. They have little to complain about, other than that we have not yet accepted Sharia.
'
But, this morning, in speaking of Muslims, Joe went off the rails. "We need Muslims in our fight against ISIS. If we treat them poorly they will not join us in this fight," he said as he railed against Trump's suggestion that we suspend for the moment issuing visas to Muslims.
What Joe seems oblivious to are the many different kinds of Muslims. First, let me mention some middle eastern people who need our help, but who are not Muslim. They include the Christians who are abused in virtually every Islamic country. Why can't we make a special place for them?
Then we have the Kurds. Again, not a typical Muslim people. But, they are our allies in the fight against ISIS. Yet, we have been niggardly when it comes to offering them weapons, let along visas.
Next, we have the Yazidis, a people associated with the Kurds, who have long suffered abuse at the hands of Muslims.
There are other groups, the Circassians and the Druze, who also suffered persecution under the Muslims. Why shouldn't we treat these people preferentially? We can forget the Jews, they've already been mostly driven out of Muslim countries where they lived for generations.
The last group deserving mention are the Ahmadiyyas. They are essentially Muslim, but they believe in an additional prophet who the mainstream Muslims do not acknowledge. In America, we accept their self identification as Muslims, but in places like Pakistan they are not permitted to do so. These people also deserve our special protection.
That brings us to the Sunnis and the Shiites. The Sunnis are the majority in most Muslim counties except for Iran which has an overwhelming Shiite majority. As to abusing the Sunni community -- that's already been done. America did it with its woefully misguided policy of thinking all of Iraq should be ruled by Damascus, the capital, where Shiites hold a clear majority. This incredibly stupid policy was fashioned by the recently deceased Ahmed Chalabi, a Shiite taken under his wing by Donald Rumsfeld. If you want Sunnis to ally themselves with America, treat them fairly and with respect in the places they call home. General Petraeus understood this and capitalized on it. Regrettably, the people above him never got the message.
Do Sunnis want to be admitted to America? Sure, so do Mexicans, Somalis and most of the rest of the world. But everyone's wishes can't be met. And, Muslims do present us with a special problem. They come from a culture quite different from our own, a culture of inequality for women and an intolerance for the gay community.
America can't do much more to screw the Sunnis than what's already been done to them in Iraq, and what we are apparently about to do to them in Syria.
On another talk show, I hear an American ex-counter intelligence officer explain to the TV audience that ISIS wasn't really Sunni. He pointed out that an Imam from Saudi Arabia had called an Ulama of Muslim clerics and had pronounced ISIS the enemy of all Muslims, including the Sunnis. Of course. But this wasn't a theological debate even if it was described as such. It was political. ISIS is as Sunni as the Wahabi form of Islam practiced in Saudi Arabia even if it is a tad more bloody.
Politically, however, the ISIS people would love to take over Saudi land and Saudi oil. It's all about money. And, if the Saudi form of Islam is the one that prevails worldwide, we're in as much trouble as if the ISIS people prevail. The U.S. has long provided a protective shield over Saudi Arabia. Whether we give visas to Sunni Muslims, or not, our relationship with the Sunnis will not change. We allow the Saudis to build as many mosques in America as they wish. They have little to complain about, other than that we have not yet accepted Sharia.
'
Friday, December 4, 2015
What American Muslims Must Do -- Pronto
American Muslims can not solve the world's problems. They have little say in the Sunni and Shiite divide we see in many Muslim nations. But, what they can do and must do is tell themselves and fellow Americans not only what is, but what is not Islam. It is doubtful as to whether they can do this for Muslims globally, but they must do it for American Muslims.
Here is what must be transmitted.
1. Sharia is a voluntary code of law. If Muslims wish to deal with one another within the context of Sharia, that's fine, provided they accept it as subordinate to the laws of America. For example, within Sharia there is no prohibition against having more than one wife. Under American law there is. In this instance, Muslims must accept American law. Within the context of Sharia, the male has a dominance vis a vis the female in terms of to whom children are assigned in cases of divorce that is largely unacceptable within American law. Here again, American law must prevail.
2. In America, possession of weapons is acceptable, provided it is for legally acceptable hunting, for self protection, and as an item for collection. However, when collection includes weapons clearly intended for the mass destruction of human life -- when it includes bombs and bomb making equipment -- it is something that is unacceptable.
3. What standards are observed in other parts of the world by Muslims may not be acceptable in America. There may be instances where the policies of the American government may not be to the liking of American Muslims. In those instances, Mulims may protest, but only in ways acceptable within American law.
4. Among the ideals of a democratic state is that of free speech. This should not be trampled upon even if that speech is disagreeable to one or more segments of the American public. For example, depicting Mohammad in a graphic manner may be repugnant or sacrilegious to Muslims. Nevertheless, to do so can not be prohibited. It can be discouraged in legal ways, but it can not be prohibited.
American Muslims may understand their faith to be a peaceful one. But that carries little weight if individual Muslims act in ways that harm fellow Americans. Even if acts of violence by Muslims are rare, it is the responsibility of the Muslim community to work with American law enforcement to ferret out Muslims who would do violence.
There is one more feature of Islamic practice that deserves greater attention; namely, the bringing into American mosques Imams educated in Muslim countries. Religions are an amalgam of theology and culture. Speak to a Catholic priest from Ireland and then speak to one from Brazil and you will inevitably see differences in cultural references. That should come as no surprise. To teach, religious leaders speak to their followers in terms in which their followers can relate.
But, what happens when a religious leader is transferred from a nation of one culture to a nation of another. Can such a leader, or teacher, relate to his new environment? Can an Imam from Saudi Arabia, who's never lived outside of Saudi Arabia. be sent to America and be expected to understand American culture. Can such a teacher's understanding of Sharia and the teachings of the Quran, the Hadith, and the Sunnah make sense within the context of American culture. American Muslims must give this matter far more serious thought than it appears they have done to date.
Shalom Aleichem.
Here is what must be transmitted.
1. Sharia is a voluntary code of law. If Muslims wish to deal with one another within the context of Sharia, that's fine, provided they accept it as subordinate to the laws of America. For example, within Sharia there is no prohibition against having more than one wife. Under American law there is. In this instance, Muslims must accept American law. Within the context of Sharia, the male has a dominance vis a vis the female in terms of to whom children are assigned in cases of divorce that is largely unacceptable within American law. Here again, American law must prevail.
2. In America, possession of weapons is acceptable, provided it is for legally acceptable hunting, for self protection, and as an item for collection. However, when collection includes weapons clearly intended for the mass destruction of human life -- when it includes bombs and bomb making equipment -- it is something that is unacceptable.
3. What standards are observed in other parts of the world by Muslims may not be acceptable in America. There may be instances where the policies of the American government may not be to the liking of American Muslims. In those instances, Mulims may protest, but only in ways acceptable within American law.
4. Among the ideals of a democratic state is that of free speech. This should not be trampled upon even if that speech is disagreeable to one or more segments of the American public. For example, depicting Mohammad in a graphic manner may be repugnant or sacrilegious to Muslims. Nevertheless, to do so can not be prohibited. It can be discouraged in legal ways, but it can not be prohibited.
American Muslims may understand their faith to be a peaceful one. But that carries little weight if individual Muslims act in ways that harm fellow Americans. Even if acts of violence by Muslims are rare, it is the responsibility of the Muslim community to work with American law enforcement to ferret out Muslims who would do violence.
There is one more feature of Islamic practice that deserves greater attention; namely, the bringing into American mosques Imams educated in Muslim countries. Religions are an amalgam of theology and culture. Speak to a Catholic priest from Ireland and then speak to one from Brazil and you will inevitably see differences in cultural references. That should come as no surprise. To teach, religious leaders speak to their followers in terms in which their followers can relate.
But, what happens when a religious leader is transferred from a nation of one culture to a nation of another. Can such a leader, or teacher, relate to his new environment? Can an Imam from Saudi Arabia, who's never lived outside of Saudi Arabia. be sent to America and be expected to understand American culture. Can such a teacher's understanding of Sharia and the teachings of the Quran, the Hadith, and the Sunnah make sense within the context of American culture. American Muslims must give this matter far more serious thought than it appears they have done to date.
Shalom Aleichem.
Friday, November 27, 2015
The Sorry State of Political Analysis in the U.S.
A democracy really does need a Fourth Estate. That's the name we give the press. Today, the term might be used more generally to cover not only the press, but also radio and TV. It's the Fourth Estate that tells the public what is going on, and who is doing what to whom. It serves as the eyes and ears for a public concerned with the welfare of their country. It's why in totalitarian states, the press is not free, but rather under the heavy thumb of the government.
When I can see beyond what is being reported to the American people, when I can analyze a situation better than the TV talking heads, it scares me. Here's an example:
The situation in Syria, a country fractured by tribal divisions -- yes, religion can break down a country along tribal lines -- and from where the latest threat to civilized humanity comes from an inhuman group referred to as ISIS, has been reported and analyzed in an abysmal fashion.
The Syrian leader, Bashar Al Assad has misruled his country and remained in power only through the most brutal of means. He has barrel-bombed his people, he has gassed them, and he has tortured them. And, so it is difficult to know who is really worse, Assad or ISIS.
The American approach (the Obama approach) has been to remain above the fray. It has been to cheer on Assad's enemies, but to do little else. It has been to bomb the territory and assets of ISIS. But, it hasn't really worked. Assad's enemies need more than cheering. They need weapons equivalent to what is available to Assad. And, as to ISIS, while attacking them from the air is helpful in diminishing some of their assets, it will never eradicate them. To the extent that ISIS has global ambitions, they represent a somewhat greater threat to America and the world than does the miserable Assad regime.
The above has been reasonably reported on and analyzed by the press. What follows has not.
It's the opening left by Obama to the Russians that has been very poorly covered. We know, or certainly should known, the ambitions of Putin. We have seen him tear chunks out of Georgia. We have seen him take a chunk out of the Ukraine. And, we have seen him invade Crimea, which, after WWII, had become a part of the Ukraine. Why did we not see him eye Syria as the next place into which he would insert himself?
It was an obvious target for Putin. It was an area that contained oil. The forces opposed to Assad and ISIS that were gathering there were led by the U.S. under Obama, a president who set forth meaningless red lines and who would not allow American hands to get dirty. Putin saw such leadership as a pushover for his interests and ambitions.
The first thing he did was to send planes into Syria and bomb the hell out of Assad's enemies, the very people we had been cheering on. Instead of Assad and his Alawites seeking refuge, it was now the Sunnis, the Kurds in northwest Syria, the Yassiries and Christians who were running for cover. By allying his interests with Iran, Putin had gained the support of the Shiites and the armed forces that the Iranians would provide.
Our press pondered: Would Putin support Assad or not? What a stupid question. Assad was now Putin's puppet. He provided Putin with all the legitimacy he would ever need to do whatever he wanted done in Syria. Wasn't this obvious?
If the picture were not clear enough, Putin put Russian troops into Syria -- something he had said earlier he would never do. Did anyone really believe him? And, now we have Putin flying in bombers from Russia with Iranian escort fighter planes. In addition, he is installing the latest and newest available radar systems.
Dear President Obama: Since you don't seem to be able to figure out what is happening, let me explain --
Putin will destroy all of Assad's enemies in Syria. He will be aided by the Iranians. Hezbollah will come in under his protection. Then when he's finished that job, he will go after ISIS. Or, he may not. If he sees the Americans, the Brits and the French expending munitions in a useless and wasteful fashion, he might well let them continue with their hopeless efforts. He knows that if, and when, they become exhausted, he'll go in with his troops and with the Iranians and finish them off. Syria will change from being a place with mixed ethnicities to one populated primarily by Shiites.
What to do with Turkey and the Kurds? Putin can take his time with that question. One option might be to befriend the Kurds. He might tell them to get out of Iran and, in return for that, encourage them to lop off 20% off of Turkey. It would give the Kurds a port on the Mediterranean. Everyone would cheer; the Europeans, the Israelis, the Egyptians, and no doubt others.
The big losers: The Americans, the Saudis, and the Sunnis in general. For the Israelis, it's not that clear.
When I can see beyond what is being reported to the American people, when I can analyze a situation better than the TV talking heads, it scares me. Here's an example:
The situation in Syria, a country fractured by tribal divisions -- yes, religion can break down a country along tribal lines -- and from where the latest threat to civilized humanity comes from an inhuman group referred to as ISIS, has been reported and analyzed in an abysmal fashion.
The Syrian leader, Bashar Al Assad has misruled his country and remained in power only through the most brutal of means. He has barrel-bombed his people, he has gassed them, and he has tortured them. And, so it is difficult to know who is really worse, Assad or ISIS.
The American approach (the Obama approach) has been to remain above the fray. It has been to cheer on Assad's enemies, but to do little else. It has been to bomb the territory and assets of ISIS. But, it hasn't really worked. Assad's enemies need more than cheering. They need weapons equivalent to what is available to Assad. And, as to ISIS, while attacking them from the air is helpful in diminishing some of their assets, it will never eradicate them. To the extent that ISIS has global ambitions, they represent a somewhat greater threat to America and the world than does the miserable Assad regime.
The above has been reasonably reported on and analyzed by the press. What follows has not.
It's the opening left by Obama to the Russians that has been very poorly covered. We know, or certainly should known, the ambitions of Putin. We have seen him tear chunks out of Georgia. We have seen him take a chunk out of the Ukraine. And, we have seen him invade Crimea, which, after WWII, had become a part of the Ukraine. Why did we not see him eye Syria as the next place into which he would insert himself?
It was an obvious target for Putin. It was an area that contained oil. The forces opposed to Assad and ISIS that were gathering there were led by the U.S. under Obama, a president who set forth meaningless red lines and who would not allow American hands to get dirty. Putin saw such leadership as a pushover for his interests and ambitions.
The first thing he did was to send planes into Syria and bomb the hell out of Assad's enemies, the very people we had been cheering on. Instead of Assad and his Alawites seeking refuge, it was now the Sunnis, the Kurds in northwest Syria, the Yassiries and Christians who were running for cover. By allying his interests with Iran, Putin had gained the support of the Shiites and the armed forces that the Iranians would provide.
Our press pondered: Would Putin support Assad or not? What a stupid question. Assad was now Putin's puppet. He provided Putin with all the legitimacy he would ever need to do whatever he wanted done in Syria. Wasn't this obvious?
If the picture were not clear enough, Putin put Russian troops into Syria -- something he had said earlier he would never do. Did anyone really believe him? And, now we have Putin flying in bombers from Russia with Iranian escort fighter planes. In addition, he is installing the latest and newest available radar systems.
Dear President Obama: Since you don't seem to be able to figure out what is happening, let me explain --
Putin will destroy all of Assad's enemies in Syria. He will be aided by the Iranians. Hezbollah will come in under his protection. Then when he's finished that job, he will go after ISIS. Or, he may not. If he sees the Americans, the Brits and the French expending munitions in a useless and wasteful fashion, he might well let them continue with their hopeless efforts. He knows that if, and when, they become exhausted, he'll go in with his troops and with the Iranians and finish them off. Syria will change from being a place with mixed ethnicities to one populated primarily by Shiites.
What to do with Turkey and the Kurds? Putin can take his time with that question. One option might be to befriend the Kurds. He might tell them to get out of Iran and, in return for that, encourage them to lop off 20% off of Turkey. It would give the Kurds a port on the Mediterranean. Everyone would cheer; the Europeans, the Israelis, the Egyptians, and no doubt others.
The big losers: The Americans, the Saudis, and the Sunnis in general. For the Israelis, it's not that clear.
Sunday, October 11, 2015
New York, Teacher's Union, And Wall Street
This issue is complicated by the fact that few Americans understand the workings of their government or economics. Ask the man in the street the difference between fiscal policy and monetary policy and you likely will be met with silence. Don't even bother asking him where fiscal policies and monetary policies are worked out.
The answer to the above quiz questions are as follows: Monetary policy is worked out at the Federal Reserve. Fiscal policy in the Congress. (It's not helpful to the average man in the street for our national bank to be called the "Federal Reserve." So why did we call it that? Explanation: There was a time when powerful people in our government felt we shouldn't have a national bank. There were other powerful people that understood that America, like Great Britain, needed a national bank. So they compromised. They created a national bank, but did not call it that. They called it the Federal Reserve.)
Monetary policy includes setting the interest rates American banks can charge, how much money the banks must hold in reserve and ultimately how much the nation borrows.
Fiscal policy deals with how much a nation spends and how much it takes in through taxes and duties. Fiscal policy is the responsibility of Congress. Ideally, fiscal policy and monetary policy should be coordinated between the Federal Reserve and the Congress. But, that unfortunately is just a pipe dream. The reality is that Congress comes out with a fiscal plan that may or may not be realistic. Then, by means of monetary policy, the Fed using monetary policies tries to keep the ship of state on an even keel. It's amazing that the Fed has done as well as it has.
The matters just mentioned don't come up often in election campaigns because they're so poorly understood by the public. But, now let's go to an issue that seems to be very popular on the debate circuit: income inequality. This refers to the fact that the middle class isn't doing very well, but the top 1 % seem to be getting richer and richer. The poor seem mired in their poverty.
But, among facts less well understood is how low interest rates effect the savings of the middle class. Remember how, when our children were growing up, we'd open up a savings account for them to help them get started with saving their money? Today, you'd be better off taking them to a broker and putting some money for them into a mutual fund that tracks the S&P 500. Consider this: Interest paid on money deposited in a bank is fairly well understood. Do poor people understand anything about brokers? Do they grasp the meaning of a mutual fund? And, do they know about the S&P 500; what it is, and why you'd like to have your money buy some of it?
There's a saying that the poor work for their money, whereas the rich have their money working for them. That's not far off the mark. But, if you are in the "poor" class and you're willing to work hard, how do you improve your pay? Improving your skills is a start. An electrician makes more than a fellow mowing lawns. From there it's on to becoming a contractor. There are other routes such as accountant, lawyer, and doctor. But, that requires money for school and living expenses to cover you while your studying.
The very rich don't have to deal with any of this. They have their endowments and other sources of funds. Did they develop these funds by themselves or was it handed to them by their parents? Should we cut them down to size by limiting their funds or through heavy taxation?
Since this is a blog and not a textbook, let me touch on just one more election issue; namely, public unions. Public unions are unions whose members are paid and receive benefits, not from a private entity, but rather from the public through taxation. This is great for union members, but not so great for the public. Example: The teachers union provides for IRA retirement accounts. There is an IRA account that pays interest on the deposited fund and an IRA that rests on stocks. In the case of the IRA that is based on deposited funds, the interest rate is currently 6.5%. Where can the public get 6.5%? Nowhere. How does the union do it? Simple, they get it from the public through the taxes they pay. To put it another way, unionized public workers have benefits that no other workers enjoy.
Workers for unions in the private sector are in a totally different situation. Unless the company can meet their demands, the company goes out of business. That's not good for the company, nor for the union. Or, the company might go to Vietnam. That wouldn't be good for the union either, but might be very good for the company. Or the company could automate processes previously held by unionized workers. Again not so good for the unions. Public sector unions have none of the these problems.
A quick word about Wall Street. Financial houses on Wall Street are a huge source of revenue for New York. The New York Teachers Union has to be very careful in deciding whether to go after them. If they did succeed in cutting down their size, it is likely that revenues to the City would be much diminished. This would not be a positive outcome for public sector unions.
Now, let's vote.
The answer to the above quiz questions are as follows: Monetary policy is worked out at the Federal Reserve. Fiscal policy in the Congress. (It's not helpful to the average man in the street for our national bank to be called the "Federal Reserve." So why did we call it that? Explanation: There was a time when powerful people in our government felt we shouldn't have a national bank. There were other powerful people that understood that America, like Great Britain, needed a national bank. So they compromised. They created a national bank, but did not call it that. They called it the Federal Reserve.)
Monetary policy includes setting the interest rates American banks can charge, how much money the banks must hold in reserve and ultimately how much the nation borrows.
Fiscal policy deals with how much a nation spends and how much it takes in through taxes and duties. Fiscal policy is the responsibility of Congress. Ideally, fiscal policy and monetary policy should be coordinated between the Federal Reserve and the Congress. But, that unfortunately is just a pipe dream. The reality is that Congress comes out with a fiscal plan that may or may not be realistic. Then, by means of monetary policy, the Fed using monetary policies tries to keep the ship of state on an even keel. It's amazing that the Fed has done as well as it has.
The matters just mentioned don't come up often in election campaigns because they're so poorly understood by the public. But, now let's go to an issue that seems to be very popular on the debate circuit: income inequality. This refers to the fact that the middle class isn't doing very well, but the top 1 % seem to be getting richer and richer. The poor seem mired in their poverty.
But, among facts less well understood is how low interest rates effect the savings of the middle class. Remember how, when our children were growing up, we'd open up a savings account for them to help them get started with saving their money? Today, you'd be better off taking them to a broker and putting some money for them into a mutual fund that tracks the S&P 500. Consider this: Interest paid on money deposited in a bank is fairly well understood. Do poor people understand anything about brokers? Do they grasp the meaning of a mutual fund? And, do they know about the S&P 500; what it is, and why you'd like to have your money buy some of it?
There's a saying that the poor work for their money, whereas the rich have their money working for them. That's not far off the mark. But, if you are in the "poor" class and you're willing to work hard, how do you improve your pay? Improving your skills is a start. An electrician makes more than a fellow mowing lawns. From there it's on to becoming a contractor. There are other routes such as accountant, lawyer, and doctor. But, that requires money for school and living expenses to cover you while your studying.
The very rich don't have to deal with any of this. They have their endowments and other sources of funds. Did they develop these funds by themselves or was it handed to them by their parents? Should we cut them down to size by limiting their funds or through heavy taxation?
Since this is a blog and not a textbook, let me touch on just one more election issue; namely, public unions. Public unions are unions whose members are paid and receive benefits, not from a private entity, but rather from the public through taxation. This is great for union members, but not so great for the public. Example: The teachers union provides for IRA retirement accounts. There is an IRA account that pays interest on the deposited fund and an IRA that rests on stocks. In the case of the IRA that is based on deposited funds, the interest rate is currently 6.5%. Where can the public get 6.5%? Nowhere. How does the union do it? Simple, they get it from the public through the taxes they pay. To put it another way, unionized public workers have benefits that no other workers enjoy.
Workers for unions in the private sector are in a totally different situation. Unless the company can meet their demands, the company goes out of business. That's not good for the company, nor for the union. Or, the company might go to Vietnam. That wouldn't be good for the union either, but might be very good for the company. Or the company could automate processes previously held by unionized workers. Again not so good for the unions. Public sector unions have none of the these problems.
A quick word about Wall Street. Financial houses on Wall Street are a huge source of revenue for New York. The New York Teachers Union has to be very careful in deciding whether to go after them. If they did succeed in cutting down their size, it is likely that revenues to the City would be much diminished. This would not be a positive outcome for public sector unions.
Now, let's vote.
Israel Heats Up And Why
The stabbings, the rock throwing, a car blows up at a check point . . . . . . what's going on?
It's not Jews stepping on the Temple Mount. Yeah, yeah, that's what you'll hear when interviewing Israeli Arabs. What would you expect them to say, when Abbas tells them this, through Palestinian media which he's in control of? He tells the Palestinians that the Jews are soiling the Temple Mount with their dirty feet. How do you say anything more incendiary and more false than that? You can't.
Jews going up to the Dome of the Rock is a straw man --- and for anti-Zionist, anti-Jewish, anti-Semities, it's about the best trigger around. So why did Abbas decide to light this fuse. We know he has his Palestinian police working with Israelis forces to foil anti-Israeli forces such as those of Hamas.
In Abbas's double game, he works against the interests of Hamas to protect his own interests. Polls of Palestinians show that Abbas is less popular than Hamas. Without the shield provided him by the IDF, he might have been already disposed of. By the same token, having his police work with the IDF makes the work of the IDF considerably easier.
The other game Abbas is playing is to further the interests of Iran. Iran compensates its allies handsomely. Arafat died a very wealthy man. Abbas and his clan are simply following Arafat's example. Arafat diverted monies intended for the Palestinian people into his own pockets. Abbas is doing the same thing. But, if he can get a little extra from Iran, and in the process ingratiate himself with Iran, so much the better.
So what's Iran's interest in this? In the struggle between Shiites and Sunnis, Sunni nations were beginning to see the merits of developing a closer relationship with Israel. There has been considerable coordination between Egypt's Sisi and Israel. Jordan has long understood the advantage of having Israel on it's western border. And, now, it was beginning to appear that Saudi Arabia was coming to the realization that a relationship with Israel might further its interests vis a vis Iran. Despite Saudi's public display of indignation at Israel taking out Iraq's nuclear facility, Wikileaks made it clear that privately the Saudis were overjoyed. And, that was done with no coordination between Israel and Saudi Arabia. Imagine what might be possible with a bit of coordination.
This movement in the attitude of Sunni nations as regards Israel did not go unnoticed by Iran. How better to quash any rapprochement than by firing up religious hostilities between Israel and Muslims?
Israel is clearly paying a relatively high price for Abbas's cooperation with regards to Hamas.
It's not Jews stepping on the Temple Mount. Yeah, yeah, that's what you'll hear when interviewing Israeli Arabs. What would you expect them to say, when Abbas tells them this, through Palestinian media which he's in control of? He tells the Palestinians that the Jews are soiling the Temple Mount with their dirty feet. How do you say anything more incendiary and more false than that? You can't.
Jews going up to the Dome of the Rock is a straw man --- and for anti-Zionist, anti-Jewish, anti-Semities, it's about the best trigger around. So why did Abbas decide to light this fuse. We know he has his Palestinian police working with Israelis forces to foil anti-Israeli forces such as those of Hamas.
In Abbas's double game, he works against the interests of Hamas to protect his own interests. Polls of Palestinians show that Abbas is less popular than Hamas. Without the shield provided him by the IDF, he might have been already disposed of. By the same token, having his police work with the IDF makes the work of the IDF considerably easier.
The other game Abbas is playing is to further the interests of Iran. Iran compensates its allies handsomely. Arafat died a very wealthy man. Abbas and his clan are simply following Arafat's example. Arafat diverted monies intended for the Palestinian people into his own pockets. Abbas is doing the same thing. But, if he can get a little extra from Iran, and in the process ingratiate himself with Iran, so much the better.
So what's Iran's interest in this? In the struggle between Shiites and Sunnis, Sunni nations were beginning to see the merits of developing a closer relationship with Israel. There has been considerable coordination between Egypt's Sisi and Israel. Jordan has long understood the advantage of having Israel on it's western border. And, now, it was beginning to appear that Saudi Arabia was coming to the realization that a relationship with Israel might further its interests vis a vis Iran. Despite Saudi's public display of indignation at Israel taking out Iraq's nuclear facility, Wikileaks made it clear that privately the Saudis were overjoyed. And, that was done with no coordination between Israel and Saudi Arabia. Imagine what might be possible with a bit of coordination.
This movement in the attitude of Sunni nations as regards Israel did not go unnoticed by Iran. How better to quash any rapprochement than by firing up religious hostilities between Israel and Muslims?
Israel is clearly paying a relatively high price for Abbas's cooperation with regards to Hamas.
Tuesday, September 29, 2015
The Crashing Stupidity of U.S. Foreign Policy
I listened to John Kerry on Morning Joe this morning, Sept 29, 2015 and was aghast at his, and by extension, Obama's, view of the world and his vision as to how the U.S. can best restore world order to Syria. He doesn't have a clue as to how things work.
Consider Russia as guided by Putin. Here is a man who knows what he wants and how he intends to get it. In the Middle East it's all about oil. That's really all it's ever been about. You can talk "green" all you want. The fact remains that cars, planes, ships at sea, home heating and industrial equipment will for the foreseeable future remain dependent on fossil fuels. It's nice that people are developing solar energy, windmills and what not, but fossil fuels will be with us for a very long time -- global warming or not. And, by "us" I include China, India and Europe.
Control the supply of gas and oil and you've got your hand on the global throat. Putin knows that the only thing that's kept Russia afloat is Russia's oil and gas on which Europe is to a large extent dependent. Suppose he had a finger on the oil and gas available from Iran, from Iraq, from the Gulf States and from Syria. There's not much supposing about it and what it would do for Russia's standing in the world.
So how best for Russia to insert itself into the Middle East? The emergence of ISIL -- largely resulting from American stupidity -- gave Putin the perfect "in." He will now hugely expand his presence in the Middle East by promising to destroy ISIL. If he succeeds in that, does anyone really believe he'll pack up his fighter planes, his tanks, his rockets, and his troops and return to Russia?
But Putin not only thinks in terms of grand global strategy. He's also thoughtful as regards his tactics. Initially his entrance into Syria was justified by the need to destroy ISIL. But supposing he succeeds? How does he get to remain in the Middle East? Why of course, through the invitation of Bashar al Assad, the titular head of Syria. Does Russia care that Assad has been a human rights disaster for the Syrian people? Does Russia worry that there will ultimately follow an open and fair election in Syria for finding a successor to Assad?
All the other pieces will then fall nicely into place for the Russians. The Sunnis in Syria, though currently a majority will be ground to dust by the Russian war machine. This will happen through the assistance of the Iranians, who will act directly, or through the Iraqis with their Shiite led military. And, on the western side of Syria, Russia can rely on Hezbollah.
And, to all of this Kerry and Obama seem to be blind.
Under current circumstances, the worst thing any country in the Middle East once reliant on the U.S. can do is to continue relying on the U.S.
Consider Russia as guided by Putin. Here is a man who knows what he wants and how he intends to get it. In the Middle East it's all about oil. That's really all it's ever been about. You can talk "green" all you want. The fact remains that cars, planes, ships at sea, home heating and industrial equipment will for the foreseeable future remain dependent on fossil fuels. It's nice that people are developing solar energy, windmills and what not, but fossil fuels will be with us for a very long time -- global warming or not. And, by "us" I include China, India and Europe.
Control the supply of gas and oil and you've got your hand on the global throat. Putin knows that the only thing that's kept Russia afloat is Russia's oil and gas on which Europe is to a large extent dependent. Suppose he had a finger on the oil and gas available from Iran, from Iraq, from the Gulf States and from Syria. There's not much supposing about it and what it would do for Russia's standing in the world.
So how best for Russia to insert itself into the Middle East? The emergence of ISIL -- largely resulting from American stupidity -- gave Putin the perfect "in." He will now hugely expand his presence in the Middle East by promising to destroy ISIL. If he succeeds in that, does anyone really believe he'll pack up his fighter planes, his tanks, his rockets, and his troops and return to Russia?
But Putin not only thinks in terms of grand global strategy. He's also thoughtful as regards his tactics. Initially his entrance into Syria was justified by the need to destroy ISIL. But supposing he succeeds? How does he get to remain in the Middle East? Why of course, through the invitation of Bashar al Assad, the titular head of Syria. Does Russia care that Assad has been a human rights disaster for the Syrian people? Does Russia worry that there will ultimately follow an open and fair election in Syria for finding a successor to Assad?
All the other pieces will then fall nicely into place for the Russians. The Sunnis in Syria, though currently a majority will be ground to dust by the Russian war machine. This will happen through the assistance of the Iranians, who will act directly, or through the Iraqis with their Shiite led military. And, on the western side of Syria, Russia can rely on Hezbollah.
And, to all of this Kerry and Obama seem to be blind.
Under current circumstances, the worst thing any country in the Middle East once reliant on the U.S. can do is to continue relying on the U.S.
Wednesday, September 23, 2015
Muslims and the Presidency
Ben Carson and Donald Trump were both questioned as to whether a Muslim should be president. Ben Carson said, no, a Muslim should not be president. Trump said "fine" but he did say there was a problem with Muslims, implying he wouldn't like to see one as president.
Both answers, in my opinion were correct, but Trump's was the cleverer of the two. To clarify what Mr. Carson said -- when he said a Muslim shouldn't be president of the U.S. -- he was expressing his own opinion. (He later clarified his statement by saying that if it were a Muslim that shared this country's values, he would have no problem with a Muslim president.) Either way he did not call for a legal restriction barring a Muslim from the presidency, which, of course, would be unconstitutional.
Trump avoided the PR pitfalls of this question by simply saying that, of course, a Muslim could be president but Muslims did present a problem. That answer may not make Muslims happy, but it prevented the kind of brouhaha that Carson got into.
So what's the bottom line? Here's my take:
All religions create a problems for democracies that have mixed ethnicities in their population. Let me explain. Sweden, before it opened itself up to a massive influx of Muslims from the Middle East, was a very homogeneous place. It had little or no experience with assimilating different ethnicities. It now finds it has to learn -- and learn fast. The Japanese are an even more insular country than Sweden. This is a country that accepts no one other than another Japanese. They once tried to encourage people of Japanese ancestry who had lived in Brazil for some period of time to return to Japan. It proved an unsuccessful venture.
The U.S. has been assimilating more people from all over the world longer than any other country. And, truth be told, we've been the most successful at it. There are several reasons for this. When the country was created it started off with people from different parts of Europe. We had those with an English heritage, with an Irish heritage, German, Scandinavian, Italian, French, Spanish and a smattering of others. It included Protestants, Catholics and Jews. Some rough spots were encountered. But we smoothed them out with reasonable success. The first thing we did was to add to our Constitution an amendment separating Church and State.
But, even with this fix to our founding document, opening the minds of the citizenry took a bit longer.
There was early hostility to the idea of a Roman Catholic person as President. That was dealt with by JFK. Another barrier broken down was letting a black man become presidenct. And, now we face the entry of Muslims onto the political scene. But this problem too will be resolved.
The key to dealing with the question of a Muslim president is the realization that Muslims, like Catholics, or, for that matter, Protestants and Jews, espouse different values. What country is more Catholic than Italy? And, yet, Italians practice birth control to the same extent as non-Catholics in less Catholic countries.
It's immaterial whether a candidate is Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Muslim, or Hindu. What we want to know is whether embodies American values. "American values" are something we can debate, but clearly they do not include polygamy, restrictions on women, hostility toward gays and mandates such as those included in Sharia.
Let me leave you with one last question: How would you feel about a candidate who self identified as a Scientologist?
Both answers, in my opinion were correct, but Trump's was the cleverer of the two. To clarify what Mr. Carson said -- when he said a Muslim shouldn't be president of the U.S. -- he was expressing his own opinion. (He later clarified his statement by saying that if it were a Muslim that shared this country's values, he would have no problem with a Muslim president.) Either way he did not call for a legal restriction barring a Muslim from the presidency, which, of course, would be unconstitutional.
Trump avoided the PR pitfalls of this question by simply saying that, of course, a Muslim could be president but Muslims did present a problem. That answer may not make Muslims happy, but it prevented the kind of brouhaha that Carson got into.
So what's the bottom line? Here's my take:
All religions create a problems for democracies that have mixed ethnicities in their population. Let me explain. Sweden, before it opened itself up to a massive influx of Muslims from the Middle East, was a very homogeneous place. It had little or no experience with assimilating different ethnicities. It now finds it has to learn -- and learn fast. The Japanese are an even more insular country than Sweden. This is a country that accepts no one other than another Japanese. They once tried to encourage people of Japanese ancestry who had lived in Brazil for some period of time to return to Japan. It proved an unsuccessful venture.
The U.S. has been assimilating more people from all over the world longer than any other country. And, truth be told, we've been the most successful at it. There are several reasons for this. When the country was created it started off with people from different parts of Europe. We had those with an English heritage, with an Irish heritage, German, Scandinavian, Italian, French, Spanish and a smattering of others. It included Protestants, Catholics and Jews. Some rough spots were encountered. But we smoothed them out with reasonable success. The first thing we did was to add to our Constitution an amendment separating Church and State.
But, even with this fix to our founding document, opening the minds of the citizenry took a bit longer.
There was early hostility to the idea of a Roman Catholic person as President. That was dealt with by JFK. Another barrier broken down was letting a black man become presidenct. And, now we face the entry of Muslims onto the political scene. But this problem too will be resolved.
The key to dealing with the question of a Muslim president is the realization that Muslims, like Catholics, or, for that matter, Protestants and Jews, espouse different values. What country is more Catholic than Italy? And, yet, Italians practice birth control to the same extent as non-Catholics in less Catholic countries.
It's immaterial whether a candidate is Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Muslim, or Hindu. What we want to know is whether embodies American values. "American values" are something we can debate, but clearly they do not include polygamy, restrictions on women, hostility toward gays and mandates such as those included in Sharia.
Let me leave you with one last question: How would you feel about a candidate who self identified as a Scientologist?
Monday, September 14, 2015
The Much Underrated Donald Trump
As noted earlier, Trump has made remarks that would have wiped out any other candidate. A great deal has been said and written as to how and why Trump is different. We need not dwell on that here.
Here I would like to address two other questions: namely, how long can this go on with Trump and, two, would Trump make a good president. Let's start with how long this can go on for Trump. My answer would be "a very long time." Most people assume that what you see in Trump is a strong field general. He can read the terrain and make the necessary field adjustments to bring in a fair number of women and Latinos. Let's see how and when he does the necessary flanking movement.
If he's got the skills to pull this off, he'll make a good president -- maybe a great president. It's high time we got one.
Here I would like to address two other questions: namely, how long can this go on with Trump and, two, would Trump make a good president. Let's start with how long this can go on for Trump. My answer would be "a very long time." Most people assume that what you see in Trump is a strong field general. He can read the terrain and make the necessary field adjustments to bring in a fair number of women and Latinos. Let's see how and when he does the necessary flanking movement.
If he's got the skills to pull this off, he'll make a good president -- maybe a great president. It's high time we got one.
Thursday, August 13, 2015
I'm Getting A Good Trump Feeling
Do you stick to your own standard talking points, or is there something new you should be paying attention to as regards the candidates? When you consider Trump, this becomes a real challenge.
Before he started his run for the presidency, it seemed easy to write him off as a buffoon, a TV impresario. Who talks like that? Who sticks his name on every building he can get his hands on? And, what's with that ridiculous hair style? Who can take a guy like that seriously?
But slowly I'm beginning to get the feeling that maybe I should take him more seriously. Trump's remarks on Mexico, and Mexicans, I thought, would finish him off. They didn't. When he cast aspersions on McCain heroism, I thought that surely was the end. Now, he's really finished. That's what I thought. But, he wasn't.
It seems that the man in the street understood that, of course, McCain was a hero, but if McCain was going to go to fight in dark, political alleyways, he's got to expect to get kicked in the nuts. Past heroic behavior doesn't change that reality. And, the public got it.
And, then there was the Megan Kelly thing. The media screamed that Trump had suggested that Megan was on the rag. But, actually, that's not what he said. What he did say might be stretched to imply that that was what he meant. But, in reality, the press stretched it too far. The public didn't go along.
Now Trump is beginning to flesh out his message. Take a cut from the mideastern oil we fought to protect. Negotiate more realistically with our competitors. Do health care in a way that won't break the American economy and yet reach more of our citizens. The impulse that prompted the Affordable Health Care Act wasn't bad. It was simply implemented atrociously. I'm beginning to like Trump more and more.
Planned Parenthood: Here Trump really deviated from the party line. While saying that abortions were bad, he acknowledged the Planned Parenthood did a great deal of good for women.
Voters will have to make two choices. Is the Donald better than all the others who are competing for the nomination as the Republican standard bearer in the general elections? And, who do you prefer: Trump or Hillary? Are these questions really so difficult?
Before he started his run for the presidency, it seemed easy to write him off as a buffoon, a TV impresario. Who talks like that? Who sticks his name on every building he can get his hands on? And, what's with that ridiculous hair style? Who can take a guy like that seriously?
But slowly I'm beginning to get the feeling that maybe I should take him more seriously. Trump's remarks on Mexico, and Mexicans, I thought, would finish him off. They didn't. When he cast aspersions on McCain heroism, I thought that surely was the end. Now, he's really finished. That's what I thought. But, he wasn't.
It seems that the man in the street understood that, of course, McCain was a hero, but if McCain was going to go to fight in dark, political alleyways, he's got to expect to get kicked in the nuts. Past heroic behavior doesn't change that reality. And, the public got it.
And, then there was the Megan Kelly thing. The media screamed that Trump had suggested that Megan was on the rag. But, actually, that's not what he said. What he did say might be stretched to imply that that was what he meant. But, in reality, the press stretched it too far. The public didn't go along.
Now Trump is beginning to flesh out his message. Take a cut from the mideastern oil we fought to protect. Negotiate more realistically with our competitors. Do health care in a way that won't break the American economy and yet reach more of our citizens. The impulse that prompted the Affordable Health Care Act wasn't bad. It was simply implemented atrociously. I'm beginning to like Trump more and more.
Planned Parenthood: Here Trump really deviated from the party line. While saying that abortions were bad, he acknowledged the Planned Parenthood did a great deal of good for women.
Voters will have to make two choices. Is the Donald better than all the others who are competing for the nomination as the Republican standard bearer in the general elections? And, who do you prefer: Trump or Hillary? Are these questions really so difficult?
Saturday, August 1, 2015
The Abortion Issue -- Once Again
A surreptitiously filmed interview with an indiscrete member of Planned Parenthood has once again brought the issue of abortion to the fore. The Pro-lifers come marching into our homes via various TV "news" programs decrying the murder of innocent children-yet-to-be-born. Using words like "holocaust" they demand the end of this butchery of innocent livees.
Stepping back a bit, it becomes clear that this latest attack on abortion has been made possible by (a) disregarding science, (b) invoking the will of God, and (c) an inappropriate discussion of the abortion procedure by a doctor seemingly oblivious to the forces arrayed against allowing women to have an abortion.
Since this latest attack on abortions resulted from secret filming of a conversation with a medically qualified abortionist, let's start there. The imagery we get from a description of how the head of a fetus is crushed so that its organs can be harvested for medical science makes for horrible imagery. Let's examine that imagery more closely.
Work in medicine is often not pretty. How would you care to invite an overly enthusiastic proctologist to a dinner party. It's not that one has anything against proctology -- its practice has saved innumerable lives. It's just that it's not pretty; and to many it's disgusting -- something certainly not fit for polite dinner conversation. So what was this abortion provider doing describing abortion details at dinner with people who clearly had not been properly vetted?
Anti-abortionists, or "Pro-Lifers," as they prefer to be called, see little difference between taking the life of a human and terminating a pregnancy. What difference, ask they, between terminating a fetus and taking the life of a newly born infant? The issue, I would submit, hinges on the definition of "life." Isn't a viable sperm living matter? Isn't a viable egg egg living matter? And, of course, the result of the successful joining of these two entities -- an embryo -- is clearly living matter. Indeed, a number of faiths consider birth control (keeping the sperm from reaching an egg) to be a sin --a prohibition widely disregarded by the practitioners of those very faiths.
There was a time when this discussion was considered to be academic. It was generally conceded that the life of a fetus prior to birth was generally unsustainable. Science has changed that. The question now is how premature can a birth be for it to be viable? Sonograms have further muddied the issue. We can now actually see the fetus. From its genitalia we can determine it's gender. We can make out the outlines of its face. How can this not be a child, even if it's a pre-born child?
But, then is it unreasonable to ask whether the time might come when a fetus can be nurtured to the point of a viable life without the need for a human womb? What then? Whatever the decisions, it will be arbitrary as is generally the case with human laws.
Whose rights are we concerned with? That of the mother or that of the fetus? In the case of rape, it is generally conceded that a victim should not be required to give birth to a child resulting from her victimization. And, yet, is not the fetus blameless? I am not arguing that a woman should be required to give birth to the child of a rapist. I am simply pointing out that humans have to make the best judgements they know how. To some extent this process is arbitrary. The one who, in my opinion, is in the best position to make the call is the woman who has become impregnated.
Stepping back a bit, it becomes clear that this latest attack on abortion has been made possible by (a) disregarding science, (b) invoking the will of God, and (c) an inappropriate discussion of the abortion procedure by a doctor seemingly oblivious to the forces arrayed against allowing women to have an abortion.
Since this latest attack on abortions resulted from secret filming of a conversation with a medically qualified abortionist, let's start there. The imagery we get from a description of how the head of a fetus is crushed so that its organs can be harvested for medical science makes for horrible imagery. Let's examine that imagery more closely.
Work in medicine is often not pretty. How would you care to invite an overly enthusiastic proctologist to a dinner party. It's not that one has anything against proctology -- its practice has saved innumerable lives. It's just that it's not pretty; and to many it's disgusting -- something certainly not fit for polite dinner conversation. So what was this abortion provider doing describing abortion details at dinner with people who clearly had not been properly vetted?
Anti-abortionists, or "Pro-Lifers," as they prefer to be called, see little difference between taking the life of a human and terminating a pregnancy. What difference, ask they, between terminating a fetus and taking the life of a newly born infant? The issue, I would submit, hinges on the definition of "life." Isn't a viable sperm living matter? Isn't a viable egg egg living matter? And, of course, the result of the successful joining of these two entities -- an embryo -- is clearly living matter. Indeed, a number of faiths consider birth control (keeping the sperm from reaching an egg) to be a sin --a prohibition widely disregarded by the practitioners of those very faiths.
There was a time when this discussion was considered to be academic. It was generally conceded that the life of a fetus prior to birth was generally unsustainable. Science has changed that. The question now is how premature can a birth be for it to be viable? Sonograms have further muddied the issue. We can now actually see the fetus. From its genitalia we can determine it's gender. We can make out the outlines of its face. How can this not be a child, even if it's a pre-born child?
But, then is it unreasonable to ask whether the time might come when a fetus can be nurtured to the point of a viable life without the need for a human womb? What then? Whatever the decisions, it will be arbitrary as is generally the case with human laws.
Whose rights are we concerned with? That of the mother or that of the fetus? In the case of rape, it is generally conceded that a victim should not be required to give birth to a child resulting from her victimization. And, yet, is not the fetus blameless? I am not arguing that a woman should be required to give birth to the child of a rapist. I am simply pointing out that humans have to make the best judgements they know how. To some extent this process is arbitrary. The one who, in my opinion, is in the best position to make the call is the woman who has become impregnated.
Wednesday, July 29, 2015
Jews: Au revoir France
Life in France has become untenable for Jews. For details see Vanity Fair August 15, 2015.
Does it matter? That depends on how you see such matters. In 2013, there were about 14 millions Jews world wide. Six million were in Israel and 5.4 million were in the U.S. Only about a half a million were in France. That's not much more than the the roughly 400 thousand in Canada and the roughly 300 thousand in the U.K.
Yet anyone with a grasp of French history should perhaps show some concern. Open up Wikipedia. Glance over the names of the great French Jewish artists, French Jewish scientists, French Jewish political leaders, French Jewish musicians, French Jewish industrialists. Jews have contributed, and contributed greatly, to French culture. That will soon end. If Jews in France must fear for their safety, then of course it's time for them to move on. Some few Jews may harbor the delusion that they will be able to continue in France as they have in the past. A considerable number of German Jews felt that way in the late 1930's.
It does trouble me to see the France we once knew, losing their culture; losing all that made France French. But, of course, I can't worry more about France and its future than the French themselves.
Au revoir.
Does it matter? That depends on how you see such matters. In 2013, there were about 14 millions Jews world wide. Six million were in Israel and 5.4 million were in the U.S. Only about a half a million were in France. That's not much more than the the roughly 400 thousand in Canada and the roughly 300 thousand in the U.K.
Yet anyone with a grasp of French history should perhaps show some concern. Open up Wikipedia. Glance over the names of the great French Jewish artists, French Jewish scientists, French Jewish political leaders, French Jewish musicians, French Jewish industrialists. Jews have contributed, and contributed greatly, to French culture. That will soon end. If Jews in France must fear for their safety, then of course it's time for them to move on. Some few Jews may harbor the delusion that they will be able to continue in France as they have in the past. A considerable number of German Jews felt that way in the late 1930's.
It does trouble me to see the France we once knew, losing their culture; losing all that made France French. But, of course, I can't worry more about France and its future than the French themselves.
Au revoir.
Sunday, July 26, 2015
Hatikvah: Time for Revised Lyrics
Hatikvah is a great song. For use in a synagogue or on occasions where Jews may be gathered absolutely no change is called for. However, as a national anthem to be sung by Israeli Muslims, Christians, Druze, and many other Israeli citizens it is a problem.
Here are a few lines of the Hatikvah:
As long as the Jewish spirit is yearning deep in the heart,
With eyes turned toward the East, looking towards Zion.
Then our hope -- the 2000-year old hope -- will not be lost
To be a free people in our land
The land of Zion and Jerusalem
To repeat: This works great in a synagogue where it should be kept as is. However, for a nation were roughly 20% is not Jewish we have a problem.
We want all Israelis to identify with Israel -- even non-Jews. That's what a national anthem is all about. But how do you do this with those people who are not Jewish? Do we expect them to identify with the "Jewish spirit?" "Eyes turned toward the East" -- Does this include Ethiopians, or is it restricted to European Jewry? And what does "Zion" mean to a non-Jew.
A line that should work perfectly is ". . . our land, the land of (Israel) and Jerusalem." Of course, non-Jews would have a somewhat different understanding of this line. Sure, their land is Israel and its capitol is Jerusalem. But, of course, for them the words would mean something a bit different than what it means for Jews.
Let's keep Israel Jewish, but let's also have the 20% that's not Jewish feel they've got a stake in this their home country. Why not have one Hatikvah melody, but two sets of lyrics; one, for the synagogue and one for general public usage?
Here are a few lines of the Hatikvah:
As long as the Jewish spirit is yearning deep in the heart,
With eyes turned toward the East, looking towards Zion.
Then our hope -- the 2000-year old hope -- will not be lost
To be a free people in our land
The land of Zion and Jerusalem
To repeat: This works great in a synagogue where it should be kept as is. However, for a nation were roughly 20% is not Jewish we have a problem.
We want all Israelis to identify with Israel -- even non-Jews. That's what a national anthem is all about. But how do you do this with those people who are not Jewish? Do we expect them to identify with the "Jewish spirit?" "Eyes turned toward the East" -- Does this include Ethiopians, or is it restricted to European Jewry? And what does "Zion" mean to a non-Jew.
A line that should work perfectly is ". . . our land, the land of (Israel) and Jerusalem." Of course, non-Jews would have a somewhat different understanding of this line. Sure, their land is Israel and its capitol is Jerusalem. But, of course, for them the words would mean something a bit different than what it means for Jews.
Let's keep Israel Jewish, but let's also have the 20% that's not Jewish feel they've got a stake in this their home country. Why not have one Hatikvah melody, but two sets of lyrics; one, for the synagogue and one for general public usage?
Israel: The Country Muslims and Leftists Love to Hate
I heard a Pakistani lawyer, who happened to visit Israel from England for a professional conference, mention how astounded he was by what he saw. What I found surprising is how what astounded him would be common place to Israelis and to us who know a bit about Israel.
The astounding revelation came to the Pakistani at a bus stop in Jerusalem. There, standing waiting for a bus, was a Muslim woman whose faith was evident from her head covering, an Orthodox man with tzitzis, beard and payyes, IDF service people, one a woman and one a man, and a youth with green hair and a nose ring. Anyone of these people might have occasioned a lingering glance on my part, but that they should all be standing waiting for a bus would have seemed not extraordinary at all.
It suddenly came to the Pakistani that Israel is remarkably diverse. Druze, Muslims, Jews, Bahais, and people of a variety of other faiths and ethnicities live in Israel in relative harmony. We who know Israel may take this for granted. But, for many who are devoted to disparaging Israel and, indeed, in maligning Israel it is not.
He then went to the West Bank to see how the Palestinians faired there. What he saw was a diversity of architecture. There was a bank in Ramallah located in a remarkably modern and handsome building. There were lovely apartment buildings housing the West Bank's 1%. But, in traveling around, he also came upon refugee camps. Some were actually rather nice little villagers. Some did look miserable. However, they seemed nowhere as miserable as the refugee camps he had seen in Pakistan -- camps left over from the separation of Pakistan from India.
Aware of all the money poured into the PLO by agencies of the UN and various Arab countries, the Pakistani wondered where it had all gone. True Arafat had skimmed off handsome sums which he deposited in Swiss banks, a policy followed by Abbas, but surely some money must have been left for the Palestinian people.
The astounding revelation came to the Pakistani at a bus stop in Jerusalem. There, standing waiting for a bus, was a Muslim woman whose faith was evident from her head covering, an Orthodox man with tzitzis, beard and payyes, IDF service people, one a woman and one a man, and a youth with green hair and a nose ring. Anyone of these people might have occasioned a lingering glance on my part, but that they should all be standing waiting for a bus would have seemed not extraordinary at all.
It suddenly came to the Pakistani that Israel is remarkably diverse. Druze, Muslims, Jews, Bahais, and people of a variety of other faiths and ethnicities live in Israel in relative harmony. We who know Israel may take this for granted. But, for many who are devoted to disparaging Israel and, indeed, in maligning Israel it is not.
He then went to the West Bank to see how the Palestinians faired there. What he saw was a diversity of architecture. There was a bank in Ramallah located in a remarkably modern and handsome building. There were lovely apartment buildings housing the West Bank's 1%. But, in traveling around, he also came upon refugee camps. Some were actually rather nice little villagers. Some did look miserable. However, they seemed nowhere as miserable as the refugee camps he had seen in Pakistan -- camps left over from the separation of Pakistan from India.
Aware of all the money poured into the PLO by agencies of the UN and various Arab countries, the Pakistani wondered where it had all gone. True Arafat had skimmed off handsome sums which he deposited in Swiss banks, a policy followed by Abbas, but surely some money must have been left for the Palestinian people.
Tuesday, July 21, 2015
The Donald
Donald Trump, like him or hate him, is a phenomenon. Independently wealthy, he relies on no supporters and conducts his campaign for the American presidency as he sees fit. One more thing; he clearly understands the media, having been a successful producer of highly popular TV shows. It's his understanding of what interests Americans that has made him such a force. Whether it's a force for good or not is yet to be decided.
The Donald has gotten himself, on what I consider to be the wrong side, involved in two major issues. Immigration and John McCain's heroism. Describing illegal immigrants as murderers and rapists was wrong. True, among the illegal population you will find murderers and rapists. But, the same can be said of almost any population. People familiar with Latino immigrants, legal or otherwise, know that they are among the kindest, nicest, most hardworking people one will ever encounter.
But, America does face a problem with unchecked, massive, illegal immigration. And, the Donald has focused attention on this problem as has no other candidate. He's largely escaped his come-uppance for his wild remarks in two ways; first, the murder of a young lady on vacation in San Francisco by an illegal immigrant who also happened to be a felon who had been deported from the U.S. five times and who happened to be living in the amnesty city of San Francisco.
And, second, The Donald shifted over to his contention that he was the legal immigrants best friend by producing a great number of jobs. This is what America needed -- jobs. And, he was the jobs man.
This past weekend saw Donald's ship almost upended and perhaps sunk by the an even more serious gaffe; namely, challenging the heroism of John McCain. That was not only dumb, it was wrong.
Donald's reason for saying what he did -- to the extent I can read the Donald's mind -- is not that he didn't appreciate McCain's remarkable bravery in time of war, or that he failed to respect McCain's service to his country but rather that he was now facing McCain in an entirely different context.
The McCain that now faced Donald Trump was a back-alley, political thug who had amassed enormous political power through his years in the Senate, but had never properly channeled that power. McCain was someone who had undermined his own political candidacy for the presidency by choosing someone as inexperienced as Sarah Palin as his running mate. (Palin, to remind those who may have forgotten, had achieved some considerable accomplishments in her years as Alaska's governor, but clearly was unprepared for the national stage.)
Now, McCain was going after the Donald and referred to the people who attended a Trump rally as "crazies." The Donald didn't like that and lashed out at McCain. Unfortunately, the Donald was either unaware of, or had forgotten, certain basics in American politics; namely, you don't attack God, country, mom and apple pie. He was apparently unaware that McCain had achieved a standing somewhere between God and apple pie. To say this is not to disparage or impugn McCain's heroism. It's simply to set forth a reality that seems to have escaped the Donald.
We'll now see whether Trump's ship sinks. The political types are waiting for the latest poll results. It's like the perils of Pauline. It's grand theater. It's operatic. Will the Donald pull it off by shifting attention to the sorry state of the healthcare for veterans and the dysfunctional Veteran's Administration. To be continued. . . . . . .
The Donald has gotten himself, on what I consider to be the wrong side, involved in two major issues. Immigration and John McCain's heroism. Describing illegal immigrants as murderers and rapists was wrong. True, among the illegal population you will find murderers and rapists. But, the same can be said of almost any population. People familiar with Latino immigrants, legal or otherwise, know that they are among the kindest, nicest, most hardworking people one will ever encounter.
But, America does face a problem with unchecked, massive, illegal immigration. And, the Donald has focused attention on this problem as has no other candidate. He's largely escaped his come-uppance for his wild remarks in two ways; first, the murder of a young lady on vacation in San Francisco by an illegal immigrant who also happened to be a felon who had been deported from the U.S. five times and who happened to be living in the amnesty city of San Francisco.
And, second, The Donald shifted over to his contention that he was the legal immigrants best friend by producing a great number of jobs. This is what America needed -- jobs. And, he was the jobs man.
This past weekend saw Donald's ship almost upended and perhaps sunk by the an even more serious gaffe; namely, challenging the heroism of John McCain. That was not only dumb, it was wrong.
Donald's reason for saying what he did -- to the extent I can read the Donald's mind -- is not that he didn't appreciate McCain's remarkable bravery in time of war, or that he failed to respect McCain's service to his country but rather that he was now facing McCain in an entirely different context.
The McCain that now faced Donald Trump was a back-alley, political thug who had amassed enormous political power through his years in the Senate, but had never properly channeled that power. McCain was someone who had undermined his own political candidacy for the presidency by choosing someone as inexperienced as Sarah Palin as his running mate. (Palin, to remind those who may have forgotten, had achieved some considerable accomplishments in her years as Alaska's governor, but clearly was unprepared for the national stage.)
Now, McCain was going after the Donald and referred to the people who attended a Trump rally as "crazies." The Donald didn't like that and lashed out at McCain. Unfortunately, the Donald was either unaware of, or had forgotten, certain basics in American politics; namely, you don't attack God, country, mom and apple pie. He was apparently unaware that McCain had achieved a standing somewhere between God and apple pie. To say this is not to disparage or impugn McCain's heroism. It's simply to set forth a reality that seems to have escaped the Donald.
We'll now see whether Trump's ship sinks. The political types are waiting for the latest poll results. It's like the perils of Pauline. It's grand theater. It's operatic. Will the Donald pull it off by shifting attention to the sorry state of the healthcare for veterans and the dysfunctional Veteran's Administration. To be continued. . . . . . .
Saturday, June 27, 2015
The Michael Oren To-Do
Michael Oren, recently the Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. has written a book, Ally,which received wide publicity even before it was officially released. In this book, Oren describes the terrible state to which the Obama administration has allowed the American-Israeli relationship to sink.
It is s perhaps not surprising that Oren's book has had its detractors. A recent interview with Eric Yoffie provides an example of the tack being taken by those who object to Oren's book.
I should perhaps first mention, to those unfamiliar with Eric Yoffie, that he's a past president of the Union for Reform Judaism and that he writes extensively for the left-leaning newspaper, Haaretz. I think it fair to describe him as someone on the left with regard to political issues concerning Israel. It should, therefore, come as little surprise that he would be among those taking exception to Michael Oren's book.
Based on an interview with Yoffie, shown on the Jewish Broadcasting Service (JBT), his objections to the book are as follows: 1. Oren's criticisms of the Obama administration are inaccurate. 2. Oren's criticism of the "daylight" now seen between U.S. and Israeli policy is nothing new and was observable with other U.S. administrations. 3. Oren's criticisms of the Obama administration are not helpful to Israel. 4. Oren's book is dull reading. 5. It is unseemly for an ambassador to to write such a book when he has recently left such a post. 6. Oren's motivation in writing the book is to make money for himself.
Let me begin with objections 4, 5, and 6 -- This is what one tends to say if one doesn't like a book. The advance copies of the book have generated a considerable comment. I haven't read the book, but it's clear that, regardless of whether the book is dull or not, lot's of people are reading it, and are commenting on it. No one seems to be saying it's a dull read. As to it's being unseemly, I tend to feel that, if something is important for American's to hear, they should be allowed to hear it. And, finally, if the book sells well, as it appears it might, I say all the more power to the author.
As to Oren's inaccuracies: These seem to be largely in the eyes of Yoffie.
As to the matters daylight between Israel's positions and those of America during earlier administrations, Yoffie has a point. We remember Truman as going against George Marshal when he had America's vote at the UN favor the recognition of Israel, but we tend to forget that he did not allow his administration to provide Israel with weapons. We also remember that Nixon on more than one occasion pushed Israel to accept unacceptable conditions in its conflicts with the Arabs. But, ultimately he did provide Israel with necessary support. And, of course, who can forget George Walker Bush's Howard Baker tell Israel, "Here's my number. Call me when you're ready (to make peace with the Arabs)."
But the daylight that now shines between American policy and Israeli policy does seem different. Obama too slowed the flow of arms when they were most needed by Israel in it's conflict with Hamas. Also, Israel's position on Iran clearly differs from that of Obama's. And, here, we find advisors to the president telling him that he seems to be going down the wrong path. There is more to be said, but let me end with this administration demanding that Israel make concessions when no equivalent concessions are called for from the Palestinians.
Are Oren's observations accurate? Some say yes, others like Yoffie say no.
I guess we're left having to decide that one for ourselves.
It is s perhaps not surprising that Oren's book has had its detractors. A recent interview with Eric Yoffie provides an example of the tack being taken by those who object to Oren's book.
I should perhaps first mention, to those unfamiliar with Eric Yoffie, that he's a past president of the Union for Reform Judaism and that he writes extensively for the left-leaning newspaper, Haaretz. I think it fair to describe him as someone on the left with regard to political issues concerning Israel. It should, therefore, come as little surprise that he would be among those taking exception to Michael Oren's book.
Based on an interview with Yoffie, shown on the Jewish Broadcasting Service (JBT), his objections to the book are as follows: 1. Oren's criticisms of the Obama administration are inaccurate. 2. Oren's criticism of the "daylight" now seen between U.S. and Israeli policy is nothing new and was observable with other U.S. administrations. 3. Oren's criticisms of the Obama administration are not helpful to Israel. 4. Oren's book is dull reading. 5. It is unseemly for an ambassador to to write such a book when he has recently left such a post. 6. Oren's motivation in writing the book is to make money for himself.
Let me begin with objections 4, 5, and 6 -- This is what one tends to say if one doesn't like a book. The advance copies of the book have generated a considerable comment. I haven't read the book, but it's clear that, regardless of whether the book is dull or not, lot's of people are reading it, and are commenting on it. No one seems to be saying it's a dull read. As to it's being unseemly, I tend to feel that, if something is important for American's to hear, they should be allowed to hear it. And, finally, if the book sells well, as it appears it might, I say all the more power to the author.
As to Oren's inaccuracies: These seem to be largely in the eyes of Yoffie.
As to the matters daylight between Israel's positions and those of America during earlier administrations, Yoffie has a point. We remember Truman as going against George Marshal when he had America's vote at the UN favor the recognition of Israel, but we tend to forget that he did not allow his administration to provide Israel with weapons. We also remember that Nixon on more than one occasion pushed Israel to accept unacceptable conditions in its conflicts with the Arabs. But, ultimately he did provide Israel with necessary support. And, of course, who can forget George Walker Bush's Howard Baker tell Israel, "Here's my number. Call me when you're ready (to make peace with the Arabs)."
But the daylight that now shines between American policy and Israeli policy does seem different. Obama too slowed the flow of arms when they were most needed by Israel in it's conflict with Hamas. Also, Israel's position on Iran clearly differs from that of Obama's. And, here, we find advisors to the president telling him that he seems to be going down the wrong path. There is more to be said, but let me end with this administration demanding that Israel make concessions when no equivalent concessions are called for from the Palestinians.
Are Oren's observations accurate? Some say yes, others like Yoffie say no.
I guess we're left having to decide that one for ourselves.
Slavery In America
Let's start off with the fact that slavery fell upon Africans in great measure. And, that it was a horrendous state of affairs for those made slaves. That's true wherever and upon whosoever this institution found root.
But, where does America fit into this sordid story. Let's start with a few numbers. The greatest number of African slaves were sent to Brazil with something over 4 million slaves shipped there to harvest sugar cane, tobacco, and other crops.
The next big destination in terms of the destination of African slaves were countries in the Caribbean. And, then lastly comes America, the destination for less than 1 million slaves.
These numbers do not give America any bragging rights. The employment of slaves is quite dreadful. And, while 1 million people is but a fraction of the Africans sent to Brazil as well as to the Caribbean, it's still a very big number.
The fight to eliminate African slavery was long and hard. Credit must be given to the British for being among the earliest to seek to put an end to slavery, Their efforts began at the start of the 19th century. And, these first efforts were designed to end the trading of slaves. They put the first nails in the into the sale of humans. At that time, there could also be heard individuals in the U.S. calling for an end to his practice. Among them was president Thomas Jefferson who was among the people holding slaves. And, then in 1886, Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation.
As terrible as its history of slavery was, it was the U.S. which first voted in a black president. Today, we have black legislators, blacks in the judiciary and through out the fabric of our nation. In writing this I do not wish to absolve the U.S. of its past practices regarding slavery. However, I think it only fair to point out that the U.S. was far from a leader of this practice. I would further point out that the U.S. ended this practice at great cost in life and treasure. And, finally, the U.S. did not engage in the subjugation of peoples in Africa through colonialism as did so many European countries.
True we had decades of Jim Crow but our progress in race relations since then can be matched by no other country with a similar distribution of ethnicities. It is appropriate to acknowledge the past practices of our predecessors with regard to their mistreatment of African Americans, but it is equally appropriate to commend the progress we have made in race relations.
But, where does America fit into this sordid story. Let's start with a few numbers. The greatest number of African slaves were sent to Brazil with something over 4 million slaves shipped there to harvest sugar cane, tobacco, and other crops.
The next big destination in terms of the destination of African slaves were countries in the Caribbean. And, then lastly comes America, the destination for less than 1 million slaves.
These numbers do not give America any bragging rights. The employment of slaves is quite dreadful. And, while 1 million people is but a fraction of the Africans sent to Brazil as well as to the Caribbean, it's still a very big number.
The fight to eliminate African slavery was long and hard. Credit must be given to the British for being among the earliest to seek to put an end to slavery, Their efforts began at the start of the 19th century. And, these first efforts were designed to end the trading of slaves. They put the first nails in the into the sale of humans. At that time, there could also be heard individuals in the U.S. calling for an end to his practice. Among them was president Thomas Jefferson who was among the people holding slaves. And, then in 1886, Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation.
As terrible as its history of slavery was, it was the U.S. which first voted in a black president. Today, we have black legislators, blacks in the judiciary and through out the fabric of our nation. In writing this I do not wish to absolve the U.S. of its past practices regarding slavery. However, I think it only fair to point out that the U.S. was far from a leader of this practice. I would further point out that the U.S. ended this practice at great cost in life and treasure. And, finally, the U.S. did not engage in the subjugation of peoples in Africa through colonialism as did so many European countries.
True we had decades of Jim Crow but our progress in race relations since then can be matched by no other country with a similar distribution of ethnicities. It is appropriate to acknowledge the past practices of our predecessors with regard to their mistreatment of African Americans, but it is equally appropriate to commend the progress we have made in race relations.
Tuesday, March 17, 2015
For Once, Barney Frank Gets It Right
I heard Barney Frank on "Morning Joe" this morning, 3/17/15 making remarks apropos Israel that were spot on. He said, in so many words, that Netanyahu's declaration that, if he were to be re-elected prime minister, he would keep the Palestinians from forming an independent state -- this due to security considerations -- ran counter to the wishes of the world community. That even now nations worldwide are as concerned with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as they are with extremism in Islam such ISIS. This is idiotic, but true.
Let's give that a moment's thought. European's concern with the measures that Israel must take to defend itself in the face of Islamic intransigence are as high on their list of concerns as are terrorists murdering, raping, enslaving all who do not share their horrific theology. Is it necessary to add that Israel is the only country in the middle east that promotes equal rights for women, equal rights for members of the LGBT community, and extends equal rights to its citizens of various religious persuasions?
Polls have been taken showing that in an election held today on the west bank, it is likely that Hamas would trounce Fatah. Is that what we would wish on Israel -- another community firing rockets at them?
There is a path to peace and it is through normalization. Only through normalization will the welfare of the Palestinian people rise to a level where it will become obvious that democracy and good relations with the Jewish state next door is the proper path to follow. One problem, for Abbas "normalization" remains a dirty word.
And, you're right, Barney, the rest of the world doesn't get it.
Let's give that a moment's thought. European's concern with the measures that Israel must take to defend itself in the face of Islamic intransigence are as high on their list of concerns as are terrorists murdering, raping, enslaving all who do not share their horrific theology. Is it necessary to add that Israel is the only country in the middle east that promotes equal rights for women, equal rights for members of the LGBT community, and extends equal rights to its citizens of various religious persuasions?
Polls have been taken showing that in an election held today on the west bank, it is likely that Hamas would trounce Fatah. Is that what we would wish on Israel -- another community firing rockets at them?
There is a path to peace and it is through normalization. Only through normalization will the welfare of the Palestinian people rise to a level where it will become obvious that democracy and good relations with the Jewish state next door is the proper path to follow. One problem, for Abbas "normalization" remains a dirty word.
And, you're right, Barney, the rest of the world doesn't get it.
Monday, March 16, 2015
Will The Real Michael Brown Stand Up
First there was Tawana Brawley. Now, there's Michael Brown. But, there is a difference. Tawana Brawley deserved our sympathy. If I recall correctly, she suffered abuse at the hands of a terrible step father. Al Sharpton turned that situation from one of trying to help a needy child, to one of attempting to besmirch the reputation of an honest prosecutor. To some extent, the justice system worked. A lawyer working with Al Sharpton was disbarred. Al Sharpton was heavily fined. But, his fine was only paid after many, many years by his supporters -- not by him. Hiding his money is a skill well honed by the Reverend.
In the case of Michael Brown and Ferguson, the situation was quite different. Here malcontents decided to burn the town of Ferguson because an unarmed black youth had been shot to death by a police officer. An account of the shooting was spun to the point where it bore little resemblance to what had actually happened. Based on this false narrative, hoodlums describing themselves as "protesters" burned local businesses, overturned cars and fought with the police. The month of rioting culminated in the shooting of two police officers.
This miscarriage of justice did more than simply cause grievous damage to innocent Ferguson citizens. It angered honest citizens who watched on their TVs what the protestors were doing. What flaws exist in the system -- and there are many -- make correcting those flaws far more difficult. We can clearly see a great many flaws such as the many black kids murdered by other black kids. Then too, it's clear that there are communities where police culture and the lack of diversity in the police departmens need to be addressed.
But, while these flaws must be corrected, improving the system becomes far more difficult when it's reduced to "us" versus "them." And, that's what Al Sharpton has been doing. Sharpton may be a lot of things, but one thing he's not is a Martin Luther King.
In the case of Michael Brown and Ferguson, the situation was quite different. Here malcontents decided to burn the town of Ferguson because an unarmed black youth had been shot to death by a police officer. An account of the shooting was spun to the point where it bore little resemblance to what had actually happened. Based on this false narrative, hoodlums describing themselves as "protesters" burned local businesses, overturned cars and fought with the police. The month of rioting culminated in the shooting of two police officers.
This miscarriage of justice did more than simply cause grievous damage to innocent Ferguson citizens. It angered honest citizens who watched on their TVs what the protestors were doing. What flaws exist in the system -- and there are many -- make correcting those flaws far more difficult. We can clearly see a great many flaws such as the many black kids murdered by other black kids. Then too, it's clear that there are communities where police culture and the lack of diversity in the police departmens need to be addressed.
But, while these flaws must be corrected, improving the system becomes far more difficult when it's reduced to "us" versus "them." And, that's what Al Sharpton has been doing. Sharpton may be a lot of things, but one thing he's not is a Martin Luther King.
Tuesday, February 3, 2015
Selma, The Movie: History or Fable
Hollywood at one time gave some of their westerns an historical venire. Did it matter? Not really. Did it send the right message? Who cared? It was a western -- cowboys riding around shooting at Indians, bad guys, or Mexicans. It was designed to deliver thrills. No one thought to judge it on its fidelity to actual events. It was a western.
"Shogun, " "The Longest Day," " Exodus" were also stories based on historical events. However, they sought greater fidelity to the historical events portrayed. From these movies the audience came away believing they had learned something. They sought to give the audience an understanding of what was involved in each of the conflicts depicted.
And, that's where "Selma" falls down. While the Civil War ended slavery, serious issues remained; namely, Jim Crow and the violence perpetrated on African-Americans under Jim Crow.
To show how African-Americans led by the Rev. Martin Luther King, finally, and under great danger to their lives, brought Jim Crow to its knees is a story for all Americans. It is a story sadly marked by King's murder. But, while it seems that the flames of mindless hatred can never be entirely extinguished, the soul of Jim Crow can be said to have been vanquished. However, to tell this story, with no acknowledgement of the brave, white Americans, who stood with King, is to demean their labors, and their sacrifices, and to warp the understandings of African-Americans who go to see this movie.
There are people, a great number of people, who are warped by hatred. But, in the most horrific of situations, there can also be found people who will risk their lives to do the right thing. Though the number of righteous Christians, who put their lives and their family's lives at risk for the purpose of saving Jews were small, they must be acknowledged. People like Wallenberg of Sweden saved thousands of Jews. Jews know that. And, Jews know they ought to do that for others. This acceptance of facts takes nothing away from Jews and their history. Indeed, most Jews will acknowledge that this is something that must be taught to Jews.
The producers of "Selma" say that their movie is for blacks. That if the whites want to tell their story, they should make their own movie. I can't think of anything more damaging to race relations in American than such a statement. Americans are one people that have emerged from many peoples and many cultures. Do black leaders now favor the segregation of cultures? Whites have been taught, and are being taught, and should be taught, of the contributions of African-Americans to the greater American culture. Do African-Americans now want this country to take a different tack?
Are people like Schwerner, Goodman and Chaney to be so quickly forgotten? Are the efforts -- largely successful efforts -- by LBJ to be, not simply forgotten, but to be denied, when telling the story of the African-American experience?
"Shogun, " "The Longest Day," " Exodus" were also stories based on historical events. However, they sought greater fidelity to the historical events portrayed. From these movies the audience came away believing they had learned something. They sought to give the audience an understanding of what was involved in each of the conflicts depicted.
And, that's where "Selma" falls down. While the Civil War ended slavery, serious issues remained; namely, Jim Crow and the violence perpetrated on African-Americans under Jim Crow.
To show how African-Americans led by the Rev. Martin Luther King, finally, and under great danger to their lives, brought Jim Crow to its knees is a story for all Americans. It is a story sadly marked by King's murder. But, while it seems that the flames of mindless hatred can never be entirely extinguished, the soul of Jim Crow can be said to have been vanquished. However, to tell this story, with no acknowledgement of the brave, white Americans, who stood with King, is to demean their labors, and their sacrifices, and to warp the understandings of African-Americans who go to see this movie.
There are people, a great number of people, who are warped by hatred. But, in the most horrific of situations, there can also be found people who will risk their lives to do the right thing. Though the number of righteous Christians, who put their lives and their family's lives at risk for the purpose of saving Jews were small, they must be acknowledged. People like Wallenberg of Sweden saved thousands of Jews. Jews know that. And, Jews know they ought to do that for others. This acceptance of facts takes nothing away from Jews and their history. Indeed, most Jews will acknowledge that this is something that must be taught to Jews.
The producers of "Selma" say that their movie is for blacks. That if the whites want to tell their story, they should make their own movie. I can't think of anything more damaging to race relations in American than such a statement. Americans are one people that have emerged from many peoples and many cultures. Do black leaders now favor the segregation of cultures? Whites have been taught, and are being taught, and should be taught, of the contributions of African-Americans to the greater American culture. Do African-Americans now want this country to take a different tack?
Are people like Schwerner, Goodman and Chaney to be so quickly forgotten? Are the efforts -- largely successful efforts -- by LBJ to be, not simply forgotten, but to be denied, when telling the story of the African-American experience?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)