A Jaundiced Look at a Sympathetic Figure
Suicide bombers are really good people:
Alan Posener: The disappointing film "Paradise Now"
from WELT
Said is a suicide bomber in Nablus. Long trained for this job,
he and his friend Khaled don't hesitate a moment when their
organization's leader announces they've drawn the winning straw and will be allowed to stage a double mass murder the next day in Tel Aviv. (...)
The next day the friends start out and although Khled gets cold feet at the last moment, Said goes through with it and blows himself up with a bus load of jews. Mission accomplished.
So much for the plot of the German-Dutch-French co-produciton
"Paradise Now". (...)
Hany Abu-Assads film is the first fruit of the "World Cinema Fund", the mutual film sponsorship of the Berlinale and Federal Cultural Foundation. The evangelical film jury names "Paradise Now" as the film of the month because it invites the viewer to "think about the assasin's motives". Amnesty International distinguishes it with its peace prize because it's neither "lecturing nor moralizing".
That's true: Noone in the film says that it might morally wrong
(and not just politically conterproductive as Suha claims), to mass murder the innocent.
Most German critics praise the "sophisticated" presentation. Well "Paradise Now" is certainly "sophisticated" compared to the hate soaked anti-semitic propaganda films that play every evening on TVs in every arabic country. Sure it's "sophisticated" compared to the videos that Hamas, Hisbollah and Co. produce. (...)
As Said begs his commander for a second chance, he finds the words that Europeans miss so painfully in the communiques of the
terrorists. Words that speak to the heart - just like Saids'
gesture speaks to the heart not to board a bus carrying a sweet
israeli child. That's how they are, these murderers: actually
good people.
But the film doesn't show Saids'deed: Women without abdomens, men without heads, children without arms and legs, blood and guts in seats, burned pieces of flesh all over the place. Nothing about that: After panning past Saids' eyes the screen becomes bright and white and pure.
At the 55th international film festival in Berlin 2005 "Paradise
Now" won the Publikumspreis ("audience award") and the Blue Angle for the best European film.
#2
How about a movie inviting the people to undertsand my murderous instincts both against Jihadis but still more to fifth columnists and to people who say we have to understand them.
Page 18 DC Examiner Book Review of âThe Age of Anxiety: McCarthyism to Terrorismâ by Haynes Johnson
If journalists are the children of the news cycle, then liberal journalists are its orphans. The mainstream media has reminded us for more than a generation that conservatives are meanspirited, narrow- minded, brutish and selfish. Yet conservatives are on the advance almost everywhere. How can this be?
Now Haynes Johnson, a longtime correspondent for the Washington Post and a PBS commentator, offers his answer. The result is what must count as one of the worst books of the decade, a monument to ignorance and moral evasion and a prime exhibit of the continuing liberal crackup of our age. Ouch! The first part of âThe Age of Anxietyâ is a scrappily written and predictable account of the rise and fall of Republican senator Joe McCarthy, 1950s Cold War warrior and ancient liberal bogeyman. Johnson claims that because McCarthy was both conservative and evil, then all conservatives are evil â a mirror image of the old anti-Semitic argument that because Leon Trotsky was both a Jew and a Communist, then all Jews must be Communists.
Liberals have deployed this illogic against conservatives for decades. Where has it gotten them? Intellectually, it has gotten them nowhere, unless the creation of a false mythology counts for something. Politically, liberals havenât done much better, as Republicans control two branches of the federal government (the White House and Congress) and conservatives appear poised to solidify their position on the third (the Supreme Court). This puzzles and enrages Johnson and many pf the LLL and MSM and serves as the springboard for the second part of his woeful book: a rambling rant on the war on terror that miraculously makes Johnsonâs musings on McCarthy seem almost scholarly and objective.
Johnson ties the two parts together by insisting that McCarthyâs dark soul has found a new host in the body of President Bush â a case of political demonic possession worthy of âThe Exorcistâ or âAlien.â But why do Bush and the Republicans keep winning all those elections? Haynes says itâs because they have frightened us into line by conjuring up fake enemies like communists, the Soviet Union and now al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein, in order to establish their regime of âtorture, of imprisoning innocents, of lying about the reasons for launching a preemptive war, of trampling on civil rights, of helping the powerful at the expense of the powerless ... â I wonder if he wants the Dems to adopt Pub tactics, or is just crying in his beer? And so it goes, for nearly 600 pages of printed matter. In the end, Johnson concludes, the real villain of 9/11 is not Osama bin Laden (he barely mentions the name) but George W. Bush, who has manipulated the post-9/11 spirit of American unity to secure his own power and Republican âideological political dominance.â
Johnson doesnât say Bush masterminded the attack on the Twin Towers to win re-election in 2004, but he hardly allows the man a single good intention. And God knows we all have leftist friends who believe that Bush practically flew one of the planes. Waitaminute. I thought Karl Rove flew two! And thatâs the point. Fear and paranoia reign today not on the right, but on the left. Johnsonâs hallmarks of McCarthyism â âthe Big Lie, fear, smear, and character assassinationâ â permeate his own book. So does McCarthyismâs basic premise: the notion that Americaâs greatest danger comes from its own elected leaders and the hidden powerful interests behind them, who are systematically manipulating our minds in order to disguise the truth. How ironic that the âparanoid styleâ of McCarthy, Norman Lincoln Rockwell and the John Birch Society, which the left used to consider the lunatic fringe of American politics, has come back to roost in its own institutions, from Moveon.org and the Harvard arts faculty to the Democratic National Committee and now the recesses of Johnsonâs fevered imagination.
Itâs not hard to figure out why. Like the Birchers and the proverbial little old ladies in tennis shoes who once campaigned against fluoridated water, liberals find themselves adrift in a world they no longer understand. The old landmarks have disappeared; their ideological compass is rusty and no longer steers them straight. Cindy to the rescue! So they have withdrawn into the deep dark holds of their imaginations. That little old lady in tennis shoes now wears a âBUSH: WAR CRIMINALâ T-shirt. What liberals like Johnson cannot admit is that they have brought this distress on themselves. Indeed, the real story of American politics since the Second World War has been the publicâs loss of confidence in liberalism and the simultaneous rise of the conservative movement. There was New Deal liberalismâs failure to take seriously the totalitarian threat of communism until American boys were dying in Korea, spurring McCarthyâs rise and putting Dwight Eisenhower in the White House as the first Republican president in two decades. There was New Frontier liberalismâs failure in the Kennedy-Johnson era, in starting a war in Vietnam it couldnât finish and losing control of the nationâs cities in a blaze of riots, which catapulted Richard Nixon to the presidency in 1968. Then came the failure of traumatized post-Vietnam liberalism, which blamed America for the worldâs problems and refused to stand up to an expanding Soviet empire. That set off the Reagan Revolution and laid the foundations for Newt Gingrich and Republicans to win control of Congress in 1994. Finally, there was a Democratic presidentâs pusillanimity in the face of radical Islam, despite attacks on the World Trade Center and American embassies around the world, which set the stage for Sept. 11 and a national resolve not to repeat the mistakes of the past, even if that meant risking new ones in the future.
One of Johnsonâs previous books is called âSleepwalking Through History.â It purports to be a chronicle of the 1980s, and its villain is of course Ronald Reagan. But with âThe Age of Anxiety,â Johnson demonstrates that heâs the real sleepwalker. Will someone please wake him up now?
Arthur Herman is the author of, among other works, âJoseph McCarthy: The Life and Legacy of Americaâs Most Hated Senator.â
Posted by: Bobby ||
10/03/2005 12:49 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Who?
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
10/03/2005 16:45 Comments ||
Top||
Page 13 DC Examiner .pdf Apparently a Republican governor...
The governor of Connecticut, backed by the congressional delegation of that state, has filed suit in federal courts to block the Pentagonâs Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) Commission from moving or closing down elements of the Air National Guard in that state. The governor cites her role as the head of the state National Guard as the foundation of her arguments. She asserts that as the commander, she must be consulted before any recommendation may be made. She also fiercely insists her state needs that unit. If this were an infantry unit, which might respond to an East Coast hurricane or riots in Hartford, I would understand completely. The same for an engineer unit, which can fight fires and build bridges, I would also understand. In fact, there are many sorts of units which are useful to a state in its hour of need.
But in this case I believe that Gov. M. Jodi Rell of Connecticut is poorly advised by those surrounding her. Alternatively, and perhaps more distressingly, this may be a simple (if classic) example of a complete lack of understanding about the military among those who control it. The unit in question, you see, is not an infantry unit, nor military police or engineers or even Air Traffic Control. It is a fighter unit, the 103rd Fighter Wing. It is equipped with a magnificent aircraft, the A-10 âThunderbolt,â more commonly known as the âWarthog,â because it is one butt-ugly airframe. It is squat, stubby winged, with a titanium âbathtubâ to protect its single crewmember from ground fire. Why does ground fire matter? Well, because the A-10, a plane beloved by infantrymen across the United States, is designed with one purpose and one purpose only to kill enemy tanks. It cannot defend the United States or the airways of America by intercepting a rogue jet plane, nor can it carry supplies to a beleaguered area.
Rather, it is designed to rain scunnion scunnion? Itâs not in my dictionary! from the sky upon tanks. That it also happens to be good at killing trucks, armored personnel carriers and enemy infantry is just a happy bonus. But ultimately the design purpose of this flying warthog, with its deadly tusks, is killing tanks. Surely Gov. Rell cannot be aware of this. S o m e b o d y must be concealing from her the fact that no governor in the entire history of the United States has ever used a squadron of ground attack jet fighters as the commander of the state National Guard. Nor, I imagine, would the governor plan to use these high-technology wonders herself, if only somebody would tell her what they are. To the best of my knowledge, Connecticut is not currently anticipating any armored thrusts coming from Rhode Island. No assault by infantry fighting vehicles down I-91 from Massachusetts is planned. Accordingly, I am at a loss as to how to explain Gov. Rellâs complaint that national security would be undercut by the repositioning of the 103rd Fighter Wing.
Posted by: Bobby ||
10/03/2005 12:58 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I think it's time to get rid of the Air National Guard, and just fold the planes back into the Air Force, before Blanco gets any more bright ideas.
#2
I think these Governours have confused the National Guard with State Militia. Here in Tennessee we have a State Militia, controlled by the Governour, as well as the State National Guard. The National Guard units do not own the weapons or equipment, the Department of Defense does. In the State Militia, we own our weapons. (AR-15 for me as well as a 1903 Springfield).
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
10/03/2005 13:30 Comments ||
Top||
#3
"You want 'em, you pay for 'em. Otherwise, butt out."
#6
Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the authority ... To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Seems straight forward to me. The Gov gets to appoint the officers and the authority to train. Of course why should a federal judge ever worry his poor head about something like the Constitution. Gets in the way of doing things the Duke judge wants to accomplish.
I think its cool. Its a perfect example form following function. And it functions better than anyone expected (except maybe the design team). Obviously this reporter doesn't appreciate the beauty of a weapons platform.
#11
IF she really really wants them, stick her with the bill for them. I know they're cheaper than F-15's, but they're still only $13 million EACH, plus maintenance, parts, fuel, ammo, bombs, missiles, and then there's the really expensive things that go in the FLIR pods and other EW stuff that costs some pretty pennies. I'm sure the USAF would LOVE to sell them to her.
Sometimes Washington just doesn't know when to leave a good thing alone.
So it is that both sides of the political aisle have tried monopolizing on the success of the hit documentary "March of the Penguins." The film, which was the surprise hit of the summer, details the fascinating and difficult lives of penguins in Antarctica. A boring, yet somehoe riveting movie. Go see it!
Within weeks, conservative Christian organizations cited the film - and the lives of the penguins that it details - as proof of nature's innate bias toward family values. They also said the film spoke powerfully against abortion and suggested that Darwinism was simply, well, for the birds.
In a column on WorldNetDaily.com, Jill Stanek, an anti-abortion crusader, said, "I remembered last year's March for Women's Lives in Washington, D.C. when pro-aborts gathered to bolster their right to kill babies. I thought maybe a penguin movie analogy would help people understand."
Other have countered conservative arguments by noting that penguins may not be the picture of values that many conservative Christians would like them to be. Yes, penguins are monogamous, but for one year only. Then they move on to someone else. In addition, the mother and father spend virtually the entire year away from each other, as one gathers food while they other stays with the egg. Scientists also have observed gay male penguins.
Surely, we don't need to look all the way to animals living in Antarctica for moral lessons for us humans. Though it may be hard to imagine such a scenario here in Washington (where even the political implications of rain clouds are seriously weighed), it would be nice if, just for once, the warring camps didn't politicize each and every little thing. Some things - especially nature - should just be enjoyed
Posted by: Bobby ||
10/03/2005 11:23 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
Sheryl McCarthy
On the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, a man I met in Times Square gave the most insightful reaction I had yet heard to what had just transpired in New York, Pennsylvania and Washington. "Americans need to be careful about what we do in the world," he told me.
I'm glad you consider that insightful. On the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, I was thinking it was time to flatten a considerable amount of foreign real estate and sow the ground with salt. On the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, prior to the first plane hitting the WTC we were at peace with the world.
At a time of such anguish, suggesting that there was a political and historical backdrop to the terrorist attacks seemed like heresy to a lot of people, and such talk was suppressed for a long time.
No it wasn't. Similar babble erupted on the left almost immediately. The only problem they ran into was that at the time people weren't in a mood to listen to it, so most people suggested they shut the hell up.
That fear of a deeper analysis of 9/11 was behind Gov. George Pataki's decision to pull the plug on the proposed International Freedom Center that was to have been part of the memorial site at Ground Zero.
A "deeper analysis" of 9-11, of course, leading to the inevitable conclusion that it was all our fault. But we've spent the past four years digging through all sorts of evidence, not just that associated with 9-11, and we've come to the conclusion that there's an organized assault on the West and its values, orchestrated in Soddy palaces and mosques, managed by Arab and Pak agents, executed by Arab and Muslim cannon fodder. We're at war with SPECTRE with turbans, Ernst Stavro Blofeld with dancing girls, the Council of Boskone holding a diwan. If you're fairly stupid and you assiduously avoid paying attention, then you might miss all that, but that fact shouldn't give you a right to screw around with a memorial on the site of the first attack.
It was a sad denouement to what started out as a plan to make the site not just about grief and loss, but to help us understand the significance of that day.
We've got the significance of that day: dead people, lots of them. Islamic treachery. The heroism of the men and women of FDNY and NYPD and the people of New York. That's a lily that doesn't need gilding, much less gelding.
Pataki's retreat - he said there was too much controversy over the center - came as no surprise. But Sen. Hillary Clinton's decision to join the opponents came as a shock, and is more proof that she's willing to do whatever it takes to advance her political career.
Whatever she is, it isn't stupid. And perhaps, since she was in fact New York's senator at the time, even she's not long on patience when it comes to the usual suspects crawling out from under their rocks to take over what started as and should have remained a memorial to the heroism of New Yorkers.
Political correctness, plain old politics and the fear of exploring the larger issues behind 9/11 were what sank the Freedom Center.
A true statement, though I don't think it's true in the sense she intended it. It was the overwhelming political correctness of the "Freedom Center" that caused the people involved to gag at the thought of it sullying the site of the WTC. The nation has a short attention span, but it's not quite as short as some people think it is.
A small group of 9/11 victims' relatives and first responders were allowed to wrest control of the site from the rest of us, even though they're a tiny fraction of those who will use it.
But since the original idea was to honor the dead, including the first responders who gave their lives trying to rescue them, it's somehow appropriate to me that the "small group" was allowed to wrest control of the site from "the rest of us" — presumably including me.
They'd already run off The Drawing Center, an art museum that was slated to be part of the site, because they said it had hosted exhibits that were political and controversial. Now their victory is complete.
Does my heart good to know that.
After 9/11, President George W. Bush told us the terrorists "hate us because they hate freedom." So what better theme than the larger meaning of freedom for the memorial site? The dead are already getting a separate memorial and a museum dedicated solely to the events of that day.
But why was it essential for the "Freedom Center" to go on the WTC site? Why did it evaporate when told it had to go someplace else? The message wouldn't have been the same in Brooklyn?
What did the Freedom Center want to do that was so terrible? To show freedom as a constantly evolving world movement in which the United States has played a leading role. To explore links between those who died on 9/11 and others who came to the United States in search of freedom. To replay some of the great freedom struggles, from those of Gandhi and Martin Luther King to Tiananmen Square. To capture the words of defenders of freedom from George Washington to Nelson Mandela. To exhibit documents that are the basis of freedoms, from the Magna Carta to the Declaration of Independence. And to remind visitors of the different definitions of freedom.
Which has precisely what to do with the site of the terrorist attacks against a great nation at peace? Merely hashing and rehashing the same old left cultural icons, putting Mandela and Washington in the same sentence, burping up Tiananmen Square, trotting out Gandhi and Martin Luther King to show to us yokels, doesn't say anything about their relationship to the virulent Islamism that's at war with us. There's lots of cultural and moral equivalence, not a hell of a lot of indignation at people who chop off other people's heads and want to supplant democracy with rule by holy men.
I see nothing subversive in this.
Lots of the rest of us do.
But the opponents said such wanderings would distract from the focus on 9/11, and could be used to politicize the site and criticize the United States.
I just said that. Ascribing the sentiments to the sites opponents doesn't address the truth or falsity of the sentiments, does it?
The center's sponsors promised not to bash America. But in this period of mindless patriotism, Americans are still hesitant to engage in a thoughtful analysis of the forces that collided on that day.
Sheryl, you're making the assumption that patriotism is "mindless" only because you don't happen to agree with it. [Pause here for Sheryl to bitch about me questioning her patriotism...] Patriotism can in fact be quite a reasoned feeling; you're confusing it with Jingoism, in fact. You mentioned Washington a few paragraphs back, though I suspect you know more about Mandela than you do about him. His patriotism wasn't "mindless." The patriotism of those who are concerned with the defense of the nation today isn't "mindless," wither. Our enemies have announced their hatred of democracy, their hatred of all religions not their own, their contempt for races non-Arab. Many of us engage in thoughtful analysis of the way the world's going each and every day. We just don't come to the same trite conclusions you do. So piss off.
This national myopia allowed the Bush administration to wage war based on the erroneous theory that Saddam Hussein was involved in the 9/11 attacks.
This political myopia allows writers in Newsday to keep making the discredited statement that the Bush administration thought Saddam Hussein was involved in the 9/11 attacks. It's a lie, Sheryl. We know it's a lie, even though you keep repeating it for your own obscure political or vanity ends. Just drop it. MoveOn to find another lie that's not so easily discredited.
A certain egotism characterizes the families of some 9/11 victims. They have exploited the international outpouring of sympathy for their loss in every possible way.
That's because their loved ones were murdered. They weren't even murdered in something remotely understandable, like a holdup. They went to work one morning, their hair combed and their teeth brushed, and someone killed them because they were there. If the families of the 9-11 victims were more like Cindy Sheehan you wouldn't be accusing them of egotism, would you, Sheryl?
But while they have the right to grieve and memorialize their dead, they don't have the right to force the rest of us, in our public spaces, into an endless orgy of grief.
Nor does a small clique in New York have the right to force the larger rest of us to wallow through the same old cultural and moral equivalence claptrap.
Frankly, a museum whose exhibits will always focus on a single day sounds boring.
How boring do you think the day was for the people who were killed there, Sheryl? And taking that thought about how boring it would be, why don't you move the Freedom Center to the Pearl Harbor? They've only been concentrating on the one incident for 60+ years now, so they're probably bored to tears.
With the Freedom Center now history, I don't know how Pataki and the other Ground Zero officials will come up with a museum that truly serves the city while adhering to the strict demands of those families. Which is too bad. It could have been something really great.
But more likely something really trite. And having read Sheryl's defense of it, I'm guessing trite.
Posted by: Fred ||
10/03/2005 09:30 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Oh I bet Pataki pissed off the LLL when he pulled the plug on this "Hate All Things America" Freedom Center. Leave to the LLL to take a center to honor those killed by terrorists and turn into a glorification of those who commited the crime. Add to that the indignation after the world finds out how loopy this project turned out that people demanded it be closed down. Yes Sheryl life is hard when you are forced to be in the light where everyone can see what a bunch of cockroaches you and your ilk have become. Good Job Pataki, thanks for doing the right thing.
#2
A certain egotism characterizes the families of some 9/11 victims. They have exploited the international outpouring of sympathy for their loss in every possible way.
That include the Jersey Girls, Sheryl? Or are they considered noble, grieving widows?
#3
#2 A certain egotism characterizes the families of some 9/11 victims. They have exploited the international outpouring of sympathy for their loss in every possible way.
That include the Jersey Girls, Sheryl? Or are they considered noble, grieving widows?
_______________
They're noble, grieving widows because they supported and voted for the Party of Obscenely Obsessive Pessimists (P.O.O.P) formerly known as the Democratic Party.
What makes one a POOPER?
1. Hate all things American
2. Hate Whitey even if you are one
3. Call for socialization of the means of production
4. Call for socialized medicine
5. Call for an uber Nanny State
6. Hate Israel
7. Hate Jews (see # 6 above)
8. Exploit the racial divide in aftermath of natural disasters
9. Excuse a mayor who failed to use 200 public transport and school buses to evacuate a city
10. Suggest Republicans blew up a levee
11. Reject all faith save for Wicca, Radical Wahhabi Islamism, Marxism-Leninism, and Wind-Chiming Hedonism
12. See massive book in the making listing another 10,559 categories.
#4
does my heart good to hear these assholes bleating away, means things are going well for America
Posted by: Frank G ||
10/03/2005 12:06 Comments ||
Top||
#5
"A certain egotism characterizes the families of some 9/11 victims. They have exploited the international outpouring of sympathy for their loss in every possible way."
Would that same description apply to Cindy Sheehan? My guess is that the writer would think not.
Posted by: Mark E ||
10/03/2005 12:33 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Way to unleash the Negasphere, Fred! Onward to the Second Galaxy!
The sub title says it all. I don't know why we continue to push PR across the world when its defects are so large and the success of our alternative is so clear. Wacko minorities should be ostracized, not given a seat at the table. It will be interesting to see how soon the Iraqis recognize our hypocrisy and implement first past the post with strong minority rights by themselves. EFL
Why proportional representation leads to gridlock.
Berlin is far from Baghdad, and the Germans at least want to keep it that way. But for all the obvious differences, Germany's inconclusive election results and the impending constitutional referendum in Iraq point to some identical obstacles to effective and constitutional government.
These obstacles are proportional representation and "cooperative federalism." As it happens, well-meaning U.N. officials, NGOs and U.S. advisers have been urging these constitutional arrangements upon numerous fledgling democracies, including Iraq. That may not be good advice.
Proportional representation--PR--is said to be more democratic, inclusive and respectful of minorities than British-American winner-take-all, first-past-the-post elections. Unfortunately, it does nothing to foster clear majorities capable of effective government.
Germany's system of almost pure PR has consistently produced coalition governments and now, for the first time, a situation in which no party constellation can produce a government with a coherent program for much-needed reforms. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's reform of Britain's sclerotic economy wouldn't have been possible with PR and cooperative federalism; nor could one imagine Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi accomplishing anything similar in Japan.
The more subtle but ultimately more insidious problem is that PR--unless balanced by plebiscitary institutions such as a directly elected, powerful executive--tends to be constitutionally unstable. Instead of institutional checks and balances, PR constitutions resemble temporary peace pacts among contending interests, classes or warlords. The structure is only as stable as the underlying constellation of forces; or it is stabilized by nonpolitical means.
That's the function of Germany's cherished social welfare state: reducing political competition to promises of transfer payments, and compressing the range and intensity of social and political conflict. That sort of stability translates into economic malaise, political indecision and fears of much worse down the road.
Fast forward, or rather backward, to Iraq, whose National Assembly was elected, under U.N. and American pressure, on a PR basis. A just-proposed election law envisions a slightly modified system of party lists and PR. (At least every third delegate must be a woman.) The proposed constitution puts a hydra-headed executive at the mercy of the parliament.
While the federalism arrangements are still in flux, the proposed document promises a thoroughly cooperative regime, with the "fair distribution" of federal offices (including foreign missions); of international aid, grants, and loans; of oil and gas revenues; and of a "fair share" of other federal revenues. In conflicts between regional and federal law, regional law shall prevail--thus providing potent incentives to extort fiscal transfers. This construct is at best a state of (hopefully) suspended civil war. A constitution, it is not.
To appreciate the difference, consider the U. S. Constitution. Without proportional representation, we have a stable two-party system. We have an independently elected executive, no "fiscal constitution" and (aside from the Nixon administration's ill-fated experiment) no general revenue sharing. Instead, we have independent taxing authority and competition, subject to only minor constitutional provisos. The states do not owe each other much beyond keeping each other's borders inviolate and their own borders open. Within those ground rules, they may and must compete.
In short, the U.S. Constitution is not a peace pact among interests or an attempt to entrench a social balance. It establishes rival institutions with the means and the motives to resist one another, in the hope that counteracting ambitions will keep the outcomes within bounds. The system, to be sure, produces lots of friction and wheel-spinning--but it is also capable of energy and decision when needed. We do not owe the stability of our political institutions to economic forces or temporary social alignments. American politics is constitutionally stable.
Energetic government and constitutional stability may seem in tension, if not conflict. In truth, they go together. For many still-young republics in Eastern Europe and elsewhere, they make a far more attractive package than the German model of consensus, cooperation and paralysis.
#1
Many people are disturbed by the concept of governmental "gridlock", because they are working under a basic, though false, assumption:
"Government is supposed to DO stuff. Change stuff. Make things happen. Innovate."
The US government was actually designed to minimize how much stuff government could do. Ever. To make passing new laws and regulations *difficult*, not easy. To *prevent* government from running off madly in all directions. To *stop* somebody's "really good idea" from being implemented before the Darwinistic hyenas of contention had their way with it.
To make passing a law as unpleasant as having a tooth pulled. Ironically, that's a *good* thing.
Gridlock means that the *people* are saying that they don't want a whole lot of radical change. That there is *no* mandate for change for anyone. That, for better or worse, the *people* prefer that nothing be done, rather than something be done with minimal consensus.
Certainly, the people may be wrong, but that is their choice in a real democracy.
Israel's leading known Kabbalistic Elder, Rabbi Yitzchak Kaduri called upon worldwide Jewry Tuesday night to return to Israel due to natural disasters which threaten to strike the world.
In a class between the Mincha (afternoon) and Maariv (evening) prayers at his Jerusalem yeshiva seminary, Rabbi Kaduri issued the following call:
"This declaration I find fitting to issue for all of the Jews of the world to hear. It is incumbent upon them to return to the Land of Israel due to terrible natural disasters which threaten the world.
In the future, the Holy One, Blessed be He, will bring about great disasters in the countries of the world to sweeten the judgements of the Land of Israel.
I am ordering the publication of this declaration as a warning, so that Jews in the countries of the world will be aware of the impending danger and will come to the Land of Israel for the buliding of the Temple and revelation of our righteous Mashiach (Messiah)."
Rabbi Kaduri also stated that the upcoming year would be a year of "secret and revelation" in the world. The Jewish year 5766 begins in less than three weeks, with the holiday of Rosh Hashana.
The Rabbi explained that the numerical Hebrew abbreviation for 5766, taf, shin, samech, vav gives insight into the nature of the upcoming year. "This will be a year of secret (or sod, from the letter samech) and revelation (or v'giliu from the letter vav).
Arutz Sheva Israel National Radio show host Yehoshua Meiri first publicized the declaration on his Hebrew radio show late Tuesday night. Meiri typed out the words of Rabbi Kaduri's declaration and presented them back to the Rabbi who signed on the document.
Associates of Rabbi Kaduri were dispatched to communicate the Kabbalistic Elder's call to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon before the latter's departure to the United States later the same night.
Meiri says he will publicize the signed declaration after Prime Minister Sharon delivers a speech in the U.S., in which he is expected to call upon the Jews of the Diaspora to make Aliyah (immigrate) to Israel.
During a visit in 1990 with the late Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson (of blessed memory), Rabbi Kaduri was told by the Rebbe that he would live to see the coming of the Mashiach.
Earlier this Jewish year, Rabbi Kaduri predicted great tragedies in the world. Just two weeks before the devastating tsunami in southeast Asia, Rabbi Kaduri was quoted in the Yediot Acharonot newspaper as saying:
"We are now in the fourth year of what could be the seven-year Redemption period, according to the calculation of the Vilna Gaon. [However.] in the coming three years, uncertainty about the future will hang over our heads, unless we work and strive that the Mashiach be revealed.
The Mashiach is already in Israel. Whatever people are sure will not happen, is liable to happen, and whatever we are certain will happen may disappoint us. But in the end, there will be peace throughout the world. The world is mitmatek mehadinim (or becoming sweet from strict justice).
Great tragedies in the world are foreseen, that's the thing of the Jews going to the East. But our enemies will not prevail over us in the Land of Israel, 'fear and trembling will fall upon them,' in the power of Torah."
Rabbi Kaduri said in the week prior to the interview, "What can save the world from calamities is real repentance by Jews, who must increase acts of kindness towards one another... The cry of the many poor in Israel and the expulsion of Jews from their homes shakes the world... It's not for naught that this place was hit, where many of our compatriots went to look for this-worldly lusts."
The month of Elul, which immediately preceeds the Jewish New Year is traditionally a month of teshuva, or repentence by the Jewish people, in anticipation of the judgments that are incurred on the Jewish High Holidays of Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur.
Rabbi Kaduri has told his students that the current government will be the last one of the "old era." He is on record as saying that Sharon will be the last prime minister in Israel, and that the new government will already have leadership of the Messianic era.
Postscript to this article.
In light of numerous questions to the editor regarding the above article, Arutz Sheva wishes to clarify the following:
Arutz Sheva show host Yehoshua Meiri takes full responsibility for the accuracy of the information in the news item above.
Rabbi Kaduri's remarks regarding natural disasters were said in the framework of a class on Tuesday, Sept. 13th, 2005, which covered the Nevi'im (prophets) section of the book Chok l'Yisrael.
The following is a response from Yehoshua Meiri:
*I am not the official spokesman for Rabbi Kaduri's court.
*Anyone who needs to know, knows precisely the essence of the relationship between the Tzadik Rabbi Kaduri and myself. HaRav Baruch Avraham Rakovsky from Jerusalem and HaRav Yissachar Bergman Shach from Bnei Barak and even the Director of Channel One TV Moti Eden and many others can testify to this relationship.
*Moreover, in the last national elections in Israel, all of the election commercials for Rabbi Kaduri's party Ahavat Yisrael broadcast the explicit announcement that the Kaduri.net website, which I operate, is the official website of Rav Yitzhak Kaduri, shlita. In the website, there is an explicit letter of approbation signed by Rabbi Kaduri for the website and my activities.
*Also noteworthy is the fact that when the Rabbi went on a helicopter campaign to various communities years ago, I escorted him in his travels as can be seen by clicking here. [Ed. Note: Yehoshua Meiri is seen 8 seconds into the video seated next to Rabbi Kaduri in the helicopter speaking to the camera.]
*Anyone interested in clarifying the truth should make an appointment to meet the Rabbi, and I will join the meeting to hear together what the Rabbi says. It's especially entertaining to think of the Klingon Empire when reading this.
#1
Many of the Lubavicher Chassids (a branch of Jewish mystics) were disappointed that the late Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson did not announce that he, himself, was the Messiah before he died. Not quite so many of these same Lubavicher Chsssids celebrate the anniversary of his death each year, awaiting his return from the dead to announce that he, himself, is the Messiah. It's quite sad, as the late Rabbi Schneerson suffered quite obviously from Alzheimers in his final years, and was incapable of announcing anything.
Also, for perspective, the Chassids are a small, cult-like offshoot of mainstream Judaism, which split into several branches following several different rabbinic families, of which the Lubavichers are one.
Imagine that you started receiving letters in the mail accusing your neighbor of being a child molester. Occasionally you receive photographs or even a video showing the neighbor with a child on his lap or dressed up like a clown at a children's party. After a couple of weeks of this, someone then phones you to ask if you think your neighbor is a pedophile. What percentage of us do you think would say yes?
There you have one of the media's favorite devices for disguising opinion as news, one on display in the coverage of the disaster in New Orleans. At the very height of the disaster reporters solicited opinions from people about what was happening and why, and unsurprisingly, the majority of poor black people asked said Bush and the federal government were to blame, a perception echoed by Democrats and black politicians for obvious partisan reasons. These perceptions of reality were then reported day after day, and not long after there followed the âscientificâ poll to solicit even more perceptions based on the earlier perceptions publicized by the media. The result is then reported as news, and thus through the magic of media alchemy subjective perceptions become facts in the minds of many.
Anyone with a modicum of critical awareness can see the fatal flaws in this whole procedure. Asking people in the midst of a calamity what they think or how they feel may be entertaining to some, but it's not very useful or even informative for the rest of us. People who are scared and hungry aren't likely to put much thought into their answers. And at that moment, critical information necessary for a thoughtful answer simply is unavailable. The context of the response, in other words, is completely lacking. Particularly in the case of electronic media, the powerful real-time image ââ usually shorn of any context and reflecting not so much reality but the point of view of the person pointing the camera ââ communicates not information but dramatic emotion, intense feelings that overwhelm thought.
In short, such coverage is radically simplifying, leading us to believe that reality, and the solutions to the problems reality throws our way, are equally simple. Numerous people, including the presumably objective media, have faulted the slowness of the response to the misery the media publicized. But how many stories do you recall that explained the logistics involved in transporting food or evacuating people? Here's a quick quiz: how many tons of food are required to feed 20,000 people for three days? How many trucks are needed to transport that food? Where does the food come from? Where do the trucks come from? Who pays for them? Who assumes the liability? How much time and how many men are needed to load those trucks? And given that roads were washed away, how would the food then get to those needing it, and how much time would that take? And most important of all, let's not forget that anything we do will be limited by human nature: the quirky, irrational, unpredictable, self-destructive reality of people that increases exponentially the complexity and difficulty of anything we try to do. How can you in your planning prepare for people shooting at rescue helicopters?
I'm willing to bet that only a fraction of the people cursing the incompetence of the government for not more quickly alleviating the suffering visible on television know the answers to these questions. Why should they? But you would think that a media concerned with objectivity and accuracy would want to provide this crucial contextual information so that we could better understand what we are seeing and what we can do about it. Maybe the feds were incompetent, and maybe they should have been more efficient, but before we decide one way or the other, we should have the information necessary for making that judgment, the context of facts that constitute the limits to action. That information will come out, eventually, but by then the dramatized perceptions splashed across the front page and the evening news will be the reality most people remember.
The elevating of perception to the status of fact likewise compromises the whole charade of âscientific polling.â Most polls solicit the opinions of a tiny number of people. These people may be smart, they may be dumb, they may be thoughtful, they may have indigestion, or they may be lunatics. But the only opinions they represent are their own.
And let's not forget, the pollster designs the questions, usually framed so that a simple answer must be given to a rigged question about a complex issue. No doubt, pollsters will assure us that they have all sorts of scientific techniques to control for all these variables, but given the immense variety and quirky complexity of human beings, this assurance rings hollow. I don't care how much scientific-sounding jargon pollsters use to explain what they do: every poll generates the subjective opinions of the tiny handful of people asked the questions. The amount of uncertainty, subjectivity, and irrationality involved is enough to undermine the pretense of science created by the numbers and decimal points that accompany the poll's appearance in the newspaper. And worst of all, once more, perceptions of reality are being reported as though they had some sort of cosmic significance, when in fact they usually have very little, and certainly not as much as facts.
A perfect example of this flawed process was reported in the New York Times a few weeks back. The Justice Department had done a survey that presumably demonstrated minorities are more likely to be subjected to a search or force after a traffic stop. Yet according to the Times story, this information was obtained by asking 80.000 people about their traffic-stop experiences! Nowhere in the story was it indicated if the survey crosschecked these perceptions with police reports, or if anything else was done to ensure the veracity of the stories respondents told or to discover data that provided the context for understanding the information. For example, if more minorities are resistant, abusive, or belligerent during traffic stops, that could explain why greater numbers are subjected to force. Maybe the survey did these things, but the point is the Times did not think it part of good reporting to delve into these obvious reservations about the data and address them in the story. Having already decided that racial profiling is a Bad Thing reflecting endemic racism in our society â an editorial opinion, not a fact â the Times is predisposed to report on the news page any information that seemingly supports this view, and to publicize with scientific-looking numbers and decimal points poll results documenting what may be only subjective or even false perceptions.
This distortion of reality compromises just about every issue the media cover. For two years, the media have accentuated the negative in Iraq, telling us over and over how badly the war is going. And then they take a poll and discover, guess what, a significant proportion of the
American people think the war in Iraq is going badly. Once again, we see the ideological and political biases of a media that continue to hide behind claims to objectivity and professionalism and public service. Such bias makes it all the more important that we take the responsibility to read critically and seek out other sources of information.
#1
No argument with the point of the column, but a petty point about one so-called fact. In at least the most publicized case of people shooting at rescue helicopters it turns out there were two gangs of 'people' shooting at each other, and when the helicopter came near them the helicopter crew thought the shooting was directed at them.
#2
Heir to the House of Brokaw, NBCâs Brian Williams was asked about his networks coverage of the Katrina disaster. He told the Washington Post: âWe were witnesses, so we drove the storyâ. Itâs easy to dismiss his self-congratulatory statement as mere arrogance. But it may shed some insight into what passes for contemporary journalism. Perhaps the âweâ in Williamsâ statement refers not exclusively to the self-important media but their gullible consumers as well. There is no doubt that advocacy journalism continues to be rampant regarding Katrina. But is shaping opinions really the end game for the media heavy weights? Or is blatant political bias merely a symptom of a fractured institution?
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
