The weak decision by the POTUS administration to alienate (spurn, short-change, ignore, disregard, ice-out, agitate, challenge, provoke, etc.) the Israeli supporters on Capitol Hill and in the electorate now leads to the Progressive punditocracy (Andrew Sullivan is a Green Knight among this cadre of Grub Street) choosing to fault the GOP for remaining loyal to Israel. The pretzel of partisanship in the USA. The case is made that the GOP is too cozy with Netanyahu, who is, significantly, the elected leader of an ally of the US. Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney, the clear front-runniers in the IA-NH chase, are both firm in their policy that supports Jerusalem. The logic is that Israel is our democratic, capitalist ally that is integral to our ambitions to project stability and peace into a region without either. This is not a hard case to make. Why do the Progressives disagree? Do the Progressives have another road to reach the goal? Not to find. The Progressive antipathy to Jerusalem does not look to be informed. Siding with the PA is like siding with gangsters who have long since ceased hiding their villainy. Am told by a close observer that Jewish support for POTUS has fallen under 60% and perhaps more, far different from the 78% he received in '08. Am told that the Obama administration is intermittently aware that it is at risk of losing heavily from its Jewish vote count, and is already aware that the checks are not flowing.
"Why do the Progressives disagree?"
Ours track closely to what their European brethern believe. Anti-Semitism is cool in those ranks, bought and paid for by Arab petro$$ a la dhemmitude and Eurabia, made to appear respectable, maybe even heroic, by the whiny Palestinians. How different things are from 2000!
"the Jewish support for POTUS has fallen under 60% and perhaps more, far different from the 78% he received in '08." I'm stunned that it is at 60%. I would have guessed more like 30%. I believe any Jew voting for Obama this cycle is signing Israel's death sentence. It seems that as economies take a down turn the Jews sadly get blamed. Now it's fashionable ( in certain circles) to make them the global scapegoat. Let's face it the age of actual investigative journalism is all but over. How else can you explain the lazy media types continually speaking of the '67 borders ( as if actually splitting your capital in two was an option) or even more basically, not challenging the OWS crowd when they blamed the Zionists.
Now it has come to this in our neighboring Canada, a teen set a girls hair on fire after peppering her with anti-semitic slurs. Where is the outrage?
http://www.jta.org/news/article/2011/12/06/3090599/boy-allegedly-set-jewish-girls-hair-on-fire-in-anti-semitic-attack
Polite dinner conversation this Thanksgiving was impossible.
The few of us opposed to Obama had to whisper to each other, lest our lefty cousins got too upset.
In the living room, while stuffing chocolate bon bons in my mouth, I casually remarked that Obama was our first affirmative action President. This caused my cousin's daughter -- a Columbia MBA graduate -- to choke on her trail mix. She explained how smart Obama is and how dumb Bush was [YAWN]. I said all we really know about Obama is that he reads well from a teleprompter. My truly wonderful host, sitting next to me -- who listens to Glenn Beck so that he knows how to frame counter arguments -- then told me how Obama was elected to the Harvard Law in secret or some such nonsense. I really don't remember much because I stopped listening and started stuffing candy in my mouth with both hands.
In retrospect, not knowing a damn thing about the Harvard Law Review, I suspect Obama got his position much in the same that Putney Swope became CEO in the opening scene of the movie -- everybody voted for him because they thought no one else would [and, of course, modernizing it a bit it's very PC to do so].
In this uber polarized environment who wants to divulge to pollsters what you think - Can there be repercussions? That said, I don't think most centrist and left leaning Jewish voters are going to speak openly of what they know in their hearts.
This Thanksgiving I noticed that even my liberal step daughter mentioned she has grown weary of listening to the POTUS speak. According to her his speech sounds practiced, and phoney. Sne's 25, and lives in the liberal capital of the southwest...Austin. It made the bon bons more tastey to hear those words from her. I had to smile. 'Cause she ment it.
JB,
Interesting segment re Derrick Boogaard, the hockey player who passed away in the off-season from a suspected OD.
But I take some exception to your conclusion, which was that the NHL is responsible for Boogaard's death. Individual responsibility is the hallmark of a conservative. Pointing the finger at an institution is just the opposite.
Also, why stop at Boogaard and the other enforcers? Why not call for an end to off-season airplane flights for hockey players, such as the one that killed an entire team this past summer? That was a true tragedy, and one that indiscriminately killed "good guys" and "bad guys" alike, to the extent there is such a thing.
Regarding why the league allows it: In my opinion, it's to let players from both sides blow off steam. There's a certain amount of anger that builds up in all players over the course of a game, skilled players and goons alike. (BTW, "goon" is the correct word for what Boogaard, and others like him, were, and believe it or not it's not a pejorative). Rather than have all the players constantly scrumming and taking pot shots at each other, the league has channeled all the anger into one goon on either side, and when things get bad enough the goons go out and fight and then the pressure is released. It's almost like a sexual release for the rest of the team - they can relax and concentrate on the game afterwards. True, sometimes the skill players continue to fight after the goons are sent to the locker room, but for every one game that gets out of hand as a result of the goons fighting, there must be 9 games where there are no further incidents afterwards.
Perhaps most importantly, I think Boogaard himself would roll over in his grave if he heard your closing comment. I never knew the man, but from what I do know about hockey players, he would take responsibility for his own death, not blame the league, and be absolutely outraged, if not at least saddened, that you would use his death as a call to the league to end the practice that gave him his 5 minutes in the limelight.
Besides, the brain damage autopsy is inconclusive. You did say he was Canadian.
Back on topic, my fairly extensive experience with liberal Jews is that most of them would rather vote for a lousy, Israel-hating Democrat than a talented, Israel-supporting Republican. And the ones who did support the Republican, would keep quiet about it, as suggested above. As to why that is, I think Peggy Noonan hit it well in her column about a month ago - it's the legacy identity of the GOP, and there's really not much that can be done about it.
Another insight, and this also straight from the mouth of a good friend of mine, about as liberal as you would care to find (also Jewish): "Most Jews who have never been to Israel don't really care very much about Israel. They may pay lip service to caring, but most care more about (the home front)." I just offer that FWIW, neither agree nor disagree.
Back OT, interesting story about the discovery of another tunnel from the Great Escape stalag:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2063652/The-classic-Steve-McQueen-movie-immortalised-tunnels-Stalag-Luft-III-PoW-camp--astonished-archaeologists-discovered-fourth.html
"liberal capital of the southwest...Austin."
So true. A young Lon-Gisland, friend, conservative to the 10th power, was accepted into the MBA program in Austin 15 years ago. He was thrilled at the prospect of all those nubile Texas co-eds he expected to have at his disposal. After he departed DC for Austin, the next phone call I got from him was in Indiana on Perdue's campus. Me, estremely puzzled:"How did you end up in Indiana?" Him, without a note of regret: "I drove onto the campus in Austin to register, took one turn around the campus, decided they weren't my kind of people, and drove straight to Perdue. I didn't even stay the night in Austin."
http://www.nytimes.com/1990/02/06/us/first-black-elected-to-head-harvard-s-law-review.html
The process is on the second page of the article. To the extent there was a write-on requirement, I can't imagine he wrote it himself. He didn't write his books, so why should he have written his submission for law review? Obama has had a charmed career since at least his Columbia days. JB used to hammer away about his Columbia transcript and whether he actually ever graduated.
Follow up article in American Thinker, discussing his law review presidency in the context of his evident inability to think and write clearly. I mean, it seems the only demand ever made on him was to look good.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/08/early_obama_letter_confirms_inability_to_write.html
I should mention that law reviews have been accused of enshrining elliptical thinking and the dense, turgid writing style for which lawyers are notorious. Many law firms send their new recruits to plain English writing seminars such as those run by Bryan Garner and others. Lawyers seldom ever met an active verb they approved of, and, as I was once admonished by a colleague, deliberate and artful obfuscation protects the author's boss from blame if the client follows the advice apparently given in the opinion and it blows up on the client.
http://www.amazon.com/Legal-Writing-Plain-English-Exercises/dp/0226284182/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1323559521&sr=1-3
When you ask liberals about the missiles, the bombs, the Honor killings, the kidnappings, the hijackings, the murder of Journalists, and the misogyny; they either change the subject or blamr Israel and America.
Corlyss -
WOW! Fascinating articles. Thank you. I'll print them out and mail them to my cousin. We had a big spat in the Spring over whether Martha Stewart was convicted of insider trading. i.e. I insisted she was convicted of lying.
Old post:
12/25/10
WHO CARRIED OBAMA'S WATER AT HARVARD?
Of course, POTUS hates his job and says so often. He's a whiny, bellyaching crybaby who had the audacity to write a book about something he knows nothing about: Hope. Not surprisingly, he took the title from his racist preacher. Good titles require work, which is another thing Obama seems to disdain -- along with everything else. How did this guy every get through law school? Especially Harvard? Who carried his water there?
John Batchelor | July 8, 2010 2:53 AM | Reply
Re Obama and grades: Persistent reports that there is a problem with the college transcript. That young Obama did not finish his courses at Columbia. That there is no degree. That there is a puzzle about Harvard LAw. That none of this matters much -- we voted for the grown-up, not the youth --, but it is odd. J
Mike replied to comment from John Batchelor | July 8, 2010 6:37 PM | Reply
"we voted for the grown-up, not the youth..."
John,
I think it's more correct to say: The country voted for the speeches, not the man.
It's not odd that there's a problem w/ Obama's transcripts any more than it's odd there's a problem w/his birth certificate. However, what are the odds that the Man from Illinois can fool all the people all the time?
Reply:
"The country voted for the speeches, not the man."
Or to say it another way: The county bought the sizzle, not the steak.
This is classic advertising strategy.
ANOTHER DRONE CONSPIRACY THEORY:
Just heard on WABC news that Iran called in the Afghani ambassador to lodge a complaint about the captured drone spy plane, which it claims originated in Afghanistan. However, the CIA drones originate in Pakistan. So what's up?
Maybe, the spy plane was able to be captured because Pakistan intelligence was able to sneak some software into the plane that overtook the controls.
You're welcome, Mike.
Re: Martha Stewart: I say she was convicted of being rich, famous, and smug. But the record reflects she was convicted of lying to investigators, i.e., the fudge factor verdict. Prosecutors always throw that in just in case they can't make they can't make the principal charges stick. Too bad juries don't seem to understand or care that if that's all the jury is prepared to plump for, they ought to forget about it on the grounds that the prosecution failed to make its case in chief.
From a friend
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWpU8sX10_4
"ANOTHER DRONE CONSPIRACY THEORY:"
Are you kiddin' me? We can program a drone to plot a solution to seek out a safe landing zone in the event it loses its signal, yet we are to believe that we just hand over "super taboo secret technology" to a sworn enemy because we forgot to include a self-destruct protocol. Hey you Persians; beware the bright and shiny Trojan horse.
Have you seen this utube with Richard Epstien on Obama- apparantly he had professional contact O. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plHiNN-1xBA? Very telling. By the way, it's very short. (just google: "richard epstien on barack obama" )
Mike, always worth repeating. There MUST be a copy of his transcript somewhere. Previous job, Congress, job application.
The Birthers could have taken him out by stating he never graduated from college, but went the racist route.
It took us five years to determine WJC is a rapist.
The Drone issue is disturbing, Northrup needs to be called on the carpet.
Paul -
Love the Trojan horse idea -- wish it were so.
So far, there's no explanation for how such a high-flying plane as a stealth spy drone can get shot down and, yet, remain intact. This leaves one to suspect that its electronics were taken over in a cyber attack from the ground -- or through a plane flying close by.
What I'm suggesting here, is that maybe the Iranians -- or the Russians or the Chinese -- are not as sophisticated as we think. Maybe they didn't take the plane down using technology on the ground. Maybe the spy plane was sabotaged: that is, electronics that could take it down were inserted into the plane before it took off.
Article: "Iran exhibits US drone undamaged. US and Israeli intelligence shocked"
http://www.debka.com/article/21550/
[Coincidentally, Gary Power's U2 plane, also took off from Pakistan and was 'shot down' and, yet, remained intact. And, recently, an Israeli drone was 'shot down' by the Russians over Azerbaijan and, yes, was captured intact.]
"Martha Stewart ... was convicted of being rich, famous, and smug."
Agreed.
"Prosecutors always throw... in [lying] just in case they can't make they can't make the principal charges stick."
What is interesting (and forgotten) about the Martha Stewart case is that she was never even charged with insider trading. This was explained several months ago on the JBS -- not about Stewart directly -- but by someone talking about the SEC in general. Apparently, the SEC only brings cases it's positive it can win in an effort to control the case law. By controlling case law, the SEC is attempting to make sure that the Supreme Court doesn't get involved or overrule an SEC decision. This is how the SEC controls its turf.
Of course, if the SEC is so smart, why can't it properly do its job of regulating? Dare I say politics?
The Bob Hope clip was GRRRRREAT!
I want to add that what I got from the JBS is that 'insider trading' is not clearly defined. The SEC, apparently, wants 'insider trading' to be whatever it wants it to be -- which is, of course, determined by the case law it's trying to control.
"The Birthers could have taken him out by stating he never graduated from college . . . "
Surely you jest. Why would you or any other voter care that he never graduated from college, a 20-year old non-event and devoid of legal consequence for most people? Born in the USA is a legal qualifier for the job; college degree is not. Once he got into law school, the college degree issue was moot. If he wasn't born in the USA, he wasn't legally qualified to serve. Perhaps because lack of a degree proves he was a liar? Hell, he's a Democrat. There's noting on earth he hasn't lied about or won't lie about. He lied about some of his most prominent politicial positions, e.g., Afghanistan was the "good war" and he'd fight it to victory.
@Paul.
That was my idea too. Please, take this briar patch and copy it all you want. And make sure you copy it in EXACT detail. The chopper crash was obviously unintended. A super secret plane that lands in your back yard, intact, by "mistake?" Mmmmm.
"Apparently, the SEC only brings cases it's positive it can win in an effort to control the case law."
Not much of a revelation, really. It only sounds scandalous. It's true of most prosecutors, most lawyers. Everyone does it. Modern civic activism is littered with curious silences on issues they should be very noisy about. You have race-baiting organizations like NAACP trying to persuade entities that lose affirmative action cases NOT to appeal the loss to a higher court for fear of getting a decision they would really hate, decisions that would find the practice unconstitutional. The Feds finally nailed Capone on tax evasion 'cuz they could prove that several times over, but they couldn't convict him of murder. Forum shopping is another sign of this desire to win cases and shape the law on specific issues. Ditto Court-packing threats.
"Of course, if the SEC is so smart, why can't it properly do its job of regulating? Dare I say politics?"
Some of it is politics. Some of it is due to the fact that the agency is not very large. Most regulatory agencies are thin in the enforcement departments. Some of it is due to the fact that the regulators are graded too low to be convincing adversaries for the institutions they are supposed to oversee. They lack the education and sophistication to suss out what the Masters of the Universe are doing. Why? Because that kind of talent would have to be either an existing or future Master of the Universe, and those can't be hired by government at competitive rates. SEC, FCC, IRS, DoJ, and other regulatory agencies are revolving door jobs, where employees serve some years on the lower rungs, then sell what they learned to private industry, then return to the agencies with what they learned in private industry, then after a couple of years, they go back out on the market, etc. ad inf. With extremely rare exception, usually involving scientists, civil servants' salaries arer capped at the Congressional rate. They simply are not allowed to make more money than Congressmen. Silly but true. The pay scheme is designed to attract and hold the mediocre, not the brilliant. The brilliant are supposed to work in private industry.
The logic is that Israel is our democratic, capitalist ally that is integral to our ambitions to project stability and peace into a region without either. This is not a hard case to make.
Are you suggesting that if some upheaval caused Israel to cease to be capitalist or democratic, then it would then no longer be our ally? Tell me another one. Israel began its existence as an explicitly socialist state, and yet I hear the Republicans express no regrets for Washington's early embrace of that country.
While there was a strong desire and success in implementing socialist features (kibbutzim, government owned industry, socialized medicine.) the government maintains mostly the European model- similar to the UK- more social democrat. Democratic features in the Knesset have been a mainstay, always. The socialist nationalists were always very vocal in government early on, but you are speaking of a population that was (and remains) so diverse ethnically with a huge influx of Jews, mostly expelled from the surrounding Arab countries, and of course Eastern European Jews after the holocaust so while the socialists tried hard to implement these ideals (even trying to keep out "shtetl Jews" ( orthodox Eastern European Jews) from arriving. It was impossible to rid the population of their old traditions, observances, beliefs - they did influence a percentage of the young- indoctrinating them in the secular public school system - that's where you get your rabid leftist element. Let me add there are also religious public schools - who align centrist/right politically. Socialist elements yes, explicitly socialist- emphatic no. Even the kibbutzim(collective farms), those that have survived, and even early on, had to adapt and change.
Israel at its conception was indeed explicitly socialist, so much so that Stalin not only supported the partition of Palestine but sent the new nation weapons. We supported them as well, but it obviously was not because we found the Israelis simpatico in an economic sense. Since ideological compatibility played a nonexistent role in our Israel policy in the late 1940s, why should I believe that it does so now?
Firstly, when you say "Israel's conception"- I am assuming you mean as a state recognized by that august institution the UN. That was in an of itself was an open miracle. Israel was a functioning Jewish majority under the British Mandate and prior to that a sizable population under the Ottomon Empire. I do know that historians claim that Stalin had more than your stated purpose in mind in supporting Israel. Yes , he wanted to turn Israel into a soviet satelite state, but found that"the leadership of the emerging state proved hostile to approaches from the Soviet Union (wiki source on Stalin)". Also, S was thrilled to thwart the British imperialist influence, and also try to minimize the influence of the West, the US included. At the same time S was sending arms to Syria -which was at war with Israel at the time....some friend that Stalin. I don't know where you get your info from- Israel has NEVER been purely socialist. I know people who still own property that was purchased in the 1880's. People have owned property here always. There has always been a free market economy here, though taxation has been high and gov't still functions as a welfare state. People were always able to acquire better medical care out of pocket, and there are charities who help people who are seeking better care. While the government did own and operate many industries and surely the main media outlets- it was never to the complete exclusion of other political or economic views. Socialist features some of which are still in existance - yes, purely socialist? never. Prove it.
Israel ALWAYS shared ideological commonalities with the US. Religious freedom -always, Economic freedom - albeit constrained at first, still exhibited economic growth even early on- Think of the economic accomplishments over a 60 year period-didn't start recently - it's staggering, and unmatched by any country over that period of time, despite incessant war, and terror threats. Tolerance - you have Arabs serving in the Israeli Knesset (parliament), gay friendly, freedom of speech, maintaining and protecting the religious institutuions of all religions including Arab, Jewish, Christian, Bahai, etc.....Not to speak of Judeo-Christian roots , uh....where did that originate from. Both countries are flawed as all good things in this world are, but progress, change and course corrections typify both.
As an aside to the hockey comment above. My son was a hockey player and I understand the point of fighting. Hockey is the fastest sport on the planet, the only one that replaces its players every 45 seconds so the intensity is immense. No sport compares to it. Fighting must be understood in this context.
With such intensity the difference between success and lack of it is the ability to maintain this high intensity for 60 minutes. In football there is only about 5-6 minutes of actual play during a 60 minute game so it does not come close to the intensity of hockey. So at the highest levels in hockey, fighting is a way of sometimes creating emotion and with it increased intensity and is used as such usually between those who have been designated as the fighters. It is also the result of such high emotion as the players are constantly hitting each other to create an advantage and sometimes the hits are not as clean as they should be. One of my son's hockey coaches said "Hockey is a game of courage, won in the corners." And in the corners is where a lot of the hitting takes place.
It is also a way of protecting the star players as each team knows that the other team will retaliate if a stick gets near the face or an illegal check takes place on the better players. They do not have to wear face protectors in professional hockey though helmets are now required and many of them have eye protectors but it impairs their vision some times so many do not like to use them. In college it is a dirtier game as the sticks come up near the face a lot as they know the other player must wear a face mask so they are more careless.
And here I thought it was all about getting that teeesy weeensy almost invisable thingy in the other guy's net. No wonder I never caught the wave. Not only wasn't I able to see the teeeeensy weeeeeensy thingy, I never understood the fundamental premise of the game!
I don't know where you get your info from- Israel has NEVER been purely socialist.
And I don't know which post you read, since I never stated that Israel was founded as an explicitly socialist state. Because of this, even today an astonishing 93% of the land in Israel is state-owned. That Israel today is more-or-less capitalist has nothing to do with my point, which pertained to conditions that prevailed in 1948.
As for our two countries being democracies, I doubt that that played much a role in our decision to recognize Israel either. Just a few years later we overthrew the democratically elected government in Iran because we found it a nuisance, did we not? Democracy counted for little with us in those days.
Also, I am unmoved by any talk of "Judeo-Christian" roots. The very term did not come into widespread use until...wait for it!...the late forties! Convenient timing, that.
No, the reasons for the closeness between Israel and America have nothing to do with ideology.