nebach attempts at cartography

According to one nebach, "people pray to ... Uganda". While it is true that geocentrist New Yorkers praying eastward aren't aligned with the shortest route to Jerusalem, the shortest curve between their feet and the longitude of Israel is probably going to be intersecting that longitude (about 35°E) in Mozambique, well south of Herzl's promised land. (A perfect eastward curve ends up in Turkey, not that far north from Mt. Ararat.) I'm also not sure if the nebach intends straight lines pasted on google earth as proofs of the shortest routes. If he does...here are two more such maps to chew on:

The shortest route to Israel:

unless it's:




hmmm...
Which just demonstrates, tzitzis strings and a globe are still the most precise method for measuring curves.

(Of course, his point is right... this far from Jerusalem, Nova Scotia is en route...)

Left Wing Modern Orthodox: 26%
Right Wing Modern Orthodox: 62%
Left Wing Yeshivish/Chareidi: 64%
Right Wing Yeshivish/Chareidi: 33%

This means you're: Huh?

What does it mean?

I give up. What are you?

The Rise and Fall of FrumYU

immanent eschaton mourns the passing of FrumYU, whose short life has come to a tragic close. In its short lifespan, FrumYu reached that pinnacle of blog-achievement, the ability to generate controversy. FrumYU did not fear and even in the face of the all powerful, the Commentator, it did not cower. All who knew FrumYU will retain fond memories of its comments section. Yehi Zichro Baruch.

2 versions of a story

The first is from R' Rakeffet:
We'll close with a story which was also told in Rav Lichtenstein's hesped for the Rav. In the summer of 1969,shortly after Tonya died, his talmidim went to study with him sothat he shouldn't be alone, including R' Menachem Genack. TheRav said, "How can I give you some emotions?" He started toteach from the Likutey Torah of the Alter Rebbe. Genack asked,what do we need from the Lubavitchers? The Rav told him a story:my great-grandfather had a chasidic relative, who asked why washe so anti-chasidic? Come to a tish, and see for yourself. Therebbe talked, and as he talked, the ground outside (in the middleof winter) bloomed as if it were spring. The Beit Halevy noticedit was getting late, and said "vu darft men davenen mincha" [wehave to daven mincha]. The world collapsed back to normal.Genack, you are like my great-grandfather.

The second is from a Lubavich blog (and was posted in the comments to the next post)
Rav Soloveitchik of Boston would give a Shiur in Likutei Torah, the Ma'mar Ani L'dodi, during the month of Elul while vacationing in the country in Massachussets. I don't remember whether it was Cape Cod or Martha's Vineyard. This shiur became more intense as time went on, and it took more of the time from the Shiurim in Nigleh. There was one Talmid who was irked by the fact that the Rav was so excited by a Chassidishe Sefer, especially at the expense of "real" learning. One day he spoke up and voiced his concern to the Rav. "Why are we wasting our time with this, wouldn't it be better if we stuck to the learning of Gemoroh Taysfes?The Rav regaled them with the story by Yiddish writer --------------- of the Simchas Teyreh spent together by the Brisker Rov and the Bialer Rebbe, (characters may be different) where the joy of the congregation and townspeople reached the heavens. The dancing and merrymaking continued very late into the day, with nobody paying attention to the clock. Late in the afternoon the Brisker Rov began to get nervous about Mincha, but the dancing and singing would not subside. When he could not wait any longer he jumped out of his seat, banged on the Bimah, and yelled "MINCHA!" which immediately caused the dancing to halt.The Bialer Rebbe was quite unimpressed with this outburst, albeit for a good and just cause. He was to say: "Az Yidden Tantzen un Freien Zich Tzuzamen, un es kumt einer, takeh mit recht, un shtelt es op, iz dos Choshech!" The "Rav" turned to Menachem Genack and said to him: We sit here and learn this Maymer, and we bask in the glow of the light of Toras HaChassidus and you come and try to stop it. Du, Genack, Du bist der Cheyshekh!

Another Reason to Believe Jimmy Carter is Unversed in Gan Shoshanim

opinionjournal:
A Religious Problem
Jimmy Carter's book: An Israeli view.
BY MICHAEL B. OREN
Tuesday, December 26, 2006 12:01 a.m. EST

"Several prominent scholars have taken issue with Jimmy Carter's book "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid," cataloguing its historical inaccuracies and lamenting its lack of balance. The journalist Jeffrey Goldberg also critiqued the book's theological purpose, which, he asserted, was to "convince American Evangelicals to reconsider their support for Israel."
Mr. Carter indeed seems to have a religious problem with the Jewish state. His book bewails the fact that Israel is not the reincarnation of ancient Judea but a modern, largely temporal democracy. "I had long taught lessons from the Hebrew Scriptures," he recalls telling Prime Minister Golda Meir during his first tour through the country. "A common historical pattern was that Israel was punished whenever the leaders turned away from devout worship of God. I asked if she was concerned about the secular nature of the Labor government."
He complains about the fact that the kibbutz synagogue he enters is nearly empty on the Sabbath and that the Bibles presented to Israeli soldiers "was one of the few indications of a religious commitment that I observed during our visit." But he also reproves contemporary Israelis for allegedly mistreating the Samaritans--"the same complaint heard by Jesus almost two thousand years earlier"--and for pilfering water from the Jordan River, "where . . . Jesus had been baptized by John the Baptist."
Disturbed by secular Laborites, he is further unnerved by religiously minded Israelis who seek to fulfill the biblical injunction to settle the entire Land of Israel. There are "two Israels," Mr. Carter concludes, one which embodies the "the ancient culture of the Jewish people, defined by the Hebrew Scriptures," and the other in "the occupied Palestinian territories," which refuses to "respect the basic human rights of the citizens."
Whether in its secular and/or observant manifestations, Israel clearly discomfits Mr. Carter, a man who, even as president, considered himself in "full-time Christian service." Yet, in revealing his unease with the idea of Jewish statehood, Mr. Carter sets himself apart from many U.S. presidents before and after him, as well as from nearly 400 years of American Christian thought...

Identifying with the Jews, a great many colonists endorsed the notion of restoring Palestine to Jewish control. Elias Boudinot, president of the Continental Congress, predicted that the Jews, "however scattered . . . are to be recovered by the mighty power of God, and restored to their beloved . . . Palestine." John Adams imagined "a hundred thousand Israelites" marching triumphantly into Palestine. "I really wish the Jews in Judea an independent nation," he wrote. During the Revolution, the association between America's struggle for independence and the Jews' struggle for repatriation was illustrated by the proposed Great Seal designed by Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, showing Moses leading the Children of Israel toward the Holy Land.
Restorationism became a major theme in antebellum religious thought and a mainstay of the Methodist, Baptist and Presbyterian churches. In his 1844 bestseller, "The Valley of the Vision," New York University Bible scholar George Bush--a forebear of two presidents of the same name--called on the U.S. to devote its economic and military might toward re-creating a Jewish polity in Palestine. But merely envisioning such a state was insufficient for some Americans, who, in the decades before the Civil War, left home to build colonies in Palestine. Each of these settlements had the same goal: to teach the Jews, long disenfranchised from the land, to farm and so enable them to establish a modern agrarian society. In 1863, Abraham Lincoln said that "restoring the Jews to their homeland is a noble dream shared by many Americans," and that the U.S. could work to realize that goal once the Union prevailed.
Nineteenth-century restorationism reached its fullest expression in an 1891 petition submitted by Midwestern magnate William Blackstone to President Benjamin Harrison. The Blackstone Memorial, as it was called, urged the president to convene an international conference to discuss ways of reviving Jewish dominion in Palestine. Among the memorial's 400 signatories were some of America's most preeminent figures, including John D. Rockefeller, J. Pierpont Morgan, Charles Scribner and William McKinley. By the century's turn, those advocating restored Jewish sovereignty in Palestine had begun calling themselves Zionists, though the vast majority of the movement's members remained Christian rather than Jewish. "It seems to me that it is entirely proper to start a Zionist State around Jerusalem," wrote Teddy Roosevelt, "and [that] the Jews be given control of Palestine."
Such sentiments played a crucial role in gaining international recognition for Zionist claims to Palestine during World War I, when the British government sought American approval for designating that area as the Jewish national home. Though his closest counselors warned him against endorsing the move, Woodrow Wilson, the son and grandson of Presbyterian preachers, rejected their advice. "To think that I the son of the manse [parsonage] should be able to help restore the Holy Land to its people," he explained. With Wilson's imprimatur, Britain issued the declaration that became the basis of its League of Nations mandate in Palestine, and as the precursor to the 1947 U.N. Partition Resolution creating the Jewish state.
The question of whether or not to recognize that state fell to Harry S. Truman. Raised in a Baptist household where he learned much of the Bible by heart, Truman had been a member of the pro-Zionist American Christian Palestine Committee and an advocate of the right of Jews--particularly Holocaust survivors--to immigrate to Palestine. He was naturally inclined to acknowledge the nascent state but encountered fervid opposition from the entire foreign policy establishment. If America sided with the Zionists, officials in the State and Defense departments cautioned, the Arabs would cut off oil supplies to the West, undermine America's economy, and expose Europe to Soviet invasion. Hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops would have to be sent to Palestine to save its Jews from massacre.
Truman listened carefully to these warnings and then, at 6:11 on the evening of May 14, he announced that the U.S. would be the first nation to recognize the newly declared State of Israel. While the decision may have stemmed in part from domestic political considerations, it is difficult to conceive that any politician, much less one of Truman's character, would have risked global catastrophe by recognizing a frail and miniscule country. More likely, the dramatic démarche reflected Truman's religious background and his commitment to the restorationist creed. Introduced a few weeks later to an American Jewish delegation as the president who had helped create Israel, Truman took umbrage and snapped, "What you mean 'helped create'? I am Cyrus"--a reference to the Persian king who returned the Jews from exile--"I am Cyrus!"
Since 1948, some administrations (Eisenhower, Bush Sr.) have been less ardent in their attachment to Israel, and others (Kennedy, Nixon) more so. Throughout the last 60 years, though, the U.S. has never wavered in its concern for Israel's survival and its support for the Jewish people's right to statehood. While U.S.-Israel ties are no doubt strengthened by common bonds of democracy and Western culture, religion remains an integral component in that relationship. We know that Lyndon Johnson's Baptist grandfather told him to "take care of the Jews, God's chosen people," and that Bill Clinton's pastor, on his deathbed, made the future president promise never to abandon the Jewish state. We know how faith has impacted the policies of George W. Bush, who is perhaps the most pro-Israel president in history."

Some, like R' Genack, have accused Carter of plagiarizing the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. It is certainly the case that Carter's book demonstrate complete ignorance of the Gan Shoshanim where R' Genack points out that the Rambam in recounting the miracle of Chanukka lists as one of the consequences "and the monarchy was reinstated in Israel for more than two hundred years." But why is this a good thing, as many of the Hasmonean kings were extremely wicked? We see from here, says R' Genack that it is better to have Israel being ruled by even wicked Jews than its being ruled by gentiles. (R' Ausband of Telz, Riverdale reportedly enjoyed the whole book except for this part.) Still, I think Carter sounds more like Neturei Karta.

YU Professor is Famous

As a communist apologist...oh well

From OpinionJournal (Jan '06)

"To plow through the evidence for the millionth time: While the trial of the Rosenbergs was flawed by technical improprieties, their crimes are not uncertain or unresolved. Julius Rosenberg, with Ethel as his accomplice, was the head of a sophisticated spy network that deeply penetrated the American atomic program and relayed top secrets to Stalin's Kremlin. In his memoirs Nikita Khrushchev noted that the Rosenbergs "vastly aided production of our A-bomb." Joyce Milton and Ronald Radosh wrote a damning account of their activities in "The Rosenberg File" (1983). And the Rosenbergs' guilt was corroborated by the 1995 declassification of the Venona documents, thousands of decrypted KGB cables intercepted by the National Security Agency in the 1940s.

The notion that anyone would today deny their fundamental complicity in Soviet subversion is extraordinary, almost comically so. But comedy was not quite the mentality at the Rosenberg event. "Ambiguity is the key word, I think," said Mr. Doctorow, regarding our understanding of the past, though in this instance ambiguous is precisely what it is not.

Mr. Kushner argued the Rosenbergs were "murdered, basically." Mr. Doctorow went further, explaining that he wanted to use their circumstances to tell "a story of the mind of the country." It was a mind, apparently, filled with loathing and paranoia--again, never mind the truth of the charges against the Rosenbergs or other spies of the time. "The principles of the Cold War had reached absurdity," he continued. "We knew that the Russians were no threat, but we wanted to persuade Americans to be afraid" and so impose "a Puritan, punitive civil religion." Pronounced Mr. Kushner: "Our failure to come to terms with a brutal past, our failure to open up the coffins and let the ghosts out, has led to our current, horrendous situation."

The enduring artistic influence of the Rosenberg case, then, seems to be primarily allegorical. Guilt and innocence drop away (rather, guilt is converted to virtue) and the Rosenbergs are made into victims of "American fascism," to use Ethel Rosenberg's own phrase. Or to borrow the exquisite formulation of the scholar-apologist Ellen Schrecker, the Rosenbergs were guilty only of "nontraditional patriotism."

Other Blogs Imitate This One

An obvious takeoff on our "Practical Dictionary" feature:

CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS:
"If, when reading an article about the debate over Iraq, you come across the
expression 'the realist school' and mentally substitute the phrase 'the American
friends of the Saudi royal family,' your understanding of the situation will
invariably be enhanced."
(Via Mike
Rappaport).
posted at 07:04 PM by Glenn Reynolds

Understandable riffing though. Considering they're desperate for what 99.9% of what the web's content lacks.

Did anyone see this new yu blog FrumYU?

An editorial in the Wall Street Journal mourns the rise of the blogs:

"The blogs are not as significant as their self-endeared curators would like to think. Journalism requires journalists, who are at least fitfully confronting the digital age. The bloggers, for their part, produce minimal reportage. Instead, they ride along with the MSM like remora fish on the bellies of sharks, picking at the scraps.

The larger problem with blogs, it seems to me, is quality. Most of them are pretty awful. Many, even some with large followings, are downright appalling.

Every conceivable belief is on the scene, but the collective prose, by and large, is homogeneous: A tone of careless informality prevails; posts oscillate between the uselessly brief and the uselessly logorrheic; complexity and complication are eschewed; the humor is cringe-making, with irony present only in its conspicuous absence; arguments are solipsistic; writers traffic more in pronouncement than persuasion . . .

[Blogs are] also a coagulant for orthodoxies. We rarely encounter sustained or systematic blog thought--instead, panics and manias; endless rehearsings of arguments put forward elsewhere; and a tendency to substitute ideology for cognition.

Because political blogs are predictable, they are excruciatingly boring. More acutely, they promote intellectual disingenuousness, with every constituency hostage to its assumptions and the party line. Thus the right-leaning blogs exhaustively pursue second-order distractions--John Kerry always providing useful material--while leaving underexamined more fundamental issues, say, Iraq. Conservatives have long taken it as self-evident that the press unfavorably distorts the war, which may be the case; but today that country is a vastation, and the unified field theory of media bias has not been altered one jot.

Leftward fatuities too are easily found: The fatuity matters more than the politics. If the blogs have enthusiastically endorsed Joseph Conrad's judgment of newspapering--"written by fools to be read by imbeciles"--they have also demonstrated a remarkable ecumenicalism in filling out that same role themselves.

Nobody wants to be an imbecile. Part of it, I think, is that everyone likes shows and entertainments. Mobs are exciting. People also like validation of what they already believe; the Internet, like all free markets, has a way of gratifying the mediocrity of the masses. And part of it, especially in politics, has to do with conservatives. In their frustration with the ancien régime, conservatives quite eagerly traded for an enlarged discourse. In the process they created a counterestablishment, one that has adopted the same reductive habits they used to complain about. The quarrel over one discrete set of standards did a lot to pull down the very idea of standards."

And he wonders why no one reads the paper anymore.

A Practical Dictionary of Political Science

While in class one day, the subject of separation of church and state was raised. The teacher noted what he saw as the irony in the fact that the United States which professes separation of church and state is more religious in its politics than the UK with its established state religion. While this may have left some scratching their heads wondering what exactly having secular politicians has to do with separation of church and state, I for one realized that the scratching head approach would not get anyone anywhere. It was necessary to do something so that in the future, students would have no difficulty understanding where their teachers are coming from. It was with this in mind that the Practical Dictionary Of Political Science was conceived. The first entry:
separation of church and state: the doctrine under which a politician is free to worship if and only if his gods are favorable towards abortion

Whereas this may not be the traditional definition, I firmly believe that this will serve as a much more practical definition towards understanding the term at hand.
In this vein, I recall a related incident in which a teacher apologized for referring to "third world nations", an epithet for what are referred to as third world nations. The preferred choice, he explained, is developing nations. Again any possible confusion at the use of this term could be avoided if the proper definition was provided:
developing nation: a nation in which the rate of development is or approaches zero and in which this rate has remained constant since, at least, the Middle Ages

The time has come for this blog to take a stand on one of the most important issues now facing our nation, namely: what is the best anagram that can be made from the letters in the name "Barack Obama". The inestimable importance of this issue, as well as the general cold shoulder treatment it has received in the mainstream media have combined to the point that we are willing even to sacrifice our reputation for single-minded focus on the media and politics angle. (We do however retain our scrupulously non-partisan aversion towards doing more than recounting what have become one side's talking points.) As an attempt to begin the discussion/debate I offer some of my own candidates:
"Rack O' Bamba"
"Back-Ab-Orama" (my personal favorite so far)
However, in no way is this issue a sealed one. I sincerely hope that this modest attempt at tackling this issue will reverberate and be heard across the blogosphere. Please add your own thoughts and forward the issue to your friends. For this is no time to remain silent.

$$$

Inexplicably, Annan and Egeland are suddenly scheduling vast expansions for their mansions and villas.

How Devastating

For my inaugural post, I will attempt to "exchnage" the excessive and irritating focus on the "media/politics angle" for a broader one emphasising the current turmoil surrounding recent events in the Hareidi sector. http://chareidi.shemayisrael.com/anoticevys67.htm Hard to believe. What will we do? (Hat tip: The-Ongoing-Ad-for-Yashar-Books)

Why We Need More Right Wing Professors

Harvard's conservative", Harvey Mansfield, on "The education Americans need":

"I take excellence to be the sum of goodness. Since good things can be great or small, one can be excellent in small things such as personal grooming. Not in all small things: picking your nose with skillful delicacy does not qualify for excellence. Well, why not, since it is done well? The reason, I believe, is that this activity does not accord with human dignity. Greatness is the kind of excellence that has to do with human dignity, and when a certain excellence is against human dignity we are reluctant to call it good, let alone great."

So as not to be accused of simply recounting what have become one side's talking points, I must note that rhinotillexomania is, in fact, a scrupulously non-partisan phenomenon.

Like most articles in Commentary Magazine, this one is extremely long. However, reader, do not despair! I have carefully selected the choicest excerpts, and even those have been interspersed with my own commentary. This pre-election article discusses a perennially-favorite topic of ours, the history and prospects of American liberalism viewed from an socio-political perspective. Ostensibly a review of Peter Beinart's new book, the article contains a brief history of the liberal movement :

"It was largely Ronald Reagan who in the 1980’s managed the remarkable feat of rewriting the terms of our national political debate. The New Deal dichotomy—compassionate liberals pitted against heartless conservatives—was transformed by him into a struggle between, on the one side, statist ideologues and economic sentimentalists and, on the other, Americans sensibly attuned to market realities and committed to an ethos of personal responsibility. Although Democrats still poll better than Republicans on issues of economic security, even in this area they have increasingly had to play by conservative ground rules. It was thanks to conservative pressure that Bill Clinton was brought to declare, memorably if not quite accurately, that the era of big government was over. The dramatic reduction in dependency brought about by Clinton’s most notable domestic achievement, the Welfare Reform Act of 1996, has easily overshadowed the defections of those on the Left for whom the New Deal paradigm still defines political reality. (Emphasis added)
Democrats have also suffered from the perception that they are on the wrong side of a whole range of social issues: crime (the death penalty in particular), gun control, late-term abortion, affirmative action, school prayer (and the overall role of religion in public life), same-sex marriage. On at least the first two of these, and possibly the third, they have largely given up the struggle. The latter three they mostly prefer not to talk about, or they re-describe them as “wedge issues” that should not be allowed into public discourse. More ambiguous is the political resonance of other social issues—abortion in general, assisted suicide, stem-cell research—but no serious analyst doubts that in general the culture wars, as they have come to be called, work against the Democrats."

The author expresses what those-who-wish-this-wasn't-so call the "conventional view" of the Democrats discordance with American public opinion. In this respect, the author does not so much offer a new argument as much as succinctly re-state "an inconvenient truth" be it that it may not directly affect the Polar bear. This history leads the author to the following analysis of liberalism's current quandary:

"Liberal and left-wing Democrats supported Clinton, but they did so because he was a winner (and also because, due to acts of astonishing personal recklessness in the later stages of his presidency, he needed to be defended against conservatives determined to bring him down). But Clintonism was not and is not where their hearts are. Their problem is that they cannot expect to make a comeback if they allow themselves to say what they really think. This leads to frustration, which leads in turn to curious forms of rhetorical excess.
I say “curious” because, in historical terms, actual disagreements between liberals and conservatives are less pronounced today than they have been for most of our post-1960’s past. George Bush, as Republican Presidents go, is not all that conservative, while congressional Democrats, for their part, are less likely to flirt with outright radicalism, foreign or domestic, than was the case with their counterparts during the Reagan years. Yet it often seems that mutual animosity between the parties—and between liberals and conservatives in general—has never been more strenuous."

The author shines most brightly, however, in his suggested explanation for the above phenomenon:

There is yet another element at play in the rhetorical vehemence displayed by many liberal Democrats. Recent election results notwithstanding, liberalism retains a prestige status in American society and culture. Our educational, media, and intellectual elites are mostly liberal elites, and it puzzles and galls them that their otherwise secure control of leading American institutions no longer extends to the political arena as well. Instead, the reins of power have slipped into the hands of those lacking either the traditions, the competence, or the wisdom to manage the country’s affairs. Conservative rule, in this reading, is illegitimate rule by definition, and all the more infuriating for that. (Emphasis added)

In light of the subsequent midterm elections some may dismiss the author's conclusion as retrospectively foolhardy. However, others may find this author's cool-headed conclusions hauntingly unsettling:

"The wrecking of liberalism in the 60’s wrecked the Democratic party; for now—even all these years later—rehabilitation does not seem a likely prospect."

About senator-elect Jim Webb, the man who has been called "the most sophisticated conservative reactionary to run on the Democratic ticket since Grover Cleveland", from George F. Will, the most sophisticated conservative reactionary to write for the Washington Post op-ed page:

"Already Too Busy for Civility


When the president again asked "How's your boy?" Webb replied, "That's between me and my boy." Webb told The Post:
"I'm not particularly interested in having a picture of me and George W. Bush on my wall. No offense to the institution of the presidency, and I'm certainly looking forward to working with him and his administration. [But] leaders do some symbolic things to try to convey who they are and what the message is."
Webb certainly has conveyed what he is: a boor. Never mind the patent disrespect for the presidency. Webb's more gross offense was calculated rudeness toward another human being -- one who, disregarding many hard things Webb had said about him during the campaign, asked a civil and caring question, as one parent to another. When -- if ever -- Webb grows weary of admiring his new grandeur as a "leader" who carefully calibrates the "symbolic things" he does to convey messages, he might consider this: In a republic, people decline to be led by leaders who are insufferably full of themselves."

Another parallel between the atacker and attackee may have been picked up on in the comments:

"...Finally, let us not forget that our elected officials, Republicans and Democrats alike, all use conversational english and are human...unlike you. Get a life."

"...and the pot is claiming the kettle has become a pompous poseur."

Saving the Elephant (Majority)

The Republican Party needs to find a way to get its image across. It has been demonstrated that the American public responds positively to the social and cultural values espoused by the GOP, but nonetheless the Republicans were defeated soundly in this year's elections. This happened in part because the Democratic party was able to recruit candidates who adopted parts of the
Republicans' previously successful agenda. The Republicans must find a way to reconnect their party with the values they stand for. Rights for the unborn is an example of an issue in which the GOP must firmly reconnect its image with a popular image. To that end, I suggest the "Unborn Elehant Campaign", in which Republicans utilize newly developed technology to gain back their base.

Corporate Media Bias II

James Q. Wilson, writing in City Journal:

"But in the Vietnam era, an important restraint on sectarian partisanship still operated: the mass media catered to a mass audience and hence had an economic interest in appealing to as broad a public as possible. Today, however, we are in the midst of a fierce competition among media outlets, with newspapers trying, not very successfully, to survive against 24/7 TV and radio news coverage and the Internet.
As a consequence of this struggle, radio, magazines, and newspapers are engaged in niche marketing, seeking to mobilize not a broad market but a specialized one, either liberal or conservative. Economics reinforces this partisan orientation. Prof. James Hamilton has shown that television networks take older viewers for granted but struggle hard to attract high-spending younger ones. Regular viewers tend to be older, male, and conservative, while marginal ones are likely to be younger, female, and liberal.
Thus the financial interest that radio and television stations have in attracting these marginal younger listeners and viewers reinforces their ideological interest in catering to a more liberal audience. Focusing ever more sharply on the mostly bicoastal, mostly liberal elites, and with their more conservative audience lost to Fox News or Rush Limbaugh, mainstream outlets like the New York Times have become more nakedly partisan.
And in the Iraq War, they have kept up a drumbeat of negativity that has had a big effect on elite and public opinion alike. Thanks to the power of these media organs, reduced but still enormous, many Americans are coming to see the Iraq War as Vietnam redux."

A Fair and Balanced Cup

"Everywhere, unthinking mobs of “independent thinkers” wield tired clichés like cudgels, pummeling those who dare question “enlightened” dogma. -Jonah Goldberg, Starbucks coffee cup

From the New Republic, whining about pervasive conservative presence in liberals' drinks:

Everyone knows that liberals love Starbucks. A 2005 Zogby poll found that partisans of the left were twice as likely to go to the world music-playing, fair trade- embracing, Seattle-based coffee chain as they were to patronize Dunkin' Donuts--a well-known peddler of red-state values. No surprise that Bill O'Reilly has declared that he "will not go in a Starbucks," preferring, according to Newsweek, "a coffee shop in Manhasset, Long Island, where cops and firemen hang out." So what is Jonah Goldberg, the unflappably chummy editor-at-large of National Review, doing in not just one but thousands of Starbucks coffeehouses across the land? Goldberg's own magazine has lumped Starbucks-goers in with those moon bats who "speak French, allow Janet Jackson to show both her breasts, create a cradle-to-grave welfare state ... read The New York Times every day, scramble the satellite signal for Fox News, and worship [their] new leader, Michael Moore." But walk into any Starbucks, and there he is: Jonah Goldberg, on the side of a Starbucks coffee cup. Each white-and-green paper cup comes complete with a celebrity quote, and, on no less than five million of them, you can read Goldberg sound off on the "unthinking mobs of `independent thinkers'" hammering those "who dare question `enlightened' dogma." And Goldberg isn't alone. Spend enough time in Starbucks and you'll see cups with quotes from former Bush speechwriter David "Axis of Evil" Frum ("In politics, partisanship is a force that can make things happen"); right-wing radio chatterbox and Passion of the Christ groupie Michael Medved ("The biggest problem with mass media isn't low quality--it's high quantity"); and Discovery Institute bioethicist Wesley J. Smith ("The morality of the 21st Century will depend on how we respond to this simple but profound question: Does every human life have equal moral value simply and merely because it is human?"). You can even sip a purpose-driven latte with words from evangelical mega-pastor Rick Warren ("You were made by God and for God, and until you understand that, life will never make sense"). All of which raises the question: After spending so much time bashing the blue-state hordes at Starbucks, how did conservatives end up on their cups? In early 2005, the higher-ups at Starbucks decided, in an effort to "get people talking," to start printing quotes on every cup the company produced. The series, affectionately dubbed "The Way I See It," grew out of an appreciation for what p.r. manager Carole Pucik calls the "centuries-old tradition of the coffeehouse as a place to gather, share ideas, and enjoy delicious beverages." ... And, while the company would never admit that it's doing diversity outreach, it drops all the right code words. It seeks, according to Pucik, a "balance of viewpoints and experiences when evaluating contributions to the program." The contributors "include a wide range of people with varying points of view, experiences, and priorities." And so on. As Goldberg puts it, you would think you had stumbled into an admissions department meeting at Brown.

Post-Election Myths

Be Careful What You Believe
The myths of '06.
By Rich Lowry

Elections produce two things — new elected officials and bogus conventional wisdom. Once they gain widespread circulation, erroneous beliefs about elections are difficult to reverse and can be nearly as important as who won or lost.

Here are seven myths rapidly gaining acceptance among conservatives, liberals or both: — Republican losses were in keeping with typical setbacks for a party holding the White House in the sixth year of a presidency. Conservatives reassure themselves that the “six-year itch” has cost the party in power roughly 30 seats on average since World War II, so this year’s losses aren’t remarkable. But as liberal blogger Kevin Drum points out, most of the big “itches” came prior to the past 20 years when gerrymandering got more sophisticated. Reagan lost only five seats in his sixth year, and Clinton only five (although he had already suffered a wipeout in 1994). For Democrats to win 29 seats despite all the advantages of incumbency enjoyed by the GOP is a big deal. — The conservative base, discouraged by the GOP’s doctrinal impurity, didn’t show up at the polls. This is the bedtime story conservatives are telling themselves to show that whatever ails the party will be cured simply by becoming more conservative. In 2004, however, conservatives were 34 percent of the electorate and liberals 21 percent. In 2006, the numbers were almost indistinguishable — conservatives were 32 percent of the electorate and liberals 20 percent. The GOP didn’t lose the election with its base, but with independents, who broke against them 57 percent to 39 percent. — Republicans lost because they weren’t fiscally conservative enough. Another conservative illusion. A thought experiment: Which cuts in government would have, in and of themselves, increased the party’s popularity? Expanding the widely unpopular gap in coverage in the Medicare prescription-drug bill — the so-called doughnut hole — to produce entitlement savings? Cutting student loans? Even “earmarked” spending for special projects back home tends — sadly — to be popular with local constituencies. The GOP was better about squeezing discretionary spending during the past two years than it had been during Bush’s first term. Politically, it gained little from it. — The GOP was too socially conservative for voters. This chestnut is trotted out every time Republicans lose an election. This time it is even less plausible than usual. Seven out of eight constitutional amendments banning gay marriage passed this year, often outperforming Republican candidates. That Democrats went out of their way not to antagonize social-conservative voters this year was one of the keys to their success. — The election was a great victory for conservative and moderate Democrats. If Democratic leaders gave their candidates leeway to take socially conservative positions, this year’s new crop of Democrats still isn’t a departure from the party’s overwhelming liberalism. A few attention-grabbing, successful Democratic House candidates, Health Shuler of North Carolina and Brad Ellsworth of Indiana, are truly conservative. But only about five of the 29 Democratic winners in the House can be considered social conservatives. They will be lonely. — The election was a decisive ideological rejection of conservatism. Liberal opinion writers love this one. But various scandals, Hurricane Katrina and the Iraq War all played major roles in degrading the GOP brand. Liberals cannot count on conservatives being associated with corruption, incompetence or an unpopular war forever. — President Bush now must give up on the Iraq War. The rebuke to Bush was unquestionably an expression of voters’ frustration with the progress of the war, but they are not ready to give up yet. According to pollster Whit Ayers, less than one-third of voters favor withdrawal. A late-October New York Times poll found that 55 percent of the public favors sending more troops to Iraq, a position now endorsed by the paper’s liberal editorial board. Bush still has a window to take decisive action to reverse the downward slide in Iraq. Elections are wonderful things. It’s the election myths we can do without.© 2006 by King Features Syndicate

Myths

As defined by O'Shaughnessy, myths are stories (untrue or true, but often embellished) accepted by a culture which help define the culture's aspirations, its purpose, and its sense of identity. Myths become part of societies' fabric, and O'Shaughnessy argues, debunking of myths can sometimes be harmful.
Myths are helpful for propaganda because they can easily capitalize on shared national or cultural feelings and associations to be used for the propagandist's advantage. The myth is an easy way to create a "message" that will relate to and be understood by a large audience.

America has been influenced by many myths about its founding. These include myths about the discovery of America, myths about the early settlement of the colonies which became the United States and myths about the "founding fathers" of the republic.
The first category, myths about the discovery of America is an example of myths that have undergone historical re-evaluation. Colombus and other explorers were long viewed as heroes for their courage in face of adversity in exploring the New World. As a result, Native Americans who stood in the way of the conquerors were viewed as savages unworthy of sympathy. This perception allowed for discriminatory policies towards Native Americans such as Andrew Johnson's infamous forced displacement of Native American tribes in which so many died it became known as the Trail of Tears. Recently, however, this perception of the Age of Exploration has undergone demythification. In fact, a new myth has been created in which Colombus et al, are imperialists who should not only be condemned for atrocities committed towards Native Americans but also for the imposing their cultural values on Native American society. The new politically correct image which idealizes Native American society is representative of contemporary liberal, post-colonial myths. The new myth's replacement of the old can be seen clearly in such mass culture productions as Disney's Pocahontas.

A second category of myth is myths about the early colonists of what was to become the United States of America. Early colonists are recognized for their flight from religious persecution to form a religiously tolerant society in the New World. O'Shaughnessy mentions John Winthrop's metaphor of America as the "shining city on a hill". What he does not mention is the effect that metaphor had centruries later in Ronald Reagan's 1964 campaign speech for Barry Goldwater. Although Goldwater was defeated in a landslide, many believe this speech is what launched Reagan as a national politician with presidential prospects. The metaphor, with its reliance on a popular perception, had not lost its potency over time.

A third myth in the American founding is the perception of the "founding fathers". These individuals are viewed reverently by Americans of all political persuasions. George Washington the "father of our country" transcends political labels. His power as an image of morality was the inspiration for the fable about little George and the cherry tree. Most recently, this myth was used in the 2006 campaign in a satirical attack ad on a member of Congress. The ad relies on the viewers' perception of Washington as honest and upright to contrast it to the conduct of the contemporary congressman.

Just Bad Journalism

From a reliable source of "divergent perspective", Le Monde: (I have selected the quotes that give the most flavor of this "perspective".)
Last evening in America promised to be an agreeable one. From the outset, one knew that the Democrats were going to have a breakthrough. But real bliss began at dawn, when the spirit of war subsided, with its procession of speculating Texas oilmen and maniacal fundamentalists...
It was all done with the admirable professionalism of American TV - not forgetting of course, the astonishing bad faith of Fox News and some others...
And without budging, they continued to relay statements from the brain-washing machine installed at the White House and Pentagon. But on this occasion they were obliged, the poor unfortunates, to reveal the names of the victorious Democrats and those of the Republicans who had fallen for their compulsive warmongering, and whose defeats were most often made possible because they had contented themselves with proclaiming their party's official line on Iraq. In not seeking a change on course - they failed to satisfy...

In order to clarify whether this classifies as propaganda it is necessary to establish a definition of propaganda and see whether this meets the qualifications of that definition. Propaganda must contain bias. This article certainly meets that qualification("they continued to relay statements from the brain-washing machine installed at the White House and Pentagon" etc.). However, bias alone does not propaganda make. Propaganda must contain an effort at persuasion. After all, the shared goal of all propaganda is to persuade. Here I think this article falls short. I do not think it attempts to change the reader's outlook by subtle means or otherwise. The author is presenting his opinions but is not demanding or subtlely suggesting that you should share his beliefs. Here, its obvious bias is also what make it a less likely candidate for propaganda. There is also no attempt made to present this story as the objective story it is not, in the expectation that the reader will accept it as purely factual. (I am assuming here that France does not have a very different standard for what counts as objective, something which I cannot prove.) It is hard to imagine that it is expected to change the reader's point of view.

A common theme in the MSM coverage of Bush's approval ratings is the negative effect Bush's low ratings will have for Republicans in Congress looking to be reelected. From the Hindustan Times ("Although Bush's job is not on the ballot, his public approval ratings below 40 per cent have undermined his ability to campaign.") to the Carlsbad Current-Argus ("Mark Mellman, a Democratic pollster, said there has never been an election in which a president's approval rating was below 40 percent 'and his party has not lost the 15 seats' that Democrats need to gain control this year. Bush's approval ratings hover in the mid- to high 30s.") and the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel ("President Bush's approval ratings continue to languish in Wisconsin as they have nationally, the latest statewide polls show. That's a potential drag on GOP candidates in close races in the state."), this has become a dominant MSM story. In this story, approval ratings are given significance beyond merely the public's approval of the president, but still only within the context of understanding public opinion.

On to the opinion of "journalist" Stephen Colbert: "Most of all, I believe in this president. Now, I know there are some polls out there saying that this man has a 32% approval rating. But guys like us, we don’t pay attention to the polls. We know that polls are just a collection of statistics that reflect what people are thinking in “reality.” And reality has a well-known liberal bias." Colbert is implying that the ratings cannot be biased because the approval rating is an assesment of objective reality. However, approval ratings do not claim to measure a president's actual performance. At most, the approval rating may be indicative of the public's perception of approval-worthy performance. Colbert is therefore suggesting that public perception of reality cannot be biased. This is demonstrably untrue, for the public often has biased perceptions. Colbert's conflation of polls with reality is actually a reflection of his own lack of understanding of reality.

Polling Peculiarities

Here is an interesting set of polls from a while back, with an obvious discrepancy between the initial findings and the follow up:

Do you personally think you would watch the televised coverage of
the US Senate if it were available to you, or not?Question: Yes 72% No 26% Don’t know %2
(Source: Survey by the Associated Press/Media General, April 3-11, 1986.)

A few months later...
As you may know, the US Senate began televising its sessions on June 2.
Have you yourself watched part of any of those sessions on TV since then?

No, did not
watch 79%
Yes, watched
20%
Can’t get them on my TV (vol.) 1%
(Source: Survey by the ABC News/Washington Post, June 19-24, 1986.)

Although the initial findings suggested that there was an overwhelming interest in watching the Senate on TV, this does not seem to have corresponded to the actual viewership once the Senate was actually televised. Many factors may have contributed to this inconsistency:

1. Respondents may have interpreted the question as a vote on whether Senate sessions should be televised. The question may have been understood as "Should one be able to watch the senate in session?" to which many responded positively.

2.Respondents may have felt that saying they would watch the senate was the "right answer". Since citizens should want to watch the Senate, they reasoned, we should say we want to watch the senate.

3. The subject of televised senate sessions may have been receiving much attention in the media at the time, artificially creating an interest in watching the Senate. Since this did not reflect actual interest, the percentage actually watching was significantly lower.

4. The question presented the allure of something which is out of reach. Human psychology dictates that one desires something more if he cannot have it. Once Senate viewing was actually available, interest dropped because of the very fact that it was now available.

This poll shows the difficulty of accurately determining public interest and should serve as a reminder against over-reliance on public opinion surveys, without proper analysis.

This about the RNC ad by Peggy Noonan, a conservative critic of the administration:

"The administration tries to get around this, to quiet the unease, with things like the Republican National Committee ad in which Islamic terrorists plot to kill America.
They do want to kill America, and all the grownups know it. But this is a nation of sophisticates, and every Republican sipping a Bud at a bar in Chilicothe, Ill., who looks up and sees that ad thinks: They're trying to scare the base to increase turnout. Turnout's the key.
Here's a thing about American politics. Nobody sees himself as the base. They see themselves as individuals. And they're not dumb. They get it all. They know when you're trying to manipulate. They'll even tell you, with a lovely detachment, if you're doing a good job. (An unreported story this year is the lack of imagination, seriousness and respect in the work of political consultants on both sides. They have got to catch up with American brightness.) "

In other words, Noonan is saying, the times have changed. You can't still use Lyndon Johnson's campaign tactics. This brings to mind Andrew Ferguson's classic piece from the 2004 election season. Some highlights:

On January 15,1992, during a gruesome New Hampshire "town meeting" at the dawn of his reelection campaign, the first President Bush struggled heroically, and in the end famously, to get a point across to an indifferent audience in Exeter. His political consultants in Washington had prepared him for a bad reception: Focus groups were united in seeing their president, in those recessionary days, as out of touch and uncaring. The political purpose of his trip to New Hampshire was to dispel the notion.
President Bush opened the town meeting like so: "One of the things that I'm pleased to be able to do here is to at least let the people of this state know that even though I am president and do have two or three other responsibilities, that when people are hurting, we care."
A moment later: "Of course, we care."
A moment more: "And of course, we care."
It wasn't working. The questions became increasingly hostile.
And so: "I'll take my share of the blame. I don't take it for not caring."
And again: "I do care about it. I just wanted to say that."
"Two things. One, I know you're hurting; two, I care about it."
Still nothing, until, in his frustration with yet another unfriendly question, he let go finally, desperately, deathlessly. "But," he said, "the message: I care."
The veil slipped, the curtain was pulled back, the politician stood exposed. It was as though a magician had invited us backstage to watch as he stuffed the pigeons up his sleeve. Political commentators (not nearly so numerous in that innocent era) noted the oddity. A politician describing his own "message"-the jig was up! It was thought to be inept at best, cynical at worst, artless in any case. "He blurted out his handlers' notes verbatim," said Newsweek, astonished. By the end of the month the New York Times and the Washington Post had printed the phrase more than a dozen times, and since then, in the annals of silly remarks, President Bush's self-referential declamation of his "message" has achieved second place only to Sally Fields's peerless outburst, "You like me, you really like me!"...
In retrospect it looks quaint; at the time it seemed genuinely transgressive, a real boner. Back then the word "message" still had the vaguely disreputable odor of the flack clinging to it. A politician wasn't supposed to self-consciously declare his "message," he was supposed to demonstrate it: make it come alive through indirection, by means of anecdotes or images or ideas, and persuade his audience of its plausibility. Then, suddenly, in 1992, here was the candidate just asserting it: You wanna message? Terrific. Here it is. Suck on it. In the normal transaction between speaker and hearer, persuader and persuaded, pol and voter, some crucial piece of connective tissue was being weirdly elided, in the best post-modern fashion.
Yet now, in the pomo primaries, the elision doesn't seem weird at all. In fact it's become customary for a presidential candidate to "get his message across" by simply announcing that he's getting his message across. Attending a rally for John Kerry, or watching one of his TV ads, or drifting through his website, a voter will hear the candidate say: "My message isn't for just part of America, it's for all of America-a message about how we're going to put Americans back to work." The voter will wait in vain for particulars, such as how this message is to be realized and Americans put back to work. (I do know it has something to do with raising taxes on rich people.) Nevertheless, when asked, the voter will tell an inquiring reporter that he "really likes Kerry's message about jobs." At a rally for John Edwards a few weeks ago, in South Carolina, I heard the comely Carolinian announce: "Let me tell you something. My message of hope and optimism is resonating all across America." And the crowd applauded! He might as well have hollered "applause line!" to receive the same reaction. "My message works," Edwards told an interviewer not long ago. "And it's going to continue to work." In South Carolina he said: "My message is optimism. My message is about hope." Marshall McLuhan was wrong. The medium isn't the message. The message is the message...The new self-consciousness did serve the salutary (and long overdue) goal of breaking down the division between journalist and voter; people who pay attention to pundits suddenly realized that anybody can be a pundit...