Jan 8 (Reuters Life!) - New Jersey is to consider cutting the word 'idiot' from its constitution so that people with some mental disabilities won't be barred from voting...Codey wants to eliminate a section that says "no idiot or insane person should enjoy the right of suffrage" and substitute with a reference to "a person who has been adjudicated by a court of competent jurisdiction to lack the capacity to understand the act of voting."
"NEW JERSEY: Don't Eat the Squirrels, State Warns"--headline, Courier News (Bridgewater, N.J.), Jan. 25
Don't worry if you ate one, though. You can still vote.
Sunday, January 28, 2007
Friday, January 26, 2007
Noonan's Got Brains
Just kidding. I think she's now completely lost it. (as an interesting contrast, read Lowry here .)
Thursday, January 25, 2007
A Modest Proposal
HOW TIMES HAVE CHANGED. In a 1956 review of “The Republicans: A History of Their Party” by Malcolm Moos (Random House. 564 pp. $5.95) published in Commentary Magazine, the recently deceased sociologist Martin Seymour Lipset observed that Moos was “a representative of that new tendency in American life: the conservative intellectual.” Since that bygone era, (and along with the rise in the price of books) has come the rise of a “vast right-wing conspiracy” of conservative intellectuals. No longer does anyone doubt the existence of the conservative intellectual. Instead the question has become: Where is the liberal American Enterprise Institute? The Democratic Party, which in 1956 was in the beginning of its decades-long unchallenged control of Congress, one half century later discovered that its newly gained majority is as fragile as one man’s (Sen. Tim Johnson’s) brain condition. What has happened?
Some see the beginning of the rise of the modern conservative movement in another event that took place just over a half century ago: the founding of National Review, in 1955. Founding Editor William F. Buckley’s declaration of the magazine’s purpose, “standing athwart history, yelling ‘Stop!’” in the magazine’s first issue, became a rallying cry for conservatives perpetually pessimistic about the onslaught of statism and socialism and their more sinister sister, totalitarianism. But whatever impact Buckley’s magazine may have had on the organization of formerly disparate conservatives, the cultural revolution just over the horizon gave the movement a cause to fight for or, more accurately, to fight against. The 1960’s is not a decade usually associated with conservatism, but it is the decade that probably had the most influence on the formation of modern conservatism’s strongest, and now infamous force: “neo-conservatism”.
Another thing that has changed since fifty years ago, again, to quote 1956 Lipset:
“Conservative political parties have always been unattractive subjects for modern scholars and intellectuals. There are many more books dealing with leftist parties and labor movements than with parties of the center or the right or with business organizations.” Now, not only has there been an increase of conservatives writing about their movement, but a new genre of liberals asking, as in the title of one recent book, “What’s the matter with Kansas?” meaning: why would any state be so silly as to vote Republican? As a postscript, Lipset himself, once a Trotskyite, increasingly found himself out of step with the New Left, and although according to his colleague Nathan Glazer, he continued to identify as a liberal, he invariably associated more with the neoconservative publications. He also probably never voted Republican.
Some see the beginning of the rise of the modern conservative movement in another event that took place just over a half century ago: the founding of National Review, in 1955. Founding Editor William F. Buckley’s declaration of the magazine’s purpose, “standing athwart history, yelling ‘Stop!’” in the magazine’s first issue, became a rallying cry for conservatives perpetually pessimistic about the onslaught of statism and socialism and their more sinister sister, totalitarianism. But whatever impact Buckley’s magazine may have had on the organization of formerly disparate conservatives, the cultural revolution just over the horizon gave the movement a cause to fight for or, more accurately, to fight against. The 1960’s is not a decade usually associated with conservatism, but it is the decade that probably had the most influence on the formation of modern conservatism’s strongest, and now infamous force: “neo-conservatism”.
Another thing that has changed since fifty years ago, again, to quote 1956 Lipset:
“Conservative political parties have always been unattractive subjects for modern scholars and intellectuals. There are many more books dealing with leftist parties and labor movements than with parties of the center or the right or with business organizations.” Now, not only has there been an increase of conservatives writing about their movement, but a new genre of liberals asking, as in the title of one recent book, “What’s the matter with Kansas?” meaning: why would any state be so silly as to vote Republican? As a postscript, Lipset himself, once a Trotskyite, increasingly found himself out of step with the New Left, and although according to his colleague Nathan Glazer, he continued to identify as a liberal, he invariably associated more with the neoconservative publications. He also probably never voted Republican.
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
In a heated debate on Crankydocs, one Daniel Goodman wondered out loud if ""anonymous" works for Senator Inhofe or the Bush administration's environment dept., scouring blogs for mentions of 'belief' (or acceptence of the scientific consensus) of global warming..."
It seems that "anonymous" has taken Goodman's advice. OpinionJournal reports:
"As the former Chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Republican Jim Inhofe was a coruscating critic of climate change alarmism. Now in the minority, he plans to make sure his voice is heard over the din of the media-savvy environmental groups through a new blog."
The blog can be accessed here
It seems that "anonymous" has taken Goodman's advice. OpinionJournal reports:
"As the former Chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Republican Jim Inhofe was a coruscating critic of climate change alarmism. Now in the minority, he plans to make sure his voice is heard over the din of the media-savvy environmental groups through a new blog."
The blog can be accessed here
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Immanent Books
Monday, January 15, 2007
Ford Impressive in First 100 Days as Dead President
By Scott Ott, Editor-in-Chief, ScrappleFace.comNews Fairly Unbalanced. We Report. You Decipher.
(2007-01-13) — President Gerald R. Ford, who since his death last month has released a barrage of personal opinions about U.S. presidents and their policies, today announced a new program to overcome the devastating inflation that plagued his brief time in the White House.
Early on in his first 100 days as a dead president, Mr. Ford has already racked up a series of “impressive” accomplishments, including questioning the rationale for invading Iraq, calling former President Jimmy Carter a “disaster” and saying President Ronald Reagan was ignorant of government and a bad manager.
The late former president, best known for pardoning President Richard Nixon, said his new economic proposal would build on his previous ‘Whip Inflation Now’ campaign, that attempted to beat back consumer prices with distribution of attractive red buttons bearing the acronym WIN.
“I’ve always felt that a president can accomplish more from the casket than from the Oval Office,” Mr. Ford said. “That’s why I’ve waited until now to unleash my courageous opinions about Reagan, Carter and Bush.”
The 38th president said he enjoys leading the nation from the grave, “because there are no elections to lose, and no term limits.”
We at immanent eschaton would like to add that Ford has also done much since his demise to contribute toward national healing and hope that he takes the courageous step of pardoning President Bush.
By Scott Ott, Editor-in-Chief, ScrappleFace.comNews Fairly Unbalanced. We Report. You Decipher.
(2007-01-13) — President Gerald R. Ford, who since his death last month has released a barrage of personal opinions about U.S. presidents and their policies, today announced a new program to overcome the devastating inflation that plagued his brief time in the White House.
Early on in his first 100 days as a dead president, Mr. Ford has already racked up a series of “impressive” accomplishments, including questioning the rationale for invading Iraq, calling former President Jimmy Carter a “disaster” and saying President Ronald Reagan was ignorant of government and a bad manager.
The late former president, best known for pardoning President Richard Nixon, said his new economic proposal would build on his previous ‘Whip Inflation Now’ campaign, that attempted to beat back consumer prices with distribution of attractive red buttons bearing the acronym WIN.
“I’ve always felt that a president can accomplish more from the casket than from the Oval Office,” Mr. Ford said. “That’s why I’ve waited until now to unleash my courageous opinions about Reagan, Carter and Bush.”
The 38th president said he enjoys leading the nation from the grave, “because there are no elections to lose, and no term limits.”
We at immanent eschaton would like to add that Ford has also done much since his demise to contribute toward national healing and hope that he takes the courageous step of pardoning President Bush.
Oddly Enough!
Bob Dylan bores me to tears -- Simon Cowell
Fri Jan 12, 2007 9:25am ET
LOS ANGELES, Jan 11 (Reuters Life!) - Don't expect to see Bob Dylan joining the celebrities on "American Idol" anytime soon.
One of the show's judges, Simon Cowell, says he has never bought a Dylan record because he "bores me to tears."
The British pop impresario says in the February issue of Playboy that he would "plug my ears and run in the other direction" if he were to see a 21-year-old Dylan singing "Blowin' in the Wind."
Fri Jan 12, 2007 9:25am ET
LOS ANGELES, Jan 11 (Reuters Life!) - Don't expect to see Bob Dylan joining the celebrities on "American Idol" anytime soon.
One of the show's judges, Simon Cowell, says he has never bought a Dylan record because he "bores me to tears."
The British pop impresario says in the February issue of Playboy that he would "plug my ears and run in the other direction" if he were to see a 21-year-old Dylan singing "Blowin' in the Wind."
Thursday, January 11, 2007
The True Orthodoxy Test
The immanent eschaton staff has been divided over the following story from the Jerusalem Post. We therefore wish to submit the issue to our readers to decide: which side is right?
(Briefly, the two sides of the debate are: 1. if the guy now going to jail would have been a member of a religion where one can't wear wristbands on Tuesdays, he wouldn't be going to jail; he should not automatically be assumed to be worse than the Tuesday Wrist Worshipper.
2. The second argument, termed by its major proponent "The Reflexively-Anti-Ultra-Orthodox-Argument", goes as follows: he's ultra-orthodox, therefore the other side must be right.)
Please submit your thoughtful comments.
(Briefly, the two sides of the debate are: 1. if the guy now going to jail would have been a member of a religion where one can't wear wristbands on Tuesdays, he wouldn't be going to jail; he should not automatically be assumed to be worse than the Tuesday Wrist Worshipper.
2. The second argument, termed by its major proponent "The Reflexively-Anti-Ultra-Orthodox-Argument", goes as follows: he's ultra-orthodox, therefore the other side must be right.)
Please submit your thoughtful comments.
Monday, January 08, 2007
In fulfilling our creed, (see side for details) we have always attempted to exhaustively pursue second-order distractions--John Kerry always providing useful material--while leaving underexamined more fundamental issues, say, Iraq. Well, since Kerry has not yet announced his candidacy for the 2008 election, we would like to take this oppurtunity to aquaint our readership with another great thinker of the Democratic party, who in the past may have been overshadowed by the Sage of 2004. From Best of the Web: "John Edwards may be running for president again in 2008, but his latest effort is hardly a repeat performance of the 2004 campaign that catapulted him to the Democratic vice presidential nomination," reports the Buffalo News:
The former North Carolina senator says circumstances have changed, America has changed, and he has changed.
"In 2004 I spent a lot of time thinking about how I could be the best candidate possible," he said in Buffalo Saturday. "Now I think about being the best president I could be." . . .
He has taken his campaign to the next level, he said, by moving beyond identifying problems to identifying solutions.
"My thinking as a leader has evolved," he said. "Identifying a problem is not good enough, but taking action to solve it is key. . . ."
Wow, this "solutions" thing is going to revolutionize politics! And you thought Edwards was just another pretty face.
The former North Carolina senator says circumstances have changed, America has changed, and he has changed.
"In 2004 I spent a lot of time thinking about how I could be the best candidate possible," he said in Buffalo Saturday. "Now I think about being the best president I could be." . . .
He has taken his campaign to the next level, he said, by moving beyond identifying problems to identifying solutions.
"My thinking as a leader has evolved," he said. "Identifying a problem is not good enough, but taking action to solve it is key. . . ."
Wow, this "solutions" thing is going to revolutionize politics! And you thought Edwards was just another pretty face.
Sunday, January 07, 2007
Friday, January 05, 2007
Best of the Week
In a slow news week like this one, finding good stories can be rare. Immanent eschaton has therefore taken it upon itself to sift through what's out there and provide links to some of the finest:
On the Angry Left
On John Edward's "Populism"
We also recommend Jonah Goldberg on certainty (although technically its from last week)
Then there's this piece about Rush Limbaugh and Jon Stewart (we think its OK, although it only got a B+)
For Worst of the Week we nominate that NY Times article about free will (& we won't provide link)
On the Angry Left
On John Edward's "Populism"
We also recommend Jonah Goldberg on certainty (although technically its from last week)
Then there's this piece about Rush Limbaugh and Jon Stewart (we think its OK, although it only got a B+)
For Worst of the Week we nominate that NY Times article about free will (& we won't provide link)
Tuesday, January 02, 2007
Sunday, December 31, 2006
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...)
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...)
Thursday, December 28, 2006
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.
Wednesday, December 27, 2006
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!
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!
Tuesday, December 26, 2006
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.
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.
Sunday, December 24, 2006
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.
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."
Thursday, December 21, 2006
Other Blogs Imitate This One
An obvious takeoff on our "Practical Dictionary" feature:
Understandable riffing though. Considering they're desperate for what 99.9% of what the web's content lacks.
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.
Wednesday, December 20, 2006
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.
"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.
Saturday, December 09, 2006
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
