http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110009804&mod=RSS_Opinion_Journal&ojrss=frontpage
Perhaps with all of Al Gore's carbon emissions from his heated swimming pool, we finally won't need to heat swimming pools anymore. give credit where credit is due.
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
A comment on Rosenblum
WFB said...
rosenblum claims: "CHAREIDI MISGIVINGS ABOUT MODERN DAY ISRAEL are an altogether different matter. Truth be told, the chareidi world has long since made its peace with Israel, in one way or another – and for a reason that highlights the differences between the chareidi critique and that of the progressives. Israel is today home to almost half the world’s Jews and over half the world’s Jewish children. For that simple reason alone, chareidi Jews worldwide are deeply concerned about Israel’s security however dismayed they may be about the internal direction of the country. Precisely because they do not doubt for a minute that the entire world depends on the existence of the Jewish people are they ardent defenders of Israel’s security. In this respect, I have found little difference between the 16th Ave. Telshe minyan in Boro Park and the average Modern Orthodox shul in Teaneck. The latter may have a few more members convinced that they have security expertise worth sharing with Israel’s prime ministers and generals and the former may worry a bit more about kiruv in the Holy Land, but, in general, the sense of involvement in Israel’s fate does not differ greatly between the two. Chareidi Jews can acknowledge that the creation of Israel was not without moral taint and caused the suffering and dislocation of tens of thousands of Arab residents of what would become the new state. But in that respect, Arab refugees were no different than the other 38 million people dislocated in various ethnic conflicts around the world in the 20th century. With the sole exception of the Palestinians none of those millions still enjoy refugee status today. No moral absolutism will cause chareidim to undermine the legitimacy of the state of Israel and thereby increase the danger to its Jewish residents just because Israel, like every other nation state in history, was born in war. If the Jewish people is to fulfill its world mission, it must first survive. And because Torah Jews believe in that world mission they urge Israel to follow the principle of “the one who comes to kill you, rise up and kill him [first],” towards those who remain committed to expelling all the Jews of Israel from their homes. And it does not matter, at this point, that those who come to kill us may have real grievances so long as they cannot reconcile themselves with Jewish existence in any part of Eretz Yisrael."
This is wishful thinking on his part, trying to transfer his personal beliefs onto charedi society in general. unfortunately however, this is not true. i dont remember if it was the yated or the hamodia which editorialized in favor of disengagement primarily because it meant those religious zionists would be getting what they deserved. (reason possibly not stated explicitly. furthermore it was only one of them, the other paper was against it)But what happened to their deep security concerns? point is a significant portion of the charedi public has serious problems dealing with Israel's existence because of some strange theological position of theirs, and pretending that the problem doesn't exist may not just make it go away.
rosenblum claims: "CHAREIDI MISGIVINGS ABOUT MODERN DAY ISRAEL are an altogether different matter. Truth be told, the chareidi world has long since made its peace with Israel, in one way or another – and for a reason that highlights the differences between the chareidi critique and that of the progressives. Israel is today home to almost half the world’s Jews and over half the world’s Jewish children. For that simple reason alone, chareidi Jews worldwide are deeply concerned about Israel’s security however dismayed they may be about the internal direction of the country. Precisely because they do not doubt for a minute that the entire world depends on the existence of the Jewish people are they ardent defenders of Israel’s security. In this respect, I have found little difference between the 16th Ave. Telshe minyan in Boro Park and the average Modern Orthodox shul in Teaneck. The latter may have a few more members convinced that they have security expertise worth sharing with Israel’s prime ministers and generals and the former may worry a bit more about kiruv in the Holy Land, but, in general, the sense of involvement in Israel’s fate does not differ greatly between the two. Chareidi Jews can acknowledge that the creation of Israel was not without moral taint and caused the suffering and dislocation of tens of thousands of Arab residents of what would become the new state. But in that respect, Arab refugees were no different than the other 38 million people dislocated in various ethnic conflicts around the world in the 20th century. With the sole exception of the Palestinians none of those millions still enjoy refugee status today. No moral absolutism will cause chareidim to undermine the legitimacy of the state of Israel and thereby increase the danger to its Jewish residents just because Israel, like every other nation state in history, was born in war. If the Jewish people is to fulfill its world mission, it must first survive. And because Torah Jews believe in that world mission they urge Israel to follow the principle of “the one who comes to kill you, rise up and kill him [first],” towards those who remain committed to expelling all the Jews of Israel from their homes. And it does not matter, at this point, that those who come to kill us may have real grievances so long as they cannot reconcile themselves with Jewish existence in any part of Eretz Yisrael."
This is wishful thinking on his part, trying to transfer his personal beliefs onto charedi society in general. unfortunately however, this is not true. i dont remember if it was the yated or the hamodia which editorialized in favor of disengagement primarily because it meant those religious zionists would be getting what they deserved. (reason possibly not stated explicitly. furthermore it was only one of them, the other paper was against it)But what happened to their deep security concerns? point is a significant portion of the charedi public has serious problems dealing with Israel's existence because of some strange theological position of theirs, and pretending that the problem doesn't exist may not just make it go away.
Monday, March 19, 2007
Sunday, March 18, 2007
chok u'mishpat: 2 recent links from gil
1. taamei hakorbanoth acc. to the rambam
2. TC on solly
i think the unmentioned idea in both is that if the jews keep the mishpatim, the goyim recognize the divine widom behind the chukim. (elaboration for another time, bl"n)
2. TC on solly
i think the unmentioned idea in both is that if the jews keep the mishpatim, the goyim recognize the divine widom behind the chukim. (elaboration for another time, bl"n)
I don't know why I haven't ever read this site before, it seems really good.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/03/bush_derangement_syndrome_chen.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/03/berger_libby_a_tale_of_two_cri.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/03/bush_derangement_syndrome_chen.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/03/berger_libby_a_tale_of_two_cri.html
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
New York TImes Is Biased!
A blast from the past "media and politics" angle, the New York Times distorts objective reality again:
"Part of [Gore's] scientific audience is uneasy. In talks, articles and blog entries that have appeared since his film and accompanying book came out last year, these scientists argue that some of Mr. Gore's central points are exaggerated and erroneous. They are alarmed, some say, at what they call his alarmism.
"I don't want to pick on Al Gore," Don J. Easterbrook, an emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University, told hundreds of experts at the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America. "But there are a lot of inaccuracies in the statements we are seeing, and we have to temper that with real data." . . .
Criticisms of Mr. Gore have come not only from conservative groups and prominent skeptics of catastrophic warming, but also from rank-and-file scientists like Dr. Easterbook, who told his peers that he had no political ax to grind. A few see natural variation as more central to global warming than heat-trapping gases. Many appear to occupy a middle ground in the climate debate, seeing human activity as a serious threat but challenging what they call the extremism of both skeptics and zealots. "
Some might see this as confirmation of their long held skepticism about the global warming consensus. But the enlightened among us will just say, "Well, but not all "debates" have multiple sides -- the scientific consensus is clear: global warming is occuring, and humans are contributing to it. That's a fact-based empirical claim, not a faith-based "belief". There is no credible debate among intellectually honest observers about this, only about how much warming is happening how fast, what the likely consequences are, what we can/cannot do to halt it, and precisely how much human activity is contributing to it. Put another way, there is no real policy debate, only a political debate. Damn corporate media bias." (just a conjecture, in no way based on real events.)
"Part of [Gore's] scientific audience is uneasy. In talks, articles and blog entries that have appeared since his film and accompanying book came out last year, these scientists argue that some of Mr. Gore's central points are exaggerated and erroneous. They are alarmed, some say, at what they call his alarmism.
"I don't want to pick on Al Gore," Don J. Easterbrook, an emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University, told hundreds of experts at the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America. "But there are a lot of inaccuracies in the statements we are seeing, and we have to temper that with real data." . . .
Criticisms of Mr. Gore have come not only from conservative groups and prominent skeptics of catastrophic warming, but also from rank-and-file scientists like Dr. Easterbook, who told his peers that he had no political ax to grind. A few see natural variation as more central to global warming than heat-trapping gases. Many appear to occupy a middle ground in the climate debate, seeing human activity as a serious threat but challenging what they call the extremism of both skeptics and zealots. "
Some might see this as confirmation of their long held skepticism about the global warming consensus. But the enlightened among us will just say, "Well, but not all "debates" have multiple sides -- the scientific consensus is clear: global warming is occuring, and humans are contributing to it. That's a fact-based empirical claim, not a faith-based "belief". There is no credible debate among intellectually honest observers about this, only about how much warming is happening how fast, what the likely consequences are, what we can/cannot do to halt it, and precisely how much human activity is contributing to it. Put another way, there is no real policy debate, only a political debate. Damn corporate media bias." (just a conjecture, in no way based on real events.)
in an article befitting its subject "Athwart History" (subscription only) is excruciatingly long:
Although he remains the most eminent conservative in the United States, his face and voice recognized by millions, William F. Buckley Jr. has all but retired from public life. At the apex of his influence, when Richard Nixon and, later, Ronald Reagan occupied the White House, Buckley received flattering notes on presidential letterhead and importuning phone calls from Cabinet members worried about their standing in the conservative movement. Since those heady times, Buckley has, piece by piece, dismantled the formidable apparatus through which he tirelessly promulgated conservative doctrine over the course of half a century. In 1998, he ended his frenetic schedule of public speeches (some 70 a year over the course of 40 years, he once estimated). In 1999, he taped the last segment of "Firing Line," the debate program begun in 1966 that invented TV punditry. And, in 2004, he relinquished his controlling stock ownership of National Review, the magazine he founded in 1955 and had continued to direct from behind the scenes even after yielding his place atop the masthead in 1988. Buckley made these serial "divestitures" contentedly, even cheerfully. It left more time for other pursuits—writing novels, weekend sailing (he sold his 36-foot sloop, Patito, but sometimes traverses the Long Island Sound with its new owner, Roger Kimball, who co-edits The New Criterion), and music (he still plays Bach on the piano in his study and invites friends to his rambling weekend home in Stamford, Connecticut, to hear professional recitals on the harpsichord in his music room). In truth, Buckley has never been a wholeheartedly political creature and doesn't quite approve of politicians—not even his favorites. Of his disciples Barry Goldwater and Reagan, Buckley emphasizes, "They came to me." He once told me he discusses politics only when someone's paying him to do it.Still, Buckley, now 81, likes to have his say and, for this reason, has held onto one outlet for regular political commentary: his syndicated column, "On the Right," which he has been writing since 1962. At its peak, the column ran in 300 dailies. Today, Buckley's most dedicated readers are the friends who receive e-mailed versions in advance, though even they, in some cases, may read him less avidly than before or wait to catch up with the selected columns reprinted in the back pages of National Review.Or so it was, until George W. Bush invaded Iraq. The war that has unhinged so many has curiously revitalized Buckley, not as the administration's most eloquent defender but as perhaps its most forceful in-house critic. Untethered to the Bush team—the only insider he knew was Donald Rumsfeld, whom Buckley suggested should consider resigning following the Abu Ghraib scandal—he is also detached from its outer ring of ideologues and flacks. He is, instead, a party of one, who thinks and writes with newfound freedom. While others, left and right, have staked out positions and then fortified them, week after week, Buckley has been thinking his way through events as they have unfolded, looking for new angles of approach, new ways of understanding, drawing on his matchless knowledge of modern conservatism and on his 50-year immersion in the American political scene. It is one of those late-period efflorescences that major figures sometimes enjoy—and, in Buckley's case, it is marked by an unexpected austerity. Like Wallace Stevens's snow man, he has developed a "mind of winter" and, as he scans the bleak vista of the Iraq disaster, "beholds nothing that is not there and the nothing that is." And it has been instructive to observe.
Although he remains the most eminent conservative in the United States, his face and voice recognized by millions, William F. Buckley Jr. has all but retired from public life. At the apex of his influence, when Richard Nixon and, later, Ronald Reagan occupied the White House, Buckley received flattering notes on presidential letterhead and importuning phone calls from Cabinet members worried about their standing in the conservative movement. Since those heady times, Buckley has, piece by piece, dismantled the formidable apparatus through which he tirelessly promulgated conservative doctrine over the course of half a century. In 1998, he ended his frenetic schedule of public speeches (some 70 a year over the course of 40 years, he once estimated). In 1999, he taped the last segment of "Firing Line," the debate program begun in 1966 that invented TV punditry. And, in 2004, he relinquished his controlling stock ownership of National Review, the magazine he founded in 1955 and had continued to direct from behind the scenes even after yielding his place atop the masthead in 1988. Buckley made these serial "divestitures" contentedly, even cheerfully. It left more time for other pursuits—writing novels, weekend sailing (he sold his 36-foot sloop, Patito, but sometimes traverses the Long Island Sound with its new owner, Roger Kimball, who co-edits The New Criterion), and music (he still plays Bach on the piano in his study and invites friends to his rambling weekend home in Stamford, Connecticut, to hear professional recitals on the harpsichord in his music room). In truth, Buckley has never been a wholeheartedly political creature and doesn't quite approve of politicians—not even his favorites. Of his disciples Barry Goldwater and Reagan, Buckley emphasizes, "They came to me." He once told me he discusses politics only when someone's paying him to do it.Still, Buckley, now 81, likes to have his say and, for this reason, has held onto one outlet for regular political commentary: his syndicated column, "On the Right," which he has been writing since 1962. At its peak, the column ran in 300 dailies. Today, Buckley's most dedicated readers are the friends who receive e-mailed versions in advance, though even they, in some cases, may read him less avidly than before or wait to catch up with the selected columns reprinted in the back pages of National Review.Or so it was, until George W. Bush invaded Iraq. The war that has unhinged so many has curiously revitalized Buckley, not as the administration's most eloquent defender but as perhaps its most forceful in-house critic. Untethered to the Bush team—the only insider he knew was Donald Rumsfeld, whom Buckley suggested should consider resigning following the Abu Ghraib scandal—he is also detached from its outer ring of ideologues and flacks. He is, instead, a party of one, who thinks and writes with newfound freedom. While others, left and right, have staked out positions and then fortified them, week after week, Buckley has been thinking his way through events as they have unfolded, looking for new angles of approach, new ways of understanding, drawing on his matchless knowledge of modern conservatism and on his 50-year immersion in the American political scene. It is one of those late-period efflorescences that major figures sometimes enjoy—and, in Buckley's case, it is marked by an unexpected austerity. Like Wallace Stevens's snow man, he has developed a "mind of winter" and, as he scans the bleak vista of the Iraq disaster, "beholds nothing that is not there and the nothing that is." And it has been instructive to observe.
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Before discussing what the significance of creedal confession is we must know if creedal confessions have significance at all. Aquinas, in the “Summa Theologica” (second part of the second part, question three) addresses this question (“Whether confession is an act of faith?” and “Is confession of faith necessary for salvation?”) and comes to the conclusion that “outward actions belong properly to the virtue to whose end they are specifically referred” and that therefore confession is an act of faith and furthermore that (under certain circumstances) confession is necessary for salvation. Gellman cites Aquinas’ explanation for confession’s significance: “For the outward utterance is intended to signify the inward thought.” Gellman then cites, as the Jewish “semi-creedal” texts Ani Ma’amin and Yigdal. These are compared with the Nicene Creed, an affirmation recited in Christian services. Upon first glance it would appear that the importance placed upon verbalization of belief in Christianity, the “outward utterance” of the “inward thought” is not shared by Judaism. (See the opening sentence in Maimonides' Guide I:50.) Gellman’s supposed parallels are in no way required parts of the service—in fact, no less than the great kabbalist Isaac Luria (Pri Etz Hayim, Sha’ar HaT’fila p. 15) was opposed to the recitation of Yigdal entirely. Ani Ma’amin, while less controversial, is in also not an integral part of the service, and in truth is just a convenient summary of Maimonides’ Thirteen Principles. Maimonides defines the first commandment as “to know that there is a G-d”, not to state one’s knowledge. Is there then no requirement in Judaism for an outward expression of faith? Perhaps.
However, there is another possible candidate for a Jewish “declaration of faith”, overlooked by Gellman. The Talmud (B’rakhot 13b), in describing the k’riat sh’ma of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, refers to the first verse as kabalat malkhut shamayim, or “acceptance of heavenly kingship”. According to Rashba (13b) this is reflected in the intention required for recitation, namely that one intend "שיקבל עליו מלכות שמים בהסכמת הלב" – if this is the case, there may indeed be a parallel to Aquinas’ “outward utterance intended to signify the inward thought.” But the view of Rashba is not universally accepted. According to Keren Orah (Introduction to B’rakhot) whether k’riat sh’ma is of a creedal nature is the subject of dispute between the Babylonian and the Jerusalem Talmud.
However, there is another possible candidate for a Jewish “declaration of faith”, overlooked by Gellman. The Talmud (B’rakhot 13b), in describing the k’riat sh’ma of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, refers to the first verse as kabalat malkhut shamayim, or “acceptance of heavenly kingship”. According to Rashba (13b) this is reflected in the intention required for recitation, namely that one intend "שיקבל עליו מלכות שמים בהסכמת הלב" – if this is the case, there may indeed be a parallel to Aquinas’ “outward utterance intended to signify the inward thought.” But the view of Rashba is not universally accepted. According to Keren Orah (Introduction to B’rakhot) whether k’riat sh’ma is of a creedal nature is the subject of dispute between the Babylonian and the Jerusalem Talmud.
Sunday, March 11, 2007
Comments I Posted on the Comments Nebach Posted on Hirhurim and Then As a Post on His Blog
Didn't you already post these comments you posted as a post? And also, what is this cheap move of posting comments on a post as another post anyhow?
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
For all who have not yet read Solly Soloveichik's article "Of (Religious) Fences and Neighbors" in the latest issue of Commentary Magazine, it is available here. The book certainly sounds interesting
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Sunday, February 25, 2007
yated:
In the following pages, we will quote from the words of YCT’s faculty members and we will determine whether these words represent Orthodoxy; whether these ideas are in consonance with halachic Judaism as dictated by the Shulchan Aruch and the great poskim throughout the generations; including those that follow the halachic and hashkafic opinion of the preeminent Modern Orthodox Torah authority, Rav Yosef Dov (Joseph B.) Soloveitchik, Rosh Yeshiva of RIETS. Is this Orthodoxy or a pseudo-Conservative approach? Do YCT’s claims of fidelity to halacha have any truth? How does YCT define the term halacha?
yated: "Another of Rabbi Linzer’s written statements warrant mention here. In the Jerusalem Report Magazine November 2004 edition, Rabbi Linzer in a signed article wrote, “As an Orthodox Jew, I have to struggle not just with G-d ’s presence in the world, but with His commandments as well. Some of these do not seem to square with a good, just G-d. The command to destroy Amalek and the Canaanite nations, the death penalty for one who… [engages in toeiva]"
eliyahu:brackets in original !
yated: "This writer is completely heartbroken that he is forced to cite these horrible quotes, quotes that should fill any Jew–who even remotely cares about kvod shomayim and chillul Hashem, and most of all who is outraged at the blatant Ziuf Hatorah–with horror and a deep sense of sadness."
eliyahu: ditto, ditto.
yated: "Yes, you have seen right. YCT’s teacher of the History of Halacha is a professor at the Jewish Theological Seminary, the flagship school of the Conservative movement. His specialty is “lower and higher criticism” of the Babylonian Talmud. We will not venture what “criticism” of the Babylonian Talmud means for fear that finding out might require rending our garments."
eliyahu: I think by now it is clear that the yated has been infiltrated by an open orthodox saboteur who has cleverly written this article as an attempt to gain sympathy for the open orthodox cause.
In the following pages, we will quote from the words of YCT’s faculty members and we will determine whether these words represent Orthodoxy; whether these ideas are in consonance with halachic Judaism as dictated by the Shulchan Aruch and the great poskim throughout the generations; including those that follow the halachic and hashkafic opinion of the preeminent Modern Orthodox Torah authority, Rav Yosef Dov (Joseph B.) Soloveitchik, Rosh Yeshiva of RIETS. Is this Orthodoxy or a pseudo-Conservative approach? Do YCT’s claims of fidelity to halacha have any truth? How does YCT define the term halacha?
yated: "Another of Rabbi Linzer’s written statements warrant mention here. In the Jerusalem Report Magazine November 2004 edition, Rabbi Linzer in a signed article wrote, “As an Orthodox Jew, I have to struggle not just with G-d ’s presence in the world, but with His commandments as well. Some of these do not seem to square with a good, just G-d. The command to destroy Amalek and the Canaanite nations, the death penalty for one who… [engages in toeiva]"
eliyahu:brackets in original !
yated: "This writer is completely heartbroken that he is forced to cite these horrible quotes, quotes that should fill any Jew–who even remotely cares about kvod shomayim and chillul Hashem, and most of all who is outraged at the blatant Ziuf Hatorah–with horror and a deep sense of sadness."
eliyahu: ditto, ditto.
yated: "Yes, you have seen right. YCT’s teacher of the History of Halacha is a professor at the Jewish Theological Seminary, the flagship school of the Conservative movement. His specialty is “lower and higher criticism” of the Babylonian Talmud. We will not venture what “criticism” of the Babylonian Talmud means for fear that finding out might require rending our garments."
eliyahu: I think by now it is clear that the yated has been infiltrated by an open orthodox saboteur who has cleverly written this article as an attempt to gain sympathy for the open orthodox cause.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Bottom News Day 2007
Today's Top Stories seem to be a classic Bottom Stories of the Day entry:
Price: Dear diary - A day I'd like to forget The Australian - all 1814 related »
Italy's Prodi to Resign, Minister Says FOX News - all 103 related »
Iran vows not to 'retreat one iota' in nuclear pursuit CNN International - all 1146 related »
Clinton, Obama Trade Barbs Over Donor Washington Post - all 76 related »
Jury deliberations begin in CIA leak trial Boston Herald - all 844 related »
Pak Minister praises Safdarjung Hospital
Price: Dear diary - A day I'd like to forget The Australian - all 1814 related »
Italy's Prodi to Resign, Minister Says FOX News - all 103 related »
Iran vows not to 'retreat one iota' in nuclear pursuit CNN International - all 1146 related »
Clinton, Obama Trade Barbs Over Donor Washington Post - all 76 related »
Jury deliberations begin in CIA leak trial Boston Herald - all 844 related »
Pak Minister praises Safdarjung Hospital
Thursday, February 15, 2007
To adapt an adage of the antiwar movement, it is time for the administration to recognize that there can be no freedom if you are freezing. For too long, the government has done nothing to address the conditions which lead to freezing cold. While we respect
the American Spectator's support for a carbon emissions surge, we feel that it is too little and too late. And although many have written about the harm of global warming alarmism (Thomas Sowell is particularly wise) few have come out in support of the phenomenon.
Now, to adapt an adage of an antiwar movement enemy:
Faster, please.
the American Spectator's support for a carbon emissions surge, we feel that it is too little and too late. And although many have written about the harm of global warming alarmism (Thomas Sowell is particularly wise) few have come out in support of the phenomenon.
Now, to adapt an adage of an antiwar movement enemy:
Faster, please.
Sunday, February 11, 2007
Glories of Global Warming II
"N.Y. village may set all-time state snowfall record
Redfield in upstate New York is used to snow, but last week's total - more than 11 feet, unofficially - might be an all-time record. Before it began to wind down Sunday, persistent squalls dumped lake-effect snow in this western New York region.
By William Kates, Associated Press
REDFIELD, N.Y. -- This village in upstate New York's snowbelt gets a lot of snowfall during the winter, but last week's total - more than 11 feet, unofficially - might be an all-time record. "
Now, can you just imagine global cooling?
Redfield in upstate New York is used to snow, but last week's total - more than 11 feet, unofficially - might be an all-time record. Before it began to wind down Sunday, persistent squalls dumped lake-effect snow in this western New York region.
By William Kates, Associated Press
REDFIELD, N.Y. -- This village in upstate New York's snowbelt gets a lot of snowfall during the winter, but last week's total - more than 11 feet, unofficially - might be an all-time record. "
Now, can you just imagine global cooling?
Friday, February 09, 2007
You Heard it Here First
In a Washington Times piece, American Spectator Editor R. Emmet Tyrell Jr. predicts that Giuliani as a candidate will prevail over the various factions of the conservative movement:
"Rudy Giuliani's announcement he will seek the Republican presidential nomination brings to my mind a book I wrote in the early 1990s, "The Conservative Crack-Up." When I wrote the book, Ronald Reagan's successor, President George H. W. Bush, was ignoring many of the constituent ingredients of the Reagan Revolution, for instance, tax cuts. The various factions of the conservative coalition were disgruntled and threatening to take a walk. Once again liberal pundits were diagnosing the conservative movement as moribund. Ever since the conservative movement's ascendancy within the Republican Party in 1964, these grim diagnoses have been handed down episodically. Every time there is dissatisfaction among conservatives or they suffer some electoral setback, the liberal pundits step forward and pronounce the modern conservative movement at death's door. In my book, I ventured the witticism that "conservatism is America's longest dying political movement."
immanent eschaton's scrupulously non-partisan position notwithstanding, we nonetheless prognosticate that a Giuliani candidacy will probably prompt a third party run by a candidate of the "religious right".
"Rudy Giuliani's announcement he will seek the Republican presidential nomination brings to my mind a book I wrote in the early 1990s, "The Conservative Crack-Up." When I wrote the book, Ronald Reagan's successor, President George H. W. Bush, was ignoring many of the constituent ingredients of the Reagan Revolution, for instance, tax cuts. The various factions of the conservative coalition were disgruntled and threatening to take a walk. Once again liberal pundits were diagnosing the conservative movement as moribund. Ever since the conservative movement's ascendancy within the Republican Party in 1964, these grim diagnoses have been handed down episodically. Every time there is dissatisfaction among conservatives or they suffer some electoral setback, the liberal pundits step forward and pronounce the modern conservative movement at death's door. In my book, I ventured the witticism that "conservatism is America's longest dying political movement."
immanent eschaton's scrupulously non-partisan position notwithstanding, we nonetheless prognosticate that a Giuliani candidacy will probably prompt a third party run by a candidate of the "religious right".
Monday, February 05, 2007
immanent celebs
Larry King: “O.K. I get it Britney, you’re not interested. So welcome to Larry King Live. I hear you have a nice Jewish boy in your life now.”
Britney Spears: “Yes Larry he’s a Jewish model named Isaac Cohen. Madonna turned me on to the Kabbalah two years ago and now Isaac Cohen and I are going for Torah lessons with Rabbi Fishbloom at the Temple Moshe Synagogue in Las Vegas when I’m not working on my new album. Did you know that I’ve sold 69 million albums so far? Unfortunately my ex Kevin is taking me to the cleaners and now I have to work for a living to support my two two sons. But you know Larry fame and fortune aren’t all they’re cracked up to be as I’m sure you know you Satanic mishegenah. I now find true fulfillment in the Lord God. Judaism is my insurance policy. Jesus was a Jewish Rabbi and he’s coming back soon and I figure what if he’s Jewish again this time I’m covered. The Prophet Isaiah did say that the name of the Messiah would be Emanuel so I’m hedging my bets.”
Larry King: “I was born Jewish Britney but in 1997 I married Shawn in a Jewish Mormon ceremony. Johnny Miller and Corey Pavin officiated. So tell me about your Torah studies Britney.”
Britney Spears: “Well Rabbi Fishbloom was born Ultra Orthodox in Bnai Brack Israel. His father made a fortune in the Kosher Tefillin business. He made them for $10 then prayed over them for 5 minutes then exported them to New York where they sold for $800. It’s kind of like crystals. Then Rabbi Fishbloom switched to Conservative Judaism and his family disowned him. Now he has a Job complex. He says that God is testing him.”
I can't put my finger on it but there's definitely something wrong here.
Britney Spears: “Yes Larry he’s a Jewish model named Isaac Cohen. Madonna turned me on to the Kabbalah two years ago and now Isaac Cohen and I are going for Torah lessons with Rabbi Fishbloom at the Temple Moshe Synagogue in Las Vegas when I’m not working on my new album. Did you know that I’ve sold 69 million albums so far? Unfortunately my ex Kevin is taking me to the cleaners and now I have to work for a living to support my two two sons. But you know Larry fame and fortune aren’t all they’re cracked up to be as I’m sure you know you Satanic mishegenah. I now find true fulfillment in the Lord God. Judaism is my insurance policy. Jesus was a Jewish Rabbi and he’s coming back soon and I figure what if he’s Jewish again this time I’m covered. The Prophet Isaiah did say that the name of the Messiah would be Emanuel so I’m hedging my bets.”
Larry King: “I was born Jewish Britney but in 1997 I married Shawn in a Jewish Mormon ceremony. Johnny Miller and Corey Pavin officiated. So tell me about your Torah studies Britney.”
Britney Spears: “Well Rabbi Fishbloom was born Ultra Orthodox in Bnai Brack Israel. His father made a fortune in the Kosher Tefillin business. He made them for $10 then prayed over them for 5 minutes then exported them to New York where they sold for $800. It’s kind of like crystals. Then Rabbi Fishbloom switched to Conservative Judaism and his family disowned him. Now he has a Job complex. He says that God is testing him.”
I can't put my finger on it but there's definitely something wrong here.
Romney Watch
Rich Lowry at The Corner on the Romney Speech to the National Review Conservative Summit:
"Here’s my take: Put aside how rambling and unfocused it was. Maybe that can be chalked up to a bad night or fatigue. But to speak for 50 minutes or so and not to talk about the Iraq war before a conservative audience at a crucial moment in that war is bizarre and just wrong and almost offensive in my view. This doesn't seem like an oversight. He went out of his way to check off every conservative box—except the one that is politically risky at the moment. The rest of his foreign policy stuff—when he talked about Iran and the broader war—felt very shaky and about an inch deep. His account of how he came to change his view on abortion—through the issue of stem-cell research—isn't very compelling and he would probably be better off not talking about it at all. Fairly or not, people aren't going to believe it. It was his misfortune to boast about signing Grover Norquist's no-tax pledge, after Jeb Bush gave a very mature and persuasive explanation earlier in the day for why he hadn't ever signed the pledge, but still cut taxes each year he was in office. I'm a fan of the pledge myself and I'm glad Romney signed it, but his boast on this night after following Jeb played into what will be the chief vulnerability to his candidacy—the sense that he is simply pandering to the right. Believe me, I prefer politicians pandering to the right than to something or someone else. But it won't be enough to sustain a serious presidential campaign, which has to have a deeper rationale than occupying a niche in the marketplace. It was just one night, and Romney is impressive in many ways, but Saturday night was a missed opportunity."
Giuliani has just started sounding better
"Here’s my take: Put aside how rambling and unfocused it was. Maybe that can be chalked up to a bad night or fatigue. But to speak for 50 minutes or so and not to talk about the Iraq war before a conservative audience at a crucial moment in that war is bizarre and just wrong and almost offensive in my view. This doesn't seem like an oversight. He went out of his way to check off every conservative box—except the one that is politically risky at the moment. The rest of his foreign policy stuff—when he talked about Iran and the broader war—felt very shaky and about an inch deep. His account of how he came to change his view on abortion—through the issue of stem-cell research—isn't very compelling and he would probably be better off not talking about it at all. Fairly or not, people aren't going to believe it. It was his misfortune to boast about signing Grover Norquist's no-tax pledge, after Jeb Bush gave a very mature and persuasive explanation earlier in the day for why he hadn't ever signed the pledge, but still cut taxes each year he was in office. I'm a fan of the pledge myself and I'm glad Romney signed it, but his boast on this night after following Jeb played into what will be the chief vulnerability to his candidacy—the sense that he is simply pandering to the right. Believe me, I prefer politicians pandering to the right than to something or someone else. But it won't be enough to sustain a serious presidential campaign, which has to have a deeper rationale than occupying a niche in the marketplace. It was just one night, and Romney is impressive in many ways, but Saturday night was a missed opportunity."
Giuliani has just started sounding better
Fighting with our Hands Tied
Syria Admits: At War with U.S.
Does it really help us win this war pretending it isn't also against Syria and Iran; pretending they are not actively attacking/aiding attacks against American troups?
(next topic: metzitza bepeh!)
Does it really help us win this war pretending it isn't also against Syria and Iran; pretending they are not actively attacking/aiding attacks against American troups?
(next topic: metzitza bepeh!)
Thursday, February 01, 2007
For those nostalgic for "the Media and Politics angle":
"Does President Bush have it in for the press corps? Touring a Caterpillar factory in Peoria, Ill., the Commander in Chief got behind the wheel of a giant tractor and played chicken with a few wayward reporters. . . .
"I would suggest moving back," Bush said as he climbed into the cab of a massive D-10 tractor. "I'm about to crank this sucker up." As the engine roared to life, White House staffers tried to steer the press corps to safety, but when the tractor lurched forward, they too were forced to scramble for safety.
"Get out of the way!" a news photographer yelled. "I think he might run us over!" said another. White House aides tried to herd the reporters the right way without getting run over themselves. Even the Secret Service got involved, as one agent began yelling at reporters to get clear of the tractor. Watching the chaos below, Bush looked out the tractor's window and laughed, steering the massive machine into the spot where most of the press corps had been positioned.
The episode lasted about a minute, and Bush was still laughing when he pulled to a stop. He gave reporters a thumbs-up. "If you've never driven a D-10, it's the coolest experience," Bush said afterward. Yeah, almost as much fun as seeing your life flash before your eyes."
(Since we occasionally have had readers who have had difficulty discerning the "media and politics" angle even in the most obvious instances, we will explain: this is an article from a mainstream media organization (the comments in the original post are also illuminating) about a political figure trying to kill many members of the mainstream media.)
This may be the most direct assault by this administration on media freedom since the time Bush tried to appoint a Republican to the Public Broadcasting Board!
"Does President Bush have it in for the press corps? Touring a Caterpillar factory in Peoria, Ill., the Commander in Chief got behind the wheel of a giant tractor and played chicken with a few wayward reporters. . . .
"I would suggest moving back," Bush said as he climbed into the cab of a massive D-10 tractor. "I'm about to crank this sucker up." As the engine roared to life, White House staffers tried to steer the press corps to safety, but when the tractor lurched forward, they too were forced to scramble for safety.
"Get out of the way!" a news photographer yelled. "I think he might run us over!" said another. White House aides tried to herd the reporters the right way without getting run over themselves. Even the Secret Service got involved, as one agent began yelling at reporters to get clear of the tractor. Watching the chaos below, Bush looked out the tractor's window and laughed, steering the massive machine into the spot where most of the press corps had been positioned.
The episode lasted about a minute, and Bush was still laughing when he pulled to a stop. He gave reporters a thumbs-up. "If you've never driven a D-10, it's the coolest experience," Bush said afterward. Yeah, almost as much fun as seeing your life flash before your eyes."
(Since we occasionally have had readers who have had difficulty discerning the "media and politics" angle even in the most obvious instances, we will explain: this is an article from a mainstream media organization (the comments in the original post are also illuminating) about a political figure trying to kill many members of the mainstream media.)
This may be the most direct assault by this administration on media freedom since the time Bush tried to appoint a Republican to the Public Broadcasting Board!
Immanent eschaton has been unable to post much of late as a result of our involvement in an unnamed pursuit which hopefully will result in the creation of capital for our understocked coffers. We appreciate our readers' kind words of encouragement, and we ask that as a precautionary measure they do continue clicking.
Meanwhile, an interesting point from the Weekly Standard:
THE SCRAPBOOK couldn't help but notice that, in the course of his State of the Union address last week, President Bush congratulated the new "Democrat majority" in Congress, which sat politely if not clamorously in front of him. THE SCRAPBOOK wasn't seated in the great chamber of the House of Representatives, to be sure; but when we heard that phrase, we wondered if a ripple of discontent could be felt on the, um, Democratic side.For this particular mode of description--"Democrat" for "Democratic" party--has the effect of sending certain Democrats into a frenzy. Which, of course, is precisely the point: When Barry Goldwater chose Rep. William E. Miller of New York as his vice-presidential running mate in 1964, he explained his decision to reporters by saying that Miller "drives Lyndon Johnson nuts." Sending Democrats into orbit is an old and honored tradition in Republican politics. Frankly, THE SCRAPBOOK doubts that President Bush meant to do that; but whatever his intention, that is what he succeeded in doing. The next morning, on NPR's "Diane Rehm Show," both the venerable hostess and her two guests--onetime Clinton White House chief of staff John Podesta and former Republican congressman Vin Weber--struggled to explain both the meaning and origin of the rhetorical practice of referring to the Democratic party as the "Democrat" party."It's like fingernails on a chalkboard," complained Podesta. Neither he nor Weber nor Diane Rehm herself knew how it started. The Washington Post devoted a whole story to the subject--albeit in the Style section--which shed no light on the question. And on CNN, Democratic vulgarian Paul Begala was close to tears of frustration: "It tells you what's in [Bush's] heart," he exclaimed. "It tells you that he has no damn desire to compromise."
Meanwhile, an interesting point from the Weekly Standard:
THE SCRAPBOOK couldn't help but notice that, in the course of his State of the Union address last week, President Bush congratulated the new "Democrat majority" in Congress, which sat politely if not clamorously in front of him. THE SCRAPBOOK wasn't seated in the great chamber of the House of Representatives, to be sure; but when we heard that phrase, we wondered if a ripple of discontent could be felt on the, um, Democratic side.For this particular mode of description--"Democrat" for "Democratic" party--has the effect of sending certain Democrats into a frenzy. Which, of course, is precisely the point: When Barry Goldwater chose Rep. William E. Miller of New York as his vice-presidential running mate in 1964, he explained his decision to reporters by saying that Miller "drives Lyndon Johnson nuts." Sending Democrats into orbit is an old and honored tradition in Republican politics. Frankly, THE SCRAPBOOK doubts that President Bush meant to do that; but whatever his intention, that is what he succeeded in doing. The next morning, on NPR's "Diane Rehm Show," both the venerable hostess and her two guests--onetime Clinton White House chief of staff John Podesta and former Republican congressman Vin Weber--struggled to explain both the meaning and origin of the rhetorical practice of referring to the Democratic party as the "Democrat" party."It's like fingernails on a chalkboard," complained Podesta. Neither he nor Weber nor Diane Rehm herself knew how it started. The Washington Post devoted a whole story to the subject--albeit in the Style section--which shed no light on the question. And on CNN, Democratic vulgarian Paul Begala was close to tears of frustration: "It tells you what's in [Bush's] heart," he exclaimed. "It tells you that he has no damn desire to compromise."
Sunday, January 28, 2007
The State that Keeps Getting Smarter
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.
"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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
