Why Don't They Just Leave?

This is me, the Diaspora Jew, thinking. Every kind of oppression that's been suffered, currently and in the past, by some minority group has been subjected to my people. Slavery (although, true, it was a while ago), genocide, marriage restrictions, forced conversions, etc. But this is the 21st century, and if any of those things happened to me and my people, especially if its from a Western nation, I would get up and leave. That's what we always did, and it's even easier to do now.

I'm setting aside Israel, even, as a possible destination, even though that's why it was created. But if Israel didn't exist, and it's the 21st Century, and I'm living in a country with freedom to travel (e.g. unlike Iran/USSR), and my home country was persecuting Jews - then I would leave.

This is my gut reaction whenever I hear someone - in America or another Western nation - decry their treatment by the home country. I guess this is why all 4 of my grandparents - especially my father's father - just got the heck out of Eastern Europe in the teens/twenties. They said, to paraphrase Cartman:

Cases where this came up: Jehova's Witnesses who are shocked and appalled that they're forced to give their children blood transfusions (even though it says explicitly in the Old Testament not to eat blood). The Styx's response to the JW: hey guys, just leave America! If you don't like our religious oppression, then act like the Jews and go to Micronesia or Somalia or some other place.

Another case: Gays in America. Evidently, we're terrible for gay rights in America. OK, so if Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, South Africa, Canada, Norway, and Sweden have legalized gay marriage, then why don't you become citizens of those countries?

Note - very important caveat - I am not saying that these groups should 'go back where they came from' or to 'leave America to real Americans' or some other white supremacist stuff. My whole point is that when the white supremacists start attacking you, that's a sign that it's probably time to move.

So, I'm not saying that the gay community shouldn't try to change America's laws - all power to them! - I'm just trying to understand the strange (to me) impulse to stay in a country which oppresses you.

This could be why Jews have generally survived over the millennia in the Diaspora, because we don't think that a particular bunch of painted rocks in an arbitrary latitude and longitude needs to be our permanent locale. I just find that view to be fundamentally un-Jewish.

Note, this is also why I react negatively when some bunch of congregants insist that they need to stay in some dying neighborhood in some decrepit city. Sure, I understand the limits of poverty; that many people - especially senior citizens - can't move for practical reasons. I'm down with that. What I'm rejecting is the *ideological* arguments I hear about staying in some neighborhood. Again, the Styx reaction: You're in the Diaspora, Just Move!

And, of course, you will ask: what about the land of Israel? Aren't those painted rocks sacred? Of course they are. But I'm also with Rebbe Yochanan Ben Zakkai on this - Israel is sacred, but the Torah and human life is more sacred. I reject land-for-peace deals because they're usually impractical and dangerous, not because I believe a clump of dirt is inherently worth a human life.

Again, to state clearly: Land for Peace has worked with some countries (e.g. Egypt, for now), and Jordan) and that is a good *practical* argument for the tactic in the future. Land for Peace has totally failed in Gaza, and was a fiasco with Lebanon, and hasn't worked well with Jericho. So my general wariness to Land-for-Peace is on practical grounds, with a bit of ideology thrown in (basically that Israel should exist, small stuff like that). But I opposed the ideological doctrine that one must die before ceding an inch of Israel. I claim that it is avodah zarah and goyish to think that wood and rocks is worth more than a human life.

Pic from here.

Jared Polis

As you know, after an election I track the numbers of added/present elected officials who are on my teams: Democrats, Princeton grads, redheads, and Jews. Yeah, even though my enemies do this as well (on all fronts, you know who you are gingy-haters!), the fact that the same action can mean different things in different contexts is the essence of social philosophy. If I stopped doing things just because someone I detest does the same thing, then I'd basically be stuck doing nothing (OK, maybe playing pong and drinking Ovaltine - those are still pristine).

Anyway, a new representative, Jared Polis, was elected on Tuesday in the Colorado 2nd who's on 3 teams: Jewish Democratic Princeton grad. Awright. Do I mind that he's actually younger than me and is already a multi-millionaire and in Congress? Nah. But, in a fun twist of fate, he's also the first openly gay person elected to Congress (the Wiki says that Barney Frank outed himself after election - that must have been some closet).

This is going to be interesting.

Pic made by me - the official symbol of Jewish Princetonians. Maybe. Backpost finished 2009-12-07.

Some Predictions, Part 2: Cabinet

I originally discussed this question here, here and here. The picture has changed a little, seeing who has helped the most or not at all. A summary of the previous discussions:

1. Tom Daschle can get any post he wants, he's been that important.
   
2. State: Gov. Richardson (D-NM),
   
3. Def.: Fmr Sen. (D-GA) Sam Nunn.
   
4. AG: Sen. Feingold (D-WI), Sen. Kerry (D-MA)
   
5. Treas.: Fmr Sec Robert Reich, Mayor Bloomberg, Fmr NJ Sen Bradley, Fmr Commerce Sec Daley.
   
6. Others John Edwards: HUD, Interior or Labor.

Since then, there have been changes in the world. First of all, John Edwards is out, permanently. Also, Hillary Clinton - whom I still haven't forgiven for her disgraceful primary behavior - won't want a cabinet post. She will want to stay in the Senate - where the money is. Moreover, it's unclear if Obama needs to pay her any lip service at all, especially if he has some women in prominent places in the cabinet. Moreover, I think that Richardson hasn't proven himself so useful, so why put him in State except for tokenism? That could open up.

The biggest change from these May predictions is the new necessity of real talent/gravitas in the Secretaries of the Treasury and Commerce. Why - because these two posts will be the most important of the cabinet in terms of the #1 perceived problem - the economy (I say perceived because I believe that there are two more important: Attorney General, to reverse the grave civil liberties abuses, then Defense/Homeland Security to get us out of Iraq and to protect us at home; the Iraq War is directly related to the cratering economy and the Homeland Security department needs to be eliminated and put back to the original offices)

My feeling is that Obama may choose Paul Krugman for either post. Krugman just won a Nobel prize, was a well-known and prescient critic of Bush and the Housing Bubble, and was also a Hillary supporter and a bastard toward Obama. BHO seems to follow the Lincolnian "cabinet of rivals" doctrine, something that I respect highly about both men. By choosing Krugman, BHO will show his independence, veneration of competence, and strength of character.

Another possible option for either is Barney Frank. He's been in the House since 1981 and is the current chair of Financial Services. I think that Obama may feel compelled to put an openly gay person in the cabinet and Treasury (asop Commerce) may be enough of a carrot to get a powerful congressman to leave his chairmanship.

A person I overlooked in May was Dick Gephart. He was House majority leader for a while, and his staff has been a huge help to Obama. Possibly Labor. Another strong possibility is Cory Booker for HUD, or some other low level post (Booker is a Rhodes Scholar, current mayor of Newark and was thought to be more likely than Obama to be first black president... but he's only a mayor, of a cruddy town, and after a term in HUD or Education he can run for Senate/Governor).

Some people who have distinguished themselves in the general election who need to be repaid:

1. Gov. Sebelius, who I thought as a good VP pick, should get a cabinet post.
2. Gov. Napolitano should run against McCain for Senate in 2010. TPM reported yesterday that current polls show McCain losing to her by 53%-45%! Stunning when you think of it. But McCain may retire on November 5 and I don't know if she can resign as governor after appointing herself as Senator...
   
3. Colin Powell crucial endorsement a few days ago has now put him in the cabinet running. Ideologically I don't want a Republican to be in either Defense or NSA - I want to break the myth that only republicans know defense. The myth has been shattered by GWB anyway, so why resurrect it? Powell still may be useful as UN Ambassador, or possibly Ambassador to Iraq (heh heh), or maybe Sec. of Veterans Affairs, if its not beneath him.
   
4. Rep. Robert Wexler has done yoeman's work as an Obama surrogate in Florida. Wexler's also an Orthodox Jew and I'd like to see him put in a low-level cabinet position (Transport, Energy) or even Ambassador to Israel. Then, like Booker, after a stint in the Executive he can shoot for Gov/Senate
   
5. There are a number of former officials (following my purple rule) that could be useful as well: Gary Hart, Lincoln Chafee, Paul Volcker, Larry Summers, etc.
   
6. A last 'cabinet of rivals' thought: Joe Lieberman for Homeland Security. Lieberman has acted shamefully in this election; he has bitten Obama's hand despite BHO's help to Lieberman back in '06. I am especially angered by Joe's hypocrisy: back in 1998 Joe publicly criticized Bill Clinton for the shameful act of adultery etc. Yet 10 years later, Joe is a HUGE supporter of what the TPM has claimed is one of the lowest, evil elections in a century. Where is Joe's outrage now? The fact that he's not calling McCain out for the terrorist smears shows that Joe was opportunistically criticizing Clinton (it did get him VP!) and has lost his moral compass now. So why do I want him to get Homeland Security. Even beyond the rivals idea, it because it will get Lieberman out of the Senate and then Obama can dissolve the whole department. Har.

Gay Rabbis and Newsweek's Best

Two things that just happened today.

1. JTS and Gay Rabbis

JTS will now ordain gay rabbis. I'm not sure what ramifications this will have. One thought is that the
right-wing of JTS will split off, a la UTJ (Halivni etc). Conservative already broke from d'oryta Judaism when - in 1950! - they allowed driving on Shabbat. You'd think that the tumult in the early 80s about ordaining women would be less controversial than sublimating michalelei Shabbas b'farhesia, but you'd be wrong.

Is ordaining homosexuals worse than driving on Shabbas? I'd say no: because halakha does not recognize homosexuality as an identity - it's an act not an ontology - there's no problem with a gay rabbi, per se. Gay marriage is even less of an issue because, at worst, it's just a problem of sheim shav, and that happens all the time in their movement. Driving on Shabbas is worse, therefore, because it basically gave a blanket heter to violate the basics of Shabbat (creating fiery explosions) and thus removed the sanctity of Shabbat fully.

On the other hand, it does not say so completely explicitly that you can't drive on Shabbat in the Torah (it's close to explicit, though) - while homosexuality is pretty durn explicitly forbidden in the strongest terms. So looking at the issue in a broad sense, while driving on Shabbat violates the Day of Rest, and a Shabbat-violator, according to Chazal, is the equivalent of someone who denies God (because God rested on Shabbat, there's a logic there), allowing gay marriage basically states that there's no divinity to the Torah.

Thus stated, is denying God's Creation worse than denying the validity and sanctity of the written Torah? That's a true lifeboat question.

The Best Newsweek Rabbis

Newsweek, in its wisdom, created a list of the top 50 most influential
American rabbis. Yes, there's the head of Chabad (#2) and Satmar (#15) but
the list, naturally, is ignorant of the wider frum community (e.g. Rabbi Lamm
is #44 but no Rosh Yeshiva of YU, like Rav Schachter, is on the list - even though Schachter is the true head of the institution, and halakhic head of the OU to boot).

However, I think the list reflects what I've described as the 'Wexner
Fellowship' (or UJA, Federation) frame of reference for the Orthodox community. I mean, Shmuely Boteach (#9) and Marc Schneier (#33) but not Rav Malkiel Kutler (head of Lakewood), or Rav Aaron Schechter (head of Chaim Berlin) etc. I'm not
denying that the 50 people on the list have influence but Newsweek (surprise
surprise) lacks effective insight into a not insignificant part of the
Jewish world.

Lott!? No! Yeah?! Ha ha ha ha...

Oh you bet. The GOP, reeling from catastrophic losses in the House and Senate try to change their fortunes, and their image, by selecting a racist Southern greaseball as their #2 in the Senate.

As reported yesterday, Lott succeeds in leadership comeback. He was kicked out two years ago because he, aw shucks, made public statements claiming that the country would be better off if segregationists had won the 1948 presidency.

The quote, from Dec. 5, 2002:

"I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn’t have had all these problems over all these years, either."

Gee, GOP, after running a racist campaign in 2006 - trying to attract the jingoistic wackos by showing the Democrats as allowing miscegenation (Harold Ford & the Bunny), Gay Marriage and for being soft on immigration (which angered Latinos) - you'd think you'd want to win those votes back. Hard to do with a white-sheeter as your number 2.

As Robert George (the Caribbean-American conservative blogger, not the Princeton professor) said:

"There's something painfully ironic about Trent Lott being named 'minority whip'."

{2009 Update, pic from here.}

Letter to TPM About Foley

This is a letter I sent this morning to the Talking Points Memo about an open question about why the GOP is steadily falling in the polls.  The question, basically put, is "Is it all Foley?":

Dear Josh,

 

Re: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/010338.php

 

I would say that the paradigm shift you describe (without calling it that, poor Kuhn has been abused by too many to risk even an accurate reference), that the country has said 'enough' started in earnest with Katrina. 

 

The whole episode showed that Homeland Security was a farce and that the GOP activity does not care about people.  The fact that Bush ignored Sheehan helped set that context.  Then came Miers, to show the GOP core that Bush doesn't even know he has lost credibility.  Then the Iraq war kept getting worse and worse and more communinties across America were losing native children.  Then major players of a distinct Republican identity - the heads of military - were almost unanimously against the conduct of the war.  Then the public break of GOP Senators over the torture bill (John McCain! John "Elizabeth Taylor" Warner!) made it clearer.

 

None of the real substance - the stuff we who read newspapers/internet know about - mattered.  Torture, habeas corpus, NIE reports are either too detailed or easily spun.  Even the massive corruption scandals of Abrahamoff, DeLay, Cunningham, Ney are either 'business as usual' (corrupt politicians? i'm shocked, shocked) or in someone else's backyard. 

 

I think the Foley case and North Korea coming almost simultaneously were the one-two punch that finally made people snap (as you described it).  Basically because both are Katrina, one domestic, one foreign.  North Korea getting the bomb is absurd in light of the war in Iraq.  Most people in America felt that we had to go in because Saddam Hussein, after killing James Bond, deployed the planes that destroyed the WTC and that was only the beginning.  The WMD were ready to be aimed at us.  Because we didnt find any doesn't mean they didn't exist, just like there still can be Dragons over the lip of the flat earth. But when one of the Axis of Evil countries actually develops WMD while we just sit and mumble destroys whatever credibility was left about the rectitude of attacking Iraq.  It's thank God not as bad as another attack on US soil, but its almost the same thing rhetorically.

 

Then Foley.  Which shows that, like Katrina, the GOP just doesn't care about people.  The wonderful denials, the blaming of Democrats, the belief that the creepy IMs didnt look troubling, the fact that Foley has repeatedly shown up drunk at the Page dorms - these things hit home. 

 

And, to again use the paradigm-shift theory, because the Catholic church scandals of the past few years have already prepared people's opinions on the matter, people instantly knew what to think when Foleygate hit.  Everyone except die-hards attacked the Catholic Church hierarchy; how could they ignore the abuse etc.  This is why Foley's actions are considered so bad (even though it wasn't near the levels of the priests') - because we already knew what this was.

 

Lastly, Foleygate shows the hypocracy of the GOP gay-bashing to the Christianist Fundamentalists.  The Christianists all believe that gay men prey on young boys.  They didn't know that the GOP leaders (Hastert, Santorum) had openly gay chiefs-of-staff.  That, I believe, is the real snapping point.  To use a crude metaphor it's as if Strom Thurmond in 1948 had a black chief-of-staff [when he ran for President as the anti-segregationist 'Dixiecrat' party]

 

However, all my wonderful analysis is moot because who cares what the majority of people think.  Its all GOTV and Karl Rove is the world's master.  It reminds me of how badly I do at predicting the Oscars; I base my predictions on what I think deserves an award and the Oscar goes to whomever receives the most votes.  And I have no idea who is in the Academy nor how those people think.  Adrien Brody?  Roman 'Pederast' Polanksi?!  

 

As we saw in 2004, Rove managed to find enough people - people who had not been responding to pre-polling - to get their tushes in the voting booth.  So all the outrage, and the poll numbers, all the scandals mean nothing if we don't know who Rove has managed to connive into voting this year.  And what is most frustrating is that Rove is 100% correct - who cares about the issues if all that matters is getting enough votes in one 18 hour period on one day in history.

 

My 25 cents. 

 

All the best,

[The Styx]

 

 

Foley and the GOP for November

A letter I sent TPM, Re: Is It All Foley? - about the dismal state of the GOP's electoral chances in November:

Dear Josh,

I would say that the paradigm shift you describe (without calling it that, poor Kuhn has been abused by too many to risk even an accurate reference), that the country has said 'enough' started in earnest with Katrina.

The whole episode showed that Homeland Security was a farce and that the GOP activity does not care about people. The fact that Bush ignored Sheehan helped set that context. Then came Miers, to show the GOP core that Bush doesn't even know he has lost credibility. Then the Iraq war kept getting worse and worse and more communities across America were losing native children. Then major players of a distinct Republican identity - the heads of military - were almost unanimously against the conduct of the war. Then the public break of GOP Senators over the torture bill (John McCain! John "Elizabeth Taylor" Warner!) made it clearer.

None of the real substance - the stuff we who read newspapers/internet know about - mattered. Torture, habeas corpus, NIE reports are either too detailed or easily spun. Even the massive corruption scandals of Abrahamoff, DeLay, Cunningham, Ney are either 'business as usual' (corrupt politicians? I'm shocked, shocked) or in someone else's backyard.

I think the Foley case and North Korea coming almost simultaneously were the one-two punch that finally made people snap (as you described it). Basically because both are Katrina, one domestic, one foreign. North Korea getting the bomb is absurd in light of the war in Iraq. Most people in America felt that we had to go in because Saddam Hussein, after killing James Bond, deployed the planes that destroyed the WTC and that was only the beginning. The WMD were ready to be aimed at us. Because we didn't find any doesn't mean they didn't exist, just like there still can be Dragons over the lip of the flat earth. But when one of the Axis of Evil countries actually develops WMD while we just sit and mumble destroys whatever credibility was left about the rectitude of attacking Iraq. It's thank God not as bad as another attack on US soil, but its almost the same thing rhetorically.

Then Foley. Which shows that, like Katrina, the GOP just doesn't care about people. The wonderful denials, the blaming of Democrats, the belief that the creepy IMs didn't look troubling, the fact that Foley has repeatedly shown up drunk at the Page dorms - these things hit home.

And, to again use the paradigm-shift theory, because the Catholic church scandals of the past few years have already prepared people's opinions on the matter, people instantly knew what to think when Foleygate hit. Everyone except die-hards attacked the Catholic Church hierarchy; how could they ignore the abuse etc. This is why Foley's actions are considered so bad (even though it wasn't near the levels of the priests') - because we already knew what this was.

Lastly, Foleygate shows the hypocrisy of the GOP gay-bashing to the Christianists. The Christianists all believe that gay men prey on young boys. They didn't know that the GOP leaders (Hastert, Santorum) had openly gay chiefs-of-staff. That, I believe, is the real snapping point. To use a crude metaphor its as if Strom Thurmond in 1948 had a black chief-of-staff.

However, all my wonderful analysis is moot because who cares what the majority of people think. Its all GOTV and Karl Rove is the world's master. It reminds me of how badly I do at predicting the Oscars; I base my predictions on what I think deserves an award and the Oscar goes to whomever receives the most votes. And I have no idea who is in the Academy nor how those people think. Adrien Brody? Roman 'Pederast' Polanksi?!

As we saw in 2004, Rove managed to find enough people - people who had not been responding to pre-polling - to get their tushes in the voting booth. So all the outrage, and the poll numbers, all the outrages mean nothing if we don't know who Rove has managed to connive into voting this year. And what is most frustrating is that Rove is 100% correct - who cares about the issues if all that matters is getting enough votes in one 18 hour period on one day in history.

My 25 cents.
All the best,
JC

Pic from here. Backpost put up 2009-12-08.

The New York Times Leads the Way

When it comes to outing the gay penguins (Love That Dare Not Squeak Its Name)

Greek Love

I spoke this Shabbas about Hellenism, Hanukkah and Gay Marriage. One of the sources that has informed my thinking about this issue is Dennis Prager's article(s) about homosexuality in general:
I recommend reading it.