Columnists

I've been thinking about the value of journalists vs. columnists, sparked by a number of outrages and incidents over the past few months. I've been studying journalism for close to 20 years now (e.g. I wrote my senior thesis on the subject after studying with Roger Mudd) and I believe strongly in the 1st Amendment, a free press (sorry: A Free Press), and the need to keep tabs on government & unregulated business, and generally to be the voice of the populace.

Sadly, as I've pointed out often the commercialization of the press has brought down this mighty tool. And while I agree that we're actually living through a great age of information, there is something fundamentally flawed with a press who needs to be interested in sales as opposed to their Constitutionally protected and necessary role. Especially since all the journalists I read and know all believe that what they do is 'speak truth to power' or something like it.

That's why it's key to distinguish between a reporter and a columnist. Both could be under the category of 'journalist', but a reporter appears to still be the role for the fact-gatherer. The columnist is the opinion spewer. And what is clear is that they operate under different grundnorms.

The reporter is an academic-lite - both fields are ostensibly about amassing expertise, knowledge, facts and then publishing (reporting) them. Reporters are held to a lower level of book knowledge but they are to make up for it with street knowledge and with speed. The grundnorm is both cases is the desire for fact. This ability to acquire and publish fact is the real freedom of the American system and the keystone of our liberty: the 1st Amendment (which, even more than the text of the Constitution, is the most important contribution to world history).

A columnist, however, is in the politics or entertainment field and their grundnorm, besides the lust for power/money could be the "ethic" of free expression. This is a more recent "ethic" - it's like the 1960s hippie BS mixed with the 1970s+ self-esteem movement. Whatever its source, it is ugly. And that is what I see in the work of most online columnists (and probably those in print, but I almost never read a print newspaper unless its Shabbos and I'm at someone else's house).

Columnists are definitely a scourge of our democracy but, as my vaunted 1st Amendment asserts, I need to protect their rights. But I can still condemn them.

Stage 4 Sullivanism = Stage 1 Gibson

So, Wright has quickly moved into a new category. I don't know if it's a new 'stage' of Sullivan, but Wright's reaction to the murder of Israeli tourists in Bulgaria is to claim - citing some an unlinked person - that Israel has been attacking Iran *in order to* have Iran kill Israelis *in order to* allow Israel to go to war:

US officials have privately expressed concern that one of the purposes of Israeli attacks in Iran has been to generate an Iranian response that could serve as a casus belli for Israel. That way, Israel could target Iran's nuclear facilities without paying the heavy political cost of starting a preventive war.

Got it? Wright believes that Israel desperately and un-reasoningly wants war. As if there's no 'casus belli' between Iran and Israel already, given the constant state of attacks from Iranian proxies against the State of Israel and Jews all over the world. Nope, to haters like Wright, the only reason for Israel is what Wright's putative hero, Mel Gibson, said: Jews are the cause for all wars. Enough. The Atlantic needs to get rid of this guy.

Stage 3 Sullivanism

The Atlantic is one of my daily reads but they have had an irritating tendency to employ and promote some idiot columnists (a dirty word in my house, as in "hey who was the columnist who spilled bat guano on my tuxedo and didn't clean it up?!.") But the worst they have, as of now, is Robert Wright, as I mentioned here.

He exhibits the classic trappings of a columnist: many opinions, little fact, and a whopping great ego. Now, I too have a big ego, so my complaint isn't as much about the size but about it leads ignorant fools (aka 'columnists') into aggressive solipsism.

For a wonderful example of how a columnist can convince himself that he can and should comment on anything, see Wright's set of 3 columns from July 2 to July 7. The first, entitled, Turkey's 'Islamists' Remarkably Like Republicans. I was intrigued enough to read it despite my near allergic reaction to journalistic idiocy. Naturally, as soon as I delved in I got brain hives. How are the Turks like Republicans? Well Rob discovers that the right-wing party in charge of Turkey has a coalition made up of uneducated religious fanatics as well as the (de-facto secular) moneyed elite.

What's galling is not that he's right, it's the fact that he finds it news that a right-wing party is made up of these groups. As any student of modern History will tell you: ALL RIGHT WING PARTIES ARE MADE UP OF THESE GROUPS. It's what right-wing stands for: nationalism. Speaking as an academic, I find that I won't comment on a subject if I don't feel knowledgeable enough. That fear is excised from the typical columnist.

Then, soon after I discovered what a complete raging idiot Wright is - as if being anti-Israel wasn't a tip-off - his next column was entitled: "What This Higgs Boson Thing Really Means." So now the ignoramous about Mideast politics, and history, was switching to physics? This was confirmed by the next column title: "Higgs Boson Continues to Not Make Sense."

Who the hell does he think he is? OK, so cutting-edge particle physics doesn't make sense. To you. And that's news? The hubris is astounding.

However, I didn't pause in my exam prep just to vent about Robert Wright's past idiocy, as he graced us with some new idiocy, back in his 'expertise' in hating Israel.

His column is entitled: Neo-McCarthyism. What's his problem now? Well he claims in his first line that "The charge of anti-Semitism is starting to lose its force" - and this is entirely predicable for Wright to say because, as the title of this post states, Wright is at the third stage of becoming Andrew Sullivan.

Sullivan used to be a decent read but at some point his utterly confused mind decided that he should hate Israel. And when Sully hates, he hates. It was stunning to watch. At first, I just checked it off to Sully being British - and UK has a built-in anti-Semitism that's hard to fathom. But now that Wright is following the same path, I can say that there's a real pattern to the descent.

Stage 1 Sullivanism is to start by being a columnist - which means to prize your self-satisfied ego, avoid facts and research, and to believe that whatever opinion pops in your skull is worthy for everyone to believe (and unbelievers are heretics to the Pantheon of You). Yet not all columnists become Israel haters, and not all Sullivans are columnists (Mearshimer and Walt come to mind). The egoism is the path to darkness here: the person is question needs to not have anything to do with Israel or non-secular Jews. Israel is the 'other.' And if the person was raised with a religion, it helps for that religion to be a good solid elder-brother hating Christianity (Sully is Catholic, Wright says he was raised bible-belt Baptist).

At stage 1, the columnist will see Israel as the embodiment of what they hate in their own lives. This is the root of anti-Semitism as well, for those keeping score. Moreover, these guys will have sentimentality as their prime ethical impulse - if something makes them feel bad, then that thing itself is bad. So moral difficulties get reduced to the solipsism that governs their working life.

Stage 2 Sullivanism is when your creeping dislike of the Jewish state makes you frequently quote with approval other, more rabid, anti-Semites and to use their rhetoric (e.g. "Israel Lobby" or "Israel Firsters" or "Mein Kampf"). The common people to quote are Mearshimer and Walt, Andrew Sullivan, and - increasingly - Peter Beinart. Now Beinart isn't a clear anti-Semite, but I've seen his views be repeated so often by the Sullivans of the Internet, that I believe approval of him is a sign of anti-Zionism/Semitism. And since Beinart is almost certainly a self-hating Jew - he loves himself, but the hate the Jews that will make the goyim reject him. Quite standard policy for the self-hater.

Stage 3 Sullivanism is when you lose your understanding of anti-Semitism completely. Basically, in Wright's column, he weaves an utterly confusing story of he-said-this-about-what-someone-else-said-about-another-guy, that I have no idea who is what. Suffice it to say that Wright is just so fed-up of people using the term "anti-Semite" that he rules that it is losing its meaning. Oh, and since using the term 'anti-semite' is meant to 'silence' someone, ipso facto calling somoene an anti-Semite is an act of McCarthyism.

To review some important facts:

1. Robert Wright is not Jewish. He is a White Anglo-Saxon (ex) Protestant. He is a prominent journalist columnist. He has power, probably money, and is part of the complete majority of US History starting from the 17th Century. He has no place to determine when a historically persecuted minority is allowed to complain about their treatment. This is a self-test for everybody: if you think the historical victims of organized mass murder are 'too sensitive' then you may be part of the problem.
   
   
2. I should remind everyone that anti-Semitism, like most hatreds, are public health problems. There was a point in history when anti-Semitism was leading cause of death for Jews in Europe. It is one of the main causes in Israel today. It is creeping back up in Europe today as well. Anti-Semitism is real and it kills.
   
   
3. Anti-semitism is not only those with arm-bands and guns. The Holocaust happened because most people in Europe and America felt that it was OK to eliminate the Jews from their midst. If you need a historical note, recall back to the 1980s when most people openly believed that AIDS was fine because it would kill of only gay people. Hatred kills even in its small forms. And bigotry is never good in any dose.
   
   
4. Censorship and McCarthyism only apply to the government, not to your fellow citizens. The government telling you to shut-up is censorship, my telling you to shut up is free speech.
   
   
5. The reason why Wright, a now stage-3 Sullivanite, *thinks* it's McCarthyism is because he is so egotistical that ANYTHING that reduces his ability to shriek, or the impact of those shrieks - such as someone thinking he's wrong - then he considers that censorship.
   
   
6. For cases in point, see the post-Mein-Kampfing of Mearshimer and Walt who just hate it when they are told by private organizations that they are anti-Semites; or Norman Finkelstein, or Tony Judt, or other well-established "misunderstood anti-Zionists."

Ultimately, the reason why Wright claims that "anti-semitism" is losing force is because all the people who he agrees with, starting with himself, are being called anti-Semites. And since he doesn't think of himself as a bigot, ipso facto, the term is meaningless.

Well, OK, the term may be meaningless to Wright, or to others who use anti-Semitie in the same way as 'racist' to mean "a wholly unredeemable caveman," but for those of us who could be killed by this disease, the term still carries some meaning. Wright cares about the term only insofar as it can affect a reputation or 'discourse.' He has no idea - because he's the guy in charge and has nothing really to fear - that people like him are the reason why my relatives were murdered in Europe and are killed around the world til this day.

Two Disco Giants Die

In my advancing years, I've come to appreciate Disco as a sporadically talented offshoot of Funk (and undisputed good). And over the past few days, two of the very greatest of the genre passed away: Donna Summer and Robin Gibb.

Below are two songs that I think are apporpriate for my nostalgic tribute to great musicians. For Donna Summer, I can't put the 17 minute "I Feel Love" so this is "Dim All the Lights"


For the Bee Gees, it's hard to choose. While their best song is "Stayin' Alive" not only is that inappropriate for an obituary, it's also overdone. I've chosen two, because they made so many good songs (I'm not joking - only a churlish ideologue can deny the quality of the Bee Gees). Here's "Tragedy" and "Inside and Out"

Tragedy

Inside and Out

Written Comps Tomorrow

After months of frantic reading, I am primed for my comprehensive exams tomorrow in Jewish Studies. I have never read so many books so thoroughly in so short a time before. I may have book poisoning. Sure, I read constantly, but in the past when I found that a text was idiotic, I would stop reading it. I don't have that choice with comps!

For your use and mine, here's my reading list:

Biblical Medicine (6)

1. Avalos, Hector, Sarah J. Melcher, and Jeremy Schipper. 2007. This Abled Body: Rethinking Disabilities in Biblical Studies. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature.

2. Avalos, Hector. 1995. Illness and health care in the ancient Near East : the role of the temple in Greece, Mesopotamia, and Israel. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press.

3. Brettler, Marc Zvi. 2005. How to read the Bible. Philadelphia, PA: Jewish Publication Society.

4. Droge, Arthur J., and James D. Tabor. 1992. A noble death : suicide and martyrdom among Christians and Jews in antiquity. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco.

5. Levenson, Jon Douglas. 1993. The death and resurrection of the beloved son : the transformation of child sacrifice in Judaism and Christianity. New Haven: Yale University Press.

6. Milgrom, Jacob. 1991. Leviticus 1-16 : a new translation with introduction and commentary. New York: Doubleday. Pp. 742-1008 (chapters 12-15)

Medicine, Science & Judaism (6)

1. Bleich, J. David. 1998. Bioethical dilemmas : a Jewish perspective. Hoboken, N.J.: Ktav Pub. House.

2. Dorff, Elliot N. 1998. Matters of life and death : a Jewish approach to modern medical ethics. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society.

3. Heynick, Frank. 2002. Jews and medicine : an epic saga. Hoboken, NJ: KTAV Pub. House.

4. Rosner, Fred. 2001. Biomedical ethics and Jewish law. Hoboken, NJ: KTAV Pub. House.

5. Rubin, Nissan. 2008. Time and life cycle in Talmud and Midrash : socio-anthropological perspectives. Boston: Academic Studies Press.

6. Zohar, Noam J. 1997. Alternatives in Jewish bioethics. Albany: State University of New York Press.

History & Sociology of Halakhah (10)

1. Berger, Michael S. 1998. Rabbinic Authority. New York: Oxford University Press.

2. Berkovits, Eliezer. 1983. Not in heaven : the nature and function of Halakha. New York: Ktav Pub. House.

3. Boyarin, Daniel. 1993. Carnal Israel: reading sex in Talmudic culture. Berkeley: University of California Press.

4. Cohen, Shaye J.D. 1999. The Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

5. Halbertal, Moshe. 1997. People of the Book: Canon, Meaning, and Authority. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

6. Halivni, David. 1986. Midrash, Mishnah, and Gemara : the Jewish predilection for justified law. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

7. Katz, Jacob. 1961. Tradition and crisis; Jewish society at the end of the Middle Ages. New York: Free Press of Glencoe.

8. Katz, Jacob. 1989. The "Shabbes goy" : a study in halakhic flexibility. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society.

9. Roth, Joel. 1986. The halakhic process : a systemic analysis. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America.

10. Sokol, Moshe. 1992. Rabbinic authority and personal autonomy. Northvale (N.J.): Jason Aronson.

American Jews (8)

1. Cohen, Steven M. and Arnold Eisen. 1998. The Jew Within. Boston: Wilstein Institute of Jewish Policy Studies.

2. Davidman, Lynn. 1991. Tradition In a Rootless World: Women Turn to Orthodox Judaism. Berkeley: University of California Press.

3. Elazar, Daniel Judah. 1995. Community and polity the organizational dynamics of American Jewry. Jewish Publication Society .

4. Fishman, Sylvia Barack. 2000. Jewish life and American culture. Albany: State University of New York.

5. Heilman, Samuel C. 2006. Sliding To The Right: The Contest For The Future Of American Jewish Orthodoxy. Berkeley Univ of California Press.

6. Heilman, Samuel C., and Steven M. Cohen. 1989. Cosmopolitans & parochials: modern Orthodox Jews in America: University of Chicago Press.

7. Sarna, Jonathan D. 2004. American Judaism : A History. New Haven, CT, USA: Yale University Press.

8. Smith, Tom W. 2005. Jewish Distinctiveness in America: A Statistical Portrait. New York: American Jewish Committee.

The Atlantic and Israel

I read the Atlantic every day, mainly for Goldblog and the unparalleled Ta-Nehisi Coates (who's so good he'll probably be asked to be a regular op-ed for the Times, which I hope he won't take, because that op-ed page has become dumber than a bag of rocks). At one point, I read Andrew Sullivan but stopped when he became a vicious anti-Zionist (which, as has been proven in every case in every way is the same as an anti-Semite). Sullivan left to spew his bile elsewhere, but in the past few months the Atlantic has added a number of new anti-Israel bloggers.

This morning, I saw an even newer post by another dude, Marc Lynch: Why the Arab Uprisings Will Force the U.S. to Rethink Israel-Palestine. You don't need to read it because you already know what it says: Israel is bad, Palestinians good.

This was the comment I was going to leave on the site:

Does the Atlantic really need another anti-Israel guy? Steve Clemons and Robert Wright are already on that popular bandwagon. Add something new - maybe there's another small ally of the US you can throw ire on. How about Taiwan? They continually resist China, and China is actually better with human rights than Israel's enemies.

Trayvon Martin Case: Comments

The Trayvon Martin case is very important for exposing some rotten aspects of American society (which, like all diseases, has gotten virulent soon after the cures have been located). Specifcally, our addiction to guns and a deep-rooted racism.

I've mentioned in previous posts on gun control, that the biggest fallacy the gun-nuts push is the idiotic idea that a person can tell the difference between a good guy and a bad guy. That's why this case demonstrates the anti-Black racism of America better than any I remember. Because here the victim was an unarmed and innocent black teenager who lived near where he was murdered and his assailant was basically a crazy violent loner with a gun. A crazy Hispanic loner. In every other scenario, were Zimmerman the victim and the shooter were White, the case would be the same. But in the US, blacks are hated more than Latins... need proof, here's your proof.

The key point is this: only if you hate and fear blacks could Zimmerman's actions be OK. And while I hate to credit an anti-Zionist slimeball with anything, Robert Wright of Atlantic makes my points so well, I need to cite him: "(1) A man with a gun pursued an unarmed teenager who had done nothing wrong. (2) The man with the gun initiated a confrontation with the teenager. (3) As a result of the confrontation, the man with the gun shot the teenager to death. "

As Wright points out, these facts aren't in dispute - they are part of Zimmerman's defense! But when seen without race, this is a clear case of an armed assailant attacking and killing an innocent teen. However, since many Americans are viscerally racist, the "innocent teen" is automatically worthy of being shot because of his race. That's why the Police are releasing Trayvon's misdemeanor record - to depict him as a walking criminal. However, and I feel this is so obvious that it's overlooked, Trayvon wasn't doing anything wrong when he was stalked and murdered.

This reminds me of the Toulouse Massacre (which I need to say more about) because in both cases, some disturbed individual with a gun decided that the object of his hate could be killed. Yet, while in France it is seen as a crime to kill children in cold blood, sadly in the US - or in the crazy province of Florida (home of voter suppression and hanging chads) - you can.

Megan McArdle on Health Care

Megan McArdle is an infuriating blogger at the Atlantic. The Balloon-Juice lexicon for "McMegan" is accurate:

Nickname for fact-free Atlantic blogger Megan McArdle, who predictably makes arguments that have less to do with reality and more to do with wild-ass assertions meant to lend credibility to her libertarian bona fides. A self-proclaimed “economic libertarian” whose first blog was called I Am Jane Galt. See also, “Technically true, but collectively nonsense” and “It wasn’t a statistic-it was a hypothetical.”

She's one of these people who uses all possible effort to be wrong about everything. It's stunning. In her latest column, though, I found that she was basically correct. Entitled "What Cutting Health Care Costs Looks Like" she describes how her mother was kicked out of the hospital before she had a chance to recover fully from a burst appendix.

McMegan still tries to spin the story into some libertarian squawk, but ultimately it shows a sympathy for how cruel cost-cutting can be. This naturally proves a point I made decades ago (on the State of the State, I believe) which is that while the joke goes that a conservative is a liberal who's been mugged, I add that a liberal is a conservative who lost his job. In this case, it's a similar indignity.

BTW, I do think the early-hospital-ejection is a major social problem in America and I think we can solve it. The first question to ask is, naturally, why hospital stays cost so much, but I am a practical man and I realize that there's no way to rebottle that efreet. I suggest a facility called a Recovery Clinic (RC) which would be like a 'nursing home' in the sense that it is a residence with 24/7 nursing care, but would allow the full recovery that the hospitals have overcharged out of their purview.

Steelers to release Hines Ward

This is sad - I've been dreading it since then end of the season, but my favorite Steeler, Hines Ward #86, is being released. I feel they could have done something to keep him on the team, but I guess not.

The Zero Hour of Rick Santorum

It's beyond scary that Rick "Unprintable Other Definition" Santorum is actually surviving this long in the primaries. The man is the worst type of Republican. If you hear him talk about religion, he is the exact type of Christian that Jews should be afraid of, and most definitely the type of Catholic that the Protestant majority of this country hates.

For example, this case (formatted quote from WashPo):

“To say that people of faith have no role in the public square? You bet that makes you throw up. What kind of country do we live that says only people of non-faith can come into the public square and make their case? That makes me throw up.”

-Rick Santorum on “This Week,” February 26, 2012, in defense of remarks made in October against President Kennedy’s famous speech on Catholic identity and public policy.

A few points from this charming quote:

1. "That makes me throw up"? Really Rick? It's bad enough that you look like a teenager, you have to speak like one? You were a Senator! Get serious enough to act like you should be given executive powerhttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif.
   
2. Rick probably does not understand why JFK made those comments, and why Rick's repudiation is so dangerous. JFK ran for president before Vatican II. V2, in short, made Catholicism more acceptable to liberal Western democracies; making Catholicism feel a lot like Protestantism (for a correlation, see "Reform Judaism"). JFK had to explain to America how he did not intend to take marching orders from the Pope etc. Well, Rick Santorum may not listen to the pope - he strikes me as the type of sanctimonious prig who listens to nobody - but he clearly allows his religion to attack every aspect of modern civil society (see below for more). So when he says: "we look at the shape of mainline Protestantism in this country and it is in shambles, it is gone from the world of Christianity as I see it." combined with his rejection of JFK, then he's stepped off the safe path.

There's so much crazy in Santorum that it's hard to catch up.

However, his attack on public schools did spark a thought in me. Rick, like me, is a religious family man who declines sending kids to public school out of a religious obligation. Now, I don't attack public schools - quite the opposite, really. As a grandchild of immigrants, I realize how free public schools have been the bedrock of the American Dream (no joke). Good free schools means everything for a good, safe republic.

What I find weird (in this case) about Santorum is that he chose to home-school and not send his kids to the generally well-regarded Catholic school system? As an orthodox Jew, I look at the CAtholics as the other major religion who shares my need for parochial schools. This is a case that makes me feel that Sanctimonious Rick is possibly more Catholic than the Pope (or in this case, the arch-diocese).

Another point bounces off this reaction to Santorum by the remarkably still alive Dick Cavett::

And what is the argument for it? For some, is it to protect their innocent ones from hearing words like, oh, “sex” and “contraception”? From forced association with those less desirable ethnically? Maybe it’s to keep them safe from radical notions like the idea that fossils and carbon-dating aren’t put there by the Devil to fool the scientists, but prove the world has billions, not thousands, of years on it.

Cavett notices that for Rick to not send his kids to *any* school (even Catholic school, as I add) smacks of something creepy. I agree.

There's the internal illogic about home schooling; i.e. that a parent is incapable of tweaking their child's education. I do this all the time with my kids, and they go to Maimonides. You can always educate your child at home, when they return from school, about what you should believe. If the Santorii are willing to spend the hours to home-school, they can't spare the few minutes a day to correct the wackiness that EVERY school teaches?

Ah well, we'll see what happens with the GOP. In some sense, maybe I'm glad the religious wacko is Santorum and not Huckabee. Huckabee is charming, rational sounding, and has actual moments of sane compassion. Yet also a Bible thumper who could erode the wall of church and state. Santorum is so obnoxious and horrible that I imagine he wouldn't get as far as Huckabee would.

Magnum Force

I purchased recently (for cheap!) "Magnum Force" [Wiki, IMDB, TCM] and I want to add it to the list of sequels that are better than their originals.

It's not only much more watchable (it has the awesome plane hijack scene) but the politics are better than the original. Most people didn't get Dirty Harry - most notably Pauline Kael, who I've learned since my youth to completely distrust - she was not only wrong most of the time, but disastrously so - I actually think I've lost friends because I recommended movies on her suggestion, I've definitely lost some sanity following her advice on such stinkers like "The Warriors," "Deliverance" and "The Killer Elite" - she had a tin ear for action films, and I suffered.

Kael labeled the film "fascist" but she did not understand the deconstruction of Harry in the film itself. He's meant to be an unlikable character, he's called "Dirty" because he'll do the things others are too ashamed to do. Kael's criticism could be against those who didn't understand that Harry was to be questioned not lauded, but alas she was in the benighted category herself.

In any case, the writer of Magnum Force - the cro-magnon John Milius - says explicitly that he wrote the sequel as a response to the critics. He wanted to explain what real fascism would look like. And as a result the full character of Harry comes out - instead of being a fascist response to the Miranda ruling of the early 70s, Harry was just another cowboy. Which interpretation would be more interesting? Well, the full fascist would be the Stallone characters of the 80s - really stupid expressions of a man being above the law. In Harry, as seen in Magnum Force, we have a person who believes in the Constitution, just not how it was being interpreted at that time. Fascism believes that liberty should be sacrificed for unity of the people, while the American cowboy ethic is libertarian - have as much liberty as possible. Both seem to agree that when a person violates the code, they should be killed. But libertarians believe the only things which violate the code are extreme crimes, while fascists reduce all action against the Polity as crimes.

Also, it had the best main theme - although nothing beats Lalo Schifrin's music for Dirty Harry's school bus scene.

P.S. The latter Dirty Harry films don't get put into the mix; while "Sudden Impact" was decent (it was a rehash of Magnum Force's anti-vigilantism) the "Enforcer" was absolutely ridiculous. And I can't even muster enough memory to recall "The Dead Pool."

Israel: Iran is Bluffing

So, evidently Israel is claiming that Iran's threats for heavy retaliation are a "bluff" (NYTimes or Yahoo News). This is the best indication I've seen that Israel is ready to strike Iran. If I were a shul rabbi right now, I would be making a deal with my local police to have extra protection. Because Israel at war means that the local US crazies start attacking Jews.

Must Read: Bill Clinton Esquire Interview 2012

Drop everything and read this: Bill Clinton Esquire Interview 2012. Clinton is just so smart and creative... I do wish he could be president again.

The Post-Season

I used to play Quake 3 back when I owned a Macintosh and my favorite move was to use the gauntlet - the worst, most difficult to score with - weapon on opponents. Why? Because you get a special award by doing so - the "Humiliation" patch. When you 'frag' a rival with the gauntlet you get the award and the deep announcer voice proclaims "Humiliation!" (See first clip)

This is how I feel about last night's Steelers' loss to the Broncos. (See second clip)


To be beaten by Tim "More Christ Loving than George W Bush" Tebow? Not as bad as the 4 second overtime emasculation.

I've been following my beloved Steelers quite closely this year in an attempt to finally have a sport to be a fanatic about (it makes sense in the long term scheme of things). And I knew that we were not going to the Superbowl. We were too injured to make it - especially Big Ben, who was crippled by the Cleveland Browns. I knew we'd lose badly in the end because every game since the crippling was depressing. The irony of course is that we lost to Denver because of our defense, not Big Ben. It helped that we lost about 1/3 of our starters to injuries.

Now what can I do in these playoffs? Can I root for the AFC to win? My feeling, now, is that I'd prefer to see a Ravens-Saints superbowl. Mainly because both teams have not gone to the show very often and that keeps the Steelers' SB record safe. And, it goes without saying that I cannot hope for the Texans to make it. The cowboys are bad enough but to have The Texas Texans, owned by Tex "Tex" McTexas, have any success? It'd be Gore v. Bush all over again.

If absolutely necessary, I'd accept the 49ers in the Superbowl just as long as they lose. That way they'd mess up their perfect record.

In any case, I can't read any stories about last night's game yet. Way way way too painful.

How Obama Can Cement a Win in '12

Drop Biden from the ticket and take on Hillary as his VP.

Gay Marriage and Judaism

The issue of Orthodox Judaism and gay marriage was brought up recently when the only openly gay YU musmakh married two men the other day (see: here for the reaction from the Orthodox establishments.)

After spending a few years now studying American Jewish history, I can say that there are times when the non-Orthodox denominations are on the side of history and times when they are not. I can say that it's hard to defend a full anti-feminism in halakhah; this is one of those topics where halakhah has really seemed to mimic the cultural mores of the surrounding society.

What about gay marriage? Is this the future of American society? Maybe. But for while there are some moves by the Jewish reformers that were prescient move - e.g. introducing vernacular into the service - and some that are accepted by American society - e.g. jettisoning Sabbath observance and Kashrut - there are others that show a too slavish attachment to trends.

The best example is the attempt to move the Jewish sabbath to Sundays. Another was the virulent anti-Zionism of the 19th and early 20th Century Reform movement. The latter is actually coming back into vogue - and for the same reasons as a century ago: the rejection of Jewish choseness and nationality, coupled with a dire attachment to a Diaspora identity.

The Sunday thing? Maybe that will come back as well.