isaiah

Why Frum Is Wrong and Rush is Right

David Frum's Newsweek article, "Why Rush is Wrong", instead serves to highlight why Rush is right. The Republican Party and the conservative movement is not in a state of flux or transition, it is defunct. Frum states that there ought to be debate, discussion, and a transformation of the Party so that it can do what it has always done: respond to the problems of the times. Frum neglects to admit that the crisis developed under conservative watch; he neglects to look back at what went wrong and instead simply looks forward in very sweeping and ambiguous terms, nodding to environmental concerns and civil rights, but with no specificity.

By ignoring its recent past, he goes on to invoke the same faux-ideology that they have been eroniously applying to their existence all these years, namely they are the party of fiscal conservatism.



Yes, it takes cartoonist Steve Greenberg to highlight the sheer hypocrisy of that label – and the inverse "tax-and-spend liberal" – to see why Rush is right and that their only hope to recover from such self-deceptive self-perception is to cling to the realities of their party that are not self-deceptive and are truly what they believe.

The reason why no one is stepping up to the conservative plate and leading the Republican Party is because they have nowhere to go. Frum says that they ought to be debating Obama's policies and that the stimulus plan passed without said debate. Again, he neglects that the debate already occurred: it was Obama vs. McCain and the American people were the deciders as to who won that debate, as evinced by the trouncing in November. That is why the only hope in the end is obstruction and sabotage, because deep-down, conservatives know that their ideology has objectively failed and their only hope back is by forcing liberalism/centrism to fail as well. This is a point, yet again, Rush understands and Frum does not.

As odd as it may sound, Frum represents deception and Rush represents honesty, as reprehensible as that may be.

Amazon.com & Thoughtless, Automated Recommendations

Never purchase pregnancy books from Amazon: you'll be inundated with pregnancy recommendations long after the baby has been born and the pregnancy is but a memory. I bought a couple more than two years ago and the recommendations are still ubiquitous.

China: Land of Paradoxes

As the Chinese New Year passes once more, I am struck by the traditions and how prescribed everything seems to be. As I looked out into the surrounding apartment blocks last night, I couldn't help but notice that all the televisions were tuned to the same channel: CCTV1's New Year's Gala. It's as prescribed as they come and every year is pretty much the same shtick. The odd thing is that everyone I know who watched it thought it was boring, and yet, they will all watch it again next year, because that's what you do. Almost all parties are equally prescribed and ordered. If you are invited to a party, chances are, there will be a microphone, a stage, and coerced performances.

At the same time, so many other aspects of society are without order at all: lines and traffic are two prominent examples. If you go to a bank, for instance, there isn't normally an orderly single-file line, rather a half circle crowd around the wicket. Traffic is equally oblivious to rules as cars often drive on both sides of the road or drive through red lights.

It's odd, whereas in the West, we work in order and relax in chaos the opposite is true in China.

Israel's vow to defend its soldiers: what is tells us about Israel

Israel's statement that it will defend its soldiers tells us two things about Israel: the higher levels of the administration may be implicated in the war crimes and/or they are complicit in the potential war crimes and not a just or humane nation.

The first is quite easy to deduce. Often people at the top of the command chain fear the bottom speaking out about those above in return for leniency. Whether you are a drug lord or a government war criminal, it is always the upper echelon giving the orders that is the golden prize, not the drudge soldiers who carry out said orders.

Even if the above point is untrue, and the soldiers acted individually and committed war crimes of their own volition, what does it say about a society that wishes to obscure justice? In civilian law, even manslaughter – an unintentional destruction of life – is punishable; why is there a different standard in a time of war? A hallmark of Western values is that that which is large must protect that which is small, or those with the most power carry the greatest responsibility. This is still further proof of the secularism entrenched in the modern state of Israel and how removed it is from Judaism, which maintains those values.

Bill O'Reilly recently said how sometimes one must compromise your values to ensure security, to which Jon Stewart pointed out that in that case they are no longer values. It's a sad state of affairs when Israel and its defenders agree more with Bill O'Reilly than Jon Stewart.

Cold, Hard Great Firewall of China

I was surprised to find Wikipedia blocked until I proxied it: Jan. 23 marks an important anniversary in China as seen on their home page, and so it was blocked. Other Wikipedia pages, if I type in the URL directly, are accessible, so hopefully by tomorrow, the block will be lifted.

Sometimes the cold, hard reality of living under communist rule hits you like walking into a glass door: you feel stupid for not foreseeing what seems so obvious in hindsight.

Below is what it looks like to try to trick the computer into loading an elicit page; it simple stops loading.

China's PR Woes Continue

Obama's reference to defeating communism, as you may well know, has been censored in China. This shows the continued myopia of the government's PR battle with the world and more importantly its own citizens. Had they not censored the portions, there would be no story afterwards of how they censored the speech, and this blog would not exist, nor the plethora of news stories across the world about the incident. Reuters carried a story in which the government defended its right to edit whatever they want, but that argument gives the sense of a petulant child. Yes, it's also my right to never shower again, but I will have to live wit the ramifications of my decision. Likewise, they have every right to manipulate the media, but they must understand that such actions will have a greater impact than whatever it was they were censoring in the first place. In 2008, China learned the value of PR, even going so far as to hire a PR company, but it's clear that they still have a long way to go to understand that blatant, objectively provable control of information is in an of itself a story, and a PR black eye both abroad and at home.

Show Me the Pressure

We keep hearing that Israel is under increasing pressure to halt its operations in Gaza, but there is never an explanation as to what pressure is being asserted. The best the international community could do was gather in a hot sweaty UN room and bang out a ceasefire agreement after several days only to have it ignored. Sorry, there are no marks allotted for effort. Israel has now (at least) shelled a UN school, shelled a home they asked Palestinian civilians to hide in, shot at the UN contractors picking up humanitarian aid during the three hour "humanitarian corridor", and the next day shot again at a medical team trying to retrieve the body from that said attack on humanitarian workers. All in two weeks. What pressure has there been?

One story today really sums up what is going on. A CNN reporter standing atop a building in Egypt reports Israeli fighter jets passed over head, to which the Israeli officials said, "no". What is the recourse? Israel is a child with Oreos all over his face and denying he got into the cookie jar. "Eye witnesses be damned," he is saying, "I'm not lying, trust me. Don't trust the bias of the Red Cross and UN, trust me to follow my God given moral code of war."

The world's reaction so far has been to condemn the incursion into the metaphorical cookie jar, but watching and allowing the child to continue to gorge himself. Naomi Klein calls for a boycott of Israel, and although she is correct in her assessment, world leaders will certainly not take such a stance, and the continued "world pressure" we see peppered throughout articles will remain vacuous. There is no pressure because there are no repercussions, and they know that. Indeed, this is a sprint to next month's elections, which – unlike the Palestinian elections – will be recognized by the international community no matter how hegemonic the elected leader is, and will yield an abundant reward for the seeds sown with Palestinian blood.

Hopeless

I truly feel the plight of the Palestinian people is hopeless. There is a great article here by John McCarthy, but as good and ostensibly objective as the article is, I'm quite sure that all the articles and blogs published are useless. People who already agree with these opinions come away with confirmation of their preconceived notions, whereas those who disagree either would never read the article in the first place or dismiss it outright.

Just trot over to Haaretz and see if you don't feel sick to your stomach while perusing the articles. The articles' jingoistic tone is only superseded by selectively posted comments (I can assure you my comments have never been displayed).

Articles and blogs on this issue seem to primarily serve cathartic purposes, not enlightenment.

Israel: Bombing Its Own People

A majority of pro-Operation Cast Lead talking points revolve around protecting the citizens of Israel, but what are the people of Gaza? Are they not under the "care" and control of Israel? True, Israel pulled out of Gaza in 2005, but it retains control over its borders (both land and sea) and airspace. It is not a sovereign nation. Is it completely separate from the West Bank? With established (and a continuation of the establishment of) Israeli settlements in the West Bank, it is clearly not an independent state and Israel does control it.

So, when Israel is bombing/shooting Palestinians in defense of Israelis, they are really bombing/shooting Israelis in defense of Israelis. You cannot defend your sovereign state from itself, and as long as Palestine is not granted sovereignty over its own borders and airspace, how can this argument of defending its people stand?

The Obama Myth: One President at a Time

While many news outlets are lamenting Obama's silence over the bombardment of Gaza, at the same time they are complicit in asserting that there is only one President of the United States at any given moment.

We can clearly remember, however, a time when both John McCain and Barack Obama made public pronouncements about the Russia-Georgia conflct even prior to the White House. Additionally, Obama has made several speeches and announcements regarding financial/economic matters. Who is meant to be naive, the people or the Obama team, in believing that somehow the economy is domestic policy? How many times have we heard – quite rightfully so – that the economy and national security, particularly when it comes to "energy independence" (buzzword of the election cycle), are intertwined?

The fact of the matter is that Gaza is as much a domestic crisis as the financial crisis. America's unwavering support of a foreign government, Israel, has had consequences in the wars it is currently embroiled in, and if subjecting troops to a quagmire is not a domestic crisis, I'm not sure what is. After all, all politics is local.

Chabad: Den of Zionism

**Update: they finally posted my comment, several days after I had submitted it. Normally, my comments on other non-controversial articles have been posted within a few hours; thus, waiting several days to post this one seemed very suspicious.**

Naturally the conflict with Gaza has not only created a stir at Chabad, but also an entire new "War in Gaza" section. One pertinent Q&A was, "We are commanded to judge everyone positively, and with love. How do we apply this to the Palestinians, who wish to wipe Israel off the face of the earth?"

Within the answer was this gem: ". . . when a population is indoctrinated by its leaders, both political and spiritual, to do evil.... When a whole population is indoctrinated with hatred... Then those that this population is intent on destroying must take every measure to protect themselves."

I quoted that portion in a reply, and added that you can reread that statement and think of the Israelis. I added that name-calling (such as "terrorist" and "Nazi" [which was used in another comment]) were unproductive and that you cannot brush an entire population with a stereotype. I added that I pray for the innocent whoever and wherever they are.

The comment was rejected.

What does this tell us about the unwillingness to view things from any perspective other than the one already adhered to? It's funny how on the surface of studying Torah and Judaism in general, there is this near-myth of openness. That everything, including the existence of God, is open for question. Yet, there is a huge elephantine asterisk that ought not be overlooked: not all things and not all people can question/be questioned. Israel and the IDF are cases in point.

The crisis really does drip with irony. On Chabad, a breaking news story was "Palestinian Rocket Inflicts Heavy Damage on Chabad Rabbi’s Home"; compare that to the Washington Post article "Family Mourns 5 Daughters as Civilian Death Toll Mounts". Both are horrible realities of war, but there is an obvious disconnect when you lament the destruction of a home, and claim the family with five deceased girls somehow are not worthy of a mention and had it coming. Using Hamas as a scapegoat for acts such as this is ridiculous. By the same token, the blockade of Gaza and the refusal to recognize the democratically elected government in Gaza is just cause to launch rockets into people's homes in southern Israel. Innocence is innocence and the decisions of the leaders ought not be a scapegoat to free reign of destruction over the common people, period.

The inability to say so on Chabad's comments section just shows how much that quote of indoctrination really is apt for many Zionists. There is no middle ground, there is no relenting: there is only black and white, right and wrong, and they are more sure than they are about the existence of God that they are on the right side.

Gaza: They Asked for It?

The predominate reason espoused as to why civilian deaths are irrelevant in Israel's defense of its people is that when given the opportunity to elect a peaceful government or a militant government (Hamas), the citizens of Gaza elected the latter. Therefore, they are as responsible for the incessant rocket attacks into Israel as the terrorists themselves.

But by this logic, the people in the southern Israeli towns most affected by the onslaught are equally responsible for any decisions the Israeli government has made, such as the blockade of Gaza. True, Israel was not bombarding Gaza with homemade rockets, but blocking essential food, medicine, fuel, etc. from entering Gaza has equal ramifications, does it not?

Thus if the people of Gaza have brought this upon themselves, and Israel is guilt free, those in Gaza propelling rockets are also guilt free.

---

People continue to ask how this will bring about the cessation of rockets being fire into Israel, but that is to assume that the government wants a cessation of the violence. The amount of casualties brought on by the rockets is indeed minimal if any at all, but the rockets are PR gifts from heaven. Without them, their blockade of Gaza and the bombing of "Hamas targets" is illegitimate. The road to peace assuredly means a partition of Israel: is that a certain desire of the Israeli government?

We are now beyond sixty years of conflict. To an entire generation this is a normal existence; and they know nothing different. That is a scary reality hinting that there is – and perhaps will be – no end in sight.

Piracy: Back to Basics in Word Usage

Just a quick note: I keep having to pause for a moment after reading a headline including the words 'China' and 'piracy'. There was a time not so long ago when fake goods were at the heart of those articles and now we are back to the old meaning, thanks to some entrepreneurial Somalis.

Guinean Coup Highlights Cultural Disparity

It's difficult not to be judgmental of those involved in the bloody transition of power because whenever there is conflict, it's always those innocent in the middle who pay the highest price. It's all over the map in Africa: Mugabe running his nation into the ground; South Africa facing phenomenal AIDS and rape epidemics in the slums; Somalia fraught with over a decade of war and instability. Is there a fundamental difference in the Western idea of peace – at the very least among your own people – and what is going on in Africa today?

I understand that every nation faces corruption and the greed of those who are in power, but in Africa, that seems to be magnified. How can the leaders of some of the poorest nations take so much from their people? Certainly, that can be seen in other parts of the globe, like North Korea, but it is more widespread in Africa. Even in relatively peaceful countries (by African standards) such as Kenya, there has been election violence.

And what of the military? In most if not all Western nations, the military has a sense of purpose: to protect and defend the nation and its people. In so many African nations, however, the military is a tool of repression for the leader or themselves. Either way, too often they are involved in brutalizing the populace or ethnic/political subsections of it.

How? Why? I am aware that my view is colored by my culture, but I struggle to comprehend the actions of a nation against its people. I am even more worried when, for example, a former Rwandan Hutu or a ZANU-PF/Mugabe supporter expresses remorse for the killings they took part in. Perhaps it isn't cultural after all. I have heard many Nazi-like "I didn't want to do it, but I obeyed orders" explanations as to why they committed such heinous atrocities, but that sentiment only further fuels the question of how this can happen, and why/how on such a large scale across a massive continent.

I disagree with a lot of what Thabo Mbeki has said, but one thing I do agree with: Africa needs to solve Africa's problems. Foreign intervention, however well-intentioned, will not result in lasting change. Unfortunately, that realization chills me to the bone. How long will it take for those with even a modicum of power to think first about the people without power instead of using it as a springboard to grabbing even more power and taking as much as possible from those without?

Shoe-Thrower: Who Says He Hasn't the Right?

Rachel Maddow, on her December 16, 2008 show, said that one stage of her reaction was that the shoe-thrower did not have the right to lob his footwear at the President because despite everything, he still is the President of her country and, "I don't care who he is, that's out of line, you don't throw shoes at an American President."

Say what?!

Even if she changed her opinion thereafter, that is not only shocking, but also callously disturbing. People like Laura Logan and Michael Ware could argue far better than I could, but that is a ridiculous attitude considering what Americans – and the American President – have done to the nation of Iraq. Ok, imagine Russia invaded America, waging a war of "liberation" resulting in untold numbers of dead, and an upheaval/loss of one's stability and security in daily life. Would an American have a right, after more than five years, to throw a shoe at the Russian leader at the time?

To hear a Progressive spit out an opinion so non-progressive and unempathetic (to create a new word) towards the reality and plight of the Iraqi people is nauseating. That sentiment of country before humanity is precisely what progressives ought to be fighting against. Indeed, as we have learned of the Bush administration's desire to go to war with Iraq even prior to 9/11, Dave Chappelle's satire of a black Bush may well carry the same sentiment as Maddow: you can't do that to my daddy!

Could it be that Muntader al-Zaidi's actions will help galvanize the American public behind Bush after all? Did he unwittingly stoke the "my country, right or wrong" feeling at the core of Americans? I don't know, but it is telling when someone as well informed as Rachel Maddow sides with the President and the state over humanity; when she sits in a cozy studio in judgment of a man (and the nation he represents) who has seen first-hand the ravages of America's war of liberation, and can no longer bear the cacophony of emotions it has brought with it.

Unprogressive Progressives

From light-weights such as Cenk Uygur, to heavy-weights like Bill Maher, it is increasingly offensive to religious progressives to hear religious inanity and dispersion from one's home base, the left. To take Cenk as an example, on today's show – The Young Turks – he had Newsweek's Lisa Miller on to discuss homosexuality, marriage, and the Bible. In that interview he stated that it's an abomination to mix materials (actually it's wool and linen) and that 100% of people don't follow this law. Really Cenk? Because I know a heck of a lot of Orthodox Jews who would argue that law has been observed for thousands of years. Now, Cenk would argue that he is referring to Christians, but therein lies the problem with the progressive movements antipathy for religion: most of the time they are talking out their asses and haven't a clear understanding of that which they berate. They are just as guilty as the right-wing Christians they castigate by capriciously picking and choosing examples from the Bible to support their claims without any understanding of the depth and history behind it. Does Cenk even know that the Torah is in two parts: written and oral? Want to bet that's 'no'?

When they say things like "anyone who believes in the literal Bible is crazy/stupid" it serves the same function as those who claim that the only path to God and salvation is Jesus. Absolutes are dangerous and often times divisive. Cenk said yesterday that he doesn't care about Joe the Plumbers views on the economy and the bailout; what makes Cenk's opinion on religion any more valuable than that?

Obama and Blagojevich: What They Aren't Saying

I have heard from several news outlets that Obama was not involved and knew nothing of Blagojevich trying to sell the Senate seat. At the same time, they are quoting Blagojevich about Obama not playing ball. How could he not play ball and not know anything at the same time? Surely someone in the Obama camp – if not Obama himself – must have rebuked Blagojevich, creating his frustration, and therefore someone ought to have known something.

Concurrent Progress

It amazes me every time people ask Obama and those who will be in Obama's administration if it is feasible to expect change on a variety of fronts simultaneously. It's as if fixing the economy, getting out of Iraq, seeing to health care, advancing a new industry of green energy, etc. cannot all be accomplished without needing to set one aside. It's true that money as a resource is finite, but it's very 20th century to imagine that money is the only and absolute resource. The greater resource is the integration of ongoing forces to achieve a unified result, particularly in the case of transforming energy, which would have a knock on effect to the economy and foreign reliance on oil. The true resource is the management of varied but connected networks and ideas, which Obama proved he could do in the campaign.

There was no talk of having to pull out of North Carolina if they wanted to be competitive in Colorado; it is agreed that the 50-states approach was what won the election for Obama. But with such a grassroots organization, full of amateurs and part-time if not volunteer staffers, they are sure to have a sloppy campaign, right? Well, the results are in and obviously that wasn’t the case. The Obama campaign established a modern, post-corporate, 21st century framework that focused on managing networks. The same can and will be done in governance. Obama, as a CEO of the world’s largest corporation – the United States of America – will use his managerial know-how and simultaneously guide the various aspects mentioned above. Just as a CEO of a multinational must face managing sprawling companies over a variety of industries and nations, so too must the President manage policy and strategic vision for the nation, and one aspect does not need to take a back seat in order to achieve success in another: that’s called management.

Rules of Engagement

Josh Marshall, over at TalkingPointsMemo, recently bemoaned the fact that Congressional Quarterly bemoaned the lack of Republicans in the newly formed Obama administration.  Marshall pointed out that Obama is perhaps the most progressive ever in the lengths he has gone to choose people not firmly aligned with his own party, and I would like to expand upon why it seems that Republicans are incessantly critical and unsatisfied, even before Obama has taken office.  They are the baddies.

The Republican leadership over Bush's term in office has solidified its role as the bad guys, the rule breakers, and the cry babies.  They are known as liars and cheaters.  All of America and the world now know that the basis for the Iraq invasion was cooked up and was sold to the American people as a greasy used car salesperson sells a lemon to a naive, first-time car buyer.  If a news story broke tomorrow that *gasp*, Republicans lied, would anyone be shocked?  Therefore, they needn't follow any rules.

Progressives and liberals, on the other hand, have been trying to call out Republicans left and right for these indiscretions and have set themselves up as guardians of the constitution and fair play.  The problem is the Republicans are willing to hold Democrats to the Democrats' rules, all the while disregarding the rules themselves, because, hey, it wasn't as if they agreed to any rules.  If I can use a boxing metaphor, it's as if the man in the red trunks is simultaneously pounding the man in the blue trucks squarely in the groin all the while calling foul when the man in the blue trunks lands a punch that even grazes his belt line.  We saw this in the election: McCain and Palin would unapologetically insinuate Obama was a terrorist (or friend of), yet demanding Obama apologize for what was being said about McCain by people outside the Obama campaign.

So, after being trounced at every level in the election, Republicans are screaming foul as a means of maintaining some grip on power after the electorate clearly said, "No!"  After all, they are the baddies.  I would wager there are many in the Republican Party hoping and praying that the Obama years will be disastrous, which would equal them praying for America to further its downward spiral, all so they can reclaim power in four years.  Does that sound far-fetched to you?  Probably not.  They are the baddies.