Oliver thanks for retracting your outrageous comments, “that were anyway taken out of context”. Still your retraction intentionally didn't cover the main offense. You referenced an important issue that many an anti-Semite loves to declare: “the Jews control the media”. Here is some perspective, on your classic display of hate.
You imply that the Jews control the media because…because of what? Your point is that because Jews are disproportionally represented in the media, is in itself evidence that the Jews “control” the media, and that that control was ill gotten?!
This is an interesting strategy, observing a truth, the Jews are disproportionately represented in the media, and then blending a truth with a lie by implying that “disproportionate” equals “illicitly achieved control”, which is a baseless conspiracy. How wise, how subtle, how obvious. The Jew is adept at discerning the hater.
Here is an example. In the 1348-1351s Western Europe was devastated by the bubonic plague, “the black death”. Historians estimate that between one quarter to a half of Western Europe's population perished. The mobs, of course, looked for a scapegoat and discovered a truth: the Jews were less susceptible to the plague. They observed a truth and concluded that the Jews, being less affected, must be responsible for the plague. A rumor spread that the Jews were poisoning the wells, and mobs, egged on by the Stones' (secularists, trying to eliminate Jewish competition), Gibsons' (blood thirsty catholic clergy), and Thomases' (hate filled city officials) of their day, raged in every city, raping, pillaging and killing Jewish men, women, and children. After all, they argued, the truth was that less Jews were dying.
You see what the ignorant masses didn’t know was that Jews were in a constant state of ritual purity. This includes washing their hands before every meal and after every bowl movement. Married Jewish women are required to bathe every 30 days, and Jews in general are advised to bathe on the eve of the Jewish Sabbath. Indeed Jews washed constantly despite the medical view which claimed that people were born with natural oils that protected them from illness and that washing removed this natural protection. 400 years later Germ-theory vindicated the Jewish bible. But at the time, the haters were able to incite the masses against the Jews by conflating a truth –the Jews were less affected- with a lie –the Jews are poisoning the water supply.
Of course Oliver you recognize that American society, excluding your far-left and their Islamo-Facist allies (when Muslims are illicitly attacked, Jews are the first to defend them as they are for all minorities. Where is the Muslim voice?)is not so gullible. They will not start rioting against American-Jews, nor will they turn against Israel for irrational reasons. So you posit assertions based on the truth, while placing conspiratorial inventions next to those truths. You declare the Jews control the media, true, if you mean they are disproportionally represented. Then you add another truth, more Russians were killed then Jews in WWII, true. Then you go on to say Russia had it worse, but because the Jews control the media, Americans are made ignorant! Then you expand on the implications of Jewish control of the media: just as Americans are kept in the dark by Jews regarding the Russians so too are Americans hoodwinked by the Jewish controlled media which is why our “foreign policy is f###ed up for years”.
First off, don’t underestimate America's sense of history. Second, the Russians didn't lose 1/3 of their population. Third, why are Jews responsible for making sure people know about the suffering of our, then, enemies? Fourth, what makes you think that two truths -Jews are disproportionally represented in the media, and that more Russians perished during WW2- prove a lie “Jews have messed up American foreign policy by manipulating public and government opinion using their “control of the media”.
Oliver let us accept your toxic mixture of truths and lies: Jews' disproportionate representation equals "control" of Americas media. What has happened since the Jews controlled the media? Civil Rights, suppression of bigotry, the election of the most anti-Israel president since Carter, and unremitting criticism of the really evil man, no not Chavez or Ahmadinejad, but Bush!
On the other hand prior to Jewish “control of the media”, when people like you controlled the media: Jim Crow, slavery, unremitting biased criticism or outright lies, Vietnam etc. You want the media to support Stalin’s and Hitler’s legacy, or paint over Chavezs' suppression of freedoms, or Ahmadinjad's raping and murdering his way to election victory and supporting terrorism against our troops and our allies! Ah, then America will be free of Jewish control of the media!
The “Jewish” controlled media exposed a ring of Jewish organ traffickers, including Rabbis. But unlike what you would have liked, they didn't conclude from that that Jews are killing babies and stealing Palestinian organs. Instead the truth: organs that saved lives were being bought at really low prices and sold at exorbitant profits, while also avoiding the authorities. The “Jewish controlled media”, exposed Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, extraordinary rendition, domestic wire-tapping, the failures of Bush and less so Obama, supported Israel’s self-destruction with its expulsion of Israelis from Gaza, and with this article your subtly orchestrated bigotry.
The "Jewish media" refused to entertain unsubstantiated 9/11 conspiracy theories, just because there were serious abnormalities in the events leading up to 9/11. Your media, would have shifted a narrative based on readily apparent facts to a fictitious saga about the hidden hand of Jews and the CIA. As if Americans are so uneducated as not to recognize a classic anti-Semitic scapegoating when they see it. Yes, the “Jewish controlled Media” reported on government produced evidence leading up to the war in Iraq but Congress and America were firmly behind that war -not the Israeli lobby. Does this mean that Americas media is perfect, of course not, but that imperfection is not reflection of a Jewish conspiracy but human fallibility.
Then again, movie-director Stone, aren’t the Jews disproportionally represented in Hollywood, medicine, finance, law, politics, and Nobel prizes, does this mean that Jewish dominance reflects a white bearded blood sucking conspiracy OR is it akin to African-American dominance in sports.
The reason why Jews are disproportionally represented in Media, is because THEY ARE GOOD AT IT, not because of some conspiracy! Oliver I know you don't like it but in this country we put performance before race, ethnicity, AND religion!
Besides,Oliver, even if Jews do control America's media if you and your ilk had your chance, you would give us blood libels, communism, fascism, a loss of national pride, and irrational support for terrorism. Never (again) YOU ANTI-SEMITIC...!
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Monday, July 26, 2010
Inception Is Advocating Social Engineering
The last movie I paid to see was the Dark Night. Not because I'm a fan of the Batman series but because I love different and well presented perspectives. So when a respected acquaintance suggested that Inception fit the criteria I jumped at the opportunity. I was not disappointed.
The movie plot is as straight as Charlie Rangel and is as difficult to follow as a classic Gaddafi UNGA rant. Yet unlike Gaddafi’s dearth of coherency, Inception is complex because it is presenting an intricate and multilayered argument: social engineering under normal circumstances is immoral and dangerous but it justifiable when attempting to rectify global ills.
The plot introduces the audience to the method of social engineering,“inception” -planting an idea- and how difficult this process may be to apply to an acute mind. As the human condition is to reject outside manipulation or at least mistrust them (in the plot this natural mistrust takes the form of dream projections). For a business savvy individual like Fischer -the heir to the monopolistic energy empire- these self defense mechanisms are especially potent. So the idea must be subtly planted so that the inception is perceived to be indigenous to the target.
This is the premise for the entire plot. Otherwise why didn’t Saito just approach Fischer and explain to him that an energy monopoly was bad for the global community? Because Fischer would have perceived Saito’s humanitarian argument as a ploy to destroy his father’s legacy.
The notion that a foreign idea must become indigenous, in order for one to act on that idea, is actually quite prevalent. Indeed, most people act on their own perceived potential, i.e. they grow-up and internalize the perceptions of those around them. For example, let us say your parents are writers. From the day you are born those around you are predisposed to projecting the belief that you will also be a writer. You internalize those foreign beliefs and the “foreign idea” -the inception occurs. You are convinced that you are a natural writer and pursue a career in writing. If however you did not believe that you have a penchant for writing then you most probably would reject the false idea of becoming a writer. In other words in order for the foreign idea to motivate your desire to write, you must feel that the idea is yours and true, and not a external attempt to shape who you are. Thus if your parents pressured you to become a writer, and you did not feel it was truly your calling, you would reject their pressure as a foreign manipulation. This rejection probably takes the form of projections, such as my parents are trying to force me to be something I am not. Or, just because others in my family are talented in a certain way doesn’t mean I am… For more on this specific point please see post “The http://factoru.blogspot.com/2010/05/curse-of-unfulfilled-potential-1-will.html.
Inception also anticipates the objections to planting potential ideas. This objection takes the form of Mal, who represents the dangers inherent to planting ideas and subtle manipulation. Going back to our example, Mal is like an individual who grows up and enters therapy after they fail to fulfill the internalized potential to be a writer. Potential that their misguided parents and others planted in them. They experience the limbo of Mal, not knowing whether they are legitimately pursuing their potential or whether their goals and aspirations are figments of their own delusional imagination, and will never be achieved. Little do they know their confusion and feelings of being delusional were planted in them by a misguided external force. Yet because they are so sure that it is their own potential, failure of achieving that potential feels like failure to achieve their purpose in life. Mal responds by jumping out of a window…
Yet despite the terrible effect of planting ideas (for example it is a necessary for parents to do so please see post http://factoru.blogspot.com/2010/05/curse-of-unfulfilled-potential-2.html) it is incumbent on society, in certain extreme instances, to "commit inception".
Saito takes the form of the wise decision maker who uses his spectacular wealth, such as buying the airline that Fischer flies, for the good of humanity. This includes drugging the heir of a monopoly and engineering him so that he too acts in a way that benefits society.
Who is the judge when such social engineering is condoned? Ah but that is the question. The mind behind Inceptions madness, offers an easily digestible scenario: a greedy capitalist would never accept that a certain act is necessary for humanities good. Instead the only way to influence him is to plant the idea in him that his deceased father wanted it. Capitalism's failures and the “greed” of multi-nationals is front page news, and it is easy to target the capitalist for engineering. But would the audience be so forgiving if we were dealing with socially engineering global atheism?
Which leads me to my last question, what if Cobb and company had failed to plant the idea? Would Saito have gone farther to “influence” the greedy capitalist?
The movie plot is as straight as Charlie Rangel and is as difficult to follow as a classic Gaddafi UNGA rant. Yet unlike Gaddafi’s dearth of coherency, Inception is complex because it is presenting an intricate and multilayered argument: social engineering under normal circumstances is immoral and dangerous but it justifiable when attempting to rectify global ills.
The plot introduces the audience to the method of social engineering,“inception” -planting an idea- and how difficult this process may be to apply to an acute mind. As the human condition is to reject outside manipulation or at least mistrust them (in the plot this natural mistrust takes the form of dream projections). For a business savvy individual like Fischer -the heir to the monopolistic energy empire- these self defense mechanisms are especially potent. So the idea must be subtly planted so that the inception is perceived to be indigenous to the target.
This is the premise for the entire plot. Otherwise why didn’t Saito just approach Fischer and explain to him that an energy monopoly was bad for the global community? Because Fischer would have perceived Saito’s humanitarian argument as a ploy to destroy his father’s legacy.
The notion that a foreign idea must become indigenous, in order for one to act on that idea, is actually quite prevalent. Indeed, most people act on their own perceived potential, i.e. they grow-up and internalize the perceptions of those around them. For example, let us say your parents are writers. From the day you are born those around you are predisposed to projecting the belief that you will also be a writer. You internalize those foreign beliefs and the “foreign idea” -the inception occurs. You are convinced that you are a natural writer and pursue a career in writing. If however you did not believe that you have a penchant for writing then you most probably would reject the false idea of becoming a writer. In other words in order for the foreign idea to motivate your desire to write, you must feel that the idea is yours and true, and not a external attempt to shape who you are. Thus if your parents pressured you to become a writer, and you did not feel it was truly your calling, you would reject their pressure as a foreign manipulation. This rejection probably takes the form of projections, such as my parents are trying to force me to be something I am not. Or, just because others in my family are talented in a certain way doesn’t mean I am… For more on this specific point please see post “The http://factoru.blogspot.com/2010/05/curse-of-unfulfilled-potential-1-will.html.
Inception also anticipates the objections to planting potential ideas. This objection takes the form of Mal, who represents the dangers inherent to planting ideas and subtle manipulation. Going back to our example, Mal is like an individual who grows up and enters therapy after they fail to fulfill the internalized potential to be a writer. Potential that their misguided parents and others planted in them. They experience the limbo of Mal, not knowing whether they are legitimately pursuing their potential or whether their goals and aspirations are figments of their own delusional imagination, and will never be achieved. Little do they know their confusion and feelings of being delusional were planted in them by a misguided external force. Yet because they are so sure that it is their own potential, failure of achieving that potential feels like failure to achieve their purpose in life. Mal responds by jumping out of a window…
Yet despite the terrible effect of planting ideas (for example it is a necessary for parents to do so please see post http://factoru.blogspot.com/2010/05/curse-of-unfulfilled-potential-2.html) it is incumbent on society, in certain extreme instances, to "commit inception".
Saito takes the form of the wise decision maker who uses his spectacular wealth, such as buying the airline that Fischer flies, for the good of humanity. This includes drugging the heir of a monopoly and engineering him so that he too acts in a way that benefits society.
Who is the judge when such social engineering is condoned? Ah but that is the question. The mind behind Inceptions madness, offers an easily digestible scenario: a greedy capitalist would never accept that a certain act is necessary for humanities good. Instead the only way to influence him is to plant the idea in him that his deceased father wanted it. Capitalism's failures and the “greed” of multi-nationals is front page news, and it is easy to target the capitalist for engineering. But would the audience be so forgiving if we were dealing with socially engineering global atheism?
Which leads me to my last question, what if Cobb and company had failed to plant the idea? Would Saito have gone farther to “influence” the greedy capitalist?
Friday, July 23, 2010
Why Did Netanyahu Agree To Return The Confiscated Flotilla Ships?!
On July 23, in conference with his "council of seven", Netanyahu announced that Israel will accede to Turkey’s demand that Israel return the confiscated flotilla ships. Debka.com reports that Netanyahu once again has misguided hopes that the Israeli-Turkish relationship can be revived. “Misguided” because this is only the latest effort to engage with Turkey, all the previous initiatives failed. It was only last month that a failed “secret” meeting between trade and labor minister Ben-Eliezer and Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu blew up in Netanyahu’s face because Lieberman, Israel’s foreign minister, was not consulted with.
One can only wonder why Netanyahu agreed to return the ships. Some see it as a botched effort to head off yet another biased UN probe, this time investigating the flotilla fiasco. Others see it as a way to support the opposition's stance in Turkey, especially the military because it will show that Israel does want a positive relationship. The opposition and military in Turkey understands this and will use Israel’s action as proof of the potential for a return to normal relations (please see post http://factoru.blogspot.com/2010/05/erdogan-and-turkey-are-israels-right.html). This assertion is supported by the fact that Israel actually transferred the final four Heron UAV’s to Turkey, i.e. Israel is maintaining its military ties. At the same time Turkey turned around and violated the terms of sale when they used the UAV’s to target PKK fighters in Syria. By using Israeli UAV’s in conjunction with Syria, Turkey is sharing Israeli military secrets with a nation that it is in a state of war with Israel.
Regardless, Netanyahu looks like an unrepentant fool.
It is clear that Erdogan’s Turkey will continue on its path of reckless hostility towards Israel, even while the government's domestic position continues to weaken. Furthermore there is conclusive evidence, coming from Ankara, that Ankara had good reason to support IHH’s botched efforts (NYT, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/16/world/middleeast/16turkey.html). Ankara enabled a pivotal event in an ongoing proxy war on Israel the moment the boat full of “activists” embarked with the approval of Ankara with aims of defying Jerusalem. To those that argue that it was not the government of Turkey which aided and abetted the enemies of Israel, the flotilla, but rather a private charity organization, consider this: Turkey openly meets with Hamas leaders, the sworn enemies of Israel (which I will address in the near future), offering legitimacy, encouragement, and who knows what else. Turkey openly and unabashedly supports a terrorist organization whose goal is the destruction of Israel. So why wouldn’t Erdogan’s government covertly support the homicidal flotilla? Erdogan’s Turkey perceives Israel as a barrier to its designs on becoming the regional power.
You would think that the ultimate victor in the flotilla encounter (if that term can be used), Israel, would not return the vehicles of war to its enemy.
Either Netanyahu doesn’t understand that Erdogan’s Turkey is an enemy, or there is something else amiss.
One can only wonder why Netanyahu agreed to return the ships. Some see it as a botched effort to head off yet another biased UN probe, this time investigating the flotilla fiasco. Others see it as a way to support the opposition's stance in Turkey, especially the military because it will show that Israel does want a positive relationship. The opposition and military in Turkey understands this and will use Israel’s action as proof of the potential for a return to normal relations (please see post http://factoru.blogspot.com/2010/05/erdogan-and-turkey-are-israels-right.html). This assertion is supported by the fact that Israel actually transferred the final four Heron UAV’s to Turkey, i.e. Israel is maintaining its military ties. At the same time Turkey turned around and violated the terms of sale when they used the UAV’s to target PKK fighters in Syria. By using Israeli UAV’s in conjunction with Syria, Turkey is sharing Israeli military secrets with a nation that it is in a state of war with Israel.
Regardless, Netanyahu looks like an unrepentant fool.
It is clear that Erdogan’s Turkey will continue on its path of reckless hostility towards Israel, even while the government's domestic position continues to weaken. Furthermore there is conclusive evidence, coming from Ankara, that Ankara had good reason to support IHH’s botched efforts (NYT, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/16/world/middleeast/16turkey.html). Ankara enabled a pivotal event in an ongoing proxy war on Israel the moment the boat full of “activists” embarked with the approval of Ankara with aims of defying Jerusalem. To those that argue that it was not the government of Turkey which aided and abetted the enemies of Israel, the flotilla, but rather a private charity organization, consider this: Turkey openly meets with Hamas leaders, the sworn enemies of Israel (which I will address in the near future), offering legitimacy, encouragement, and who knows what else. Turkey openly and unabashedly supports a terrorist organization whose goal is the destruction of Israel. So why wouldn’t Erdogan’s government covertly support the homicidal flotilla? Erdogan’s Turkey perceives Israel as a barrier to its designs on becoming the regional power.
You would think that the ultimate victor in the flotilla encounter (if that term can be used), Israel, would not return the vehicles of war to its enemy.
Either Netanyahu doesn’t understand that Erdogan’s Turkey is an enemy, or there is something else amiss.
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Soft drinks, Circumcision, and Burka’s: Beware of the slippery slope!
In light of the accelerating burka bans sweeping across Europe and parts of the Arab world, I decided to resurrect this post.
One of the most common legal and philosophical arguments heard in today's classrooms is the refrain "its a slippery slope". For example if we ban trans-fat for health reasons what will the health argument be used for next -perhaps red meat?
However, the slippery slope has recently exited the classroom and inundated the western hemisphere. Governor Paterson (D-NY)is pushing a bill to tax soft drinks in New York, after all soft drinks are unhealthy.
And why not? If we already tax cigarettes at 300 percent and banned trans-fat from restaurant chains, why shouldn't the government combine health concerns with revenue interests and tax soft drinks? We, the healthy consumers who enjoy the occasional steak, should not be surprised if we are asked for ID next time we enter a steak house!
Yet the slippery slopes of New York are relativity innocuous. Four major countries in Western Europe have recently moved to ban burkas (burqa or burkha). In France, Britain, Italy, and even in Holocaust-handicapped Germany public surveys have shown majority support of a total ban on the full body covering worn by Muslim women (update: Syria passed a law banning burkas in universities).
Why? France's president Sarkozy summed it up when he stated that "the burkas message of a women's segregation from larger society is antithetical to Western notions of equality and liberty". Some reading this post may ask two questions.
1. Does this indicate Mendel is pro-burka?
2. Whats wrong with banning the Islamist burka?
First of all I am not a fan of the burka nor the extremism it represents.
Second, this is of real concern to all of us.
In liberal England parents have been sued for circumcising their son. Additionally, a Jewish school is being forced to accept children who were defined as Jewish by the government in opposition to the Orthodox Rabbis Halachic (Jewish law) decision.
In both these cases the government contends that the actions they overturned were antithetical to Western values. What's next, no Shabbos-observance on Saturday or crucifixes around the neck?
The fact of the matter is that certain arguments, though having merit, create hazards that we only recognize after the fact.
Beware of the slippery slope!
One of the most common legal and philosophical arguments heard in today's classrooms is the refrain "its a slippery slope". For example if we ban trans-fat for health reasons what will the health argument be used for next -perhaps red meat?
However, the slippery slope has recently exited the classroom and inundated the western hemisphere. Governor Paterson (D-NY)is pushing a bill to tax soft drinks in New York, after all soft drinks are unhealthy.
And why not? If we already tax cigarettes at 300 percent and banned trans-fat from restaurant chains, why shouldn't the government combine health concerns with revenue interests and tax soft drinks? We, the healthy consumers who enjoy the occasional steak, should not be surprised if we are asked for ID next time we enter a steak house!
Yet the slippery slopes of New York are relativity innocuous. Four major countries in Western Europe have recently moved to ban burkas (burqa or burkha). In France, Britain, Italy, and even in Holocaust-handicapped Germany public surveys have shown majority support of a total ban on the full body covering worn by Muslim women (update: Syria passed a law banning burkas in universities).
Why? France's president Sarkozy summed it up when he stated that "the burkas message of a women's segregation from larger society is antithetical to Western notions of equality and liberty". Some reading this post may ask two questions.
1. Does this indicate Mendel is pro-burka?
2. Whats wrong with banning the Islamist burka?
First of all I am not a fan of the burka nor the extremism it represents.
Second, this is of real concern to all of us.
In liberal England parents have been sued for circumcising their son. Additionally, a Jewish school is being forced to accept children who were defined as Jewish by the government in opposition to the Orthodox Rabbis Halachic (Jewish law) decision.
In both these cases the government contends that the actions they overturned were antithetical to Western values. What's next, no Shabbos-observance on Saturday or crucifixes around the neck?
The fact of the matter is that certain arguments, though having merit, create hazards that we only recognize after the fact.
Beware of the slippery slope!
A Shout Out to the Intern Family
Huffington Post published a compelling article detailing the extraordinary uptick in unpaid internships infecting close to 50% of college students (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jett-wells/young-educated-and-unpaid_b_654771.html). I am part of that statistic. In the summer of 2007 I interned at US Congressman Edolphus Towns' (10th congressional district) downtown Brooklyn office. Sure I answered phones and entered endless data, but I also responded to constituent mail, wrote dinner proclamations, researched house bills, and set my own hours. The point is that I gained tremendous insight into the intricate workings of national politics. Just by way of example: I was once composing “the congressman’s” generic response to a mail campaign advocating for a bill protecting Polar Bears. The phone rang and as the intern I interrupted my work and answered. I was then subjected to a 20 minute harangue about police brutality. I felt that at the congressman’s office I had a meaningful internship experience.
Unfortunately, because of the current economic reality, my experience is the exception not the rule.
Employers, from MTV to UFC advertise internship openings and students compete for the openings. Compete for what? You know coffee runs, data entry, answering phones. But wait, that sounds like a secretary or an assistant, not an intern. Interns are supposed to gain work experience in a given field, but if they are going on coffee runs are they gaining career specific experience? Unlikely, though employers are enamored with the waves of unemployed highly-educated graduates. Why wouldn’t they be? It’s free labor.
What I never knew and wanted to share was that under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) many of these standard internship activities are illegal, because they would otherwise be fulfilled by a regular employee (see the fact sheet here: http://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/compliance/whdfs71.htm). The true measure of an internship is the extent that it mirrors an out of class educational experience. This does not imply that an intern cannot do routine work but rather that the reason why they are doing that work is for the sole purpose of gaining experience -not to fulfill a required duty in the operation of a business organization. If the interns work is deemed, after the fact, as good enough to benefit the company, it may be used.
The standard reason offered for non-enforcement is that businesses will be deterred from providing internship opportunities for students if their company cannot gain something in return. This, “they” argue, will impair an essential source of students' experience. I disagree with “them”, for the following reasons:
1. The whole higher education system is business oriented. In other words the reason why most students invest all those resources into their education is to prepare themselves for the job market. The college student is the future employee and employer.
2. The establishment of a comprehensive and well managed internship program offers a company access to a steady stream of quality labor.
3. Talented interns are trained at a lower cost than hiring an employee and then training them.
For the above reasons, and this is by no means an exhaustive list, I find it hard to justify “their” assertion that companies have no incentive, other than to exploit students for immediate free labor, to maintain internship programs. On the contrary, there are both extrinsic and intrinsic rewards for companies that maintain internship programs. It is up to the intern to educate/remind their “educators in the field” about FLSA and ensure compliance.
Unfortunately, because of the current economic reality, my experience is the exception not the rule.
Employers, from MTV to UFC advertise internship openings and students compete for the openings. Compete for what? You know coffee runs, data entry, answering phones. But wait, that sounds like a secretary or an assistant, not an intern. Interns are supposed to gain work experience in a given field, but if they are going on coffee runs are they gaining career specific experience? Unlikely, though employers are enamored with the waves of unemployed highly-educated graduates. Why wouldn’t they be? It’s free labor.
What I never knew and wanted to share was that under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) many of these standard internship activities are illegal, because they would otherwise be fulfilled by a regular employee (see the fact sheet here: http://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/compliance/whdfs71.htm). The true measure of an internship is the extent that it mirrors an out of class educational experience. This does not imply that an intern cannot do routine work but rather that the reason why they are doing that work is for the sole purpose of gaining experience -not to fulfill a required duty in the operation of a business organization. If the interns work is deemed, after the fact, as good enough to benefit the company, it may be used.
The standard reason offered for non-enforcement is that businesses will be deterred from providing internship opportunities for students if their company cannot gain something in return. This, “they” argue, will impair an essential source of students' experience. I disagree with “them”, for the following reasons:
1. The whole higher education system is business oriented. In other words the reason why most students invest all those resources into their education is to prepare themselves for the job market. The college student is the future employee and employer.
2. The establishment of a comprehensive and well managed internship program offers a company access to a steady stream of quality labor.
3. Talented interns are trained at a lower cost than hiring an employee and then training them.
For the above reasons, and this is by no means an exhaustive list, I find it hard to justify “their” assertion that companies have no incentive, other than to exploit students for immediate free labor, to maintain internship programs. On the contrary, there are both extrinsic and intrinsic rewards for companies that maintain internship programs. It is up to the intern to educate/remind their “educators in the field” about FLSA and ensure compliance.
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Josephus and Conversions: Is World Jewry Destined to be Divided?
“Titus retired to Antonia intending to launch a full scale attack at dawn the next day and surrounded the sanctuary completely. It had, however, been condemned to the flames by G-d long ago…the 10th of Loos the day which centuries before had seen it burnt by the king of Babylon. But it was the Jews themselves who caused and started this conflagration (Josephus, The Jewish War, VI,254).
What did the Jews do that made them the destroyers of the holy temple? Was it their decision to fall back on it as a last defense, or perhaps the very fact that they went to war with Rome? According to many it was the discord that existed amongst the various factions of Jews that devolved into self destructive baseless hate.
Regardless, as Josephus aptly pointed out 1,940 years ago, the 10th of Loos, or as Jews know it the 9th of Av was, is, a day of Jewish mourning. According to the bible, it is the day when the Jews received the news from the 12 spies, 10 of whom proclaimed that the promised land, Canaan, was a death trap. Because the Jews rejected G-d’s promise that Israel would be given to them and mourned their impending destruction G-d proclaimed that “you mourn for no reason, I will give you a reason to mourn”.
Later Solomon’s temple was set on fire by the Babylonians in 586 BCE as they sacked the city of Jerusalem, and killed 100,000 of Jews. It was in the 9th of Av 1492 that the Jews were expelled from Spain. WWI began on the 9th of Av 1914, which according to most students of history led to WWII and the holocaust. It was on the 9th of Av that the expulsion of the Jews by Jews from Gush Katif, Gaza was signed into law. The irony of the date is one of the great under-reported paradoxes in history. The “disengagement” from Gaza led to Iran’s proxy, HAMAS, establishing a base in Gaza, and the 1000’s of rockets that continue to rain on Israel’s population.
Not to be outdone the Jewish community is once again embroiled in a internal struggle. This time over, it involves a controversial conversion initiative, the “Rotem bill”. The bill, passed 5-4 by the Knesset's Constitution, Law and Justice Committee, stipulates that all conversions in Israel must be approved by the office of the chief Rabbinate. Moreover, any Jewish convert that wishes to move to Israel under the “Law Of Return” -which ensures automatic citizenship to any Jew to preclude another scenario were Jews are persecuted with nowhere to flee- will have their conversion evaluated by the Orthodox Rabbinate.
The powerful Reform/Conservative movement in America and the smaller albeit growing Israeli Masorti (essentially the Israeli conservative movement), are up in arms claiming that this bill effectively disqualifies their conversions, and ultimately delegitimizes their interpretation of Judaism. Furthermore, leaders of the American Jewish-liberal faction, have authored public letters condemning the bill and arguing that it will foster disunity between the American and Israeli Jewish communities at a time when unity is imperative. Supporters of the bill including FM Lieberman’s Yisrael Beiteinu party, and Netanyahu’s minority partner in the Knesset counter that this will streamline the often frustrating/complicated conversion process for many immigrants, who are the political base of the Lieberman’s party. The Haredi/ultra-Orthodox, and National-Religious parties, which at first opposed the bill, now support it as it “will ensure that all those that claim to be Jews are actually Jews”. Meanwhile Netanyahu repudiated the bill asserting that it will divide the Jewish community while preventing any Likud committee members from attending the vote.
There are three issues here that I believe need to be addressed:
1. Is this bill and the Law of Return racist?
2. Is this bill intended to undermine progressive Judaism?
3. Is this bill another Josephus-like self afflicted division in global Jewry?
Before we can discuss whether the bill is racist it is important to first address what made this bill necessary. Namely the growing number of immigrants to Israel who came to Israel under the Law of Return, and desire to convert, or have had apocryphal conversions. The Law of Return stipulates automatic Israeli citizenship to any individual with one Jewish grandparent. The reasoning behind this thinking was that Hitler classified anyone with a Jewish grandparent as Jewish.
The fact that a Jew and the immediate family of a Jew gain near automatic citizenship under the Law of Return is often labeled racist. Yet this law is not so much asserting Jewish racial superiority or inherent rights. Rather it is intended to allow for the implementation of the philosophy behind the creation of the state of Israel. In other words Jews for two millennia have been at the mercy of tyrants, demagogues, emperors, popes, caliphs, reformists, and fascists. The only way Israel can offer maximum protection to Jews is by granting them a retroactive place of refuge, i.e. you always have/had a place where you will be relatively safe. Another way to understand the Law of Return is that it asserts that Jewish citizenship in Israel is rooted in the bible and secular history. Thus the Law of Return is not granting new citizenship to Jews but rather making sure that the person coming through the border is already a citizen, by virtue of the their biblical and historical relationship with Israel. This is not just premised on religion but also unambiguous historical records, Israel was the Jewish homeland. Indeed many countries like Germany, Spain, Poland, and Japan, also give preferential consideration for prospective immigrants with ethnic ties. Is this racist? I don’t think so.
With this preface we can better understand the relationship between, and the implications of, the Rotem bill and the Law of Return. If “who is a Jew” is decided by the Orthodox Chief Rabbinate then those eligible to move to Israel by choice or by genocide, would be subject to the Orthodox criteria for conversion, which is designed to prevent opportunism, minimal acceptance of Judaism, and Jewish tradition. Furthermore, if it is passed by the Knesset it will inevitably delegitimize progressive Judaism.
The question is whether that delegitimization is the intended goal or a bi-product of a bill purely formulated with domestic issues in mind?
Unfortunately the media has focused on the dividing results of the bill without giving the other motivations sufficient consideration. After all the bill's positives may outweigh its negatives. The debate can’t be complete without considering that Lieberman simply wants to gain concessions for his political base who are predominantly eastern-European immigrants and would benefit from streamlined conversions. At the same time the motivation may be a lot more complex than concluding that it one or the other.
One perspective offered is that Lieberman is creating leverage with Netanyahu to be used in the upcoming budget debate. Lieberman will drop support for the bill if Netanyahu will agree to Lieberman’s budget demands.
It may also be that Lieberman, the uncompromising strongman in rightwing Israeli politics, is actually challenging the prodigious influence of American Jewry in Israel. There is no question that American-Jewish progressives are the ideological allies of the political left in Israel –Lieberman’s sworn foes. Moreover Jewish-American progressives, actually helped elect Obama, the man who tried to have Lieberman’s right-wing party replaced with Tzipi Livni’s left-leaning Kadima. Thus this bill serves Lieberman’s interests by weakening the progressive Jewish-American establishment. At the same time the majority of progressive Jewry are staunchly pro-Israel and continue to be so. Is Lieberman intentionally weakening his political opponents abroad to strengthen his domestic position? If so he may actually be putting himself before his country.
From whatever perspective it is clear that Lieberman’s primary intentions vis-a-vis the bill are difficult to pin-down. That being said there is certainly merit to the assertion that this bill will divide the global Jewish community.
The real question is whether this bill will result in another display of the Jewish communities masochistic tendencies described by Josephus 2 millennia ago, in this very month, or does this bill actually offer an iconoclastic opportunity?
I guess it depends on how you see the nature of our existence. If everything happens for a greater purpose then this event is another keystone in a necessary progression towards a greater good. Who knows, perhaps this an opportunity to overcome global Jewry’s propensity to allow a difference of opinion to devolve into baseless hate.
However this turns out let it not divide us!
What did the Jews do that made them the destroyers of the holy temple? Was it their decision to fall back on it as a last defense, or perhaps the very fact that they went to war with Rome? According to many it was the discord that existed amongst the various factions of Jews that devolved into self destructive baseless hate.
Regardless, as Josephus aptly pointed out 1,940 years ago, the 10th of Loos, or as Jews know it the 9th of Av was, is, a day of Jewish mourning. According to the bible, it is the day when the Jews received the news from the 12 spies, 10 of whom proclaimed that the promised land, Canaan, was a death trap. Because the Jews rejected G-d’s promise that Israel would be given to them and mourned their impending destruction G-d proclaimed that “you mourn for no reason, I will give you a reason to mourn”.
Later Solomon’s temple was set on fire by the Babylonians in 586 BCE as they sacked the city of Jerusalem, and killed 100,000 of Jews. It was in the 9th of Av 1492 that the Jews were expelled from Spain. WWI began on the 9th of Av 1914, which according to most students of history led to WWII and the holocaust. It was on the 9th of Av that the expulsion of the Jews by Jews from Gush Katif, Gaza was signed into law. The irony of the date is one of the great under-reported paradoxes in history. The “disengagement” from Gaza led to Iran’s proxy, HAMAS, establishing a base in Gaza, and the 1000’s of rockets that continue to rain on Israel’s population.
Not to be outdone the Jewish community is once again embroiled in a internal struggle. This time over, it involves a controversial conversion initiative, the “Rotem bill”. The bill, passed 5-4 by the Knesset's Constitution, Law and Justice Committee, stipulates that all conversions in Israel must be approved by the office of the chief Rabbinate. Moreover, any Jewish convert that wishes to move to Israel under the “Law Of Return” -which ensures automatic citizenship to any Jew to preclude another scenario were Jews are persecuted with nowhere to flee- will have their conversion evaluated by the Orthodox Rabbinate.
The powerful Reform/Conservative movement in America and the smaller albeit growing Israeli Masorti (essentially the Israeli conservative movement), are up in arms claiming that this bill effectively disqualifies their conversions, and ultimately delegitimizes their interpretation of Judaism. Furthermore, leaders of the American Jewish-liberal faction, have authored public letters condemning the bill and arguing that it will foster disunity between the American and Israeli Jewish communities at a time when unity is imperative. Supporters of the bill including FM Lieberman’s Yisrael Beiteinu party, and Netanyahu’s minority partner in the Knesset counter that this will streamline the often frustrating/complicated conversion process for many immigrants, who are the political base of the Lieberman’s party. The Haredi/ultra-Orthodox, and National-Religious parties, which at first opposed the bill, now support it as it “will ensure that all those that claim to be Jews are actually Jews”. Meanwhile Netanyahu repudiated the bill asserting that it will divide the Jewish community while preventing any Likud committee members from attending the vote.
There are three issues here that I believe need to be addressed:
1. Is this bill and the Law of Return racist?
2. Is this bill intended to undermine progressive Judaism?
3. Is this bill another Josephus-like self afflicted division in global Jewry?
Before we can discuss whether the bill is racist it is important to first address what made this bill necessary. Namely the growing number of immigrants to Israel who came to Israel under the Law of Return, and desire to convert, or have had apocryphal conversions. The Law of Return stipulates automatic Israeli citizenship to any individual with one Jewish grandparent. The reasoning behind this thinking was that Hitler classified anyone with a Jewish grandparent as Jewish.
The fact that a Jew and the immediate family of a Jew gain near automatic citizenship under the Law of Return is often labeled racist. Yet this law is not so much asserting Jewish racial superiority or inherent rights. Rather it is intended to allow for the implementation of the philosophy behind the creation of the state of Israel. In other words Jews for two millennia have been at the mercy of tyrants, demagogues, emperors, popes, caliphs, reformists, and fascists. The only way Israel can offer maximum protection to Jews is by granting them a retroactive place of refuge, i.e. you always have/had a place where you will be relatively safe. Another way to understand the Law of Return is that it asserts that Jewish citizenship in Israel is rooted in the bible and secular history. Thus the Law of Return is not granting new citizenship to Jews but rather making sure that the person coming through the border is already a citizen, by virtue of the their biblical and historical relationship with Israel. This is not just premised on religion but also unambiguous historical records, Israel was the Jewish homeland. Indeed many countries like Germany, Spain, Poland, and Japan, also give preferential consideration for prospective immigrants with ethnic ties. Is this racist? I don’t think so.
With this preface we can better understand the relationship between, and the implications of, the Rotem bill and the Law of Return. If “who is a Jew” is decided by the Orthodox Chief Rabbinate then those eligible to move to Israel by choice or by genocide, would be subject to the Orthodox criteria for conversion, which is designed to prevent opportunism, minimal acceptance of Judaism, and Jewish tradition. Furthermore, if it is passed by the Knesset it will inevitably delegitimize progressive Judaism.
The question is whether that delegitimization is the intended goal or a bi-product of a bill purely formulated with domestic issues in mind?
Unfortunately the media has focused on the dividing results of the bill without giving the other motivations sufficient consideration. After all the bill's positives may outweigh its negatives. The debate can’t be complete without considering that Lieberman simply wants to gain concessions for his political base who are predominantly eastern-European immigrants and would benefit from streamlined conversions. At the same time the motivation may be a lot more complex than concluding that it one or the other.
One perspective offered is that Lieberman is creating leverage with Netanyahu to be used in the upcoming budget debate. Lieberman will drop support for the bill if Netanyahu will agree to Lieberman’s budget demands.
It may also be that Lieberman, the uncompromising strongman in rightwing Israeli politics, is actually challenging the prodigious influence of American Jewry in Israel. There is no question that American-Jewish progressives are the ideological allies of the political left in Israel –Lieberman’s sworn foes. Moreover Jewish-American progressives, actually helped elect Obama, the man who tried to have Lieberman’s right-wing party replaced with Tzipi Livni’s left-leaning Kadima. Thus this bill serves Lieberman’s interests by weakening the progressive Jewish-American establishment. At the same time the majority of progressive Jewry are staunchly pro-Israel and continue to be so. Is Lieberman intentionally weakening his political opponents abroad to strengthen his domestic position? If so he may actually be putting himself before his country.
From whatever perspective it is clear that Lieberman’s primary intentions vis-a-vis the bill are difficult to pin-down. That being said there is certainly merit to the assertion that this bill will divide the global Jewish community.
The real question is whether this bill will result in another display of the Jewish communities masochistic tendencies described by Josephus 2 millennia ago, in this very month, or does this bill actually offer an iconoclastic opportunity?
I guess it depends on how you see the nature of our existence. If everything happens for a greater purpose then this event is another keystone in a necessary progression towards a greater good. Who knows, perhaps this an opportunity to overcome global Jewry’s propensity to allow a difference of opinion to devolve into baseless hate.
However this turns out let it not divide us!
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Why I Support Legalizing Marijuana
Who knows why now there are well funded attempts at making marijuana legal. Perhaps it is due to the sinking economy and the search for new revenue streams. Or the maturing of an open minded generation x that, unlike their parents, do not conflate hard-drugs with pot. Perhaps it is another manifestation of the information age; Scientific studies which debunk many of the myths surrounding marijuana use are now readily available. Who knows? The bottom line is that our country is moving towards legalization. California’s proposition 19, on the November ballot, seeks to control and tax it. It is legal to grow and possess marijuana in Alaska (state supreme court 1975). 14 states have legalized medicinal marijuana, and others like New Jersey are pushing ahead with an attempt to control and tax marijuana. Also let us not forget that Marijuana is the biggest cash crop in America.
That said, many are opposed to marijuana legalization for the following reasons. It is a moral vice. It causes a drop in productivity and motivation, which could reduce national productivity. It is a gateway drug. Finally, legalizing marijuana is a slippery slope, what’s next... These arguments are ubiquitous, but are they valid?
Well I agree if x is abused then x becomes a vice, but any x (substance) that is abused is a vice. Yes I have SEEN people become less productive and motivated when abusing marijuana. At the same time alcohol, cigarettes, and obesity can and do, negatively affect individual and national productivity… Study after study have debunked the myth that marijuana is a gateway drug. In most cases a person who abuses marijuana and then other drugs, is doing so for personal reasons that precede marijuana use. As far as the slippery slope argument: I completely agree. America is a society that changes incrementally. In other words, civil rights were the long term consequence of the Civil war. Gay civil marriage is the precursor to full marriage, just as legalizing sodomy was a precursor to gay civil marriage. So one could argue that in 50 years from now we will attempt to legalize cocaine. Then again illegal drugs are already there for the taking. It’s just that they are more expensive. I.e. the slippery slope analogy only has legal implications, in reality the slipping on the slope of drugs is already here.
On the other hand here are 4 reasons why I support full legalization of marijuana.
1. We need the tax revenue. True, if we legalize marijuana use prices will drop and so will tax revenue, but it will still create a significant amount of revenue. It would also create jobs, in agriculture, distribution, and even manufacturing (marijuana paraphernalia, hemp exports etc).
2. We would eliminate a major stream of revenue for drug dealers and the violence that comes along with it. This would also reduce incarceration rates and the hefty chunk of tax dollars that go to incarcerate marijuana related criminals.
3. It would desensitize much of the illicit activity on the Mexican-American border and it would reduce drug related crime in Mexico which exports marijuana here.
4. Liberals support it because they love it and small government-conservatives support legalization because it shrinks government. It is a unifying factor.
That said, many are opposed to marijuana legalization for the following reasons. It is a moral vice. It causes a drop in productivity and motivation, which could reduce national productivity. It is a gateway drug. Finally, legalizing marijuana is a slippery slope, what’s next... These arguments are ubiquitous, but are they valid?
Well I agree if x is abused then x becomes a vice, but any x (substance) that is abused is a vice. Yes I have SEEN people become less productive and motivated when abusing marijuana. At the same time alcohol, cigarettes, and obesity can and do, negatively affect individual and national productivity… Study after study have debunked the myth that marijuana is a gateway drug. In most cases a person who abuses marijuana and then other drugs, is doing so for personal reasons that precede marijuana use. As far as the slippery slope argument: I completely agree. America is a society that changes incrementally. In other words, civil rights were the long term consequence of the Civil war. Gay civil marriage is the precursor to full marriage, just as legalizing sodomy was a precursor to gay civil marriage. So one could argue that in 50 years from now we will attempt to legalize cocaine. Then again illegal drugs are already there for the taking. It’s just that they are more expensive. I.e. the slippery slope analogy only has legal implications, in reality the slipping on the slope of drugs is already here.
On the other hand here are 4 reasons why I support full legalization of marijuana.
1. We need the tax revenue. True, if we legalize marijuana use prices will drop and so will tax revenue, but it will still create a significant amount of revenue. It would also create jobs, in agriculture, distribution, and even manufacturing (marijuana paraphernalia, hemp exports etc).
2. We would eliminate a major stream of revenue for drug dealers and the violence that comes along with it. This would also reduce incarceration rates and the hefty chunk of tax dollars that go to incarcerate marijuana related criminals.
3. It would desensitize much of the illicit activity on the Mexican-American border and it would reduce drug related crime in Mexico which exports marijuana here.
4. Liberals support it because they love it and small government-conservatives support legalization because it shrinks government. It is a unifying factor.
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
America Will Gain Nothing By Linking Terror with Islam
A recent Washington Post article "Obama at Odds with Petraeus Doctrine on Islam" completely misses the opportunity to shed light on an important question. Should America tie Islam to the war on terror? The essay starts auspiciously enough with an overview of Obama's policy on this matter, referencing secretary Brennan's publicized “new” approach to the war on terror. This revamped policy included removing all references to Islam, because America doesn’t want to legitimize the perception that America is fighting a war with Islam. It also replaced the war on terror with the war on Al-Qaeda. This contradicts elements of a manual co-authored by Patraeus in 2006 which states emphatically that Islam is related to the war.
Instead of the author focusing on presenting a perspective on the underlying question, he unabashedly relished the opportunity to reveal yet another rift between the administration and the military. This “exposé” follows General McCrystal's recent resignation after his criticism of the administration was published in Rollingstone magazine. But what about the question: Should America link the war on terror with Islam?
The Bush era defense department, under Donald Rumsfeld and then Robert Gates, argued that ignoring the obvious roots of Al-Qaeda extremist ideology negatively affected the war effort. Bush did make it clear on a number of occasions that the war was not on the totality of Islam but rather on an aberrant extremist strand that attacked America. However they never really defended this position, nor did they, openly, challenge the right-wing conservatives in their own party who propagated the claim that the war on terror was actually a war between Islam and the Judeo-Christian West. The electorate did not miss this and Obama’s campaign accentuated the negative by ignoring Bush’s nuanced position while painting the entire Republican party with the brush of the conservative view. Obama claimed that we needed to engage with the Muslim world, not alienate them by tying Islam to terror or the war as Bush did (though he didn’t).
The current administration’s approach is not without merit. For one thing if America's electorate missed the nuance in the Republicans position it’s a sure thing that Muslim-majority countries did as well. Obama removed all ambiguity, that could otherwise be construed by extremist elements in the Muslim world as evidence that America was waging a war on Islam. Unlike Bush’s more nuanced position, Obama emphatically declared America’s war is no way related to Islam. Obama supports this position by asserting that there is no advantage to referencing the connection, even if there is one.
Indeed this is the crux of the issue, both Obama and Bush agree. Most Muslims do not adhere to extremist Islam doctrine to the extent of committing/condoning terror. However for Obama America gains nothing by referencing Islam. Conversely, Bush argued that so long as terror is perpetrated by Muslims the war can be construed as relating to Islam and must be acknowledged as such.
To what ends? To force the moderates to take a side? To punish the various Muslim communities for not preventing the terror that emanates from it? To galvanize the American public against a common foe? For the sake of truth?
Or to point out that the moderate Muslim world has failed in suppressing the extremists, and to some extent they are directly responsible (please see blog post “http://factoru.blogspot.com/2010/03/roots-of-modern-terrorism.html), for allowing their religion to be hijacked. In other words just as Bush’s position was ambiguous the moderate Muslims position is opaque. Thus even if the moderate Muslim (as Bush tried at the other end) attempts to be nuanced, and publicly declares terror is contrary to Islam, people, ignorant or otherwise, will make a connection because Muslims are still perpetrating terror. But the Bush policy of motivating moderate-Muslims to speak, by supporting a nuanced position, has not worked. Instead it has been used as ammunition in this country and in Muslim-majority countries against American policy.
Put otherwise Obama is right. Not because the terror is not linked to Islam, but because America will gain nothing by linking terror to Islam.
Instead of the author focusing on presenting a perspective on the underlying question, he unabashedly relished the opportunity to reveal yet another rift between the administration and the military. This “exposé” follows General McCrystal's recent resignation after his criticism of the administration was published in Rollingstone magazine. But what about the question: Should America link the war on terror with Islam?
The Bush era defense department, under Donald Rumsfeld and then Robert Gates, argued that ignoring the obvious roots of Al-Qaeda extremist ideology negatively affected the war effort. Bush did make it clear on a number of occasions that the war was not on the totality of Islam but rather on an aberrant extremist strand that attacked America. However they never really defended this position, nor did they, openly, challenge the right-wing conservatives in their own party who propagated the claim that the war on terror was actually a war between Islam and the Judeo-Christian West. The electorate did not miss this and Obama’s campaign accentuated the negative by ignoring Bush’s nuanced position while painting the entire Republican party with the brush of the conservative view. Obama claimed that we needed to engage with the Muslim world, not alienate them by tying Islam to terror or the war as Bush did (though he didn’t).
The current administration’s approach is not without merit. For one thing if America's electorate missed the nuance in the Republicans position it’s a sure thing that Muslim-majority countries did as well. Obama removed all ambiguity, that could otherwise be construed by extremist elements in the Muslim world as evidence that America was waging a war on Islam. Unlike Bush’s more nuanced position, Obama emphatically declared America’s war is no way related to Islam. Obama supports this position by asserting that there is no advantage to referencing the connection, even if there is one.
Indeed this is the crux of the issue, both Obama and Bush agree. Most Muslims do not adhere to extremist Islam doctrine to the extent of committing/condoning terror. However for Obama America gains nothing by referencing Islam. Conversely, Bush argued that so long as terror is perpetrated by Muslims the war can be construed as relating to Islam and must be acknowledged as such.
To what ends? To force the moderates to take a side? To punish the various Muslim communities for not preventing the terror that emanates from it? To galvanize the American public against a common foe? For the sake of truth?
Or to point out that the moderate Muslim world has failed in suppressing the extremists, and to some extent they are directly responsible (please see blog post “http://factoru.blogspot.com/2010/03/roots-of-modern-terrorism.html), for allowing their religion to be hijacked. In other words just as Bush’s position was ambiguous the moderate Muslims position is opaque. Thus even if the moderate Muslim (as Bush tried at the other end) attempts to be nuanced, and publicly declares terror is contrary to Islam, people, ignorant or otherwise, will make a connection because Muslims are still perpetrating terror. But the Bush policy of motivating moderate-Muslims to speak, by supporting a nuanced position, has not worked. Instead it has been used as ammunition in this country and in Muslim-majority countries against American policy.
Put otherwise Obama is right. Not because the terror is not linked to Islam, but because America will gain nothing by linking terror to Islam.
Monday, July 12, 2010
Poetry With An Explanation: "Ever Been on a Blind Date on Steroids?"
Have you ever been on a blind date?
How about a shidduch date?
Which do you prefer?
The former, is set up by friends or,
has its genesis in a wink on one “date” site or the other.
They tell me,
as I have never experienced an ordinary blind date,
that you should have no expectations.
Mature means mother.
Pretty means nice.
Nice means…
After all can you trust,
a person to be honest about themselves
or a friend to be aware of their misguided motivations?
Is the latter any different than the former?
How so?
Perhaps it is the source.
A relative who has vetted the person for you
Done the research and decided
“I have a good feeling about this one.”
I am powerless, a man
used to the ways of nature
is now subjected to another’s subjective
Interpretation of the self, by the other.
Where do you meet a spouse or a long term intimate friend? Some go to the club and are satisfied for the moment. Others go to the library and are too timid to approach or are “ignored” for a book. Our friends, especially the ones who just got into a serious-relationship/married fell like they are now experts and found the perfect one for you. Don’t get me wrong most of my friends met their spouses through friends. My best friends met his wife at a party in my apartment. But for those not governed, or not wishing, to be governed by providence…
For the religious person there is an ostensibly unique approach. Here an individual, you, makes an active decision to allow someone else to actively search for your mate. A complete loss of pro-active power, no initiative required. Some in an effort to regain power reject, out of a state of confusion, or even immaturity. Others jump on every opportunity, after all my relative would never set me up with what they perceive to be what I want.
Don’t get me wrong I am not projecting resentment.
Just curious observations
It IS interesting.
So does the blind date differ from the shidduch date?
Is it not a matter of managing expectations?
If that’s the case the difference is not the type of date
but rather the reason why you agree to go on the date.
In the blind date your expectations are “blind”.
In the shidduch date your expectations are on steroids.
Justly so?
I don’t think so.
Semantics at play,
no difference,
just the label?
Ok.
So maybe we should just call it, I don’t know…
a blind date on steroids?
How about a shidduch date?
Which do you prefer?
The former, is set up by friends or,
has its genesis in a wink on one “date” site or the other.
They tell me,
as I have never experienced an ordinary blind date,
that you should have no expectations.
Mature means mother.
Pretty means nice.
Nice means…
After all can you trust,
a person to be honest about themselves
or a friend to be aware of their misguided motivations?
Is the latter any different than the former?
How so?
Perhaps it is the source.
A relative who has vetted the person for you
Done the research and decided
“I have a good feeling about this one.”
I am powerless, a man
used to the ways of nature
is now subjected to another’s subjective
Interpretation of the self, by the other.
Where do you meet a spouse or a long term intimate friend? Some go to the club and are satisfied for the moment. Others go to the library and are too timid to approach or are “ignored” for a book. Our friends, especially the ones who just got into a serious-relationship/married fell like they are now experts and found the perfect one for you. Don’t get me wrong most of my friends met their spouses through friends. My best friends met his wife at a party in my apartment. But for those not governed, or not wishing, to be governed by providence…
For the religious person there is an ostensibly unique approach. Here an individual, you, makes an active decision to allow someone else to actively search for your mate. A complete loss of pro-active power, no initiative required. Some in an effort to regain power reject, out of a state of confusion, or even immaturity. Others jump on every opportunity, after all my relative would never set me up with what they perceive to be what I want.
Don’t get me wrong I am not projecting resentment.
Just curious observations
It IS interesting.
So does the blind date differ from the shidduch date?
Is it not a matter of managing expectations?
If that’s the case the difference is not the type of date
but rather the reason why you agree to go on the date.
In the blind date your expectations are “blind”.
In the shidduch date your expectations are on steroids.
Justly so?
I don’t think so.
Semantics at play,
no difference,
just the label?
Ok.
So maybe we should just call it, I don’t know…
a blind date on steroids?
A Mental Tangent on the Way to Connecticut: Infrastructure and the Game of Risk
For the first time in eight years my sister and I are riding Metro-North railways to visit my family in CT. As we rumble along, my sister muses that these train-cars are so old that they can be used for movies portraying the 80’s. Mind you this is the major CT-NY public transportation line connecting the mansions of high-powered attorneys and financiers of America's upper class with horizontally challenged NYC. Ironically they take the train because they cannot afford to waste two plus hours taking the major roadways which are congested with rush-hour traffic.
My sister's audible criticisms prompted a mental tangent and I began to ponder the ramifications of our “antiquated” infrastructure. After all this is one of those issues that challenges revenue rich CT as much as it does tax thin NY. In my head I responded to my sister with an analogy.
At the conclusion of your turn in the game of risk you receive a card. At a minimum of three or at a maximum of five turns you have a match. This match enables you to receive extra resources to place where you wish. Each time a match is submitted, there is an incremental increase in resources the next time a player submits a match. Let us say that you have a match after the minimum of three turns. On one hand you can get a short term boost towards your strategic goals. On the other hand if you wait you can potentially receive more then what you would get now, because others may use their match before you.
Every year Americans hear how this developing country or that European country just completed a new high-speed railway system or other such infrastructure innovation that give it an immediate surge in production and ultimately a boost over global competition. Learning that China just inaugurated the fastest train in the world may sound like an interesting fact on the back of your cereal box, but such facts have real implications.
To better understand these implications let us engage in dual perspectives. For example how did the world view Eisenhower’s great interstate highway (also known as the defense highways) project that opened and integrated once isolated state-markets to the commerce of the nation? Most educated Americans now know that the highway, and all the infrastructure improvement that came along with it, injected our economy with the equivalent of steroids. We were the Barry Bonds of global commerce. Of course the fact that our major competitors -Europe, the Soviet Union, and Japan- were all devastated by WWII amplified the impact of our economic innovations. At the time the rest of the world looked on and nodded appreciatively as we helped rebuild Western-Europe and Japan, with major loans (the Marshal Plan). They however did not recognize or were not in a position to recognize, that our economic clout, spurred on by domestic infrastructure initiatives, was the reason why we were going to win the Cold War. Our infrastructure was the best so our economy was dominant.
Now why didn’t the rest of the world do what we were doing? Was it because they didn’t have a “match”, the capital to invest in major infrastructure overhaul? Or were they biding their time, waiting for America’s economy to stumble and use their accumulated infrastructure capital, their “match”, to solidify their advantage?
Regardless, our competitors “match” came after ours and subsequently their match has an incrementally larger affect on their economy enabling them to jump twice as far as we jumped when we installed our, then, state-of-the-art city and interstate transit systems. Moreover the reversal in context vis-a-vis sovereign debt, further validates the dual perspective approach. Now it is America and Western-Europe borrowing capital from China and Japan. Similar to these countries during the WWII era, we are behind in infrastructure and we are precluded from matching our competitors because of our debt.
This is really the question: Why are we not investing heavily in infrastructure? Why are we not using our match? Why is Metro-North so antiquated, our subways overcrowded and why are our bridges and tunnels on the perpetual brink of collapse? Are we waiting for the next wave of technology to submit our match or are we unable to submit a match because of debt?
To be clear, if we do not immediately begin to invest in a widespread and comprehensive infrastructure overhaul we may be behind China for decades to come. Post WWII, Europe’s debt gave them no choice but to fall behind. Do we have the same excuse?
My sister's audible criticisms prompted a mental tangent and I began to ponder the ramifications of our “antiquated” infrastructure. After all this is one of those issues that challenges revenue rich CT as much as it does tax thin NY. In my head I responded to my sister with an analogy.
At the conclusion of your turn in the game of risk you receive a card. At a minimum of three or at a maximum of five turns you have a match. This match enables you to receive extra resources to place where you wish. Each time a match is submitted, there is an incremental increase in resources the next time a player submits a match. Let us say that you have a match after the minimum of three turns. On one hand you can get a short term boost towards your strategic goals. On the other hand if you wait you can potentially receive more then what you would get now, because others may use their match before you.
Every year Americans hear how this developing country or that European country just completed a new high-speed railway system or other such infrastructure innovation that give it an immediate surge in production and ultimately a boost over global competition. Learning that China just inaugurated the fastest train in the world may sound like an interesting fact on the back of your cereal box, but such facts have real implications.
To better understand these implications let us engage in dual perspectives. For example how did the world view Eisenhower’s great interstate highway (also known as the defense highways) project that opened and integrated once isolated state-markets to the commerce of the nation? Most educated Americans now know that the highway, and all the infrastructure improvement that came along with it, injected our economy with the equivalent of steroids. We were the Barry Bonds of global commerce. Of course the fact that our major competitors -Europe, the Soviet Union, and Japan- were all devastated by WWII amplified the impact of our economic innovations. At the time the rest of the world looked on and nodded appreciatively as we helped rebuild Western-Europe and Japan, with major loans (the Marshal Plan). They however did not recognize or were not in a position to recognize, that our economic clout, spurred on by domestic infrastructure initiatives, was the reason why we were going to win the Cold War. Our infrastructure was the best so our economy was dominant.
Now why didn’t the rest of the world do what we were doing? Was it because they didn’t have a “match”, the capital to invest in major infrastructure overhaul? Or were they biding their time, waiting for America’s economy to stumble and use their accumulated infrastructure capital, their “match”, to solidify their advantage?
Regardless, our competitors “match” came after ours and subsequently their match has an incrementally larger affect on their economy enabling them to jump twice as far as we jumped when we installed our, then, state-of-the-art city and interstate transit systems. Moreover the reversal in context vis-a-vis sovereign debt, further validates the dual perspective approach. Now it is America and Western-Europe borrowing capital from China and Japan. Similar to these countries during the WWII era, we are behind in infrastructure and we are precluded from matching our competitors because of our debt.
This is really the question: Why are we not investing heavily in infrastructure? Why are we not using our match? Why is Metro-North so antiquated, our subways overcrowded and why are our bridges and tunnels on the perpetual brink of collapse? Are we waiting for the next wave of technology to submit our match or are we unable to submit a match because of debt?
To be clear, if we do not immediately begin to invest in a widespread and comprehensive infrastructure overhaul we may be behind China for decades to come. Post WWII, Europe’s debt gave them no choice but to fall behind. Do we have the same excuse?
Thursday, July 8, 2010
Do Pro-Israel Jewish-Americans Put Israel Before America?
I was sitting in Starbucks with a close friend of mine who also happens to be Turkish. Our conversation, as it usually does, ran the gambit of politics, religion, and women. This time he asked me candidly, who do I put first America or Israel? This was followed up by the hypothetical that if Israel went to war with America what would I do?
I looked at him and responded with my own question: If your brother and sister get into a fight, whose side do you take? This is the short of it. For most Jews Israel is our inheritance, it is a place we mention hundreds of times every day. The belief in our eventual return to Israel is a central tenet of Judaism. Moreover, to not support Israel is to ignore our family members, figuratively and literally.
For ALL Jewish-Americans and/or American-Jews (African-Americans or American-Africans etc.) America is our home and most of us love our home. Now if this home was a place where we would be attacked in the street by right-wing neo-Nazis and/or left-wing Islamists, as is taking place regularly in every part of world except America and Israel, then we would find it hard to call America home, but this is not the case. In America we are allowed to thrive and contribute, to serve politically and socially, to stand up for what we believe and support legally what we want to support. In no other continent in the world is there a place not soaked in the Jewish blood of government orchestrated anti-Semitism.
Jews have lived peacefully and productively in America since the governor of Dutch New-Amsterdam, Peter Stuyvesant, was compelled by the Dutch East India company (incidentally the first multi-national) to receive a boat of Jews escaping the fiery stake of the Spanish-Inquisition inspired Brazilian auto de fe. True there was institutional anti-Semitism in America until the great universities of America abolished the quotes of Jews allowed to matriculate in the middle of the last century. And even today there are many blatant anti-Semites. Goons like Wright and Farrakhan who refuse to acknowledge that it was Jews who died, yes died for their civil rights. But Jews have never generalized, unless it is general. So we love this country and what has given us, and if need be we do and will die for it.
As far as the hypothetical goes. If there was a war between America and Israel that could only mean one of two things. Either America had lost what made it great and would be led by people like Farrakhan, Wright, or Brzezinski. Or Israel lost what made it great, and was run by people like Abbas, or the Haaretz crowd. In that case I would fight with the side that still stood for what America and Israel both stand for today, above all else. Freedom, Democracy, innovation, strength of character, and purpose.
Some reading this will no doubt raise the Liberty incident, for my response please see the post, “http://factoru.blogspot.com/2010/04/three-excuses-and-one-belief.html”.
But as I explained to my appreciative friend. Just as it would be impossible to ask a child to choose between two parents it is impossible for me to choose between Israel and America. As long as both are parents, I will do my best as a child to support both and keep them together. After all if it is a match made in heaven, let’s hope there is never a divorce.
I looked at him and responded with my own question: If your brother and sister get into a fight, whose side do you take? This is the short of it. For most Jews Israel is our inheritance, it is a place we mention hundreds of times every day. The belief in our eventual return to Israel is a central tenet of Judaism. Moreover, to not support Israel is to ignore our family members, figuratively and literally.
For ALL Jewish-Americans and/or American-Jews (African-Americans or American-Africans etc.) America is our home and most of us love our home. Now if this home was a place where we would be attacked in the street by right-wing neo-Nazis and/or left-wing Islamists, as is taking place regularly in every part of world except America and Israel, then we would find it hard to call America home, but this is not the case. In America we are allowed to thrive and contribute, to serve politically and socially, to stand up for what we believe and support legally what we want to support. In no other continent in the world is there a place not soaked in the Jewish blood of government orchestrated anti-Semitism.
Jews have lived peacefully and productively in America since the governor of Dutch New-Amsterdam, Peter Stuyvesant, was compelled by the Dutch East India company (incidentally the first multi-national) to receive a boat of Jews escaping the fiery stake of the Spanish-Inquisition inspired Brazilian auto de fe. True there was institutional anti-Semitism in America until the great universities of America abolished the quotes of Jews allowed to matriculate in the middle of the last century. And even today there are many blatant anti-Semites. Goons like Wright and Farrakhan who refuse to acknowledge that it was Jews who died, yes died for their civil rights. But Jews have never generalized, unless it is general. So we love this country and what has given us, and if need be we do and will die for it.
As far as the hypothetical goes. If there was a war between America and Israel that could only mean one of two things. Either America had lost what made it great and would be led by people like Farrakhan, Wright, or Brzezinski. Or Israel lost what made it great, and was run by people like Abbas, or the Haaretz crowd. In that case I would fight with the side that still stood for what America and Israel both stand for today, above all else. Freedom, Democracy, innovation, strength of character, and purpose.
Some reading this will no doubt raise the Liberty incident, for my response please see the post, “http://factoru.blogspot.com/2010/04/three-excuses-and-one-belief.html”.
But as I explained to my appreciative friend. Just as it would be impossible to ask a child to choose between two parents it is impossible for me to choose between Israel and America. As long as both are parents, I will do my best as a child to support both and keep them together. After all if it is a match made in heaven, let’s hope there is never a divorce.
Israel Firster??? That May Make YOU a Firster!
In recent months I have seen an uptick in the use of the term "Israel-firster". This term is at times used to besmirch consistently pro-Israel conservatives, but more often it is applied to any one who advocates strongly on behalf of Israel, especially if they happen to be Jewish. Unless the advocate is Israeli, the term implies, they are disloyal to America or whatever country the individual is from because they put Israel first.
To be fair, the abusers of this term are simply following their antecedents. The canard that Jews are disloyal to their country of citizenship is a as old as the bible. Pharaoh decreed that the Jews be enslaved because “they will side with our enemies”. Over 600 years later the viceroy to the Persian king Xerxes (though the exact king is disputed, Purim) passed a decree ordering the death of every single Jew in the Persian empire. Jews celebrate our victory over Pharaoh’s and Haman’s hate on Passover and Purim respectively. In pre-war Germany, despite heavy Jewish assimilation (including serving disproportionally in the Kaisers army, and the dominance of reform Judaism which was centered on giving up the central Jewish belief in the coming of the Messiah and the return to Israel), the claim that Jews were disloyal was prevalent. In that case the Jews were not as lucky.
So the users of the term Israel firsters have quite the pedigree.
But it is not enough to call them what they primarily are, anti-Semites, because they will respond “you always silence your critics by calling them anti-Semites”. Instead here is a logical argument that both refutes their claim and exposes them for what they, chiefly, are.
People that besmirch patriots of Jewish origin as Israeli firsters, shout “they push America into wars and cause American blood and treasure to be spilled for their good". Another claim they make is that it is obvious America should be like the rest of the world and condemn Israel so that we won’t be hated, but because of the “lobby” or because of Israeli firsters, America puts itself on the line for Israel.
The implication here is that any time America goes to war against an enemy that happens to also be an enemy of Israel, America is doing it to its own detriment. Or that when America gives loan guarantees or military hardware, to Israel, it causes a net loss for America. Or that America puts Turkey and Erdogan in its place, not because of their actions against Israel which strategically hurt America, but because Israel firsters are insidiously manipulating American politics.
Like the Turkish claims prevalent in Turkey, these canards are easily debunked.
America's war in Iraq may have been to the benefit of Israel, but it benefited Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait even more. Indeed the war eliminated Saddam, a man who invaded Kuawit and Iran and launched scuds into Saudi Arabia and Israel. Furthermore it made Iran, Israel’s biggest enemy, stronger because it eliminated Iran’s main secular rival/threat on its border. As for America fighting Israel’s wars with no Israeli blood being sacrificed: It is well known that America refused direct Israeli help during the first and the second Gulf wars so as not to openly antagonize the Arab street which backed America's intervention in Iraq (1). It is equally known that when Israeli population centers were attacked with Iraqi scuds during Gulf one, it did not respond so as not to jeopardize the American led coalition. Of course Israel’s intelligence in the middle-East is fully utilized by America and its real allies.
Also the firsters refuse to acknowledge that a significant majority of Americans, in every poll, consistently support Israel over its neighbors, to a tune of 60-40. They like to blame the media, as if there are not major media sources that are unrelenting in their biased criticism of Israel -New York Times and Huffington Post just to name two.
Finally what really unmasks those making Israel firster accusations is the fact that they never acknowledge that there are overriding political, strategic, and ideological reasons for America's support for Israel. Instead they say "look the whole world is against Israel", as if that’s a logical reason to stop supporting Israel. Obama reached out to the Muslim world. Those that were pro-America in the past continue to be so. Those that weren’t are no closer. It is not America's support for Israel that decides who supports or opposes America.
For those that dispute the above claims please take a moment from writing baseless comments on Huffington Post and educate yourself about the logical reasons for those that support Israel’s all-pervasive relationship with America. For example, http://pairspective.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=94:the-linkers-and-the-thinkers-is-americas-support-for-israel-hurting-america-part-3&catid=35:highlights&Itemid=92. Instead of hypothesizing that the reason they hate us is because we support Israel… ask yourself why do YOU hate Israel? Are you projecting your feelings on others?
Finally, Jews in America have every reason to support America's interests. After all it is this country that protects our freedoms. It is in this country where we are able to shine and succeed, and it is this country that supports our right to advocate on behalf of the land where our mothers, fathers, sisters and brothers live -to protect itself and succeed despite all the hate directed at it. Why do we love America? It is because this is a country that stands up for the truth, and goes against the irrational populist tides that are once again inundating the old world.
So why do some living in America and taking advantage of this great country attack America's choice -not criticize, not debate, but attack? Furthermore, why do most of these people, whom you derogatorily call flag wavers, or Israel firsters, support America's choice? Is it because they are in reality American firsters?!
To be fair just as all criticism of Israel and its supporters is not anti-Semitic so too are some who use the obnoxious term Israel firsters, not motivated by anti-Semitism. Rather they irrationally assume that every action that perpetuates a grievance they have towards American policy can’t be motivated by the desire, first and foremost, for this country to succeed. You think that it’s bad for this country. They think it is good. Fine, but don’t blindly conclude that they must be Israel firsters, because they can just as easily conclude that you put anti-Semitism, Hamas, Turkey, Islam, Iran, China, Congo, Sudan, Libya, North-Korea, and/or all the above terrorists before the good of our country. Which by the way makes YOU A FIRSTER!
To be fair, the abusers of this term are simply following their antecedents. The canard that Jews are disloyal to their country of citizenship is a as old as the bible. Pharaoh decreed that the Jews be enslaved because “they will side with our enemies”. Over 600 years later the viceroy to the Persian king Xerxes (though the exact king is disputed, Purim) passed a decree ordering the death of every single Jew in the Persian empire. Jews celebrate our victory over Pharaoh’s and Haman’s hate on Passover and Purim respectively. In pre-war Germany, despite heavy Jewish assimilation (including serving disproportionally in the Kaisers army, and the dominance of reform Judaism which was centered on giving up the central Jewish belief in the coming of the Messiah and the return to Israel), the claim that Jews were disloyal was prevalent. In that case the Jews were not as lucky.
So the users of the term Israel firsters have quite the pedigree.
But it is not enough to call them what they primarily are, anti-Semites, because they will respond “you always silence your critics by calling them anti-Semites”. Instead here is a logical argument that both refutes their claim and exposes them for what they, chiefly, are.
People that besmirch patriots of Jewish origin as Israeli firsters, shout “they push America into wars and cause American blood and treasure to be spilled for their good". Another claim they make is that it is obvious America should be like the rest of the world and condemn Israel so that we won’t be hated, but because of the “lobby” or because of Israeli firsters, America puts itself on the line for Israel.
The implication here is that any time America goes to war against an enemy that happens to also be an enemy of Israel, America is doing it to its own detriment. Or that when America gives loan guarantees or military hardware, to Israel, it causes a net loss for America. Or that America puts Turkey and Erdogan in its place, not because of their actions against Israel which strategically hurt America, but because Israel firsters are insidiously manipulating American politics.
Like the Turkish claims prevalent in Turkey, these canards are easily debunked.
America's war in Iraq may have been to the benefit of Israel, but it benefited Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait even more. Indeed the war eliminated Saddam, a man who invaded Kuawit and Iran and launched scuds into Saudi Arabia and Israel. Furthermore it made Iran, Israel’s biggest enemy, stronger because it eliminated Iran’s main secular rival/threat on its border. As for America fighting Israel’s wars with no Israeli blood being sacrificed: It is well known that America refused direct Israeli help during the first and the second Gulf wars so as not to openly antagonize the Arab street which backed America's intervention in Iraq (1). It is equally known that when Israeli population centers were attacked with Iraqi scuds during Gulf one, it did not respond so as not to jeopardize the American led coalition. Of course Israel’s intelligence in the middle-East is fully utilized by America and its real allies.
Also the firsters refuse to acknowledge that a significant majority of Americans, in every poll, consistently support Israel over its neighbors, to a tune of 60-40. They like to blame the media, as if there are not major media sources that are unrelenting in their biased criticism of Israel -New York Times and Huffington Post just to name two.
Finally what really unmasks those making Israel firster accusations is the fact that they never acknowledge that there are overriding political, strategic, and ideological reasons for America's support for Israel. Instead they say "look the whole world is against Israel", as if that’s a logical reason to stop supporting Israel. Obama reached out to the Muslim world. Those that were pro-America in the past continue to be so. Those that weren’t are no closer. It is not America's support for Israel that decides who supports or opposes America.
For those that dispute the above claims please take a moment from writing baseless comments on Huffington Post and educate yourself about the logical reasons for those that support Israel’s all-pervasive relationship with America. For example, http://pairspective.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=94:the-linkers-and-the-thinkers-is-americas-support-for-israel-hurting-america-part-3&catid=35:highlights&Itemid=92. Instead of hypothesizing that the reason they hate us is because we support Israel… ask yourself why do YOU hate Israel? Are you projecting your feelings on others?
Finally, Jews in America have every reason to support America's interests. After all it is this country that protects our freedoms. It is in this country where we are able to shine and succeed, and it is this country that supports our right to advocate on behalf of the land where our mothers, fathers, sisters and brothers live -to protect itself and succeed despite all the hate directed at it. Why do we love America? It is because this is a country that stands up for the truth, and goes against the irrational populist tides that are once again inundating the old world.
So why do some living in America and taking advantage of this great country attack America's choice -not criticize, not debate, but attack? Furthermore, why do most of these people, whom you derogatorily call flag wavers, or Israel firsters, support America's choice? Is it because they are in reality American firsters?!
To be fair just as all criticism of Israel and its supporters is not anti-Semitic so too are some who use the obnoxious term Israel firsters, not motivated by anti-Semitism. Rather they irrationally assume that every action that perpetuates a grievance they have towards American policy can’t be motivated by the desire, first and foremost, for this country to succeed. You think that it’s bad for this country. They think it is good. Fine, but don’t blindly conclude that they must be Israel firsters, because they can just as easily conclude that you put anti-Semitism, Hamas, Turkey, Islam, Iran, China, Congo, Sudan, Libya, North-Korea, and/or all the above terrorists before the good of our country. Which by the way makes YOU A FIRSTER!
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
America's Island of Consensus
If America under Bush was floundering, under Obama it is drowning. Books like “The Post American World” are being written because there is voracious audience of anti-Americans and us, who are just trying to make sense of it all.
Terror, then two wars, then the great recession, BP, and a political class mired in partisan politics. The left argued the right was biased and established a self-proclaimed biased site to “present the other side” -the Huffington Post. Obama was elected to not do exactly what he is doing, or rather to do what he is not doing. The tea party is not a new movement but a microcosm of the Republican party, with Ron Paul representing the libertarian element of the Republican party, and Sarah Palin the conservatives. Independents, which is supposed to denote independence from party ideology, are now synonymous with Ralph Nader and Ron Paul two men who are outside dominant political ideologies, but are equally not independent from their own ideological leanings.
Even the core values of America, the peaceful island where the overwhelming majority of Americans can assemble and automatically agree, a place where the congress and the executive love to meet, and splash in the glow of positive press releases.
Even this island is shrinking. Whereas capitalism was once seen as a badge of honor and synonymous with freedom for America, it is now for many become inextricably tied with greed. Whereas corporations like Ford were the envy of the world, and fostered the emergence of America's vaunted middle-class, now they are blamed for the decline of the middle-class. Whereas the Truman’s doctrine to contain the Soviets and support all Democracies is still at the heart of what makes America’s history and present unique, America's support of nations like Taiwan, Israel, and South Korea is being attacked from inside and out, just as its effort to suppress criminal regimes like Iran, Venezuela, and North Korea is under assault.
The very issues that united us despite all our divisions (because they are at the heart of America and American citizens) are being deluged by waves of political animus, to the extent that some in both parties disagree for the sake of disagreeing on the issues that we all once agreed upon.
At the same time this very island of consensus is the place where we must rebuild from, only that its warmth should spread to the political storms that surround it. We must rebuild domestic political muscle to affirm that robust inter-party cooperation is just as integral to our system as vigorous debate. We must vet our candidates to ensure that they are American patriots, individuals that believe in the country and are willing to give their life for it. Such candidates will put the country first. We must ensure they are Independent, not on paper but in mind. So that their independence will engender the greatest benefits to this nation. Likewise individuals who will not automatically discredit old policy, simply because they are old. Or conclude, based on preconceived notions or some YouTube clip, that elements within our society are supporting a certain course of action for reasons other than maintaining Americas greatness.
Indeed these candidates should make the island of consensus the starting point of their activities -the center of the island- creating a feeling of goodwill and reminding themselves of their mutual goal: to practice empirical politics, not political science. Most of all we, the people of good will WHO LOVE THIS COUNTRY, Jews, Italians, Africans, Germans, Irish and the rest, including foreign students/workers and aspiring immigrants who have benefited from America's blessing must do the same. This is key if we are to remain on top.
Terror, then two wars, then the great recession, BP, and a political class mired in partisan politics. The left argued the right was biased and established a self-proclaimed biased site to “present the other side” -the Huffington Post. Obama was elected to not do exactly what he is doing, or rather to do what he is not doing. The tea party is not a new movement but a microcosm of the Republican party, with Ron Paul representing the libertarian element of the Republican party, and Sarah Palin the conservatives. Independents, which is supposed to denote independence from party ideology, are now synonymous with Ralph Nader and Ron Paul two men who are outside dominant political ideologies, but are equally not independent from their own ideological leanings.
Even the core values of America, the peaceful island where the overwhelming majority of Americans can assemble and automatically agree, a place where the congress and the executive love to meet, and splash in the glow of positive press releases.
Even this island is shrinking. Whereas capitalism was once seen as a badge of honor and synonymous with freedom for America, it is now for many become inextricably tied with greed. Whereas corporations like Ford were the envy of the world, and fostered the emergence of America's vaunted middle-class, now they are blamed for the decline of the middle-class. Whereas the Truman’s doctrine to contain the Soviets and support all Democracies is still at the heart of what makes America’s history and present unique, America's support of nations like Taiwan, Israel, and South Korea is being attacked from inside and out, just as its effort to suppress criminal regimes like Iran, Venezuela, and North Korea is under assault.
The very issues that united us despite all our divisions (because they are at the heart of America and American citizens) are being deluged by waves of political animus, to the extent that some in both parties disagree for the sake of disagreeing on the issues that we all once agreed upon.
At the same time this very island of consensus is the place where we must rebuild from, only that its warmth should spread to the political storms that surround it. We must rebuild domestic political muscle to affirm that robust inter-party cooperation is just as integral to our system as vigorous debate. We must vet our candidates to ensure that they are American patriots, individuals that believe in the country and are willing to give their life for it. Such candidates will put the country first. We must ensure they are Independent, not on paper but in mind. So that their independence will engender the greatest benefits to this nation. Likewise individuals who will not automatically discredit old policy, simply because they are old. Or conclude, based on preconceived notions or some YouTube clip, that elements within our society are supporting a certain course of action for reasons other than maintaining Americas greatness.
Indeed these candidates should make the island of consensus the starting point of their activities -the center of the island- creating a feeling of goodwill and reminding themselves of their mutual goal: to practice empirical politics, not political science. Most of all we, the people of good will WHO LOVE THIS COUNTRY, Jews, Italians, Africans, Germans, Irish and the rest, including foreign students/workers and aspiring immigrants who have benefited from America's blessing must do the same. This is key if we are to remain on top.
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
No Mention of Turkey in the Obama/Netanyahu Press-Conference
This afternoon Barack H. Obama and Benjamin Netanyahu held a post meeting press-conference. They discussed Iran, the peace process, Gaza, Israeli nuclear arms, and even answered a question on the settlement freeze by an intrepid Israeli journalist. But no mention of Turkey’s demand for a UN “impartial inquiry” into the Flotilla provocation with a bad ending or a request that Israel apologize to Turkey. In fact while the Arab states, Hamas, Iran, and even Netanyahu’s Israel speech congratulating America on July fourth, were mentioned Turkey was not (http://www.c-span.org/Watch/Media/2010/07/06/HP/R/35121/President+Obama+USIsrael+bond+unbreakable.aspx).
Of course Turkey may have been discussed behind closed doors. After all the Turkey-Israel alliance in the Middle-East is in everyone’s interest. However as far as the public eye can see Turkey was simply ignored. This despite the fact that the meeting was supposed to occur on March 31, but was postponed by the flotilla incident. Furthermore Erdogan’s Turkey has put tremendous political capital into publicly demonizing Israel, whether at the UNGA, UNSC, or at the recent Baltic summit. It comes as a surprise that Turkey didn’t even warrant a passing mention, even by the journalists during the Q&A.
Why?
First of all as the mid-term elections approach, Obama is attempting to affirm his relationship with Israel and pander to the over 65% of Americans who strongly support a robust American-Israel alliance. Netanyahu, for his part, needs Obama’s support on a number of strategic issues as well as his approval, so that this time when he comes back to Israel the media won't go into a frenzy about how Israel lost America's support. It may also be a non-verbal Que to Turkey to play nice or not play at all.
But the why is not as significant as the results.
If you have a chance please watch and listen as Netanyahu begins his part of the press-conference (minute 7:30). He mentions that not everything is said openly and then he immediately continues to discuss a “new” danger in the Middle-East with a final segue into reiterating the moral reasons to oppose Iran –its brutal oppression of its own people. One could easily conclude that Netanyahu was referring to a segment of a conversation not mentioned –Turkey. How Turkey's policy was a new threat, and that its stated reasons for supporting Israel’s enemies, “occupation siege…”, were hypocritical considering they are supporting a repressive Iranian regime.
Then Netanyahu concluded that Obama affirmed the USA-Israel relationship behind closed doors and in public. Clearly Turkey has not accomplished much. Erdogan’s rhetoric or political shenanigans has not separated America from Israel, on the contrary.
Of course Turkey may have been discussed behind closed doors. After all the Turkey-Israel alliance in the Middle-East is in everyone’s interest. However as far as the public eye can see Turkey was simply ignored. This despite the fact that the meeting was supposed to occur on March 31, but was postponed by the flotilla incident. Furthermore Erdogan’s Turkey has put tremendous political capital into publicly demonizing Israel, whether at the UNGA, UNSC, or at the recent Baltic summit. It comes as a surprise that Turkey didn’t even warrant a passing mention, even by the journalists during the Q&A.
Why?
First of all as the mid-term elections approach, Obama is attempting to affirm his relationship with Israel and pander to the over 65% of Americans who strongly support a robust American-Israel alliance. Netanyahu, for his part, needs Obama’s support on a number of strategic issues as well as his approval, so that this time when he comes back to Israel the media won't go into a frenzy about how Israel lost America's support. It may also be a non-verbal Que to Turkey to play nice or not play at all.
But the why is not as significant as the results.
If you have a chance please watch and listen as Netanyahu begins his part of the press-conference (minute 7:30). He mentions that not everything is said openly and then he immediately continues to discuss a “new” danger in the Middle-East with a final segue into reiterating the moral reasons to oppose Iran –its brutal oppression of its own people. One could easily conclude that Netanyahu was referring to a segment of a conversation not mentioned –Turkey. How Turkey's policy was a new threat, and that its stated reasons for supporting Israel’s enemies, “occupation siege…”, were hypocritical considering they are supporting a repressive Iranian regime.
Then Netanyahu concluded that Obama affirmed the USA-Israel relationship behind closed doors and in public. Clearly Turkey has not accomplished much. Erdogan’s rhetoric or political shenanigans has not separated America from Israel, on the contrary.
Will the BP "Deluge" Bring Down Obama?
CNN's Anderson Cooper, in a clip posted on YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXsmLMV1CrM), is severely critical of the unprecedented media censorship of the BP disaster. The current guidelines are that no journalists, civilians, and/or relief efforts can come within 65 feet of the disaster area, ostensibly for security/protection! Meanwhile reports continue to anonymously come out, despite counterclaims, that BP is firing any employee who talks about the spill. There seems to be a complete media blackout during the epic saga of the undisputed, greatest (i.e. excluding global warming), man-made environmental disaster in history.
Ok so the media is being blocked by the most transparent government in America's history. Will that in itself bring down Obama? Probably not. Indeed the media blackout is more likely a woefully transparent attempt to affect the results of the upcoming mid-term elections. Elections that will likely put the Republicans back in power in the house and senate.
Yet does the media blackout really help suppress political criticism of the party in power? Or is it that the alternative, close scrutiny of gross incompetence coupled with pictures of horrifying environmental destruction, trumps blatant first amendment criticism from the GOP?
Either way this event will have catastrophic ramifications for the environment and Obama’s short political career.
Is it Obama’s fault? No. But neither was Katrina Bush's fault. The comparisons stop there.
Katrina was a natural disaster compounded by initial ineptitude while the BP “deluge” was a man made catastrophe exacerbated by sustained incompetence, and a company that was praised by Obama. Furthermore, while Katrina affected a population that has not voted for Bush's party since Roosevelt, the BP disaster actually pits Obama against a major component of his constituency, environmentalist and big oil/cooperation opponents. The media blackout and CNN’s subsequent criticisms make it clear to all whose side Obama is on.
Will the BP deluge bring down Obama? Probably.
Ok so the media is being blocked by the most transparent government in America's history. Will that in itself bring down Obama? Probably not. Indeed the media blackout is more likely a woefully transparent attempt to affect the results of the upcoming mid-term elections. Elections that will likely put the Republicans back in power in the house and senate.
Yet does the media blackout really help suppress political criticism of the party in power? Or is it that the alternative, close scrutiny of gross incompetence coupled with pictures of horrifying environmental destruction, trumps blatant first amendment criticism from the GOP?
Either way this event will have catastrophic ramifications for the environment and Obama’s short political career.
Is it Obama’s fault? No. But neither was Katrina Bush's fault. The comparisons stop there.
Katrina was a natural disaster compounded by initial ineptitude while the BP “deluge” was a man made catastrophe exacerbated by sustained incompetence, and a company that was praised by Obama. Furthermore, while Katrina affected a population that has not voted for Bush's party since Roosevelt, the BP disaster actually pits Obama against a major component of his constituency, environmentalist and big oil/cooperation opponents. The media blackout and CNN’s subsequent criticisms make it clear to all whose side Obama is on.
Will the BP deluge bring down Obama? Probably.
The Unifying Factor: Relativist/Subjective Thinking Reflects Objective/Truth
What is a ball?
Some may answer “it’s like x”.
Professor Wolfgan Grassel argues (http://insidecatholic.com/Joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=8393&Itemid=48) that this is wrong answer. Because the correct answer requires a definition that places the ball into a more general category, i.e a spherical entity/object, “instead [of] an instance of balls, or of the usage of balls. Providing merely an aspect of what [it]is (by substituting a part for the whole)”.
Why do so many young students respond in this way to a simple question “what is a ball"? Grassel asserts that this is yet another manifestation of subjective/relativist thinking that has overtaken our culture of thought. Thus the student, automatically applies a completely subjective definition to a word, a “ball is LIKE x”. This, Grassel continues, is rooted in the enlightenment.
His line of argument continues. However the legitimacy of his underlying assertion that relativist thinking reflects the negative results of the enlightenment movement, is questionable. Also, in an ironic twist, relativist thinking -which has its roots in individuality/subjectivity- is in itself a reflection of a much deeper unity.
RELATIVIST THINKING DEFINED
Relativist thinking is defined in many different ways, but the underlying theme is that ones interpretation and subsequent actions reflect ones individual experiences.
It is important to recognize the prevalence of this type of thinking, also known as “x relativism”, because it is applied in almost every social milieu.
For example (it’s like) “moral relativism”, `imports the belief that what is deemed moral for one individual or society is deemed immoral by another. Take Native South-American tribes where women do not cover their breasts. In many Western countries that is unacceptable conduct. Try to define the word “black”. Many will associate it with the unknown, fear, death, crime, and the devil. Others will define it as the absence of light or as the color of their shirt. In politics, crime/terror is explained by some as the result of society imposing itself in a negative way on individuals or communities and by others as the lack of personal restraint or even inherent tendencies. In the media, the disparities in reporting and subtle word usage (terrorist, militant, rebel) between FOX and CNN. In science, Einstein’s theory of relativity argues that our perception depends on our vantage point, “standpoint theory”.
Indeed, if we assert that every person's thoughts, words, and actions are influenced by their unique experiences (upbringing, community, school, travel etc.) then everything is subjective and there is no one objective truth. In fact “Relativist thinking” is what explains and even justifies the above disparities in human thought.
From this perspective, the one Grassel presents, relativist thinking justifies eternal disunity, a perpetual lack of consensus in every level of our existence.
RELATIVIST THINKING REFLECTS DEEPER UNITY
On the other hand.
Paradoxically, “relativist thinking” is a superficial expression of the unifying factor!
For example, what is a hand? The evolutionary-scientist may respond it is a four fingered appendage evolved, advantageously, into four fingers and a thumb. Rafael Nadel could assert that it is what allows us to play tennis, and Brock Lessner affirms that it is something we use to pummel your opponent. These responses would aggravate Grassel, because they are subjective definitions engendered by relativist thinking.
At the same time Grassel would certainly acknowledge that these are all true answers just as all the subjective individuals in our discussion would agree that all the definitions are true. The hand IS a result of design, a weapon, or a human “holder”.
But how is that possible? How is it that all are true but so different, isn’t truth definitive/singular?
Many will shout “this is exactly the point”, there relativist/subjective thought doesn’t allow "one truth”.
Or
The underlying singular truth is so definitive, so immutable, so prevalent that it has far reaching multiplicity of affects all of which true are only because their source is true!
True the hand is the result of design, a weapon, or a holder, but only because the hand is part of the body. Without this underlying truth the hand would just be a piece of useless decomposing flesh and all those definitions would be patently false.
Indeed the only issue is recognizing that the reason why there are many truths is because there is a deeper unifying truth.
Thus if it is true that relativist thought is not a result of one deeper truth then there is indeed no one truth. Without the body the hand could be none of the subjective things we claim it is. Alternatively if there is an underlying truth/unifying factor, then each person’s truth (which stems from their individual experiences) is true but only so long as they are connected to the one underlying truth.
It would seem then, that the very existence of relativist thought which fosters multiple truths is enabled by a deeper singular truth. Thus the enlightenment movement, far from fostering further division, enabled a major step in recognizing our innate uniqueness (subjectivity/differences), and the unifying role of those differences.
Just as the hand is unique only so far as it is part of and serves the body, so to our unique qualities shine only when we are part of the unifying factor -when we serve each other.
Some may answer “it’s like x”.
Professor Wolfgan Grassel argues (http://insidecatholic.com/Joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=8393&Itemid=48) that this is wrong answer. Because the correct answer requires a definition that places the ball into a more general category, i.e a spherical entity/object, “instead [of] an instance of balls, or of the usage of balls. Providing merely an aspect of what [it]is (by substituting a part for the whole)”.
Why do so many young students respond in this way to a simple question “what is a ball"? Grassel asserts that this is yet another manifestation of subjective/relativist thinking that has overtaken our culture of thought. Thus the student, automatically applies a completely subjective definition to a word, a “ball is LIKE x”. This, Grassel continues, is rooted in the enlightenment.
His line of argument continues. However the legitimacy of his underlying assertion that relativist thinking reflects the negative results of the enlightenment movement, is questionable. Also, in an ironic twist, relativist thinking -which has its roots in individuality/subjectivity- is in itself a reflection of a much deeper unity.
RELATIVIST THINKING DEFINED
Relativist thinking is defined in many different ways, but the underlying theme is that ones interpretation and subsequent actions reflect ones individual experiences.
It is important to recognize the prevalence of this type of thinking, also known as “x relativism”, because it is applied in almost every social milieu.
For example (it’s like) “moral relativism”, `imports the belief that what is deemed moral for one individual or society is deemed immoral by another. Take Native South-American tribes where women do not cover their breasts. In many Western countries that is unacceptable conduct. Try to define the word “black”. Many will associate it with the unknown, fear, death, crime, and the devil. Others will define it as the absence of light or as the color of their shirt. In politics, crime/terror is explained by some as the result of society imposing itself in a negative way on individuals or communities and by others as the lack of personal restraint or even inherent tendencies. In the media, the disparities in reporting and subtle word usage (terrorist, militant, rebel) between FOX and CNN. In science, Einstein’s theory of relativity argues that our perception depends on our vantage point, “standpoint theory”.
Indeed, if we assert that every person's thoughts, words, and actions are influenced by their unique experiences (upbringing, community, school, travel etc.) then everything is subjective and there is no one objective truth. In fact “Relativist thinking” is what explains and even justifies the above disparities in human thought.
From this perspective, the one Grassel presents, relativist thinking justifies eternal disunity, a perpetual lack of consensus in every level of our existence.
RELATIVIST THINKING REFLECTS DEEPER UNITY
On the other hand.
Paradoxically, “relativist thinking” is a superficial expression of the unifying factor!
For example, what is a hand? The evolutionary-scientist may respond it is a four fingered appendage evolved, advantageously, into four fingers and a thumb. Rafael Nadel could assert that it is what allows us to play tennis, and Brock Lessner affirms that it is something we use to pummel your opponent. These responses would aggravate Grassel, because they are subjective definitions engendered by relativist thinking.
At the same time Grassel would certainly acknowledge that these are all true answers just as all the subjective individuals in our discussion would agree that all the definitions are true. The hand IS a result of design, a weapon, or a human “holder”.
But how is that possible? How is it that all are true but so different, isn’t truth definitive/singular?
Many will shout “this is exactly the point”, there relativist/subjective thought doesn’t allow "one truth”.
Or
The underlying singular truth is so definitive, so immutable, so prevalent that it has far reaching multiplicity of affects all of which true are only because their source is true!
True the hand is the result of design, a weapon, or a holder, but only because the hand is part of the body. Without this underlying truth the hand would just be a piece of useless decomposing flesh and all those definitions would be patently false.
Indeed the only issue is recognizing that the reason why there are many truths is because there is a deeper unifying truth.
Thus if it is true that relativist thought is not a result of one deeper truth then there is indeed no one truth. Without the body the hand could be none of the subjective things we claim it is. Alternatively if there is an underlying truth/unifying factor, then each person’s truth (which stems from their individual experiences) is true but only so long as they are connected to the one underlying truth.
It would seem then, that the very existence of relativist thought which fosters multiple truths is enabled by a deeper singular truth. Thus the enlightenment movement, far from fostering further division, enabled a major step in recognizing our innate uniqueness (subjectivity/differences), and the unifying role of those differences.
Just as the hand is unique only so far as it is part of and serves the body, so to our unique qualities shine only when we are part of the unifying factor -when we serve each other.
Thursday, July 1, 2010
This Fourth of July I Ask: Is Budweiser still America's Beer?
In 2008 Anhauser-Bush which controls 51 percent of the American Beer market was sold to the Belguim-Brazilian InBev company. Budweiser, the quintessential American beer, was included in that sale. Since then, fans sitting in front of their hi-def flat screen TVs and in almost every sports stadium, brood and brawl over the question of whether Budweiser is still an American beer. InBev, from the very onset of its takeover bid has been in tune with that sentiment and immediately launched an ad campaign which included Budweiser alongside grilling, football, and of course the American flag, reminding America that Budweiser was still America's bud.
Is it?
Honestly I never liked Budweiser, so at the time the whole issue for me was ephemeral and it was also easy for me to conclude that Budweiser was in fact no longer “American”.
Yesterday, however, as I sat with my bud on his couch sipping some Brooklyn Lager and Hoegaarden, a commercial interrupted John Stewart. There was a collection of men with wigs and stockings, and women with long thick dresses and curled hair on top of curled hair. You know the way they dressed for the 1787 constitutional convention. At first the mood was somber and dry. Then they cracked open some Bud, low and behold, Madison (I think), Franklin (I know), and a host of other delegates were dancing.
I had watched little TV over the last 10 months and so I had not been exposed to such blatant capitalism in some time. My first instinctive reaction was, oh come on! This feeling was compounded when I was reminded, by my friends “tisk tisk”, that this was doubly offensive, as it was a foreign company blatantly “manipulating” nativist sentiment.
As I got lost in this thought my initial emotional conclusion gave way to lucid thinking: the question; what made Budweiser (or anything for that matter) American, its present condition/parent-company or its history?
After all it was “invented” by Busch and Conrad, two Americans visiting the breweries of Pilsen/Plzen (Pilsner) and Budweis, Bohemia, and continues to occupy a major component of the American beer market. Moreover, the fact that it was bought-out by a foreign company is a reflection of American capitalism.
The commercial with the dancing wigs essentially and effectively asserted that tradition and history are the “truer” metric of what is American and not current ownership/profit which also reflects America -capitalism.
Would I like Anheuser-Busch and Budweiser to continue to be owned by American companies? Of course. At the same time one American tradition, Budweiser, should not trump another American tradition, capitalism. If it did that logic would undermine the same American-exceptionalism that produced the car, plane, nuclear energy, the repeater rifle, and co-existence, and then spread them with even more America ingenuity, in this case capitalism.
Instead let's hope someone in this great country has the wherewithal to buy back the company that makes our beer. This July 4th G-d should continue to bless America the home of freedom, innovation, and Budweiser!
Is it?
Honestly I never liked Budweiser, so at the time the whole issue for me was ephemeral and it was also easy for me to conclude that Budweiser was in fact no longer “American”.
Yesterday, however, as I sat with my bud on his couch sipping some Brooklyn Lager and Hoegaarden, a commercial interrupted John Stewart. There was a collection of men with wigs and stockings, and women with long thick dresses and curled hair on top of curled hair. You know the way they dressed for the 1787 constitutional convention. At first the mood was somber and dry. Then they cracked open some Bud, low and behold, Madison (I think), Franklin (I know), and a host of other delegates were dancing.
I had watched little TV over the last 10 months and so I had not been exposed to such blatant capitalism in some time. My first instinctive reaction was, oh come on! This feeling was compounded when I was reminded, by my friends “tisk tisk”, that this was doubly offensive, as it was a foreign company blatantly “manipulating” nativist sentiment.
As I got lost in this thought my initial emotional conclusion gave way to lucid thinking: the question; what made Budweiser (or anything for that matter) American, its present condition/parent-company or its history?
After all it was “invented” by Busch and Conrad, two Americans visiting the breweries of Pilsen/Plzen (Pilsner) and Budweis, Bohemia, and continues to occupy a major component of the American beer market. Moreover, the fact that it was bought-out by a foreign company is a reflection of American capitalism.
The commercial with the dancing wigs essentially and effectively asserted that tradition and history are the “truer” metric of what is American and not current ownership/profit which also reflects America -capitalism.
Would I like Anheuser-Busch and Budweiser to continue to be owned by American companies? Of course. At the same time one American tradition, Budweiser, should not trump another American tradition, capitalism. If it did that logic would undermine the same American-exceptionalism that produced the car, plane, nuclear energy, the repeater rifle, and co-existence, and then spread them with even more America ingenuity, in this case capitalism.
Instead let's hope someone in this great country has the wherewithal to buy back the company that makes our beer. This July 4th G-d should continue to bless America the home of freedom, innovation, and Budweiser!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
