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.
Thursday, July 8, 2010
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)
