I AM A JEW (Part V - Gaza Is A Huge Prison)

As the title shows this is the fifth part of the series. If you haven’t read the other parts I urge you to do so. They are, after all a continuum. Easy access to the others can be obtained by clicking on the titles: "I AM A JEW (Part I)," "I AM A JEW (Part II)," "I AM A JEW (Part III)," "I AM A JEW (Special Bulletin)" and "I AM A JEW (Part IV - The Torah & The Talmud)."

And so I refer back to Part I of the series where I wrote in its seventh paragraph:

Every time I see some prominent person, who I never knew was Jewish, described as Jewish I swell with pride. Sometimes I exclaim, “Is everybody Jewish?” Most recently I felt that way when Lauren Bacall died. I never knew she too was Jewish.

I come back to that paragraph because Joan Rivers died recently, and I found out as a result that she too was Jewish as was set forth in the New York Times obituary.

But what also strikes me as I find out that these prominent people were Jewish is that they never seem to have Jewish names. That is because they hardly ever used their real names, which did sound Jewish. According to ABC News:

Joan Rivers Was Not Her Given Name: The comedian was born Joan Molinsky, but at the behest of her agent, Tony Rivers, she adopted a stage name. On a whim, she chose "Joan Rivers," just because it felt right. (and of course it didn’t sound Jewish)

Ditto for Lauren Bacall who I mentioned in Part I of this series. She too changed her name to avoid it being obvious that they were born Jewish. As biography.com advises us:

Lauren Bacall was born Betty Joan Perske on September 16, 1924 to a working-class family in New York City. Her father, William, was an alcoholic who left the family when Bacall was six; Bacall and her mother later changed their last name to her grandmother's maiden name, Bacal, and added the second "l."

There were so many others who changed their names to hide their Jewishness. See here. Danny Kaye (born David Daniel Kaminsky, Kirk Douglas (born Issur Danielovitch, Hedy Lamarr was born Hedwig Eva Maria Kiesler and Mike Wallace’s family's surname was originally Wallik. The famed conductor of the San Francisco Symphony Orchestra, Michael Tilson Thomas, while born as Thomas, is the grandson of noted Yiddish theater stars Boris and Bessie Thomashefsky, who performed in the Yiddish Theater District in Manhattan.

I could go on and on, but the importance of this is that they changed their names because of the prevalence of anti-Semitism in the U.S.A.

Jews know a lot about the treatment of peoples because of their ethnicity. 

That is one reason why I am so appalled about the treatment of Palestinians by the Jewish state, Israel, and even more appalled at its attempt to avoid criticism by calling all criticism of its apartheid policies by non-Jews as anti-Semitism and by Jews as self hatred. I use the term ‘apartheid policies” knowing full well that Jimmy Carter was subjected to great abuse for using that term in relation to Israel’s policies. But the term, I have concluded is appropriate. 

Let me assure my readers that I, the author of these articles on Israel, am neither an anti-Semite nor a self-hating Jew. 

But the policies of Israel, which have very cleverly been covered up, are appalling.

I have written about some of the abuses, but I never realized just how bad they were until I started the research for this series.

Let me say at the outset that I am not naïve about Hamas. Their charter makes for very disturbing reading. See here. My biggest objection to Hamas is not that they have the avowed desire never to recognize Israel, because in my view that is nothing more than a bargaining position. They, I believe, will recognize Israel when Israel recognizes a Palestinian state within a viable and contiguous landmass. It is their fundamentalist views that give me pause. I have difficulty with the fundamentalist views of that segment of American Christianity, (which I might add are the strongest supporters of Israel) which holds fundamentalist views, and those of the fundamentalist Muslims scare me even more. 

Here is what the charter of Hamas says about the P.L.O.:

…the PLO has adopted the idea of a Secular State, and so we think of it. Secular thought is diametrically opposed to religious thought. Thought is the basis for positions, for modes of conduct and for resolutions. Therefore, in spite of our appreciation for the PLO and its possible transformation in the future, and despite the fact that we do not denigrate its role in the Arab-Israeli conflict, we cannot substitute it for the Islamic nature of Palestine by adopting secular thought.

But to me that is the more reason to strengthen the P.L.O., and what better way to strengthen it then to successfully bring a free Palestine into being under the auspices of the P.L.O.

But I am digressing from the main topic of this commentary, which is that:

                                      Gaza Is A Huge Prison.

This was brought home to me by an article in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz that appeared under the headline: Gazans demand right of passage to West Bank See here*: 

I cannot improve upon the language of the article and accordingly quote a portion:

Of the 1.8 million Palestinians living in the Gaza Strip, only a few thousand are permitted to apply for an Israeli exit permit allowing them to leave Gaza through the Erez checkpoint. If their declared destination is the West Bank, they are also required to get a sort of Israeli “tourist visa” for the West Bank. The situation is similar to that of a resident of Yeruham or Arad being permitted to visit Tel Aviv and Jerusalem only if he’s obtained a special internal visa. The permit has been dubbed the “checkpoints visa” – and is shown to soldiers so they do not order the Gazan ID-holder’s deportation to Gaza….

And quoting from the Defense Ministry’s Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories:

As of November 2007, any resident of Gaza who is in the West Bank must hold a ‘permit to stay in Judea and Samaria,’ and the permit is intended for that purpose only.

And continuing to quote from the Haaretz article:

The visa for Gazans visiting the West Bank is yet another logical step in the bureaucratic evolution of restrictions on movement that Israel has imposed on the Palestinians of the Gaza Strip.

Here are a few of the major chapters in this campaign: Since 2005 (“disengagement”), there has been a sharp decline in the number of Palestinians, as well as in the categories of Palestinians, whom Israel permits to leave Gaza via the Erez checkpoint for the West Bank.

Since the early 2000s, Gazans in the West Bank whose date of return in their permit to cross Israel has expired have been declared “illegal visitors” in the West Bank. Since 1997, residents of the Gaza Strip have been forbidden to enter the West Bank via the Allenby Bridge crossing. Since the early 1990s, Palestinians have only been permitted to leave the Gaza Strip (or the West Bank) with an Israeli permit (a restriction that did not exist in the 1970s and 1980s).

Let me say that I was shocked when I read this, and I hope that readers of this post will, I trust, be equally shocked.

I was, of course aware that Israel had a blockade of Gaza that prevented all supplies to be imported into Gaza including construction materials, foodstuffs, etc. It was the cause of the rift between Turkey and Israel. Before then Turkey had widely been described as being Israel’s closest friend in the Muslim world. NPR put it this way:

Just four years ago, Turkey was considered one of Israel's closest allies in the region. The two countries staged regular joint military training exercises and had an open line of communication among the various divisions of their armed forces.

But after Turkey tried to bring needed foodstuff into Gaza and I quote again from the NPR article:

The Turkish-registered ship Marmara was the target of the Israeli commando raid that left nine people dead and dozens more wounded. Eight of those killed were Turkish nationals; a ninth had dual U.S.-Turkish citizenship. Fury over their deaths has led to the biggest crisis in Israeli-Turkey relations in years. (Ibid) 

But the blockade doesn’t just stop imports, making Gaza entirely dependent on Israel for its needs, it blocks even Gazan fisherman, from going far enough out from their shores to allow for fishing in the most productive areas. After the recent end of hostilities between Israel and Gaza, Gaza won some concessions from Israel on this point, or as Newsweek put it:

Some of the biggest cheer was among Gaza's fishermen, who were able to sail six miles offshore to cast their nets rather than the usual three, even as Israeli patrol boats kept watch, allowing them to return with full catches.

I understand perfectly well that Israel defends all these measures as necessary for its security, but security cannot justify collective punishment, including children, nor the mass deprivation of the most basic human rights to people of another ethnicity and religion.

I have a lot more to write on this subject and I ask the reader to be patient. The subject is worth my time and, I believe, the reader’s as well.

*For those who may try to access the Haaretz articles and find themselves blocked because they are not subscribers, I suggest putting the headline into Google. This usually brings the article up in full without regard to any subscription. But if it doesn’t work, I will supply a copy of the article upon request.

I welcome comments, but will not publish any until this series is complete.

We Interrupt this Debate for Some Timely Comments.

As the impending fiscal cliff moves ever closer, some timely observations appear to be in order and they will follow soon.

For now, however, I find it imperative to urge the reader to spend their time reading an article that appeared in Newsweek before the election. I find it always more interesting to read a predictive article after the fact than before, because with hindsight we can see, ever so clearly, whether the article had a clear vision.

The article is entitled: “President Obama: The Democrats' Ronald Reagan” (Click on title or here)  It also had the alternate title “Welcome Back to the White House Mr. President”, and it was published as early as September 24, 2012. 

I consider it must reading!! Read it on the screen or print it out, but read it!!

Allow me to quote from a portion of the article at its end.

I could be dreaming, I know. No doubt, my hope will be mocked as another dewy-eyed, liberal big-media fantasy. But I wore a Reagan ’80 button in high school for the same reason I wore an Obama T-shirt in ’08—not because their politics were the same, but because they were both right about the different challenges each faced, and both dreamed bigger than their rivals in times of real crisis. 

The hope many Obama supporters felt four years ago was not a phony hope. We didn’t expect miracles, but a long, brutal grind against the forces and interests that brought the U.S. to its 2009 economic and moral nadir. I’ve watched this president face those forces and interests with cunning and pragmatism, but also platinum-strength persistence. Obama never promised a mistake-free presidency, or a left-liberal presidency, or an easy path ahead. He always insisted that he could not do for Americans what Americans needed to do for themselves. In his dark and sober Inaugural Address he warned that “the challenges we face are real, they are serious, and they are many. They will not be met easily or in a short span of time.” 

But in a first term, he ended the Iraq War on schedule, headed off a second Great Depression, presided over much more robust private-sector job growth in his recovery than George W. Bush did in his, saved the American automobile industry, ended torture, and saw his own party embrace full marriage equality and integrate gays into the military. If those liberals who voted for him in 2008 think this is somehow a failure or a betrayal, in the context of the massive crisis he inherited, then they could not have been serious about real change in the first place. But some of us were—and still are. We understood that real change meets real resistance. In fact, you only know it’s real when the resistance is so strong. And the proper response to that resistance is not to fire the president who made this Reagan-like first-term progress in a far worse economic and fiscal climate, but to redouble on the Obama promise, to insist that America’s profound problems can only be addressed by a compromising president making bipartisan deals. And which ticket is likelier to compromise with the other party: Obama–Biden or Romney–Ryan? The question answers itself. 

Just as Reagan became an icon only in his second term, Obama needs four more years to entrench and build upon the large, unfinished strides in his first term. That’s why, if you backed Obama in 2008, as a liberal wanting change, as an independent wanting pragmatic solution-seeking, or as a conservative hoping to drag the GOP back from Palin-style insanity, it makes no sense to bail on him now. Because this is when the payoff of the long game really kicks in, when stronger economic growth will put a wind at the president’s back, when a bipartisan deal on debt could lift business confidence and accelerate recovery, when universal health-care reform becomes irreversible and health-care spending is slowed, when the last soldier leaves Afghanistan, when millions of illegal immigrants can come out of the shadows and help build the next economy, and when the spiraling emotions of religious warfare can be calmed, managed, and handled, rather than intensified, polarized, and spread more widely.

This was always Obama’s promise. He has not betrayed it. And we—yes, we—-deserve a chance to fulfill it.

For the whole article, which I urge you read in full even though it is long double click here.

The Culture Wars Resume

Just when everybody thought this election would be about the economy it has become a resumption of the Culture Wars.

Democrats have seized upon the issue of birth control as an “Attack on Women” and it may be of greater concern to women than to men, but men too are effected by any attempt to restrict birth control. Whether in the married state or absent matrimony, men are very much concerned about impregnating a woman, whether she is a wife, or a girl friend. In the married state additional unwanted children place just as much of an economic burden on the husband as on the wife and if single, what man wants to be responsible for an offspring which was neither intended nor desired.

To be sure a female is more immediately effected, since it is her body that carries the fetus, but to pretend that only women are effected is to blind oneself to reality.

But what has suddenly brought this to the fore. The media has made it appear that the ruling by the Obama Administration requiring all insurance policies to cover birth control is strictly about insurance coverage, and Republicans want it to appear as though it were a battle over freedom of religion. But it is neither! 


The issue was brought to the fore when Komen decided to defund Planned Parenthood. But that simply brought it above the radar. As I pointed out in my post "Contraception, Abortion and Komen," it was as early as last year that the “House GOP voted to zero out the entire $317,000,000 Title X family planning budget and in New Jersey, Planned Parenthood was completely defunded to the tune of  $7.4 million. More recently on March 5, 2012, Newsweek reported that Texas was defunding Planned Parenthood. (The New York Times reported the same thing two days later.)

In none of these cases was there even a pretense that religion was an issue. And besides since when can religion override public policy. Would Rick Santorum or even Mitt Romney take issue with the Supreme Court when it ruled as long ago as 1878 in Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. (8 Otto.) 145 that members of the Mormon religion could not claim exemption on religious grounds from the prohibition against polygamy, holding that “the Free Exercise Clause … protect(s) religious beliefs, not religious practices that run counter to neutrally enforced … laws.”

Would anyone argue that a physician, who is a Christian Scientist, can withhold medical care because it is against his religion, and for obvious reasons the argument that a pharmacist can refuse to dispense birth control pills on religious grounds has also been soundly rejected.

But the fundamentalists in the Republican Party (and I prefer to call them Fundamentalists rather then Evangelicals, because there are many Evangelicals who do not have Fundamentalist beliefs—Jimmy Carter it should be remembered is a born again Christian) want to impose their believes on the rest of us, and work toward a Christian theocracy.

They are now so dominant in the Republican Party that the Party in the Senate voted almost unanimously (Olympia Snow dissented) for the Blunt amendment, which according to the Washington Post “would have allowed not only religious groups but any employer with moral objections to opt out of the coverage requirement. And it would have allowed such employers to do so in the case of not only contraception but any health service required by the 2010 health-care law.”

Romney when asked about his position and worried about his general election chances first offered:

“I'm not for the bill, but look, the idea of presidential candidates getting into questions about contraception within a relationship between a man and a woman, a husband and a wife, I'm not going there.”

But when attacked by Santorum quickly fell in line with a spokesperson explaining:

“Regarding the Blunt bill, the way the question was asked was confusing. Governor Romney supports the Blunt Bill because he believes in a conscience exemption in health care for religious institutions and people of faith...”

And when Rush Limbaugh attacked a Georgetown University student who supported a requirement for health insurance to cover birth control, calling her a “slut” who “wants to be paid to have sex… (and that) she was “having so much sex, it’s amazing she can still walk”; and (that) she was “having sex so frequently that she can’t afford all the birth-control pills that she needs.” Romney was so outraged that he said: 

“It's not the language I would have used." 

The Republican House speaker through a spokesperson expressed his outrage with 

“The use of those words was inappropriate.” 

George Will, the outspoken Republican intellectual, commented:

“Boehner comes out and says Rush’s language was inappropriate. Using the salad fork for your entrée, that’s inappropriate. Not this stuff…and it was depressing because what it indicates is that the Republican leaders are afraid of Rush Limbaugh. They want to bomb Iran, but they’re afraid of Rush Limbaugh.”

But just possibly the Republican dilemma can be summarized by a letter that appeared in my local Newspaper, the Fort Lee Suburbanite:

An issue has been created where none existed. This takes the spotlight off of the economy, price of gas and unemployment. Birth control has never been illegal or unavailable. That is why this is a "non-issue." The powers that be are trying to blur the lines between abortion (infanticide) and birth control.

Because this is a contentious topic, women are being fed like sheep by the "wise" wolves. They do this under the guise of "women's rights." Birth control is a private matter. If your religion forbids it… it is between you, your conscience and God ... not you and the President of the United States or Congress. We follow our consciences everyday to do good and evil.

Why is that "cafeteria Catholics" do not make an issue of the other teachings of the Church? Yet birth control sends them into frenzy. We break the Commandments everyday. When the clerk at the supermarket charges you for red cabbage (at 29¢ a pound) instead of radicchio (at $4.99 a pound) do you tell her she made a mistake? No? That is stealing. Are you honest when filing your taxes? No? Mute point! We are all sinners. Look deeply and you will find this to be true, whether you gossip and ruin someone's reputation or tell a lie - look at those who govern. Too bad the Pinocchio factor doesn't work or small noses would be quite scarce in Washington D.C.

Let us all stop this chest thumping and get on with the issues that are important to the future of the United States.

To which I responded with the following Letter to the Editor:

Facts can be inconvenient! 

                     
Once again, as so many times in the past, I find myself writing in response to a Letter to the Editor, that treats facts as just an inconvenience. Get Back to Important Issues, which appeared in your March 2 edition, does that in spades. 

                     
The writer asserts, “Birth control has never been illegal or unavailable.” If that were true the Supreme Court would not have had to strike down a Connecticut law, in Griswold v. Connecticut, that did exactly that. As to availability, that has been, and continues to be a problem for disadvantaged women to this day. That is why Planned Parenthood is so important. Planned Parenthood spends a $1 billion a year providing services to poor and middle class women throughout the US, many of whom are married, but cannot afford the expense of additional children, or have other gynecological needs. 

                  
But what we are witnessing is a concerted war on contraception through defunding. Last year, the House GOP voted to zero out the entire $317,000,000 Title X family planning budget. Fortunately the Democratic Senate refused to go along. New Jersey under the leadership of our Governor, Chris Christie, defunded Planned Parenthood completely to the tune of  $7.4 million. Our President, conscious of the crucial need to provide gynecological services to all women, has made such services available by providing that they be covered in all health insurance policies. 

                     
It is definitely not a non-issue. 

                        

But the letter writer goes further and describes abortion as infanticide. If it were infanticide it would be murder and it would make one third of all women in the US, who have had at least one abortion in their lives, into murderers. That was never the law even before the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade, which empowered women to have control over their own bodies. 

                        

What is at stake is the right of people in general, and women in particular, to be free of the dictates of their government, and not to have the religious views of others imposed upon them. This is the essence of liberty, and the separation of church and state. It is the essence of our Bill of Rights. 

                        

It is definitely not a non-issue.

Comments are welcome and will be distributed with attribution, unless the writer requests that he/she not be identified.

Continuing Discussion About Barack Obama’s Effectiveness.

In my last post entitled: "Bulletin with Humor" I wrote: “I intend hereafter to discuss where we should cut expenditures, where additional revenue should be sought, and will also distinguish between what I believe is desirable but politically impossible and what might actually be achieved, if not now, at some future time. I will also try to address the economic theories that lie at heart of political philosophy and evaluate their merits and to what extent our political leaders have been adhering to such economic theory as their foundation."

I have now decided to put this off to my next post and to revert to the ongoing debate which we have been having about the merits of the President’s policies and the constant charge that he is ineffective and a poor leader, which comes from both sides if the political spectrum.

In my long debate with Leonard Levenson Esq. of Manhattan, NY, which can be found in my blog posting "The Trojan Horse – Comments II (continued)," I had the very unusual result of having my protagonist actually admit that I am right.

This was so satisfying that I cannot resist quoting it again:

You may have a point when you suggest that my anger at Obama is really disappointment at the lack of progress that I hoped for. Perhaps no Democrat could have made any substantial progress against the know nothing Republicans. I think I would have preferred a battle royale (even a losing one) than accepting a weakened Health care Bill, an inadequate deficit reduction bill and the many other compromises, which Obama probably was forced to make.

I only wish that more people had such an open mind.

At this point I want to conclude this debate by sharing with my readers an exchange, which I had with Robert Malchmna Esq. of Brooklyn, NY. He called to my attention a New York Times Magazine article entitled "What Would Hillary Clinton Have Done?" I assumed that the article was sent to me with approval and wrote back:

Thanks! Yes I do find it interesting. It parallels to a large extent what I have been saying, and say even more emphatically in my next post.

But then Malchman called to my attention a comment that he had posted on the Times web site that clearly indicated that he agreed neither with me nor with the Times article; He wrote:

I think in broad policy areas, the writer is correct that there was little to distinguish Obama and Clinton during the primaries. The reason I voted for Clinton (and I agonized over it) is that I was afraid that Obama's first years in office would be like Bill Clinton's and Jimmy Carter's -- that is, a struggle to understand how to move the levers of power and to get a legislative agenda through Congress. Clinton, both from her time as First Lady and by then eight years as Senator, knew how to work those levers.

I believe my fears have proved correct. Obama certainly has some substantial accomplishments, but where's the strong public option for health care? Where's the closing of the budget gap by taxing families making over $250,000? Indeed, where's the surtax on incomes over $1 million? Obama failed to strike while the iron was hot, with a House majority and 60 votes in the Senate before Ted Kennedy's death. That health care didn't pass until late in his second year is a disgrace. That the Bush tax cuts were left to the lame-duck session and extended for the wealthy is a disgrace. That the debt-ceiling issue wasn't resolved at the same time as the Bush tax cuts is a disgrace. Obama seems woefully naive about Republicans and their single-minded goal to defeat him, regardless of the damage they do to this country. I don't think Clinton is so naive; she appreciates the machinations and goals of the vast, right-wing conspiracy. No one can know for sure, of course, but I think the country would have been better with President Hillary Clinton.

I frankly was taken aback and disappointed and responded with:

-------------------------

Dear Robert,

I was rather surprised and disappointed by your Comment 21 as posted to the Times site.

I keep preaching facts first, then opinions based on those facts. You assume that "Clinton, both from her time as First Lady and by then eight years as Senator, knew how to work those levers. But there is no evidence to support this. There are no facts to support this. It is pure speculation. Her accomplishments as Senator are hardly existent.

If we go by her and her husband’s accomplishments, they are meager indeed. As fist lady she spectacularly failed to get any traction in her own party for her health care bill and as I said in my post "The Trojan Horse - Comments":

Clinton did a terrific job in raising taxes early in his term, which together with an agreement with Fed Chairman Greenspan, to lower interest rates, brought on the eight most prosperous years in a very long time and wiped out the deficit. But he was lucky to get it passed. It passed by a tie vote in the Senate with the VP breaking the tie, which by the way shows that bringing prosperity is not a sure fire way to win a mid-term election.

Nevertheless, Clinton after losing the midterms, swung Right, employed that hired gun, Dick Morris, became famous for triangulation, and presided over, among many other things, the repeal of the Glass–Steagall Act, which probably was largely responsible for the bank crisis, presided over the abolition of Welfare, signed into law the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and couldn't stop the enactment of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). (And this wasn't just in the first term, it extended into the second.)

Yet the base never savaged him. Somebody tell me why these Presidents are treated so differently?

Well, maybe because Obama unrealistically promised both to be a post-partisan and a transformational President, which are contradictory and impossible to achieve. But it should have been obvious that these are aspirational goals, not achievable ones.

You say: "Obama failed to strike while the iron was hot, with a House majority and 60 votes in the Senate before Ted Kennedy's death." without getting the facts as to how long this window was. If you count when Franken was sworn in and when Kennedy died we have a window of less than two month from July 8, 2009, when Franken was sworn in and August 26th when Kennedy died. Not too much of a window to get anything done in a Senate where the rules, at best, require slow movement. But even that is deceptive because the 60 votes were never really there because Kennedy was hospitalized on January 21, 2009, long before he died, and after that made only rare appearances on the Senate floor. Furthermore there were Democratic defections, most notably Lieberman, who threatened to himself lead a filibuster against the public option, and some other Dems as well.

Compare Obama's achievement against any other Democratic President (set forth in my blog posts "The Trojan Horse - Comments" and "The Trojan Horse – Comments II") since Roosevelt with the exception of Johnson, and he comes out well ahead in accomplishments, despite the fact that he has faced far more partisan and reckless opposition.

The Bush tax cuts extension was a calculated decision that getting the treaty with Russia, unemployment insurance, and some other stimulative measures was a careful balancing act. The economy was first and we could not leave a major security risk, and the tax cut extension was for only two years, not as you imply for an indefinite period.

On the debt ceiling issue, 20/20 vision is wonderful. Did anybody, and I mean anybody, worry about a debt ceiling that had routinely been passed every time it came up, at that point. Oh, but Obama is tasked with seeing things that nobody else saw. And who says he could have gotten it. If he had raised it and not gotten it, he would have been savaged for having been the one who gave the Tea party the idea. Besides a two year extension would have been almost unprecedented.

It is very easy to list things undone. But what counts is what was done. Compare all the Democratic Presidents since Roosevelt with the exception of Johnson, including Kennedy, for their accomplishments.

FACTS FIRST, THEN OPINIONS!!!!!

Regards,

Emil

-------------------------

I was disappointed not to have received a concession from Malchman similar to what I got from Levenson.

But the Pundits keep up their attacks on Obama. I have came across another two lately, both in Newsweek, which under the aegis of Tina Brown tries to recover its audience by becoming ever more sensationalist. They are “The Untransformational President" by Michael Tomasky, where the author says; “He signed a debt deal in which the Republicans took him to the cleaners” but like all the others neglects to tell us what the deal is or why he considers it to be a bad deal. Facts – Where are the facts? I have demonstrated, heretofore that it was in fact an advantageous deal. and "Oval Office Appeaser" by William Broyle, who compares our President to Chamberlain. (Talk about over the top) Apparently these people, like the Tea Party, consider any compromise to be appeasement, no matter how advantageous it is.

Are these friends? Or as Lenny Levenson referred to them “putative friends?”

Now we have had a hurricane that descended on our East coast. Will Obama be tasked for not having stopped it, or at least be charged, no matter what he does, with having a Brownie moment, so that it can be claimed that Obama is the new Bush. Does anybody really believe that?

I am reminded of an incidence when my daughter was about three years old and a thunder and lightening storm descending upon us. She was frightened and she said to me: “ Daddy, Make it Stop!” I explained that I did not have that power, and she exclaimed, “Well, You could at least try!”

We are not children and the President is not our Daddy!!! He is not God, nor a dictator, nor does he have a magic wand!!!

It is time to stop bellyaching and concentrate our fire on those whose vision for our country is anathema to me, and I hope to most of you. It is time to close ranks unless anyone out there truly thinks that the candidates of the Republican party dominated by the Tea Party, will do anything other than make our short range situation worse, and destroy all the things that we have built, in a truly bi-partisan way, from Theodore Roosevelt (R), to Wilson (D), To FDR (D), to Johnson (D) to Nixon (R) and even Clinton who wiped out our deficit and put us on the path to wiping out our National Debt, now Barack Obama (D) and even Eisenhower (R) who so meticulously built our Highway System, now under attack as just another socialist boondoggle that needs to be privatized.

Bigotry

“Have you no sense of decency... at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?“ Those who read this may or may not remember that these were the words spoken by the Special Counsel for the Army, Joseph N. Welch, in addressing Republican Senator, Joseph McCarthy. It led to his censure by the Senate and ultimately to the end of his career. The same words apply to the whole Republican Party today.

Only three months have passed since I wrote my “Swan Song.” I did not expect to return to the fray so soon, if ever.

But the latest outrage of the Republicans rankles so much, and tells us so much about that party, that I feel I am compelled to speak.

I know that in our society, it is the custom, to pretend that there is good and bad in both parties and that must be true. But increasingly, while I can find some warts in the Democratic Party, I have increasing difficulty in finding any redeeming qualities in that other party. In vain, I look for any voices of reason, any voices taking exception to the torrent of intolerance, hate, and lies that emanates from that flock of people. It just isn’t there.

Their constant modus operandi, and I have to admit it is good politics, is to appeal to fear, intolerance, and xenophobia. If there are any decent people left in that party, why don’t they speak out, why do they jump on the bandwagon and join the chorus.

Ever since 9/11 their surrogates, in the guise of the Heritage foundation, and others, have been trying to whip up hatred of Muslims. But until now the Republican Party has not joined in. In fact G.W. Bush urged that Muslims as a group or as a religion should not be blamed for the events of 9/11. But increasingly we have been hearing and reading, the question, “If Muslims are so opposed to terrorism, why don’t they speak out.”

But in fact, they have been speaking out, only our media doesn’t report it. According to Fareed Zakaria writing in Newsweek:

“In 2007 one of bin Laden's most prominent Saudi mentors, the preacher and scholar Salman al-Odah, wrote an open letter criticizing him for "fostering a culture of suicide bombings that has caused bloodshed and suffering, and brought ruin to entire Muslim communities and families." That same year Abdulaziz al ash-Sheikh, the grand mufti of Saudi Arabia, issued a fatwa prohibiting Saudis from engaging in jihad abroad and accused both bin Laden and Arab regimes of "transforming our youth into walking bombs to accomplish their own political and military aims." One of Al Qaeda's own top theorists, Abdul-Aziz el-Sherif, renounced its extremism, including the killing of civilians and the choosing of targets based on religion and nationality. Sherif—a longtime associate of Zawahiri who crafted what became known as Al Qaeda's guide to jihad—has called on militants to desist from terrorism, and authored a rebuttal of his former cohorts.

"Al-Azhar University in Cairo, the oldest and most prestigious school of Islamic learning, now routinely condemns jihadism. The Darul Uloom Deoband movement in India, home to the original radicalism that influenced Al Qaeda, has inveighed against suicide bombing since 2008. None of these groups or people have become pro-American or liberal, but they have become anti-jihadist.

“This might seem like an esoteric debate. But consider: the most important moderates to denounce militants have been the families of radicals. In the case of both the five young American Muslims from Virginia arrested in Pakistan last year and Christmas bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, parents were the ones to report their worries about their own children to the U.S. government—an act so stunning that it requires far more examination, and praise, than it has gotten."

But with every year that passes the Republicans use fear, xenophobia, and intolerance as weapons in pursuing their political and electoral objectives.

Now along comes an Imam who has spoken out again and again against terrorism and has sought dialogue with Christians and Jews. He has found an old building in lower Manhattan that is suitable for conversion and can be purchased at reasonable cost. And he wants to create a venue modeled after the YMCA, or the Young Men's and Young Women's Hebrew Association also known as the 92nd Street Y, which would be open to people of all faith. He aught to be applauded. But it is an opportunity to exploit the latent prejudice against all Muslims. And so the former Republican Speaker of the House, Newt Gingridge, and a likely candidate for the Republican Presidential nomination, said, it “would be like putting a Nazi sign next to the Holocaust museum." Thus he equates all Muslims with the Nazis. Richard Cohen writing in the Washington Post, points out, “ Nineteen so-called ’jihadists’ crashed four airplanes that day in 2001. This is 19 out of about 1.5 billion Muslims in the world, an infinitesimally tiny percentage indeed. And Gingrich goes on to say, “ there are no churches or synogogues (sic) in Saudi Arabia“ as though that is in any way relevant and rather ironic, since the Imam is extremely critical of Saudi Arabia and its form of Islam, Wahhabism.

But it doesn’t stop there. First they ranted about the proposed Center being two blocks from “Ground Zero“ then it became in the “Shadow of Ground Zero“ and finally Rick Lazio the Republican candidate for Governor of NY referred to it as “Ground Zero is the wrong place for a mosque”. See the transcript of PBS’ Newshour. It seems to have mysteriously moved. And then he goes on to imply that the center is being financed by terrorist groups and calls for an investigation as to where the financing is coming from. Would Mr. Lazio ask for an investigation of where the financing is coming from for a synagogue or a church? It is smear by innuendo. Then Mr. Lazio resorts to the fear factor. “The question here is really whether or not we should feel -- feel safe” Does he truly believe that the center is going to attack us?

And along comes Charles Krauthammer, that voice of the Right and the GOP who compares the Muslim Cultural Center to putting a Japanese Cultural Center at Pearl Harbor." To which Richard Cohen correctly points out, “But all of Japan attacked Pearl Harbor and declared war on the United States. It was not a rogue act, committed by 20 or so crazed samurai, but an attack by a nation.“

But it gets worse! Krauthammer now goes on to smear the Imam. “This is a man who has called U.S. policy "an accessory to the crime" of 9/11. Talk about taking a quote out of context. What Imam Faisal Abdur Rauf was talking about was that “after the Soviets pulled out, the Saudis, our best friends in the Arab world, our staunchest ally during the Gulf War, poured hundreds of millions of dollars into the newly-formed Taleban regime, and then felt that bin Laden and the Taliban were out of control. Bin Laden's faith is a strict, puritanical form of Islam called Washbasin, (sic) which was founded in the 18th century in Saudi Arabia, and is now that country's predominant ideology.“

He is critical of our close alliance with Saudi Arabia, which exports Wahhabism and feels that this is the form of Islam that creates terrorism and the US should not condone it.

I would suggest that many Americans of all faiths would agree with this and it hardly shows either that he is anti-American or that he holds sympathy to terrorists. Just the opposite.

But any distortion – any lie, in the cause of the smear and the feeding of a frenzy of intolerance.

And then along comes Abraham Foxman, of the Anti-Defamation League, and he gives cover to bigots and hate mongers with, "In our judgment, building an Islamic Center in the shadow of the World Trade Center will cause some victims more pain - unnecessarily - and that is not right." First of all no one knows how many “victims“ (presumably they mean the relatives of the victims) object to the Cultural Center (it may be a minority); and secondly, and most important, bigotry is not the right of anyone, whether victim or oppressor.

And what about the Muslim victims of 9/11 and beyond. The Daily Kos observes:

“According to one count over 60 Muslims died as a result of the 9/11 attack. But, evidently, in the RW mind those deaths do not count. Their death does not make Ground Zero hallowed ground, because, if they did, what would be the grounds for the uproar over the Islamic Center? Would anyone give it a second thought if a Jewish or Catholic community center was built where the Islamic center is planned?

“So...I am led to the conviction that this issue has nothing to do with real estate -- who builds what where -- but with the value of a human life and it seems that the right wing, the former party of family values, has decided that the life of an AMERICAN MUSLIMS and, by extension Muslim families, have no value.

“ If that is not sedition, will someone please explain it to me.“

Jannah.org estimates the number of Muslim victims at 500 to a 1000 and gives names not only of those victims but of Muslim victims of hate crimes.
And about.com tells the story of Salman Hamdani and other Muslims of which I quote only one:

“Imagine being the family of Salman Hamdani. The 23-year-old New York City police cadet was a part-time ambulance driver, incoming medical student, and devout Muslim. When he disappeared on September 11, law enforcement officials came to his family, seeking him for questioning in relation to the terrorist attacks. They allegedly believed he was somehow involved. His whereabouts were undetermined for over six months, until his remains were finally identified. He was found near the North Tower, with his EMT medical bag beside him, presumably doing everything he could to help those in need. His family could finally rest, knowing that he died the hero they always knew him to be.“

Why do we dishonor them?

In the words of Mayor Bloomberg:

“Whatever you may think of the proposed mosque and community center, lost in the heat of the debate has been a basic question: Should government attempt to deny private citizens the right to build a house of worship on private property based on their particular religion? That may happen in other countries, but we should never allow it to happen here.

“This nation was founded on the principle that the government must never choose between religions or favor one over another. The World Trade Center site will forever hold a special place in our city, in our hearts. But we would be untrue to the best part of ourselves and who we are as New Yorkers and Americans if we said no to a mosque in lower Manhattan.

“Let us not forget that Muslims were among those murdered on 9/11, and that our Muslim neighbors grieved with us as New Yorkers and as Americans. We would betray our values and play into our enemies' hands if we were to treat Muslims differently than anyone else. In fact, to cave to popular sentiment would be to hand a victory to the terrorists, and we should not stand for that.

"For that reason, I believe that this is an important test of the separation of church and state as we may see in our lifetimes, as important a test. And it is critically important that we get it right.

"On Sept. 11, 2001, thousands of first responders heroically rushed to the scene and saved tens of thousands of lives. More than 400 of those first responders did not make it out alive. In rushing into those burning buildings, not one of them asked, 'What God do you pray to?' (Bloomberg's voice cracks here a little as he gets choked up.) 'What beliefs do you hold?'

Republicans have clearly decided that fanning the public's fears of rampant jihadism and prejudice against Muslims continues to be a winning strategy.

Potpourri

I have entitled this commentary potpourri from the musical term for medley because there are so many things I want to touch upon that I decided that I would, on this occasion, cover many subjects, rather than covering one in depth.

First of all at the risk of once again touching on that third rail of American politics the Middle East, and doing something I have never done before, I want to recommend a play to my readers. The play is Palestine. It is playing at The Fourth Street Theater until April 3rd.

It is a one person play, written and acted by Najla Said, who the New York Times described as a Palestinian-Lebanese-American Christian, and the daughter of Edward Said, the Columbia Professor, who along with Daniel Barenboim, the renowned Israeli pianist and conductor, founded the “the award-winning West-Eastern Divan Orchestra, made up of children from Israel, Palestine, and surrounding Arab nations.

The play in my view is non-political, (some may differ) but it gives an insight into the tragedy of the Middle East in a human dimension. I believe that all, regardless of their view on the complex issues of that area can benefit from these insights.

---------------------

Those of you who have been following my commentary must be aware that while I have been denouncing in angry terms the lies, distortions and calumnies of The Right in general and Republicans in particular, I have also increasingly been critical of the Left for their doctrinaire approach, which allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good. See, e.g. “Doesn't Anybody Really Care?” and I have continued to take exception to some of the positions of organizations that I have long supported. Thus on March 9th I sent an e-mail to the ACLU, which I quote below:

“I am increasingly disappointed in the ACLU. I have been a member for many decades and have always been proud of that fact. I supported the ACLU when it was under attack for defending the right of Nazis to march and during other controversial decisions. Lately, however I have become ashamed and have considered resigning. The Unions decision to support corporation as having almost unlimited 1st amendment rights is repugnant to me. I do not believe that corporations should have any rights under the first amendment and that designating them as "persons,” even though long enshrined in the law, is fundamentally wrong. They are not like associations or partnerships and to pretend otherwise is dishonest.

“But while I agree with you on trying the 9/11 suspects in Civil Courts, I resent the inflammatory ads depicting the President as morphing into George Bush.

“I am reluctant to resign because much of what you do is needed. But I can not for long continue to support an organization that I believe is increasingly departing from my values.”

I also continue to take exception to the writings of Bob Herbert of the New York Times who, e.g. on March 8th wrote a column entitled: “The Source of Obama’s Trouble,” where Herbert continues to berate the President for pushing Health Care Reform when so many people are unemployed, as though reform in that area had no bearing on the needs of the underprivileged and unemployed. If Herbert at least offered some constructive suggestions that were economically and politically viable, he might be forgiven, but he offers nothing of the kind. Only negativity. Now when Herbert tackles specific problems such as in his “Cops vs. Kids” or in "Watching Certain People," where he pinpoints problems and offers solutions, I applaud him, but his carping and negativism does neither him nor his causes credit.

On the other hand Paul Krugman, who I have criticized in the past for unfair criticism, finally gets it right in “Senator Bunning’s Universe” when he writes: “What I want to focus on right now, however, is the incredible gap that has opened up between the parties. Today, Democrats and Republicans live in different universes, both intellectually and morally.”

           Finally when WQXR was sold by the NY Times to NPR and continued to air the Lutheran Hour, I dispatched letters to both the ACLU and WQXR pointing out that since WQXR now receives public financing they have no right to air religious programs, since it violated the separation of church and state doctrine of the Constitution. It took many months before either responded but finally I received an answer from both assuring me that the practice had ceased as of the 1st of the year. They didn’t explain why the Constitution only worked by the calendar year.

---------------------

In the latest issue of Newsweek, John Meecham, one of its editors, and under consideration for a position as a host on a new PBS program, wrote an article entitled: “Democracy Is a Pesky Thing” in which he equated Fox News with the New York Times as examples of a Right leaning and Left leaning news source. I find such inappropriate comparisons deeply offensive. Fox News is a propaganda organ worthy of the communist newspaper Pravda, while the NY Times is one of the most respected newspapers in the world. In fact I find it hard to find a Left leaning publication that lies and distorts the way Fox does. Certainly, MSNBC, which might be considered the counter to Fox, has never indulged in the kind of demagoguery that Fox indulges in, and even such leftist publications as Mother Jones do not indulge in this practice.

To be sure the Times has a liberal editorial policy, periodically has articles that point to liberal solutions, and has more liberal columnists than conservative ones, but that is not the same as the use of lies and inflammatory messages that Fox indulges in. In fact in so far as the Times has been caught in falsehoods it has been in slandering liberals, see e.g. "The Media! (Watergate/Clinton)", "The Media II - Falsehoods about Gore" and "The Media III - Falsehoods about Kerry" and Judith Miller writing for the NY Times has become notorious for giving support to the fabrications that the Bush Whitehouse fed her about Iraq’s WMDs.

David Brooks in the NY Times tries to do something similar to Meecham, equating Left and Right. See: The Wal-Mart Hippies.

The frequent media attempt to show even handedness by equating outright lies with minor misstatements, instead of serving the greater end of truth, wherever it might lead, serves neither the media nor the American public.

---------------------

On the bright side the minions of the Right and the Republican Party in general, who very recently showed their lack of principle or even patriotism, when they turned the fight against terrorists into a political football, see: “Liberals Charged As Condescending!” have finally shown a commitment to principle and the rule of law for the first time in years when they criticized a video released by Lyn Cheney that questioned the loyalty of Justice Department lawyers who worked in the past on behalf of detained terrorism suspects. According to the New York Times, “many conservatives, including members of the Federalist Society, the quarter-century-old policy group devoted to conservative and libertarian legal ideals, have vehemently criticized Ms. Cheney’s video, and say it violates the American legal principle that even unpopular defendants deserve a lawyer.”

Hurray, its been along time coming to see a principled position from that notorious quarter. Let’s hope we see it more often.

---------------------

         And the Washington Post reports that: “House Democrats ban earmarks for private contractors”. This is still another item of good news.

The War in Afghanistan

 As I write this it is before the President has announced his policy. This is deliberate because I did not want my views to be influenced by the President's decision.

What disturbs me is that it is a very complicated decision and yet most people, whether Left or Right hold strong opinions lacking nuance or even real understanding.

Thus Cheney, our former V-P who dithered for eight years about having a real strategy in Afghanistan, or about adequately sourcing it, accuses our President of dithering because, unlike our previous President, Bush, he has a deliberative consultative way of reaching decisions. Instead of going, as the former President did, “by his gut”; he takes two month to reach a considered conclusion. To the former V-P it seems everything is a no-brainer, whether it is torture or escalating the commitment of our overstretched troops, and his Republican allies in the Congress are no different.

The hawks even go so far as to argue that we could have and should have won in Vietnam. See the article in Newsweek of November 16 by Evan Thomas and John Barry but that is so unhinged from reality that it is hardly worth time and effort in refuting, for it assumes that it was important for us to win in Vietnam, which subsequent developments have disproved. Losing did not affect our security (the domino theory was wrong) and today we have friendly relations with that regime. In fact it seems that losing in Vietnam had more positive results than winning in Korea, for N. Korea is a hostile state while Vietnam is an important trading partner. As for “we could have won” assumes infinite patience on the part of the American Public and a level of military firepower that might well have inflamed the region in a conflagration, (we dropped more explosives on little Vietnam than on all the axis countries in WW II) which could have set off the 3rd World War.

On the other hand many in the liberal camp, such as Bob Herbert, writing in the New York Times of November 8, 2009, without evaluating the security aspects of the Afghanistan war, seem to feel, in his words that, “We’re worried about Kabul when Detroit has gone down for the count.” That is a wrong and simplistic, though a populist analysis. When we have problems at home it does not follow that we should ignore the problems away from home, and our security can never be dismissed so easily. Would Herbert take similar attitude toward the people of Porto Prince in Haiti. Would he reject, for example, Obama's inspirational words in his inaugural address, "To the people of poor nations, we pledge to work alongside you to make your farms flourish and let clean waters flow; to nourish starved bodies and feed hungry minds." Would he also say, “We’re worried about Porto Prince when Detroit has gone down for the count.” 

Others are ready to equate Afghanistan with Vietnam and to call for a quick end to our involvement."

As I see it, neither conclusion is obvious and those who see ‘the right course so easily” have not considered all its ramifications.

I have heard that we need not commit more troops to Afghanistan because there is actually no real danger to our security from there and that if Al QAEDA does not find a sanctuary there, they will find it elsewhere, in one of the failed states on the African continent. But if that were so they would have already moved, because they have not had a safe haven in Afghanistan for years, are wandering without real bases, as they roam in the mountains between Pakistan and Afghanistan. So the argument that withdrawing from Afghanistan and letting the Taliban/Al QAEDA return does not appear to be valid. Of course, The Taliban and Al QAEDA are not one and the same, but until the Taliban chooses to break the link it might as well be, and there is no indication that they are prepared to do so.

There is also the danger that the Taliban, which now uses Pakistan as a safe haven to attack in Afghanistan, could if in power in Afghanistan use that area as a base to destabilize Pakistan, and that is a far greater danger, though Pakistan, at least for now, seems not very enthusiastic about our stepped up activities in its neighboring state, arguing instead that the more pressure that is brought to bear on the Taliban, the more they are pushed into Pakistan with destabilizing results. This leaves the issue in the grey area to say the least. We are in a situation where we are damned if do and damned if we don’t.

And yet it seems that if we could succeed in keeping the Taliban from overrunning that poor country at a cost that is not excessive in lives and/or treasure it would appear to be the wise thing to do.

But in Shakespeare’s words, “There’s the rub,” for at the moment the Taliban are in the ascendancy. On the other hand that is the direct result of the neglect and inattention given this vital theater while resources where devoted to the wrong place, in Iraq.

Should we not now at least for a limited period see if we can retrieve some limited success from that neglect?

Thus I discount as nonsense the hawks as represented by Cheney and Thomas, but that does not resolve the issue of withdrawal or for that matter a surge. Certainly, the dishonesty and corruption of the Karzai regime does not bode well.

Nor do I join those who feel that the President should be bound by his generals’ recommendations. Our founding fathers, wisely made the President Commander in Chief, not as Bush/Cheney claimed, to enhance the President’s power over the Congress, but to make sure that such important decisions are not made by generals, who have been wrong time and time again, (Lincoln had to keep changing commanders) they misled us in Vietnam, and have never been known for not wanting anything but more troops.

I conclude that it is too dangerous and too early to give up on Afghanistan, but that we must have, if not time lines, performance tests, so we do not get bogged down in an endless and fruitless war. The benefits of a successful pacification of the area are too great not to allow for one last and limited effort.

This view will not earn me kudos from Right or Left, but there are times when the middle is not a straddle, but the right place to be.