Every once in a while a curtain parts, a mask falls, a slip shows, and you catch a glimpse of inner works.
I remember one such moment, many years ago at the dawn of "Nightline", the then innovative late evening news show on the ABC TV network. Ted Koppel was trying to get his guest to explain some technical point in a certain way but was getting no satisfaction. The guest simply did not understand how he was to answer. Finally, an exasperated Koppel blurted out, "How would you explain this to an 8th grader?" A revealing comment.
Most public discourse works at a very low intellectual level. For example, during my childhood, The New York Times was famously written at the 8th grade reading level, and this self-styled newspaper of record is supposed to be for educated adults. It is a mark of our degenerate age that these days the NY Times is said to be written at the 10th grade reading level. This is consonant with other measures of school effectiveness that document a two grade level decline from approximately 1985 to 2000 (I tremble to think what has transpired since then).
And if you still think I overstate my case, I invite you to read some of the ethnic papers, like the "NY Post" or---brace yourself---"The Amsterdam News". During the Tawana Brawley Hoax, circa 1990, I made a point of regularly reading both "The Amsterdam News" and the now defunct "City Sun" (not to be confused with the "NY Sun" newspaper). Try a newspaper like those, for a bit, and you will understand everything there is to understand about my pessimism regarding American democracy.
So, last night I heard a snippet of a radio broadcast in which David Brooks, the putative conservative commentator for the NY Times, was remarking upon the Democratic Party convention. If a Martian had observed both Democratic and Republican conventions, Brooks was saying, he would suppose that the Democrats are the more patriotic party.
What an odd comment, I thought. Why a Martian? The only sense I can make of this observation is that Brooks is assuming that a Martian does not bring with him any intellectual baggage. Put another way, a Martian, if such a creature existed, would not actually know anything about the political parties or, indeed, anything about American society or American history.
And that, I think, reveals much. Modern American politics is a Theater of The Absurd for an ignorant electorate. If you have a better explanation for how we have come to this: Donald Trump leading the Republican Party and---it's hard to write this---Hillary Clinton leading the Democratic Party, I would dearly love to hear it.
And if you do not have a better explanation, then you must accept Brooks's comment as yet more evidence for the end of democracy as we have known it.
Friday, July 29, 2016
Thursday, July 28, 2016
The NY Times Comes Out of The Closet (again)
Socialists are exquisitely attuned to history. When Donald Trump declared that his foreign and trade policies will be organized around the principle of "America First", the Left was quick to pounce, making the connection between Trump and the "notorious" America First Committee. Started in 1940, the AFC was isolationist (anti-globalist, in modern parlance) and, by association with Charles Lindbergh, faintly racist and White Supremacist, if not actually sympathetic to the Nazi cause. This was an arcane connection even I did not make, and I am more historically literate than the average American (a very low bar, so I am hardly bragging). So, what are we to make of the NY Times editorial, "President Obama and the Long March"?
Does the phrase, "Long March", sound familiar to you? It should. Google "Long March" and the very first item to pop up, and rightly so, is the Wikipedia article about the heroic military retreat of the Red Army, under Mao Zedong. Passing through some of the most difficult terrain in China, over the course of a year Mao took his army more than 9,0000 kilometers (about 5,400 miles) to evade the Kuomintang, leave China to the tender mercies of Imperial Japan, and remain intact to fight, not the Japanese of course, but the Nationalists after they had been severely weakened in their mortal struggle with Japan. Rather than find common cause with the Nationalists to defend China, Mao sacrificed millions of his countrymen in order to enhance his ability to take over China after the Western powers defeated Japan (with no help from him).
For a generation afterwards, most of the power hierarchy of Maoist China was populated by the likes of Zhou Enlai and Deng Xiaoping, comrades of Mao in that arduous enterprise.
The next time we encounter the phrase "Long March" is with Antonio Gramsci (1891-1937). Gramsci developed the theory of "Cultural Hegemony", later aptly nicknamed "The Long March Through The Institutions". Probably the most realistic and practical thinker among the socialists, Gramsci realized much earlier than his socialist friends that they will never win against society via a marxist-style, mano-a-mano Class Struggle. Rather, the right strategy is that of the Glyptapanteles wasp, which lays her eggs inside the body of a paralyzed but still living caterpillar. Over a brief time, the eggs hatch and the wasp larvae eat their way out of the caterpillar, leaving behind a dead husk.
In other words, forget about Class Struggle. Rather, take over the schools, the universities, the government bureaucracies and other appointed positions of public service. Inject yourself into the institutions and, in this way, gradually transmogrify society into socialism.
How real is the Democratic Party's connection to Antonio Gramsci? Here is Anita Dunn, erstwhile communications director for Barack, telling us that one of her favorite political philosophers is the mass murder Mao Zedong. Van Jones, Barack's erstwhile Green Jobs Tsar is a self-avowed communist. For all his protestations to the contrary, Barack speaks in the lingo of socialism (redistribution, positive rights, radical transformation). And, finally (but not exclusively), one of the most important figures in recent Democratic Party politics is the socialist Bernie Sanders.
Donald Trump's connection to the America First Committee is illusory. Barack Obama's and the NY Times' connection to Karl Marx is not.
Does the phrase, "Long March", sound familiar to you? It should. Google "Long March" and the very first item to pop up, and rightly so, is the Wikipedia article about the heroic military retreat of the Red Army, under Mao Zedong. Passing through some of the most difficult terrain in China, over the course of a year Mao took his army more than 9,0000 kilometers (about 5,400 miles) to evade the Kuomintang, leave China to the tender mercies of Imperial Japan, and remain intact to fight, not the Japanese of course, but the Nationalists after they had been severely weakened in their mortal struggle with Japan. Rather than find common cause with the Nationalists to defend China, Mao sacrificed millions of his countrymen in order to enhance his ability to take over China after the Western powers defeated Japan (with no help from him).
For a generation afterwards, most of the power hierarchy of Maoist China was populated by the likes of Zhou Enlai and Deng Xiaoping, comrades of Mao in that arduous enterprise.
The next time we encounter the phrase "Long March" is with Antonio Gramsci (1891-1937). Gramsci developed the theory of "Cultural Hegemony", later aptly nicknamed "The Long March Through The Institutions". Probably the most realistic and practical thinker among the socialists, Gramsci realized much earlier than his socialist friends that they will never win against society via a marxist-style, mano-a-mano Class Struggle. Rather, the right strategy is that of the Glyptapanteles wasp, which lays her eggs inside the body of a paralyzed but still living caterpillar. Over a brief time, the eggs hatch and the wasp larvae eat their way out of the caterpillar, leaving behind a dead husk.
In other words, forget about Class Struggle. Rather, take over the schools, the universities, the government bureaucracies and other appointed positions of public service. Inject yourself into the institutions and, in this way, gradually transmogrify society into socialism.
How real is the Democratic Party's connection to Antonio Gramsci? Here is Anita Dunn, erstwhile communications director for Barack, telling us that one of her favorite political philosophers is the mass murder Mao Zedong. Van Jones, Barack's erstwhile Green Jobs Tsar is a self-avowed communist. For all his protestations to the contrary, Barack speaks in the lingo of socialism (redistribution, positive rights, radical transformation). And, finally (but not exclusively), one of the most important figures in recent Democratic Party politics is the socialist Bernie Sanders.
Donald Trump's connection to the America First Committee is illusory. Barack Obama's and the NY Times' connection to Karl Marx is not.
Saturday, July 16, 2016
The Sad Turkish Military Coup
Normally, Ralph Peters is a man well worth paying close attention to. I tremblingly disagree with him regarding the recently attempted coup d'etat in Turkey. Sort of.
Mustafa Kemal Ataturk was keen to drag Turkey into the 20th century by converting it into a secular state. And, since the fall of the Ottoman Sultanate, around 1923, the army had been the guarantor of Turkish secularism. Not of democracy, of secularism. With the creeping Islamification of Turkey, under Recep Tayyip Erdogan, many people, myself included, looked upon Friday's coup with great hope. Ralph Peters trenchantly explains this hope
No matter what, the coup was never going to be about democracy, Erdogan is a democratically elected president It might have been about secularism. However, I had misgivings from the beginning.
First of all, the Turkish army of today is not the Turkish army of old. Erdogan has been in power since about 2003, and he has had a lot time to purge the army of much of its professional, secular leadership. Peters rather colorfully illustrates the incompetence of the remaining officer corp in describing the poorly worked out strategy of the rebellious leaders.
Second, since the army had been substantially, if not completely, purged, who was behind the coup? Erdogan, himself, seems to think it is one Fethullah Gulen, a rather secretive and sinister Muslim cleric who had strong influence in the army before he sought refuge in the U.S. It seems he still had influence.
The point---and this is where I differ with Ralph Peters---is that if Gullen was the coup mastermind, then there never was any hope for the restoration of secularism. I don't know anything about Gullen, but his motivation may well be that Erdogan is not Muslim enough. At any rate, it is impossible that he is a champion of secularism.
Finally, the purge of the professional officers, years before, may explain a lot about Turkey, and much of the recent commentary may be mostly nonsense if the commentators do not take this into account. For example, there has been a lot of commentary on Turkey's unwillingness to mix it up with ISIS. The implication is that Turkey is sympathetic to ISIS.
I doubt it. First of all, Turks have no great love for Arabs, and Turkey is straining under a staggering refugee crisis within its own borders. There are nearly 3 million Syrian refugees in Turkey. This cannot be easy for anyone, especially Turkey. Turkey could very quickly solve their refugee problem by killing ISIS.
In principle, an armored division of the Turkish army should be able to roll up ISIS like a carpet. Why don't they do it? I think they don't do it because they can't. The first thing an army loses, when they lose their professional officers, is mobility. I think the Turks are scared to death of sending a division into Syria. At best, it would get bogged down. At worst, it might get defeated, and that would be very bad.
Furthermore, the Turkish army has not fought a battle-hardened foe since WW I. They might very well come off second best in a fire fight with ISIS. Just this happened to China, for example, when they mixed it up with Vietnam in 1979. You can look this up yourself. In brief, massive China was going to teach puny Vietnam a lesson for their invasion of Cambodia. In fact, the Chinese got their noses punched comprehensively. You see, the Chinese army exists mainly on paper. They, too, had not had a real fight since the Korean War, and they were rusty. The Vietnamese, on the other hand, were tough, well organized, and thoroughly hardened by a generation of fighting with first the French and then the Americans.
Finally, we have seen what happens when you replace professional officers with religious zealots and political sycophants. The Iranian army, under the Shah, was once thought to be the most professional and effective force in the greater Middle East. They were armed and trained by the Americans.
However, the Ayatollahs took over in 1979. Not only did they purge much of the officer corp (it's the old trust thing), but they also installed the Muslim equivalent of the old, Soviet-style political commissars. Every professional officer had a religious dopple-ganger second guessing his motives and his operational plans.
The Iraqi army was similarly hobbled, though not out of religious zealotry. Saddam feared competent military officers with "a lean and hungry look". In other words, he feared intelligent men with initiative, and got rid of them aggressively.
The Iran-Iraq War of 1980-88 would have been hilarious if it were not so grisly. Both sides were completely incapable of tactical movement, or effective logistics, or coordination between land, sea, and air elements of their forces, They were almost immediately reduced to two hulking cavemen taking turns bashing each other's brains out with clubs. You would have to read some of the details to get a real sense of the bathos and the horror of it all. (Boys armed with wooden rifles, or nothing at all, marching through minefields, against Iraqi counter-fire, to clear the way for the Revolutionary Guards. They were all massacred. Iran lost nearly a million young men in that war. That is why Iran was quiescent for a generation.)
It is not clear to me that the Turks would fair any better against ISIS than Iran against Iraq (or vice versa). And now, with a purge that cuts even deeper into the muscle of the Turkish army, I think the Turks have lost all military effectiveness. I think you can forget about the Turks ever mixing it up with ISIS, into the foreseeable future. Whether or not they want to fight ISIS is debatable, but I am sure they cannot do it.
Mustafa Kemal Ataturk was keen to drag Turkey into the 20th century by converting it into a secular state. And, since the fall of the Ottoman Sultanate, around 1923, the army had been the guarantor of Turkish secularism. Not of democracy, of secularism. With the creeping Islamification of Turkey, under Recep Tayyip Erdogan, many people, myself included, looked upon Friday's coup with great hope. Ralph Peters trenchantly explains this hope
No matter what, the coup was never going to be about democracy, Erdogan is a democratically elected president It might have been about secularism. However, I had misgivings from the beginning.
First of all, the Turkish army of today is not the Turkish army of old. Erdogan has been in power since about 2003, and he has had a lot time to purge the army of much of its professional, secular leadership. Peters rather colorfully illustrates the incompetence of the remaining officer corp in describing the poorly worked out strategy of the rebellious leaders.
Second, since the army had been substantially, if not completely, purged, who was behind the coup? Erdogan, himself, seems to think it is one Fethullah Gulen, a rather secretive and sinister Muslim cleric who had strong influence in the army before he sought refuge in the U.S. It seems he still had influence.
The point---and this is where I differ with Ralph Peters---is that if Gullen was the coup mastermind, then there never was any hope for the restoration of secularism. I don't know anything about Gullen, but his motivation may well be that Erdogan is not Muslim enough. At any rate, it is impossible that he is a champion of secularism.
Finally, the purge of the professional officers, years before, may explain a lot about Turkey, and much of the recent commentary may be mostly nonsense if the commentators do not take this into account. For example, there has been a lot of commentary on Turkey's unwillingness to mix it up with ISIS. The implication is that Turkey is sympathetic to ISIS.
I doubt it. First of all, Turks have no great love for Arabs, and Turkey is straining under a staggering refugee crisis within its own borders. There are nearly 3 million Syrian refugees in Turkey. This cannot be easy for anyone, especially Turkey. Turkey could very quickly solve their refugee problem by killing ISIS.
In principle, an armored division of the Turkish army should be able to roll up ISIS like a carpet. Why don't they do it? I think they don't do it because they can't. The first thing an army loses, when they lose their professional officers, is mobility. I think the Turks are scared to death of sending a division into Syria. At best, it would get bogged down. At worst, it might get defeated, and that would be very bad.
Furthermore, the Turkish army has not fought a battle-hardened foe since WW I. They might very well come off second best in a fire fight with ISIS. Just this happened to China, for example, when they mixed it up with Vietnam in 1979. You can look this up yourself. In brief, massive China was going to teach puny Vietnam a lesson for their invasion of Cambodia. In fact, the Chinese got their noses punched comprehensively. You see, the Chinese army exists mainly on paper. They, too, had not had a real fight since the Korean War, and they were rusty. The Vietnamese, on the other hand, were tough, well organized, and thoroughly hardened by a generation of fighting with first the French and then the Americans.
Finally, we have seen what happens when you replace professional officers with religious zealots and political sycophants. The Iranian army, under the Shah, was once thought to be the most professional and effective force in the greater Middle East. They were armed and trained by the Americans.
However, the Ayatollahs took over in 1979. Not only did they purge much of the officer corp (it's the old trust thing), but they also installed the Muslim equivalent of the old, Soviet-style political commissars. Every professional officer had a religious dopple-ganger second guessing his motives and his operational plans.
The Iraqi army was similarly hobbled, though not out of religious zealotry. Saddam feared competent military officers with "a lean and hungry look". In other words, he feared intelligent men with initiative, and got rid of them aggressively.
The Iran-Iraq War of 1980-88 would have been hilarious if it were not so grisly. Both sides were completely incapable of tactical movement, or effective logistics, or coordination between land, sea, and air elements of their forces, They were almost immediately reduced to two hulking cavemen taking turns bashing each other's brains out with clubs. You would have to read some of the details to get a real sense of the bathos and the horror of it all. (Boys armed with wooden rifles, or nothing at all, marching through minefields, against Iraqi counter-fire, to clear the way for the Revolutionary Guards. They were all massacred. Iran lost nearly a million young men in that war. That is why Iran was quiescent for a generation.)
It is not clear to me that the Turks would fair any better against ISIS than Iran against Iraq (or vice versa). And now, with a purge that cuts even deeper into the muscle of the Turkish army, I think the Turks have lost all military effectiveness. I think you can forget about the Turks ever mixing it up with ISIS, into the foreseeable future. Whether or not they want to fight ISIS is debatable, but I am sure they cannot do it.
Wednesday, July 13, 2016
Feelings Are Not Enough
My socialist friends tell me feelings matter. They surely do. So do facts.
Consider the following scenario. In doing laundry, a woman is going through her husband's clothes and discovers something odd, a handkerchief that is not his or lipstick on his shirt collar, or something like that. The thought comes to her like a dagger to the heart that he is cheating on her.
The pain is real, and one has no trouble feeling it, but if she could investigate, she might discover other explanations. Possibly, there was an office party and one of the women drank a little too much. Or, a malicious fool planted evidence in a misbegotten prank. There could be other explanations for what the woman saw, not including her husband's infidelity. Yes, her feelings are real, but still she may not be right.
Here is a tragic real example. Some years ago, my department secretary was a young woman with an older husband and a small boy, about four years old. One Friday evening, Lisa goes out with the girls, leaving the boy in her husband's charge. The husband puts the child to bed long before Lisa returns. They wake up the next morning to a dead child.
It is not difficult to imagine the horror. Suspicion naturally fell on the husband, and malicious office gossip started immediately. One says, "I could see it in his eyes." Another, "I never liked the guy." And so on. I kept saying, the only way this nightmare could be worse is if he were actually innocent. But, their relationship was poisoned and divorce quickly followed.
The police investigation moved very slowly, in large part because the coroner's report had been lost in the bowels of the bureaucracy. When it finally turned up, the report exonorated the husband. As so tragically happens, with merciful infrequency, the child had died of natural causes. It was no one's fault. But, it was too late for Ed (no relation).
Lisa, being a young woman, soon remarried and, last I heard, had another child. The husband, being an older man, went to bed one evening with a wife and child, and woke up the next morning to a life destroyed---because of very strong emotions unsupported by facts. He didn't do it, you see. So, yes, emotions matter. Very much.
Once you recognize that emotions matter, you must also recognize they can be manipulated, and that is the stock in trade of community organizers. Consider the case of "Black Lives Matter".
The Black community in the U.S. is racked with pathologies. For example, educational achievement is a horror, and I have long argued that, grisly as the numbers are, for complicated reasons the reality is much worse. In a society like ours, this has terrible consequences.
Crime rates in the Black community are an even worse horror. Though only 13% of the population, Blacks commit 52% of homicides, 62% of robberies, 56% of car jackings, and so on, with a large majority of the victims being themselves Black. You could spend a profitable, if sobering, moment or two with, The Color of Crime. Note, especially,
So, what are Black Lives Matter talking about? One way to get at the answer is to ask, who are they?
BLM was founded by three graduates of the Black Organizing for Leadership and Dignity.
BOLD is a project of the Neighborhood Funders Group.
NFG is a syndicate of the ARCA Foundation, Ford Foundation, NoVo Foundation, Open Society Foundations, and The Unitarian Universalist Veatch Program at Shelter Rock.
The Ford Foundation is at the bottom of almost every anti-Jewish, anti-Israel initiative coming out of the U.S., and the Open Society Foundations is George Soros.
BLM is not some spontaneous, grassroots uprising of people desperate to throw off the chains of oppression. It is an organization that is---in that great phrase of the racist lunatic Leonard Jeffries---"planned, plotted, and programmed" by community organizers who, for years, have been busy "rubbing raw the resentments of the people."
That they have a powerful ally in the person of the President of The Republic is really all you need to know about why five policemen are dead in Dallas.
How do you respond to manipulated feelings? "Just the facts, Ma'am, just the facts."
Consider the following scenario. In doing laundry, a woman is going through her husband's clothes and discovers something odd, a handkerchief that is not his or lipstick on his shirt collar, or something like that. The thought comes to her like a dagger to the heart that he is cheating on her.
The pain is real, and one has no trouble feeling it, but if she could investigate, she might discover other explanations. Possibly, there was an office party and one of the women drank a little too much. Or, a malicious fool planted evidence in a misbegotten prank. There could be other explanations for what the woman saw, not including her husband's infidelity. Yes, her feelings are real, but still she may not be right.
Here is a tragic real example. Some years ago, my department secretary was a young woman with an older husband and a small boy, about four years old. One Friday evening, Lisa goes out with the girls, leaving the boy in her husband's charge. The husband puts the child to bed long before Lisa returns. They wake up the next morning to a dead child.
It is not difficult to imagine the horror. Suspicion naturally fell on the husband, and malicious office gossip started immediately. One says, "I could see it in his eyes." Another, "I never liked the guy." And so on. I kept saying, the only way this nightmare could be worse is if he were actually innocent. But, their relationship was poisoned and divorce quickly followed.
The police investigation moved very slowly, in large part because the coroner's report had been lost in the bowels of the bureaucracy. When it finally turned up, the report exonorated the husband. As so tragically happens, with merciful infrequency, the child had died of natural causes. It was no one's fault. But, it was too late for Ed (no relation).
Lisa, being a young woman, soon remarried and, last I heard, had another child. The husband, being an older man, went to bed one evening with a wife and child, and woke up the next morning to a life destroyed---because of very strong emotions unsupported by facts. He didn't do it, you see. So, yes, emotions matter. Very much.
Once you recognize that emotions matter, you must also recognize they can be manipulated, and that is the stock in trade of community organizers. Consider the case of "Black Lives Matter".
The Black community in the U.S. is racked with pathologies. For example, educational achievement is a horror, and I have long argued that, grisly as the numbers are, for complicated reasons the reality is much worse. In a society like ours, this has terrible consequences.
Crime rates in the Black community are an even worse horror. Though only 13% of the population, Blacks commit 52% of homicides, 62% of robberies, 56% of car jackings, and so on, with a large majority of the victims being themselves Black. You could spend a profitable, if sobering, moment or two with, The Color of Crime. Note, especially,
In 2015, police killings of blacks accounted for approximately 4 percent of homicides of blacks. Police killings of unarmed blacks accounted for approximately 0.6 percent of homicides of blacks. The overwhelming majority of black homicide victims (93 percent from 1980 to 2008) were killed by blacks.While this is assuredly no excuse for bad, sometimes criminal, policing, actions by the police cannot be the reason so many Blacks are "sick and tired of being sick and tired". If anything, one can argue that police are the only thing standing between Black people and even worse social chaos.
So, what are Black Lives Matter talking about? One way to get at the answer is to ask, who are they?
BLM was founded by three graduates of the Black Organizing for Leadership and Dignity.
BOLD is a project of the Neighborhood Funders Group.
NFG is a syndicate of the ARCA Foundation, Ford Foundation, NoVo Foundation, Open Society Foundations, and The Unitarian Universalist Veatch Program at Shelter Rock.
The Ford Foundation is at the bottom of almost every anti-Jewish, anti-Israel initiative coming out of the U.S., and the Open Society Foundations is George Soros.
BLM is not some spontaneous, grassroots uprising of people desperate to throw off the chains of oppression. It is an organization that is---in that great phrase of the racist lunatic Leonard Jeffries---"planned, plotted, and programmed" by community organizers who, for years, have been busy "rubbing raw the resentments of the people."
That they have a powerful ally in the person of the President of The Republic is really all you need to know about why five policemen are dead in Dallas.
How do you respond to manipulated feelings? "Just the facts, Ma'am, just the facts."
Sunday, July 10, 2016
The Limits of Panditry
Ooh! A swing and a miss! Just when I think the NY Times pandit, Nicholas Kristof, has finally caught a clue, he strikes out looking. Early in his essay on the Saudi funding of terrorism, Kristoff writes,
Krisof is referring to the "Five Pillars of Islam": the credo, prayer, charity, Ramadan fast, and pilgrimage to Mecca. But, if your knowledge of Islam comes from Wikipedia, there is no way to know that Muslim charity is not the same as Christian charity.
In fact, Islam is generally sympathetic to charity, but not all charity satisfies the requirement of "zakat". For charity to satisfy the Muslim requirement, it must satisfy a Muslim objective; it must advance Islam. Thus, giving charity to relieve the suffering of poor Jews is laudatory, but it does not discharge the religious obligation. Giving money to support dawah (prosyletizing) will do that. Giving money to support jihad (holy war) will do that.
Thus, giving money to relieve the suffering of Jewish poor is good. Giving money to support the killing of a Jewish girl in her own bed is better. And if Nicholas Kristof studied more, he would be surprised less.
"For decades, Saudi Arabia has recklessly financed and promoted a harsh and intolerant Wahhabi version of Islam around the world in a way that is, quite predictably, producing terrorists."Reckless? Well, if it's so obvious to Kristof, why can't the Saudis see it? Are they stupid people? Or, is it not more likely the Saudis know exactly what they are doing? Is it not more likely they understand it much better than Kristof? Later in his essay, Kristof clearly shows he is out of his depth,
"It’s particularly dispiriting because much of the extremist funding seems to come from charity: One of the most admirable aspects of Islam is its emphasis on charity, yet in countries like Saudi Arabia this money is directed not to fight malnutrition or child mortality, but to brainwash children and sow conflict in poor and unstable countries."
Krisof is referring to the "Five Pillars of Islam": the credo, prayer, charity, Ramadan fast, and pilgrimage to Mecca. But, if your knowledge of Islam comes from Wikipedia, there is no way to know that Muslim charity is not the same as Christian charity.
In fact, Islam is generally sympathetic to charity, but not all charity satisfies the requirement of "zakat". For charity to satisfy the Muslim requirement, it must satisfy a Muslim objective; it must advance Islam. Thus, giving charity to relieve the suffering of poor Jews is laudatory, but it does not discharge the religious obligation. Giving money to support dawah (prosyletizing) will do that. Giving money to support jihad (holy war) will do that.
Thus, giving money to relieve the suffering of Jewish poor is good. Giving money to support the killing of a Jewish girl in her own bed is better. And if Nicholas Kristof studied more, he would be surprised less.
Donald Trump, A Bill Cooperberg For Our Time
Bill, if you are out there, I love ya, man.
Many years ago, upon starting a new job, my supervisor introduced me to the senior team member, the man who would help acclimate me to my new responsibilities. Bill Cooperberg made such a poor first impression that I seriously wondered if I had made a terrible mistake taking that job. He spoke with a thick Bronx accent, including all the usual, grating grammatical mistakes, he wore a cheap, badly fitting suit, and he smoked---a marker, in the minds of many, of reduced moral character. What had I gotten myself into?
As the days and weeks passed, Bill would comment on some issue and I would think, with surprise, "well, he is certainly right about that." Bill would say something about another matter and I would again be surprised by his trenchant insight. One of his most common refrains, upon being informed of one thing or another was, "It don't make no sense." Dusting the grammar off my coat I would think, "Well, it don't."
In the end, the shabby ignorance was all mine, and I am proud to tell you that I was able to overcome it, eventually. Once I got past Bill's admittedly rough exterior, I discovered a brilliant, kind, self-effacing person of uncommon insight into the human exprience. "Don't judge a book by its cover" was a cosmic lesson taught by the person of Bill Cooperberg.
And so it seems to be with Donald Trump. Donald Trump is nobody's idea of the ideal president. Certainly, not mine. But, while he makes mistakes (orders of magnitude less significant than the reptilian Hillary Clinton's), time and again he is right. Case in point: Donald Trump's advisor's response to the achingly dim-witted Union for Reform Judaism
David Friedman's letter to the URJ
A response that thrills even the brilliant Caroline Glick.
Friends, how many times does Trump have to be right, before you look past his admittedly weird hair and rough manners, and finally realize we don't have to accept the criminally incompetent Hillary Clinton?
Many years ago, upon starting a new job, my supervisor introduced me to the senior team member, the man who would help acclimate me to my new responsibilities. Bill Cooperberg made such a poor first impression that I seriously wondered if I had made a terrible mistake taking that job. He spoke with a thick Bronx accent, including all the usual, grating grammatical mistakes, he wore a cheap, badly fitting suit, and he smoked---a marker, in the minds of many, of reduced moral character. What had I gotten myself into?
As the days and weeks passed, Bill would comment on some issue and I would think, with surprise, "well, he is certainly right about that." Bill would say something about another matter and I would again be surprised by his trenchant insight. One of his most common refrains, upon being informed of one thing or another was, "It don't make no sense." Dusting the grammar off my coat I would think, "Well, it don't."
In the end, the shabby ignorance was all mine, and I am proud to tell you that I was able to overcome it, eventually. Once I got past Bill's admittedly rough exterior, I discovered a brilliant, kind, self-effacing person of uncommon insight into the human exprience. "Don't judge a book by its cover" was a cosmic lesson taught by the person of Bill Cooperberg.
And so it seems to be with Donald Trump. Donald Trump is nobody's idea of the ideal president. Certainly, not mine. But, while he makes mistakes (orders of magnitude less significant than the reptilian Hillary Clinton's), time and again he is right. Case in point: Donald Trump's advisor's response to the achingly dim-witted Union for Reform Judaism
David Friedman's letter to the URJ
A response that thrills even the brilliant Caroline Glick.
Friends, how many times does Trump have to be right, before you look past his admittedly weird hair and rough manners, and finally realize we don't have to accept the criminally incompetent Hillary Clinton?
Wednesday, July 6, 2016
The Talk
Two recent police shootings of black men, in Baton Rouge, LA and in Minneapolis, MN, put me in mind of an issue that first impinged on my consciousness during the shooting of Treyvon Martin. The Martin shooting was the first time I had heard of "The Talk" (and here).
The various articles I read, that referred to "The Talk", suggested, in sinister tones, that the parents (who, themselves, are not always Black) of Black children have to advise them in ways that are unique, and uniquely burdensome and irritating, to Black people living in a racist, White society. Naturally, I was intrigued.
At the time, I found lots of references to "The Talk", but it was surprisingly difficult to find an example of it (it might be easier now). When I finally did find an instance of "The Talk", I was gobsmacked. The substance of this Talk To Black Children in A Racist White Society was in every detail identical to the advice I gave my own son. Then, as now, it seemed to me the sort of advice that any competent parent would give to the children he loves.
Conversely, not giving such advice should be sufficient basis for the revocation of one's parenting license. I think parenting should be licensed just for the purpose of having it revoked for failure to give "The Talk", for any parent of children of any color. Frankly, I do not know what it says about Black people that they think this talk is unique to them, but I am sure it is a problem. Which brings me now to a second "Talk".
So, the two recent shootings (Baton Rouge and Minneapolis) prompted a Facebook conversation between me and a young, socialist-minded acquaintance. The sum and substance of my FB friend's initial comment was pure emotion. It was the Jewish Grandmother's cri de coeur, "Oh! Why can't everyone be nice?" with some intimations about how racist White people are. I responded with what is pretty much the advice I gave my own son years ago,
OK, it sucks to be Black in America. Now, if you are ready for some constructive thinking on the subject, please consider the following:My friend's response surprised me, though it shouldn't have. He censored me (removed my comment from his FB feed) on the principle that White people cannot tell Black people what to do. This kind of censorship was not the first for me, but I had higher hopes for this young man.
No matter who you are, when confronted by a man with a gun, no matter who he is, no matter what the reason, there are five rules to *live* by:
(1) shut the fuck up,
(2) do exactly what he says,
(3) no sudden movements,
(4) do NOT get into a fight with him, verbal or physical and
(5) shut the fuck up
Did I mention you MUST shut the fuck up? Along that line there is this VERY important item,
Never talk to the police
Finally, here is somebody else who agrees with me,
How To Not Get Your Ass Kicked By The Police
Please pass this along to all your friends, including your White friends.
For much of my adult life, I have tried to have substantive conversations with socialists, with very little success. Years ago it was like this, today it is like this. With young people, with old people, it's all the same. They are obviously unused to thinking about things and find the process uncomfortable. Thinking instead of emoting, I mean.
I guess I will keep on trying. There is no harm in it, there is no cost to it. And the effort does sometimes sharpen my own thinking on a subject. But talking to socialists? I mean a true forensic investigation into ideas? It's starting to look like it will never happen.
The Educational Circus Act
I once read about an army officer famous among his colleagues for battle plans that went into extraordinary detail. In a scathing indictment, one fellow officer said, "Yes, he takes into account everything except the disposition of the enemy." In the same way, the Education Mafia seem to have a lot on their minds, not including the education of children.
In other words, the Education Mafia, like the misguided army officer whose name I have long forgotten, are so consumed with tangential details they have lost the point.
When my son, who is half Asian, was in NYC public schools, not one time was I concerned about whether he was the darkest-skinned child in the class, or the lightest. I was concerned ONLY that he was safe and that he was getting an education.
Safety and education, nothing else mattered to me. Yet, I find my concerns nowhere in this NY Times article about the NYC public schools. And, if it is true, as the article suggests, that many parents are also consumed by tangential issues, then it is no wonder the public schools have collapsed.
In 1954, when the SCOTUS decided Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, KS, one could argue that integration was the only way to break the back of real institutional racism. Astonishingly, that was not the argument.
Beginning with the amicus curiae brief by the Justice Dept (sic!), arguing that segregated schools hurt the American effort in The Cold War, the court considered cultural assimilation, states' rights, judicial activism, the psychological effects of segregation, and I don't know what else. It seems they considered everything, not including the education of children. And you could see that in the final decision,
"Does segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race, even though the physical facilities and other "tangible" factors may be equal, deprive the children of the minority group of equal educational opportunities? We believe that it does. ...
"Segregation of white and colored children in public schools has a detrimental effect upon the colored children."
"Upon the colored children." Why not also upon the White children? This was the beginning of the magical White child. It seems that something magical happens to Black children when they sit beside White children. And integration became a fetish.
Please understand, I am not against integration. It's just that I care about education more. Since the 1954 decision, however, rather than taking care of business, rather than grappling with the really difficult issues of teaching children, politicians and education theorists and school administrators have succumbed to the toxic distraction of racial integration. I would be all for integration, if the Education Mafia were taking care of business, but they dissipate their time and energy, and large sums of public funds, in this and other issues that have precious little to do with teaching and learning.
And it shows.
In other words, the Education Mafia, like the misguided army officer whose name I have long forgotten, are so consumed with tangential details they have lost the point.
When my son, who is half Asian, was in NYC public schools, not one time was I concerned about whether he was the darkest-skinned child in the class, or the lightest. I was concerned ONLY that he was safe and that he was getting an education.
Safety and education, nothing else mattered to me. Yet, I find my concerns nowhere in this NY Times article about the NYC public schools. And, if it is true, as the article suggests, that many parents are also consumed by tangential issues, then it is no wonder the public schools have collapsed.
In 1954, when the SCOTUS decided Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, KS, one could argue that integration was the only way to break the back of real institutional racism. Astonishingly, that was not the argument.
Beginning with the amicus curiae brief by the Justice Dept (sic!), arguing that segregated schools hurt the American effort in The Cold War, the court considered cultural assimilation, states' rights, judicial activism, the psychological effects of segregation, and I don't know what else. It seems they considered everything, not including the education of children. And you could see that in the final decision,
"Does segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race, even though the physical facilities and other "tangible" factors may be equal, deprive the children of the minority group of equal educational opportunities? We believe that it does. ...
"Segregation of white and colored children in public schools has a detrimental effect upon the colored children."
"Upon the colored children." Why not also upon the White children? This was the beginning of the magical White child. It seems that something magical happens to Black children when they sit beside White children. And integration became a fetish.
Please understand, I am not against integration. It's just that I care about education more. Since the 1954 decision, however, rather than taking care of business, rather than grappling with the really difficult issues of teaching children, politicians and education theorists and school administrators have succumbed to the toxic distraction of racial integration. I would be all for integration, if the Education Mafia were taking care of business, but they dissipate their time and energy, and large sums of public funds, in this and other issues that have precious little to do with teaching and learning.
And it shows.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)