Let me answer. Podhoretz exhorts Jews to reclaim conservatism as the ideology best aligned with traditional Jewish beliefs. Podhoretz continues his argument by suggesting that, according to the teachings of Judaism, Jews should be conservative because so many modern tenets of American liberalism are antithetical to those traditional Jewish beliefs. In fact, Podhoretz argues, the conservative defense of liberty and freedom, should engender fealty to conservative.
Not so.
Analysis American conservatism is not the best defender of freedom and liberty. American liberalism is. Conservatives have a misguided notion that their belief set is the purest form of Americana; that is, that only conservative beliefs lead to protecting freedom and liberty. In reality, American conservatism fosters a broad think that makes it possible to only support conservatism. All other beliefs are considered quite un-American. In actuality, any ideology that fosters group-think is the first step toward true government control (i.e. tyranny). Jews don't want this.
Podhoretz correctly points out that Orthodox Jews are the most reliably politically conservative and Republican of all Jewish subgroups. And, not surprisingly, Orthodox Jews are the most dogmatic of all in their beliefs. If the Orthodox ran the Jewsish world, there'd be very little independent political thought.
All the other issues that Podhoretz mentions are incidental. Abortion, same-sex marriage, alcohol...they are all incidental to liberty. What Jews want is choice. They want freedom from dogmatism. Fundamentally, that is the difference between liberalism and conservatism.
The 1999 Texas A&M bonfire collapse was a terrible ordeal. Rightly, higher ups in College Station, TX ended the ritualized slaying and burning of trees prior to the Aggies annual gridiron match with the University of Texas.
I'll be honest, when I saw the title to this op-ed, The Racial Context for Joe Wilson's Outburst, I was skeptical. My thought was, "how could race be involved in this particular instance?" The authors make the strong argument that the two-year effort to portray President Obama as an "other" leads to situations where people don't feel restrained by typical protocols and, indeed, treat this president as they would not treat others.
Besides the fact that Congressman Joe Wilson is now known as quite the fool. See articles denouncing his tomfoolery in his hometown newspaper The State, CNN, and the Times Online. The progressive group ActBlue is using the reckless outburst as a fundraising opportunity for Wilson's Democratic opponent.
Why did Wilson catcall the president? Obama claimed subsidies would not go to illegal immigrants and Wilson, obviously, strongly disputed this. Here is CNN's fact-check on the claims. The result: no subsidies to illegals although they could be required to buy insurance. So, really, the taxpayer isn't out if illegals contribute to the pool.
The naysaysers might spend too much listening to this Arizona preacher who prays for Obama's death...
Analysis Yes, but what do I think? Good question. The purpose of Obama's health care address was twofold. First, he wanted to exhort a recalcitrant Congress to get its ass in gear. Second, the president wanted to remind the American public why health care reform is an imperative. Simply put, the status quo is unsustainable. In so doing, he confronted the waves of misinformation circulating in the press. Read this as a primer in misinformation. Further, he chastised Republicans for their unwillingness to put down their ideological swords in favor of a seat at the compromise table (naturally, Republicans found Obama's language "overly combative").
Having accomplished his two purposes in the speech, the question remains, can Obama achieve his substantive policy goal, which would be meaningful health care reform that includes a public option. My guess is that he will, but at what political price?
Ha! It's not an oxymoron. We really do believe in proving university faculty the freedom to tread on difficult, touchy subjects. After all, if we can't discuss contentious subjects on a college campus, where can we?
Well, some Ole Miss students, and one in particular, are upset that the University allows the use of R-rated films in a Modern Language (Spanish) class. The student finds it offensive that a professor would seek to use film as a tool in teaching about culture and the underbelly of society.
Naturally, the commenters are having a field day with this, both pro and con.
Analysis If anything the offended student should thank the prof for being so forthright in the syllabus and the first day of class in telling the students what was in store for them throughout the semester. Second, this student, I believe, has not quite grasped what a liberal arts education is all about. If all you want is a recitation from church, go to a private, religious college. Third, one of the great purposes of higher education is to challenge students and their conventional way of thinking. I fear that we have too many students that cannot tolerate the "different." That, my friends, does not bode well for our future.
Yep, living in Oxford, MS, you really learn a lot about the football Mannings. Archie, Peyton, Eli, heck, even Cooper. Turns out the Manning family has put out a children's book. You can listen to the family talk about the book and what it was like growing up in a football family here.
Because budgets are tights, many states are doing what they should have been doing years ago. Shutting down prisons. Many states, especially cash-strapped states like Michigan, are forced to really think about how many prisoners they can afford to lock up. As a result many states are rethinking the necessity of locking up non-violent offenders fro lengthy sentences. This is a good thing.
Analysis Thinking long-term states might realize they could see a much greater return on their education investments than their prison investments.
On September 9, the Supreme Court looks to take an important step in redefining how we finance federal elections. In what looks to be a perfect example of judicial activism, the Court's conservative bloc looks ready to strike down its' own precedent and legislative dictum regarding corporate involvement in campaign finance.
Previous law, going back to the Theodore Roosevelt administration, has severely restricted the ability of corporations to engage directly in financing candidate and party campaigns. They could, of course, form political action committees, but the corporation itself was out of the loop. That looks to change.
The danger, as seen by the left, is that corporate donations - sans limits - can trounce the political individual by the sheer heft of corporate weight. Perhaps. Yet, the left is torn because of traditional protections of free speech. So, one important question, then, is, "Are corporations provided the same rights to political free speech as individuals?" What say you?
When we've reached the point where the freakin' president can't give a civics lesson to America's kids, we truly have poisoned our political discourse.
It just might be. Despite our protestations that we're a peace-loving country full of M&M addicts, the reality the USA is responsible for 2/3 of all foreign armaments deals. We're so good and efficient at designing and building weapons we create even more than the U.S. military needs (now that's saying something). So, what's a good businessman to do. Lobby Congress to allow him to sell his wares overseas.
Analysis Much of these sales, of course, are to our allies for their defense systems. Still, would the world be a safer place and, paradoxically, would America be stronger if we desisted worldwide weapons sales? I don't know. Think about it. Now.
Yes, it is true. In my spare time I like to shake a stick at passing youngsters and berate them for their sense of entitlement. But, I also understand their economic reality. It's hard for teenagers right now. There are few jobs to be had because older folks aren't retiring like they're supposed to and the employment crunch causes many overqualified workers into underqualified positions. Where does that leave your average teenager? Scrambling for work.
On a completely unrelated note, here is a story about kiddie triathlons. These kids are my kind of kids.
While this good news on retirement savings earned little attention in the popular press, it once again shows Obama's ability to think long-term. New rules make it easier to save for retirement. Workers can convert unused vacation time into retirement savings and changes to existing law make it easier to let small businesses enroll workers in IRA and 401(k) plans.
Analysis What I would really like would be if Obama could spur me a raise.
1 comments
Saturday, September 12, 2009
