tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-66355597307868913702024-03-13T00:47:12.510-05:00Against the CurrentI always seem to be in the minority, on the outside, swimming against the current.Against the Currenthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12356717231233669106noreply@blogger.comBlogger255125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6635559730786891370.post-52129962797211577372024-01-03T20:45:00.008-06:002024-01-03T20:54:41.845-06:00Upside down at HarvardToday's musing minute. <div><br /></div><div>Some may not know about it, others may remember it. I refer to the firing of Lawrence Summers as president of Harvard not so long ago.
Comparing the cases of the firing of Summers and Gay is very informative, very revealing of the mindset of the decision-makers at Harvard - for some time now.</div><div><br /></div><div>Summers was fired for the very reasons Gay was hired, and why her firing was so strongly resisted.
Lawrence Summers is a white male with a distinguished academic publication and research record and unimpeachable scholarly integrity. He also proved to be an able administrator with extensive experience at the highest levels of government. He was fired because of his acadimic integrity, and because his race and gender aggravated his sin in the eyes of his critics. His sin was to express an unacceptable opinion come to as a result of his research. Even though he is a clearly identified "liberal" his careful examination of the intriguing disproportionate representation of men in the STEM fields led him to conclude that this was a matter of a difference in the distribution of IQs between males and females (for whatever reason) and *not* a result of discrimination.
Apparently this opinion, whether having merit or not, was completely unacceptable and he was hounded out of office. </div><div><br /></div><div>Keep this in mind while considering Claudine Gay's decision to obfuscate on the acceptability of calling for genocide of Jews, or, if excused as conforming to a legal technicality, her engaging in serial plagiarism. Apparently both were worthy of a strenuous defense, not only because of their political correctness but also because Gay's race and gender made it "excusable". </div><div><br /></div><div> What irony that in the very letter announcing her departure, they had the chutzpah to suggest that she was the *victim* of racial discrimination, when, in reality, she had obviously been the temporary big time beneficiary of it!
</div>Against the Currenthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12356717231233669106noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6635559730786891370.post-29194388594944522132023-12-28T17:01:00.001-06:002023-12-28T17:01:20.044-06:00Making sense of the complicated mess in Gaza<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjNtzLtzOVL7YRWCWkXLm-CxJbIrfqzc3DrYhvQUv0VjCF8GPmHlHBHy_2XMzjw-wTn3jOrRH5eaYLcSW5FBuzqYROIqccRFtZ31YEB5cb5cQFpo-vfS5g5vOTIfmtkDK61WuuGO2A34gZTtyGRiSHHXyBH6zz6o6LmFqWLz_tpmpS9mvch3tSzeDKShP-W" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="533" data-original-width="452" height="585" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjNtzLtzOVL7YRWCWkXLm-CxJbIrfqzc3DrYhvQUv0VjCF8GPmHlHBHy_2XMzjw-wTn3jOrRH5eaYLcSW5FBuzqYROIqccRFtZ31YEB5cb5cQFpo-vfS5g5vOTIfmtkDK61WuuGO2A34gZTtyGRiSHHXyBH6zz6o6LmFqWLz_tpmpS9mvch3tSzeDKShP-W=w497-h585" width="497" /></a></div><br /><p></p>Against the Currenthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12356717231233669106noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6635559730786891370.post-1274238149170772622023-11-10T15:01:00.027-06:002023-12-11T22:29:08.853-06:00An irreverent discourse on religion<p> </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><b><span style="font-size: 20pt; line-height: 107%;">An irreverent discourse on religion</span></b><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;"><b><u><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">#1: The first question is:</span></u></b><b><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;"> Is there something beyond our
comprehension that relates to the existence and functioning of the universe?<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;"><b><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">Answer: Yes, Why should we think that humans,
limited as they are to comprehending only three dimensions, could not be ignorant of
some kind of bigger picture? We don’t know what we cannot know, so we must
acknowledge this possibility. We cannot judge it in the light of our logic or
experience, because it goes beyond that. <o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;"><b><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">So, I conclude, it is not implausible, but we just don’t
know. <u><o:p></o:p></u></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;"><b><u><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">#2: The second question: </span></u></b><b><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">Does this imply anything about the
nature of that transcendental power, call it God, that we acknowledge is both
possible and about which we can know nothing?<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;"><b><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">Answer: Absolutely not. It certainly does not imply anything
about the nature of some posited (assumed) super powerful being. There is no
connection between #1 and claims about the nature of God. <o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;"><b><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">Technically, #1 is necessary, but, in no way, sufficient, for
anything specific about God. <u><o:p></o:p></u></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;"><b><u><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">#3. </span></u></b><b><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">What then is the status of religious teachings?<u><o:p></o:p></u></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;"><b><u><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">Answer: </span></u></b><b><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">These are of the nature of social myths – social mythology is
incredibly significant in how societies function and are able to cope with
difficult things. <o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;"><b><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">But these religious teachings are not matters about which we
can have no judgement. They are framed in human terms, relate to human
experience, appeal, when it suits their protagonists, to human logic and so on.
They are about specifics, not about the vague proposition of a transcendental
power as in #1. There is no bridge between #1 and these specifics. <o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;"><b><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">#4: So what are some of the specifics? God is distinguish by
three remarkable characteristics.</span></b></p><table border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="MsoTableGrid" style="border-collapse: collapse; border: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-padding-alt: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-yfti-tbllook: 1184;"><tbody><tr style="mso-yfti-firstrow: yes; mso-yfti-irow: 0; mso-yfti-lastrow: yes;"><td style="border: 1pt solid windowtext; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 155.8pt;" valign="top" width="208"><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-align: justify; text-indent: -0.25in;"><b><span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;"><span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";"><span> <span> </span><span> </span></span></span></span></span></b><b style="text-indent: -24px;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">a.<span style="font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></span></span></b><b style="text-indent: -0.25in;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">God is</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-add-space: auto; text-align: justify;"><b><i><u><span style="font-size: 12pt;">all-good</span></u></i></b><b><span style="font-size: 12pt;">.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-add-space: auto; text-align: justify;"><b><span style="font-size: 12pt;">(omnibenevolent)</span></b></p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-add-space: auto; text-align: justify;"><b><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><br /></span></b></p>
</td>
<td style="border-left: none; border: 1pt solid windowtext; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 155.85pt;" valign="top" width="208">
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-align: justify; text-indent: -0.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><b><span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;"><span> </span><span> </span>b.<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span></b><!--[endif]--><span dir="LTR"></span><b><span style="font-size: 12pt;">God is <o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-add-space: auto; text-align: justify;"><b><i><u><span style="font-size: 12pt;">all-powerful<o:p></o:p></span></u></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-add-space: auto; text-align: justify;"><b><span style="font-size: 12pt;">(omnipotent)</span></b></p>
</td>
<td style="border-left: none; border: 1pt solid windowtext; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 155.85pt;" valign="top" width="208">
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-align: justify; text-indent: -0.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><b><span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;"><span> </span><span> </span>c.<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span></b><!--[endif]--><span dir="LTR"></span><b><span style="font-size: 12pt;">God is <o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-add-space: auto; text-align: justify;"><b><i><u><span style="font-size: 12pt;">all-knowing<o:p></o:p></span></u></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-add-space: auto; text-align: justify;"><b><span style="font-size: 12pt;">(omniscient)</span></b></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-left: 0in; mso-add-space: auto; text-align: left;"><b><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;"><o:p> </o:p></span></b><b><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">Two
things can be immediately said about these three attributes.</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 0.25in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo2; text-align: left; text-indent: -0.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><b><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">1.<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span></b><!--[endif]--><span dir="LTR"></span><b><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">Where do they
come from? I honestly have no idea. They seem to be made up to suit the
narrative. The most common answer is that these attributes and many other
things, are revealed by God to us, in texts and in oral laws passed down. This
proposition will be examined later. <o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 0.25in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo2; text-align: left; text-indent: -0.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><b><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">2.<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span></b><!--[endif]--><span dir="LTR"></span><b><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">They are
contradictory. Not all three of them can be true at the same time; at most two
of them can be simultaneously true, using human logic.</span></b><b><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;"><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 0in; mso-add-space: auto; text-align: left;"><b><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">#5. The
contradictions (inconsistencies)</span></b></p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 0in; mso-add-space: auto; text-align: left;"><b><u><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">b and
c</span></u></b><b><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;"> are
possible. It is possible for God to be all knowing and all powerful. No
contradiction. But while there is no contradiction, their joint occurrence is
incompatible with the existence of <u>free choice</u>, which is an absolutely
necessary condition of individual human responsibility. If we include in
“all-knowing” knowledge of the future, which is definitely part of Jewish
religious belief, then God knows what each of us will choose at every point in
our lives. This means that, in a fundamental sense, our actions are already
predetermined, even though we don’t know it. We have only the <u>illusion</u>,
but not the reality, of free choice. For true choice, the future must be not
only unknown, but undetermined. For choice to be truly free, it must be
possible that God can be surprised by it, does not know which of any
alternatives we will choose. Only then does it make sense to hold individuals
responsible for their actions, for their bad choices. Otherwise, they simply
choose what God made them choose by the way he made them.</span></b><b><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;"><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 0in; mso-add-space: auto; text-align: left;"><b><u><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">a and
b</span></u></b><b><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;"> cannot
occur together unless we mean something very different by the word “good”,
something absurd and perverse.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Experience tells us that some very bad things happen. If God is all
powerful, he could prevent this. If he were all-good, he would prevent this.
The occurrence of bad things, suggests that either a or b can be true, but not
both. God may be all-powerful but not all-good in that he allows bad things to
happen. Or, more attractively, God may be all-good, but helpless to prevent bad
things from happening.</span></b><b><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;"><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 0in; mso-add-space: auto; text-align: left;"><b><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">Some
people try to defend against these conclusions by changing the meaning of
“good”. Things just appear bad to us limited humans, but, actually “everything
happens for the good”. This saves the logic, but perverts its meaning. For many
people, it is just not believable and is perverse. Why would a merciful God
subject innocent people to suffering for some “greater good” about which they
are ignorant? Equally perverse is the idea that this is one of the things that
God knows but we cannot know. This is an unsatisfying, all-purpose answer that
stifles all further inquiry. It can apply to any question. If God made us in
his image and as reasoning beings, why would he present us with such a stark
contradiction and not give us any explanation?</span></b><b><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;"><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 0in; mso-add-space: auto; text-align: left;"><b><u><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">a and
c</span></u></b><b><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;"> can occur
together. It is possible for God to be all knowing and all-good, while being
helpless to prevent bad things, as with a and b.</span></b><b><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;"><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 0in; mso-add-space: auto; text-align: left;"><b><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">So,
obviously, a,b and c cannot logically occur together, cannot be simultaneously
true.</span></b><b><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;"><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 0in; mso-add-space: auto; text-align: left;"><b><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">#6. The origins
of religious beliefs. (I will confine myself to Judaism, but the analysis
applies to any organized religion.)</span></b><b><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;"><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 0in; mso-add-space: auto; text-align: left;"><b><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">In
addition to the three attributes of God discussed above, religious teachings
contain a large number of commandments, prohibitions, and historical
narratives. These commandments and prohibitions intrude into every aspect of
individual life. The historical narratives serve, in large part, as sources and
exemplars of the moral commandments and prohibitions.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What is the ultimate source and justification
of these narratives, prohibitions and commandments?</span></b><b><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;"><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 0in; mso-add-space: auto; text-align: left;"><b><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">The
answer is that all is revealed to us by God himself in holy texts or by oral
law passed down over the generations, until they too were written in canonical
texts. Note how far this is from #1.</span></b><b><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;"><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 0in; mso-add-space: auto; text-align: left;"><b><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">According
to the biblical text, the most important revelation occurred at Mt. Sinai in
the presence of hundreds of thousands of witnesses. Previous and later
communication between God and other individuals occur in other places. What is
the source of this claim? The text itself tells of its revelation by God. So,
credibility for the text as divine is supposedly provided by the authority of
the text itself, including the existence of the corroborating witnesses. In
short, we have an argument supported by its assumptions.</span></b><b><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;"><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 0in; mso-add-space: auto; text-align: left;"><b><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">Apart
from this, the divine nature of the various texts considered part of the
definitive source of all Jewish law, halacha, is highly implausible given some
of its characteristics.</span></b></p><div style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-align: justify; text-indent: -0.25in;"><ol><li style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-weight: bold; line-height: 107%; text-indent: -0.25in;">1.</span><b style="text-indent: -0.25in;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">Numerous contradictions and
inconsistencies in both narrative and reasoning regarding laws. In fact these
inconsistencies provide much of the material for extended discussion in
commentary by the sages (rabbis) leading to their reconciliation. From the start,
since the text is considered to be divine, the inconsistencies must be apparent
and not real. We, humans have been misled by our limited understanding and need
wise rabbis to provide the reconciliations formed by their superior
understanding of the definitive texts.</span></b></li><li style="text-align: left;"><b style="text-indent: -0.25in;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">2.<span style="font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></span></b><b style="text-indent: -0.25in;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">The historical accuracy of some of
the narrative is questionable. Perhaps the most obvious is the assertion that
the planet is less than 6,000 years old.</span></b></li><li style="text-align: left;"><b style="text-indent: -0.25in;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">3.<span style="font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></span></b><b style="text-indent: -0.25in;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">Textual analysis of the various texts
suggests they were written over a long period of time by different people. The
styles and language structures are different.</span></b></li><li style="text-align: left;"><b style="text-indent: -0.25in;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">4.<span style="font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></span></b><b style="text-indent: -0.25in;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">At numerous places in the biblical
texts supernatural forces are reported, such as the splitting of the sea, the
halting of the passage of the sun to allow Joshua to complete his invasion,
Jacob wrestling with an angel, etc. Such supernatural occurrences are posited
to have ceased at some point and are no longer part of our world. This strains
belief. </span></b></li></ol></div><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 0in; mso-add-space: auto; text-align: justify;">
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;"><b><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">The most plausible assumption is that these texts are an
impressive combination of moral allegories, historical narratives, and law (the
commentaries) drawn from the history and the allegorical stories – one that
provides a comprehensive guide to everyday life, but also to religious belief
and mandatory ritual. <o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-left: 0in; mso-add-space: auto; text-align: left;"><b><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">#7.
Considering the details of halacha, the obligations upon each individual – from
a moral and common-sense perspective.</span></b><b><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;"><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 0in; mso-add-space: auto; text-align: left;"><b><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">There
are too many considerations for a comprehensive analysis. A shorter selection
of examples must suffice.</span></b><b><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;"><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 0in; mso-add-space: auto; text-align: left;"><b><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">On the
morality of certain precepts and practices, in light of modern western
sensibilities.</span></b></p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 0in; mso-add-space: auto; text-align: left;"><b><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">The role
of women. Clearly women are regarded as lesser citizens in the strict canon of
the law. They cannot act as witnesses in religious matters. Husbands have the
sole right to initiate a divorce, which can create agunot, women trapped
against their will in marriages by their husbands. It is true that historically
the treatment of women by Jewish law was ahead of its time, but not now.</span></b><b><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;"><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 0in; mso-add-space: auto; text-align: left;"><b><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">The role
of non-Jews. Jews are considered to be a special species of humanity, and many
practices incorporate this, perhaps the most prominent being the ban against
intermarriage. It is based on Jewish birth (or conversion, which is interpreted
as the revelation of a hidden “Jewish soul”). As such, there is an unfortunate
(but maybe understandable) racial element to it.</span></b><b><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;"><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 0in; mso-add-space: auto; text-align: left;"><b><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">Intrusions
into private life – some of it offends morally, some are just a matter of
preference. But as commandments that could be enforced if Jewish authorities
had the power they are troubling. Some examples, attitudes toward sexual
relations – the control of the schedule couples are obliged to follow, the
prohibition of masturbation, the uncompromising attitude toward homosexuality
(the blind denial that it is a biological fact), essentially condemning gay
people to lives of isolation and shame. The prohibition of women singing in
public. There are noticeable differences among religious practitioners on some
of these, some claiming they are implied by biblical and commentary sources,
others considering them as binding customs, and others not accepting them.</span></b><b><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;"><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 0in; mso-add-space: auto; text-align: left;"><b><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">There is
much more that can be said, but this is enough to illustrate why many thinking
people would struggle to accept the full body of strictures as aspects of the
divine revelation of a God that is all-good.</span></b><b><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;"><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 0in; mso-add-space: auto; text-align: left;"><b><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">Matters
of common sense. Compulsory rituals from organized prayer to multiple
individual blessings to be pronounced for just about everything. For some
people, it defies comprehension why an infinitely powerful, knowledgeable,
confident God, would require of the humans he created that they continually,
repeatedly, affirm his greatness, kindness, and any other possible virtue one
can think of; why he would demand magical restrictions on their eating habits,
why he would command binding restrictions on their work habits to the point of
prescribing stoning and other punishment for their violations.</span></b><b><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;"><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 0in; mso-add-space: auto; text-align: left;"><b><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">#8. The
source of morality. <o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 0in; mso-add-space: auto; text-align: left;"><b><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">A
particularly weak form of argument suggests that, in the absence of this corpus
of laws and practices, there would be no moral structure to the social world.
If morality is not revealed to us by some superior moral authority, we would be
free to make it up. There would be no limits to what we could consider as moral
and there could be moral chaos.</span></b><b><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;"><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 0in; mso-add-space: auto; text-align: left;"><b><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">This is
an argument that presumes its conclusion. It starts, by implication, with the
idea that a moral system is necessary, in other words is moral. One is tempted
to ask, what moral system tells you that a moral system is necessary? But, that
is only one of its problems. The other, more important, problem is that it is
false. It suggests that humans can escape the subjective choice about what is
and what is not moral, right and wrong. This choice cannot be escaped. Morality
is inescapably, and always, a subjective matter. The “decision” to accept what
is claimed to have been revealed is a subjective choice. The religious believer
will be repeatedly challenged by any apparent contradiction between what his
conscience tells him, and what his religious text tells him is right or wrong.
He has to choose. Mostly he chooses to find some compromise that makes it seem
as if there is no contradiction. Other times he may choose to accept the
religious view and suspend the “ignorant” inclinations of his conscience. But
he cannot avoid the choice.</span></b><b><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;"><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 0in; mso-add-space: auto; text-align: left;"><b><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">A modern
view is to face up to the fact that all morality ultimately comes from one's
conscience (certainly influenced by experience and culture), and act
accordingly.</span></b><b><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;"><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 0in; mso-add-space: auto; text-align: left;"><b><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">#9.
Other possible approaches to religious teaching -<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>my own view of the matter.</span></b><b><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;"><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 0in; mso-add-space: auto; text-align: left;"><span style="line-height: 107%;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><b>Overall,
organized religions like Judaism, are the result of millennia of social
evolution as humans have striven to deal with their dangerous, uncertain and
exciting lives. A child in need of protection and reassurance resides within
all of us. So we have invented a perpetual parent, who knows better and helps
us make sense of it all. And it works surprisingly well for the majority of
humanity. It provides valuable insights through biblical allegories that
contain eternal truths about human nature, it embodies great insight in its
commentaries, it provides beautiful literature and poetry, grandiose visions, </b></span><b>beautiful</b><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><b> music.
Humanity would be worse off without the sublime teachings of the Jewish
tradition on justice, tolerance and love.</b></span></span><b><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;"><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 0in; mso-add-space: auto; text-align: left;"><span style="line-height: 107%;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><b>But,
equally, it contains unfortunate </b></span><b>anachronisms</b><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><b> that should be and often are
abandoned. And some religions, or versions of religions, like Islamism, should
be vigorously combatted. Until modern times, pretty much all major wars were
fought in the name of religion.</b></span></span><b><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;"><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 0in; mso-add-space: auto; text-align: left;"><b><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">Bottom
line: religion can be a great source of morality, inspiration, and stability.
But it can also be a source of massive intolerance destruction and brutality.
The key is this:</span></b><b><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;"><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-left: 0in; mso-add-space: auto; text-align: left;"><b><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">Religion
is likely to be a force for good as long as it does not have the power to
compel, as long as it remains a lifestyle choice and not a state enforced legal
system. Judaism lost it state power with the destruction of the second temple
and became a religion without priestly or governmental power. Perhaps that is
the secret of its relative tolerance.</span></i></b></p>Against the Currenthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12356717231233669106noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6635559730786891370.post-51898519874535006502023-10-29T10:11:00.006-05:002023-10-29T17:42:40.384-05:00From my FB page - Israel's impossible choice<p> <span color="var(--primary-text)" style="font-family: inherit; font-size: 0.9375rem; white-space-collapse: preserve;">Today's musing minute.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: 0.9375rem;">We are witnessing the most earth-shattering events in Gaza.</span><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: 0.9375rem;">This is no less disturbing for being anticipated. It is the result of the terrible choices faced by Israel. Attacked by Nazis bent on destroying it in the most brutal manner conceivable, Israel has elected to destroy Hamas, even at great cost to the hostages and their families and to tens, maybe hundreds, of thousands of innocent civilians. The alternatives are</span></p><div style="--tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / .5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0; font-family: inherit;"><div dir="auto" style="--tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / .5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0; font-family: inherit;"><div class="x1iorvi4 x1pi30zi x1swvt13 xjkvuk6" data-ad-comet-preview="message" data-ad-preview="message" id=":Rlataul9l9aqqd9emhpapd5aqH2:" style="--tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / .5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0; font-family: inherit; padding: 4px 16px;"><div class="x78zum5 xdt5ytf xz62fqu x16ldp7u" style="--tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / .5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0; display: flex; flex-direction: column; font-family: inherit; margin-bottom: -5px; margin-top: -5px;"><div class="xu06os2 x1ok221b" style="--tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / .5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0; font-family: inherit; margin-bottom: 5px; margin-top: 5px;"><span class="x193iq5w xeuugli x13faqbe x1vvkbs x1xmvt09 x1lliihq x1s928wv xhkezso x1gmr53x x1cpjm7i x1fgarty x1943h6x xudqn12 x3x7a5m x6prxxf xvq8zen xo1l8bm xzsf02u x1yc453h" color="var(--primary-text)" dir="auto" style="--tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / .5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0; display: block; font-family: inherit; font-size: 0.9375rem; line-height: 1.3333; max-width: 100%; min-width: 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; word-break: break-word;"><div class="x11i5rnm xat24cr x1mh8g0r x1vvkbs xtlvy1s x126k92a" style="--tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / .5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0; font-family: inherit; margin: 0.5em 0px 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space-collapse: preserve;"><div dir="auto" style="--tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / .5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0; font-family: inherit;">1. <span style="--tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / .5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0; font-family: inherit;"><a style="--tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / .5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0; color: #385898; cursor: pointer; font-family: inherit;" tabindex="-1"></a></span>to accede to the Nazis' demands, free 7,000 terrorists from Israeli prisons in return for the 200 odd hostages and cease fire for good - until the reinforced Hamas strikes again, continuing their objective to kill or expel all the Jews.</div></div><div class="x11i5rnm xat24cr x1mh8g0r x1vvkbs xtlvy1s x126k92a" style="--tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / .5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0; font-family: inherit; margin: 0.5em 0px 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space-collapse: preserve;"><div dir="auto" style="--tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / .5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0; font-family: inherit;">2.The other alternative is to cease fire temporarily to let humanitarian aid in sufficient to prevent the impending humanitarian catastrophe. This is the alternative the western world is urging, and some of the Arab world too. It is not clear to what extent this will compromise Israel's main objective to destroy Hamas, or even render it impossible. Clearly Israel thinks it is off the table.</div></div><div class="x11i5rnm xat24cr x1mh8g0r x1vvkbs xtlvy1s x126k92a" style="--tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / .5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0; font-family: inherit; margin: 0.5em 0px 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space-collapse: preserve;"><div dir="auto" style="--tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / .5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0; font-family: inherit;">But there is a third alternative, arguably the most logical and moral alternative. In a more moral world, one more unified against Nazis of all kinds, the great powers, and the leaders of the Arab world who claim to be against terrorism, would demand the unconditional surrender of Hamas and the turning over of its leaders to be tried for war crimes, just as happened after WWII. Sad to say it took the bombing of Dresden to come to this (or so I am told). This is the most just way to save the Palestinian people. If Hamas leaders truly cared about them, they would sacrifice themselves to that cause and surrender. If the Arab world cared about the Palestinian people they would urge Hams to do so and to face justice for the crimes everyone knows they committed. This, it should be strongly emphasized, regardless of the rights and wrongs of the broader Israel-Palestinian conflict. Nazis are in power in Gaza. One cannot negotiate with Nazis. Israel has learned that lesson. Unconditional surrender is logical and just. </div></div><div class="x11i5rnm xat24cr x1mh8g0r x1vvkbs xtlvy1s x126k92a" style="--tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / .5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0; font-family: inherit; margin: 0.5em 0px 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space-collapse: preserve;"><div dir="auto" style="--tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / .5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0; font-family: inherit;">But, the truth is that the Arab world, as a whole, does not care, has never cared much about the Palestinian people. Over the last 75 years they (75,000 of them) could have been accepted into any of the many Arab countries as refugees that would have contributed greatly to those countries, just as the 850,000 Jews expelled from Arab countries, at that time, were accepted into Israel. Instead they have been kept as second class citizens in camps in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and elsewhere to be used as political pawns for generation after generation. In the western democratic countries they have been accepted and have become peaceful productive citizens, like my next door neighbor, who is now aged 90 and has prospered, raising a large successful family. </div></div><div class="x11i5rnm xat24cr x1mh8g0r x1vvkbs xtlvy1s x126k92a" style="--tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / .5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0; font-family: inherit; margin: 0.5em 0px 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space-collapse: preserve;"><div dir="auto" style="--tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / .5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0; font-family: inherit;">This last alternative will sadly not materialize, but, I felt morally obligated to articulate it as something to be considered in the moral calculus that will follow the death and destruction. It is not a matter of excusing Israel's actions. It is a matter of facing the truth of Israel's dilemma, the circumstances of which are not of its making or under its control. </div></div><div class="x11i5rnm xat24cr x1mh8g0r x1vvkbs xtlvy1s x126k92a" style="--tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / .5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0; font-family: inherit; margin: 0.5em 0px 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space-collapse: preserve;"><div dir="auto" style="--tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / .5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0; font-family: inherit;">If the "world" really wanted to save the Palestinians of Gaza they would arrange for, they would demand, the expeditious surrender of Hamas rather than the unjust surrender of Israel to outrageous terms. Israel's choice is between sacrificing its population or the population of Gaza. Can you think of a more terrible choice? </div></div><div class="x11i5rnm xat24cr x1mh8g0r x1vvkbs xtlvy1s x126k92a" style="--tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / .5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0; font-family: inherit; margin: 0.5em 0px 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space-collapse: preserve;"><div dir="auto" style="--tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / .5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0; font-family: inherit;">I am not naïve, but I do wonder why this is not clear to more people.</div></div></span></div></div></div></div></div><div style="--tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / .5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0; font-family: inherit;"><div class="x168nmei x13lgxp2 x30kzoy x9jhf4c x6ikm8r x10wlt62" data-visualcompletion="ignore-dynamic" style="--tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / .5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0; border-radius: 0px 0px 8px 8px; font-family: inherit; overflow: hidden;"><div style="--tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / .5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0; font-family: inherit;"><div style="--tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / .5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0; background-color: white; color: #1c1e21; font-family: "Segoe UI Historic", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;"><div style="--tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / .5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0; font-family: inherit;"><div class="xq8finb x16n37ib x1fqkajt x1aj7aux x1axty5n x1uuop16" style="--tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / .5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0; font-family: inherit; margin-left: 12px; margin-right: 12px;"><div class="x9f619 x1n2onr6 x1ja2u2z x78zum5 x2lah0s x1qughib x1qjc9v5 xozqiw3 x1q0g3np x150jy0e x1e558r4 xjkvuk6 x1iorvi4 xwrv7xz x8182xy x4cne27 xifccgj" style="--tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / .5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0; align-items: stretch; box-sizing: border-box; display: flex; flex-flow: row; flex-shrink: 0; font-family: inherit; justify-content: space-between; margin: -6px -2px; padding: 4px; position: relative; z-index: 0;"><div class="x9f619 x1n2onr6 x1ja2u2z x78zum5 xdt5ytf x193iq5w xeuugli x1r8uery x1iyjqo2 xs83m0k xg83lxy x1h0ha7o x10b6aqq x1yrsyyn" style="--tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / .5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0; box-sizing: border-box; display: flex; flex-direction: column; flex: 1 1 0px; font-family: inherit; max-width: 100%; min-width: 0px; padding: 6px 2px; position: relative; z-index: 0;"><div aria-label="Send this to friends or post it on your timeline." class="x1i10hfl x1qjc9v5 xjbqb8w xjqpnuy xa49m3k xqeqjp1 x2hbi6w x13fuv20 xu3j5b3 x1q0q8m5 x26u7qi x972fbf xcfux6l x1qhh985 xm0m39n x9f619 x1ypdohk xdl72j9 x2lah0s xe8uvvx xdj266r x11i5rnm xat24cr x1mh8g0r x2lwn1j xeuugli xexx8yu x4uap5 x18d9i69 xkhd6sd x1n2onr6 x16tdsg8 x1hl2dhg xggy1nq x1ja2u2z x1t137rt x1o1ewxj x3x9cwd x1e5q0jg x13rtm0m x3nfvp2 x1q0g3np x87ps6o x1lku1pv x1a2a7pz" role="button" style="--tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / .5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; align-items: stretch; background-color: transparent; border-bottom-color: var(--always-dark-overlay); border-left-color: var(--always-dark-overlay); border-radius: inherit; border-right-color: var(--always-dark-overlay); border-style: solid; border-top-color: var(--always-dark-overlay); border-width: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; cursor: pointer; display: inline-flex; flex-basis: auto; flex-direction: row; flex-shrink: 0; font-family: inherit; list-style: none; margin: 0px; min-height: 0px; min-width: 0px; outline: currentcolor; padding: 0px; position: relative; text-align: inherit; touch-action: manipulation; user-select: none; z-index: 0;" tabindex="0"><div class="x1o1ewxj x3x9cwd x1e5q0jg x13rtm0m x1ey2m1c xds687c xg01cxk x47corl x10l6tqk x17qophe x13vifvy x1ebt8du x19991ni x1dhq9h x1wpzbip" data-visualcompletion="ignore" style="--tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / .5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0; background-color: var(--hover-overlay); border-radius: 4px; font-family: inherit; inset: 0px; opacity: 0; pointer-events: none; position: absolute; transition-duration: var(--fds-duration-extra-extra-short-out); transition-property: opacity; transition-timing-function: var(--fds-animation-fade-out);"></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div class="xzueoph" style="--tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / .5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0; background-color: white; color: #1c1e21; font-family: "Segoe UI Historic", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; margin-bottom: 6px;"></div></div></div></div>Against the Currenthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12356717231233669106noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6635559730786891370.post-9899624878393968252023-09-02T13:19:00.003-05:002023-09-02T13:30:12.435-05:00 Today's musing minute: mindless passion and partisan hatred<p><br /></p><p class="MsoNormal">
It seems to be getting harder to get away from the bad news that suggests an
accelerating decline in the fabric of American civilization. Could be that I
cannot see the wood for the trees. A better, more zoomed-out perspective may
reveal a significant growing awareness of the bankruptcy of current political
and social trends, and portend a swing back of the pendulum, similar to the
1960's. I certainly hope so. <br />
<br />
But, meantime, I read in the WSJ opinion pages today four or five pieces on the
growing power of labor unions, especially the (constitutionally dubious)
government employee unions, and how they have destroyed the fiscal integrity of
our states, any semblance of accountability of our public deeply-failing
schools, and similar depressing accounts. I read of stubborn multi-billion
climate agenda policies in the face of massive failures, subsidies piling on
subsidies, diverting resources and destroying jobs for no-good reason,
absolutely no connection to any climate mitigation effect. <br />
<br />
And, wherever, I turn among friends and acquaintances, I encounter angst
reflecting polarization in the political discourse. This polarization is
characterized very little by reasoned disagreement, and very much by unreasoned
emotional commitment. Explosive anger is easily triggered by any attempt I make
to try to enter into an exchange of views based on reason and evidence. (Let me
admit that I too am probably somewhat vulnerable to emotional commitment,
though I try hard to transcend it.) The dominance of emotion over reason takes
the form of affiliation and loyalty to identified groups and personalities,
rather than to principles and policies. The former drowns out any examination
of the latter. The very term "independent" in connection to political
point of view attests to the dominance of a broad two-party system regardless
of their programs. <br />
<br />
Some examples: <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">My friends and acquaintances who cleave to the legend of
Trump. They see him as representing the refreshing wrecking-ball that will wipe
away the decadence of social degeneration, fiscal irresponsibility and foreign
policy weakness and disgrace, characteristic of the Democratically sponsored Biden
agenda. The disenchantment rises to the level of agitated hatred and conviction
that only Trump in spite of any argument to the contrary can save us from this damnation.
Without any examination of the merits they cling to the conviction that all of
the charges against Trump are baseless, that the 2020 election was stolen, and
that the storming of the Capital on January 6 was not that significant (after
all, the Democrats completely whitewashed the terrible riots that occurred across
the nation in the recent past – both sides do this. Apparently the one thing
wipes out the significance of the other.) They deny or minimize any role that
Trump played in the effort to prevent the certification of the election. They
turn a blind eye or support the vilification of, and even possible palpable
threat to, Mike Pence, for doing his constitutional duty. (In fact, both sides
now boldly condemn those aspects of the constitution they don’t like, that they
see as obstacles to their preferred outcomes.). In short, they completely
dismiss the threat that Trump poses to liberal democracy by subverting the political
process. It is a threat that I was made aware of prior to the 2020 election,
and, I confess, I discounted it in favor of hoping Trump would be a much-preferred
alternative to, what I saw as, a runaway radically subversive Obama-controlled
Joe Biden. I underestimated both problems. Both likely candidates now strike me
as horrible. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">My friends and acquaintances who cleave to the Democratic
party “liberal” legend. It’s a mirror image. The unreasoned passion of hatred
for Trump drowns out any discussion. It is all-pervasive. It produces egregious
double standards – a dismissal of the significance of ongoing deep malfeasance
by the federal government justice agencies in obstructing the investigations
into Hunter Biden and likely involvement of his father, and the ongoing cover
up of same, involving many high-ups in the Biden administration and beyond; schadenfreude
about the health struggles of Mitch McConnel, while papering over and
minimizing the significance of the cognitive breakdown of the chief executive
officer, who also happens to be the commander in chief and the face of America
to the nations; complete indifference to unprecedentedly radical social and
economic policies that reasoned reflection would reveal as alarmingly corrosive
to the long term wellbeing of all Americans, most especially those at the bottom
of the income distribution; the list goes on. Like their partisan opponents,
their thinking is pathetically superficial, juvenile, ignorant, economically
illiterate. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">On both sides, it is a matter of (sometimes unconscious)
emotional commitments seriously distorting the capacity for rational thinking. This
is not unusual in humans. Is it worse now? And what does it portend? <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>Against the Currenthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12356717231233669106noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6635559730786891370.post-76672153497014204322023-08-14T08:38:00.001-05:002023-08-18T10:00:11.540-05:00Hillel’s version of environmental economics<p> </p><p class="MsoNormal">From an email to a friend:</p><p class="MsoNormal">Whichever way you cut it, the climate policy nexus is
seriously broken, worldwide. By the time it gets abandoned, it will have cost
hundreds of billions of dollars stretching into the future, including lots of
death and suffering. Every new freeze or heat wave will be a challenge for the
electric grid. </p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Concerning “we are damaging the environment”. It helps to
understand the essence of all so-called environmental problems. As briefly as I
can. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">All life, all human life, all human economic life (which is
basically all human life in one way or another) involves using natural
resources. There is no such thing as human endeavor without using natural
resources. Humans are the only species that have mastered the craft of
engineering (transforming) natural resources to any great extent. Beavers build
dams, ants build colonies, is about the level reached by animals. So the
“environment” is inevitably changed. The policy question appears to be whether
the changes are good or bad, valuable or harmful. But actually that is not the
fundamental question. The fundamental question is “who should decide whether
any resource use is good or bad?” </p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">When the resources are privately owned, we pretty much agree
that the question is answered in favor of the owners. They decide what to do
with the resources they own. They are motivated and guided by the value put on
the results, the products produced with the resources, by consumers who buy
them. So, indirectly, consumers decide how resources should be used. So, if I
paint my house red, you may hate it, but unless there is a homeowner
association agreement against it, it is my legitimate choice. Similarly, a
stretch of beach may be owned by a large estate who sells it to a hotel chain
to build a vacation resort that the environmentalist don’t like. They have a
right to their opinions, but its not their decision to make. The only other way
to do it is by some external committee. </p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">There is, of course, as you will be bursting to point out,
one big caveat. When private resource usage has “external” effects, imposing
costs on third parties, that is a true environmental “problem”, like air
pollution, like smoke or noise (an airport). This is like a trespass or an
intrusion. It occurs <u>always, without exception</u>, because property rights
cannot or will not be defined. The air cannot be privately owned – that is the
best, and maybe the only, perfect example. So air pollution is the canonical
environmental problem. Water pollution is a close second. Property rights in
water are difficult and sometimes impossible to define and enforce. But, where
the problem is localized and involves a small number of parties, it can and
should be decided by the common law. I sue the airport. The judge must decide
who is plausibly the rightful property owner of the noise-space. One important
fact is who was their first? If the airport, then the homeowner likely bought
the land at a discount. If the airport came after then the homeowners my be
entitled by law to assume the absence of noise pollution and receive
compensation. The “problem” is internalized. Mostly such problems are handled
by negotiation and agreement. Like the waterboards of the early frontier in the
USA. And, as a side implication, the way resources are used will mostly not
depend upon who is awarded the right, though, of course, the relative earnings
positions will be affected. </p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">When negotiation and small party legal adjudication is not
possible, because there are masses affected, one has to resort to government
regulation. This is extremely rare. One important case is the banning of leaded
gasoline. One law, one time, unchanging, with no discretion or side payments,
removed an agreed unnecessary pollutant that we were all omitting and all consuming.
Rarely is such a case to be found. Another potential problem is the overuse of
resources in the oceans, or pollution by dumping into the oceans, etc. This
occurs because no one owns the oceans. Other examples involve “public property”
like national parks, etc. The solution is clearly to privatize them – or
contract them out to private parties. Wild life game parks in South Africa are
great examples. They are the only effective way to preserve certain wildlife
species if that is one of the objectives. Kruger is run as private concessions. </p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">So, in general, is it true that we are spoiling the
environment. Actually, no. Not in any objective or general way. Spoilage of the
Amazon is a matter of private exploitation of land previously owned, still owned,
by tribal folks. Basically stolen. And government officials benefit in the
corruption. But, even so, there are more trees in the world than there have
ever been. Many acres of swampland have been cleared and beautified. The
advance of civilization has destroyed or damaged some ecosystems or certain
species. Is this bad? There is no objective way to decide this. Classical
liberal thinking would say it depends on who owns the land with the ecosystems,
and, if you think it is bad, buy the land and preserve it. And if you cannot
persuade enough people to back you financially to do this, then if you resort
to government compulsion, to force, you are violating the property rights of
the owners. Every so-called environmental problem is this kind of thing.
But, as for the natural environment of the world, unless we are talking taste,
beauty, ugliness, this is a non-question. Resources have value only insofar as
they are valued by humans. </p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The question of climate change can be cast as an
environmental problem, a special one. The allegation is that CO2 emissions are
causing an existential threat to humanity (this claim, though repeated often by
the news media, is actually not a very common scientific claim at all). So,
they have argued, it is an extreme form of air pollution. It is not a very good
claim at all. It is pretty definitely not an existential threat, and the
proposed solutions are neither proved effective, are likely not effective, and
are extremely costly and damaging to existing energy arrangements and economic
development. </p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">That is Hillel’s version of environmental economics. <o:p></o:p></p>Against the Currenthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12356717231233669106noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6635559730786891370.post-26498499143574445302023-08-05T16:57:00.005-05:002023-08-26T14:22:25.796-05:00The Enigma of Barack Obama<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjJpRRK8YVFzrNkdy6sNHmKtUYdTpzCO1CJZr1Uta74Fzbmvx0xgXR3MlnnC9ZTznI6WcJLfq3EJAhixlvRnMxhkSY4y4eNEZAQyW2TenhpEAxnKxjaPrqoa64EtnGFGewxwrdWE4ff-I30EWQlDZhou_rnBgxfvZdyhSGG0toGePUZiyAhkAk2Gh7MkhKZ" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="139" data-original-width="162" height="127" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjJpRRK8YVFzrNkdy6sNHmKtUYdTpzCO1CJZr1Uta74Fzbmvx0xgXR3MlnnC9ZTznI6WcJLfq3EJAhixlvRnMxhkSY4y4eNEZAQyW2TenhpEAxnKxjaPrqoa64EtnGFGewxwrdWE4ff-I30EWQlDZhou_rnBgxfvZdyhSGG0toGePUZiyAhkAk2Gh7MkhKZ=w148-h127" width="148" /></a></div><br /><p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><i>Tablet Magazine </i>has published
this very long tantalizing speculative peak into the life and times of Barack
Obama. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">I have no expertise on the matter
from which to comment or judge the accuracy of it. I post the link here in case
you are interested to read it in whole or in part.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><a href="https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/arts-letters/articles/david-garrow-interview-obama?fbclid=IwAR0Ny6OUlQpRc7cdRAu8y2WM0vUlkWmqdPCpp2piEXB4xnTxrGVyLlnRe9k " target="_blank">https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/arts-letters/articles/david-garrow-interview-obama?fbclid=IwAR0Ny6OUlQpRc7cdRAu8y2WM0vUlkWmqdPCpp2piEXB4xnTxrGVyLlnRe9k </a></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Reading it myself, I recalled my
own reaction to the campaign and election of Obama, and, for what its worth, I
decided to record here my current evaluation looking back. I think Obama has
been misjudged by his many admirers, who see him as a highly intelligent,
affable human being who brought a refreshing light to America as the first
black president. My assessment is quite the opposite. And perhaps history will
agree more with me in light of the miserable nature of our current public
discourse. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Whereas I absolutely despise the
man that Donald Trump is, while favoring many of the policies he followed in
his presidency, I absolutely despise the policies and sentiments associated
with Barack Obama, even though I acknowledge his intelligence, eloquence and
political astuteness. I think, in the end, Obama will be credited with more
damage to America than Trump. Here is why.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">---<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Very early on I found myself
repelled by the content of Obama’s speeches. And during his presidency I could
not watch him talk. He annoyed and frightened me. I was surprised to find how
many people, by contrast, simply ate it up. I wonder how many actually thought
about what he was saying, rather than simply reacting to his charisma and the
fact that he was black. They liked the idea, the showcasing of a black American
president. [Of course, to be picky, but quite relevant, Obama is not black, he
is bi-racial, and he did not, like Michele Obama and his many black fans, grow
up with the “black American experience” – he adopted this persona, it is a kind
of an act.] At the time I opined that he was the worst president in my
lifetime. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">What irked and disturbed me was
that, every time he opened his mouth, he insinuated the existence of some sort
of festering grievance to be concerned about. To be sure, he did it cleverly
and subtly, which made it scarier for me – because when Hillary Clinton tried
to do it, it was so obvious and clumsy and earned her a lot of antagonism – when
Obama did it scared me because it was insidious, it wormed its way into the consciousness
without people realizing what they were admiring. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Basically, what Barack Obama did
was to break with the long sweep of black American liberalism from Frederick
Douglas to Martin Luther King to current black intellectuals, like John
McWhorter and many others. Frederick Douglas, an ex-slave, was crystal clear.
He rejected slavery and lingering racism. He rejected them as un-American, as a
betrayal of basic and universal liberal American values. [Americans have always
thought of classical liberal values as both an aspect of American exceptionalism,
and as universal. After all, they emanate from British Enlightenment thought.] For
Douglas, American liberalism was aspirational and inspirational. He took the
words of the Declaration of Independence seriously – the self-evident truth
that ALL people are equally endowed with the right to life, liberty and the
pursuit of happiness. America had fallen down, had failed in its striving to
implement these values, but the values themselves were unassailable. These
included freedom to trade, to own property, to express one’s views, to assemble.
He was explicit in rejecting special treatment for ex-slaves. He rejected
paternalism as insulting. Similarly, MLK was clear in his condemnations, not of
American liberal values, but of the failure to implement them, as they should
have been implemented to create an America in which his children would be
judged by the content of their character and the color of their skin would be
irrelevant. Both were, in this sense, proud Americans. And there are today many other proud classically liberal black Americans who feel the same way – who
embrace the progress against racism that has been made and seek an ever-better
America. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Obama’s story is different, has
always been different. He explicitly downplayed American exceptionalism and encouraged
the view that the American experience was one that was dominated by the white
race to the unambiguous detriment of non-whites. So-called American values are
the values of colonial domination. It is time for blacks to rediscover their
own authentic black experience, which involves the rejection of much of
so-called liberalism. High on the list is the challenge against free speech, because
the establishment powers control the channels of public expression for their
own purposes. The damages of white domination need to be addressed, firmly
using the mighty power of the federal government with access to an unlimited amount
of tax money restored from the property of the unjustifiably rich. Social
justice must be done. And this will involve, sooner or later, a complete transformation
of the current economic and social system. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Obama was at the forefront, if not the leader,
of a separate black identity, separate from and antithetical to the American
identity. This became clear when Michele Obama, less subtly perhaps than her
husband, declared soon after the election: “for the first time in my life, I am
proud to be an American.” If this sounds like “wokism” it is because it is, before
the name was invented. The fork in the road was Obama, not Biden. And his
presidency left many Americans very uneasy, feeling an undercurrent of something
very un-American, very hostile and threatening, being pushed by the Democratic
party and its very unpopular nominee Hillary Clinton. In this very real sense,
Obama caused Trump. Make no mistake about that. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">And this black identity is really
more than that. It is really an anti-white identity, where “white” is more a
state of being than a skin color. Thus, the anomaly of the Jews and the Asians.
Obama was never overtly anti-semitic, but his view of the Jews as a group, as
distinct from his “Jewish friends,” is undoubtedly hostile. The Jews cannot
claim to be non-white, no matter what their experience as victims or their skin
color as north Africans. I know too little about foreign policy to claim to be
able to provide expert opinion, but Obama’s foreign policy, for which the world
is paying dearly today, was palpably anti-Israel. He worked long and hard,
against the domestic and foreign current of events, to fashion a middle eastern
alliance that patched up things with Iran and excluded Israel.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>[His capitulation to Russia in Syria, Crimea
and the Donbas arguably also encouraged Putin to invade Ukraine.] Besides this,
is his clear refusal to disavow his friendship with and admiration of his one-time
spiritual leader, the overtly anti-sematic Jeremiah Wright. Be this as it may,
whether Obama can be credited with it or not, his black identity worldview has
developed a new strain of virulent anti-semitism alongside its anti-white
racism. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">The flowering of woke ideology,
with its intolerance of any dissident views, and rejection of any limits to the
scope of social-justice-funded government activity, starts with Barack Obama. In
the <i>Tablet </i>piece it fits with his childhood abandonment and resentment and his
unbridled narcissism, but I leave that to the social psychologists.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In more mundane terms, Obama is the starting point
of the ramping up of state-capitalism (“you didn’t build that”) buoyed by the
emergency of the Great Recession and the permission it gave him to blow out the
federal budget to unprecedented levels and pile on regulations in all aspects
of life, especially business life (a ball picked up eagerly by Biden who has
run even further with it). Obama honed the practice of disregarding and bending Congressional
limits to implement unlegislated policies (something his successors have
eagerly emulated). And even now, while still ensconced in D.C. he is apparently
pulling the strings influencing policy directions. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Like all politicians Barack Obama
should not be trusted, but more than most he should be feared. </p>Against the Currenthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12356717231233669106noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6635559730786891370.post-333691214009080582023-08-02T13:59:00.002-05:002023-08-02T13:59:37.702-05:00ISRAEL JUDICIAL OVERHAUL: EXPOSING THE MYTHS<p> </p><p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 3.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: center;"><b><span style="font-family: "Verdana",sans-serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">ISRAEL
JUDICIAL OVERHAUL: EXPOSING THE MYTHS<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 3.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: center;"><b><span style="font-family: "Verdana",sans-serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Oshy
Tugendhaft<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 3.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: "Verdana",sans-serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 3.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><span style="font-family: "Verdana",sans-serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">“<i>The first thing we do is, let’s kill all the lawyers”</i>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So proposed, Dick the Butcher, in
William Shakespeare’s Henry VI.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Often misinterpreted, the context in which Dick utters this phrase is
key to its true meaning, that society could not exist in a state of fairness,
peace and justice without the protectiveness of both the law and its staunch
guardians.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Dick is suggesting that for their
coup to prevail, they must eradicate society of the very defenders of justice
who could prevent the revolt he intends to promote and then remove the power he
would seek to usurp.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>USA Supreme Court
justice, John Paul Stevens, shared this reading of the line, in a
1985 decision:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 3.0pt; margin-left: 42.55pt; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><i><span style="font-family: "Verdana",sans-serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">“As a careful reading of that text will reveal,
Shakespeare insightfully realized that disposing of lawyers is a step in the
direction of a totalitarian form of Government.”<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 3.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><span style="font-family: "Verdana",sans-serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">The objective of the Israeli Government’s “judicial overhaul” is to “<i>kill
the judges</i>”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is designed,
firstly, to give the ruling coalition an overriding say in the selection and appointment
of judges, and secondly, to significantly circumscribe the Supreme Court’s
power to review laws passed by the Knesset.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 3.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><span style="font-family: "Verdana",sans-serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">But, in an effort to stifle criticism of its reform proposals, there are
two myths which have been perpetuated by Netanyahu and his Government, designed
to mislead the Israeli population and Jewish supporters of Israel in the
diaspora.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 3.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><span style="font-family: "Verdana",sans-serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">The first myth is that the judges appoint themselves. The second, is
that a democracy requires that the will of the majority, which is represented
by the elected majority in the Knesset, should not be frustrated by the
decision of a Supreme Court, comprising some 15 judges, who are not
elected by the people, which, so they contend, is the antithesis of
democracy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 3.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><span style="font-family: "Verdana",sans-serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">We need at the outset, to expose these myths for what they are.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 3.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><span style="font-family: "Verdana",sans-serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">The judges do not appoint themselves.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Israel has a judicial selection committee comprising the following 9 members:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 3.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 12.0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-align: justify; text-indent: -.25in; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Symbol; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">·<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span dir="LTR"></span><span style="font-family: "Verdana",sans-serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">The Minister of Justice, Chairman of the Committee;<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 3.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 12.0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-align: justify; text-indent: -.25in; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Symbol; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">·<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span dir="LTR"></span><span style="font-family: "Verdana",sans-serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">The Supreme Court President;<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 3.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 12.0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-align: justify; text-indent: -.25in; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Symbol; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">·<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span dir="LTR"></span><span style="font-family: "Verdana",sans-serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">two additional Supreme Court justices;<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 3.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 12.0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-align: justify; text-indent: -.25in; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Symbol; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">·<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span dir="LTR"></span><span style="font-family: "Verdana",sans-serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">an additional Minister;<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 3.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 12.0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-align: justify; text-indent: -.25in; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Symbol; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">·<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span dir="LTR"></span><span style="font-family: "Verdana",sans-serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">two Knesset members;<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 3.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 12.0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-align: justify; text-indent: -.25in; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Symbol; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">·<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span dir="LTR"></span><span style="font-family: "Verdana",sans-serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">two representatives of the Israeli Bar Association.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 3.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><span style="font-family: "Verdana",sans-serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Accordingly, 4 of the 9 members are appointed by the Government,
3 by Supreme Court judges, and 2 by the Israeli Bar Association.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 3.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><span style="font-family: "Verdana",sans-serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Judges of the lower courts are appointed by a majority ‑ 5 out
of 9 ‑ of the members of the Judicial Committee. The appointment of a
judge of the Supreme Court, requires a majority of 7 of the 9 members of
the Judicial Committee.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 3.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><span style="font-family: "Verdana",sans-serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">The Supreme Court, being the highest court in the land, is the ultimate
judicial body, responsible for reviewing legislation of the Knesset.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Contrary to the false narrative perpetrated,
therefore, the representatives of the Government have an absolute veto
regarding the appointment of any judge of the Supreme Court.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>No judge of the Supreme Court can be
appointed without at least 2 of the 4 representatives of the Government on
the Judicial Committee supporting that appointment, even if that appointment is
supported by all 3 justices and the <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>2 representatives of the Bar
Counsel.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Similarly, the 3 justices
also have a corresponding veto right.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>That, I would suggest, is a most balanced and equitable system. To
contend, therefore, that the judges appoint themselves is a misrepresentation
of the true facts.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 3.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><span style="font-family: "Verdana",sans-serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">The second myth is even more egregious. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It garners support in the thesis that because
the judges are not appointed by popular vote, they are not truly representative
of the will of the majority of the population.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>In contrast, a government which holds a majority in the Knesset,
maintains that it is representative of the will of the majority, and therefore,
when it enacts important legislation, the Supreme Court should not have the
power to strike down and invalidate that law, on the grounds that it is unconstitutional
or lacks rationality.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But that, precisely,
is what a liberal democracy demands.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>One
of the fundamental roles of such a Court, is to enforce the rule of law and
hold government to abide by that rule of law.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 3.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><span style="font-family: "Verdana",sans-serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">What the Israeli Government is seeking to enact, are revolutionary
changes to judicial oversight. At present, and for the past 30 years, the
Supreme Court has the power, by majority vote of the Court, to invalidate laws
which offend constitutional values or the rule of law. The Government’s
proposal is that the Supreme Court will only be able to invalidate a law when
it sits as a full bench of 15 judges, and when 12 out of the 15 determine
that law to be unconstitutional (in the second proposal it has been suggested
that such a decision would require unanimity).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>But the proposed changes go even further.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In the event of the Court striking down any
legislation on the grounds that it is unconstitutional or unreasonable, the
Knesset, by a simple majority of 61 out of 120 members, would have
the right to override such a decision of the Supreme Court.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Government would thus arrogate to itself the
unlimited power as final arbiter and judge to determine the validity of its own
laws.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In short, even if the Supreme
Court declared such a law to be invalid, the Government could override and invalidate
that decision.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If that untrammeled power
is not enough, it goes even further.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>During the legislative process, if the Government determines that a
particular piece of legislature is a Basic Law, it can in advance preclude the
Supreme Court of exercising any jurisdiction at all regarding the validity of that
legislation and so preemptively shield it entirely from judicial review.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 3.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><span style="font-family: "Verdana",sans-serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">The objective is clear.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The
ruling coalition in the Knesset must have absolute power and the Supreme Court,
which has historically at least since 1992 served as the only and ultimate
check on that power, must be emasculated and neutralized.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Besides controlling the appointment of the
judges of the Supreme Court, the Knesset would reign supreme, and it would even
be beyond the power of the Supreme Court to review any legislation which the Government
by simple majority declares to be a Basic Law.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 3.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><span style="font-family: "Verdana",sans-serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">It is not only dictatorial regimes that may seek to weaken the review
power of courts in respect of important legislation and executive action. It will
often be attractive to a democratically elected government, to believe that
because it enjoys electoral majority support, it is axiomatic that the laws it
enacts are necessarily in the best interests of the country and its people and
should not be capable of being assailed by a court, whose judges are not
appointed by the same process.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>However,
in every liberal democracy, there has always been an adherence to, and recognition
of, the fundamental principle of the separation of powers, which prescribes,
amongst other things, that the highest court of the land has to be instrumental
in placing a check on the actions of that government, derived from the rule of law.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 3.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><span style="font-family: "Verdana",sans-serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Without that fundamental separation of powers and the residual power of
the Court to set aside legislation and administrative conduct which violates
constitutional principles or lacks rationality, there cannot be a true liberal democracy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We encounter, instead, the tyranny of the
majority, about which the renowned French political scientist and philosopher,
Alexis de Tocqueville, expressed concern almost 200 years ago,
as part of his study of democracy in America.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>So too, John Stuart Mill, in his 1859 book “On Liberty”, warned
about the inherent weakness to majority rule in which the majority of an
electorate pursues exclusively its own objectives at the expense of those of
the minority factions.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This results in
oppression of minority groups comparable to that of a tyrant or despot.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 3.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><span style="font-family: "Verdana",sans-serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Since Israel does not have some of the other checks against government
excesses, which are enjoyed by certain other democracies, with a separation of
the legislative and executive bodies and sometimes a bicameral legislative
body – examples are the House of Commons and the House of Lords in
the United Kingdom and the House and<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Senate in the USA ‑ the only check that Israel has against any
government exploiting its majority in order to pass whatever legislation it may
deem fit, no matter how extreme or self‑serving, is its Supreme Court, with the
power to review and strike down offensive legislation and set aside administrative
abuses of authority and power.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Accordingly, the Supreme Court is there to safeguard minority factions
against the tyranny of the majority or, as it has sometimes been described, the
tyranny of the masses.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 3.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><span style="font-family: "Verdana",sans-serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">That was precisely Tocqueville’s concern, that a majority could become
an all‑powerful force and could tyrannize unpopular minorities and marginal
individuals.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Unchecked political power
will eventually always lead to tyranny. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is the Court that is the ultimate check
against the unconstitutional or irrational exercise of that political power.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Inherent, therefore, in the separation of
powers, is the function of an independent judiciary, which must hold the
legislature and executive to account.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It
can only perform that function, with an uninhibited review process which the
Israeli Government’s judicial overview proposals are designed to remove. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 3.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><span style="font-family: "Verdana",sans-serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">We in South Africa, are readily able to appreciate the position as it
prevailed <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>under apartheid before 1994, with absolute parliamentary
sovereignty and our courts bereft of any judicial review power. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And so, the most pernicious legislation could
be passed, including the 90- and 180-day arbitrary detention laws, in respect
of which the courts had no power of review at all. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In contrast, since the advent of democracy in
South Africa, our Constitution guarantees, <i>inter alia,</i> personal rights
and freedoms and entrenches the power of the Constitutional Court, to strike
down and declare invalid any legislation or administrative act which violates
those rights and freedoms. There have been countless judgments of our
Constitutional Court, which have declared unconstitutional and invalid laws passed
by the ruling ANC government.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In one of
its leading judgments dealing with the Nkandla scandal involving then President
Zuma, Chief Justice Mogoeng introduced the unanimous judgment of the Court,
with the following statement:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 3.0pt; margin-left: 42.55pt; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><i><span style="font-family: "Verdana",sans-serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">“One of the crucial elements of our constitutional
vision is to make a decisive break from the unchecked abuse of State power and
resources that was virtually institutionalized during the apartheid era.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>To achieve this goal, we adopted
accountability, the rule of law and the supremacy of the Constitution as values
of our constitutional democracy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For
this reason, public office‑bearers ignore their constitutional obligations at
their peril.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is so because
constitutionalism, accountability and the rule of law constitute the sharp and
mighty sword that stands ready to chop the ugly head of impunity off its
stiffened neck.”<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 3.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><span style="font-family: "Verdana",sans-serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Israel, whilst it does not have a written constitution, has a body of
law, developed over many decades, which serves as its uncodified
constitution.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A written or codified constitution
is not a requirement.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>One of the
strongest constitutions in the western world, is the uncodified constitution of
the United Kingdom, developed over centuries of <i>jurisprudence</i>.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 3.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><span style="font-family: "Verdana",sans-serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">One cannot overstate the extreme existential danger that the Israeli Government’s
judicial overhaul policy poses to the entire social fabric of Israeli
society.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In a recent interview, constitutional
expert, Professor Yaniv Roznai, an Associate Professor and Vice‑Dean
at the Harry Radzyner Law School, and Co‑director at the Rubenstein Center for
Constitutional Challenges at Reichman University in Herzliya, expounded on that
danger as follows:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 3.0pt; margin-left: 42.55pt; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><i><span style="font-family: "Verdana",sans-serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">“The question of checks is crucial.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If you look around the world, all other
democracies have various mechanisms to make sure that political power is
checked and diffused.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Israel is the only
democracy in the world without any of these mechanisms.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>None.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>We have only one parliament with one house that is controlled by the
coalition leadership, usually 5 or 6 politicians, who can impose their will
through coalition discipline.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And you
need to remember that in the Israeli system, most parties are actually non‑democratic
in the sense that there is no democratic process within the party.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So, we have totalitarian parties where you
have a leader who decides who will be in the party and in which place.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is in this context in which the Government
is already so strong, that now we want to get rid of those limited checks, such
as the Court that were crucial.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 3.0pt; margin-left: 42.55pt; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><i><span style="font-family: "Verdana",sans-serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">……………<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 3.0pt; margin-left: 42.55pt; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><i><span style="font-family: "Verdana",sans-serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">I am extremely worried about our democratic
future.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Being a student of comparative
constitutional law, and seeing around the world the process of democratic
erosion, and the way populus Governments abuse legal and constitutional means
to undermine the other democratic institutions of the Government, people now
tell me: ‘What do you want? The Israeli Supreme Court now has absolute
powers’.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is of course not true, but
I don’t know a country in history that lost its democratic character and became
a dictatorship because the court was overly activist in its human rights
protection or had a very broad understanding of reasonableness doctrine.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But I know of many democracies who have
collapsed because the Government and executive had too much power.”<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 3.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><span style="font-family: "Verdana",sans-serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">One thing is clear.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The
controversy created by the Government’s intended judicial overhaul is the most
profound and critical internal issue that Israel has faced since its establishment.
The divisiveness, rancor and animosity that this proposed legislation has
created is as unparalleled as it is tragic.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>If this legislation as contemplated is passed and implemented, it will
forever adversely change the face of Israeli civil society. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 3.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><span style="font-family: "Verdana",sans-serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Disregarding Netanyahu’s personal stake in the proposed legislation
consequent upon the criminal charges he faces, his latest explanation that this
judicial overhaul will not destroy democracy but will in fact strengthen it, is,
ironically, the mantra of every demagogue who seeks to justify the erosion of
the courts and the rule of law on the pretext that a democratically elected
majority government must be the only and final arbiter of its exercise of
political power.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That, precisely, is the
recipe of every authoritarian state. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Unsurprisingly
therefore, already last Monday, immediately after the initial law was passed by
the Knesset, removing the power of the Court to apply the critical reasonableness
standard, </span><span lang="EN-ZA" style="background: white; color: #111111; font-family: "Verdana",sans-serif;">Ben-Gvir</span><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-family: "Verdana",sans-serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"> </span><span style="font-family: "Verdana",sans-serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">crowd glowingly
and chillingly that this was only the beginning for “the salad bar is open”. Beware
the slippery slope.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 3.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><span style="font-family: "Verdana",sans-serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">In the final analysis, we should never take democracy or democratic values
for granted.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They do not self‑regulate.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In every truly democratic society, it is the
responsibility of the people ‑ hence the valiant and indefatigable 30-week
protests ‑ to guard against the potential disintegration of that
democratic order through the concentration of hegemonic power, which finds
expression in Lord Acton’s famous quote:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 3.0pt; margin-left: 42.55pt; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><i><span style="font-family: "Verdana",sans-serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">“Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts
absolutely.”</span></i><span style="font-family: "Verdana",sans-serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 3.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><span style="font-family: "Verdana",sans-serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">The Israeli Supreme Court, which for decades has enjoyed international
respect and recognition for its independence, judicial integrity and
profundity, has provided, and must continue to provide, the necessary
protection against any abuse of that power by any government du jour.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If the judicial overhaul proposals are implemented,
it will forever be stripped of that power and Israel will cease to be a liberal
democracy. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 3.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><span style="font-family: "Verdana",sans-serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">If you want to be a democracy, there can be only one solution. You need
broad consensus for anything that dramatically shifts the balance of power and
increases its concentration in the hands of the government.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Any radical changes must be resisted because
they don’t allow for careful debate and reflection over successive
parliaments.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If there is any suggested
room for improvement of the Supreme Court, absent rational deliberation and
ultimately consensus, it will lead to civil disobedience and revolt.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 3.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 12.0pt;"><i><span style="font-family: "Verdana",sans-serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Oshy Tugendhaft is an prominent attorney in
Johannesburg, South Africa.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>Against the Currenthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12356717231233669106noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6635559730786891370.post-30289252427216992122023-06-30T13:35:00.004-05:002023-06-30T13:51:33.659-05:00Thoughts on the recent Supreme Court decision banning affirmative action in college admissions. <p></p><p style="background: white;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background: white; color: #050505; font-family: "inherit",serif; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">It is absolutely the
right decision, and I expected it. However, I also expect the stubborn,
unprincipled educational establishment to violate this law by adopting one
workaround after another. </span><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="color: #222222;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="color: #050505; font-family: "inherit",serif; font-size: large; mso-bidi-font-family: "Segoe UI Historic";"><span style="--tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / .5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0;">The University of Texas,
Austin, some time ago, did that effectively by admitting the ranking top 10% in
any high school graduating class across the state, disregarding the quality of
the school. Discrimination against whites and asians is perhaps even worse
under this workaround than under transparent affirmative action. It should be
challenged. </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="color: #050505; font-family: "inherit", serif;">To clarify my position: I think
affirmative action is immoral, paternalistic, and unconstitutional. In my ideal
world, to the extent that Harvard is a private institution, I think it ought to
be able to discriminate if it wants to. But, insofar as affirmative action is
actually affirmative </span><i style="color: #050505; font-family: "inherit", serif;">discrimination</i><span style="color: #050505; font-family: "inherit", serif;">, I think it violates
anti-discrimination law, and thus violates the 14</span><sup style="color: #050505; font-family: "inherit", serif;">th</sup><span style="color: #050505; font-family: "inherit", serif;"> Amendment requiring
“equal protection” of individuals under the law - (even though I do not support
that law - Title VII of the Civil Rights Act). If Harvard is allowed to
discriminate, then anyone should be allowed to discriminate against whomever
they want. The law should not be confined to preventing discrimination only against
certain groups, while allowing and encouraging it against others.</span><span style="color: #050505; font-family: "inherit", serif;"> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="color: #050505; font-family: "inherit",serif; mso-bidi-font-family: "Segoe UI Historic";"><span style="--tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / .5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0;">Meantime social media is abuzz
with this, "reporting" on how bad it is, without any clue about the
facts and the principles involved. They claim the moral high ground for an
immoral cause.</span></span><span style="color: #050505; font-family: "inherit",serif; mso-bidi-font-family: "Segoe UI Historic";"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p><br /><p></p>Against the Currenthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12356717231233669106noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6635559730786891370.post-81439356776487775202023-06-20T22:13:00.003-05:002023-06-20T22:15:18.436-05:00Thoughts on the new antisemitism - SHORTEST VERSION<p><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Jews-Dont-Count-David-Baddiel/dp/000853019X/ref=sr_1_1?hvadid=598729517192&hvdev=c&hvlocphy=9026945&hvnetw=g&hvqmt=e&hvrand=6925946639993884073&hvtargid=kwd-1179083474613&hydadcr=22594_13531167&keywords=jews+don%27t+count+by+david+baddiel&qid=1685725221&s=books&sr=1-1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: center;" target="_blank"><img alt="" data-original-height="389" data-original-width="259" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgu5ZxTWXYvcmE2h0pJMjNAgpq2k17qbPA1IAW7bpNgNX4JjAeWN1R3tK-yE48pPu5xwYPqMI2a9v58QGcnNGE89pqUf6W4Dl9jXBl9wZUfMbZOk70XPIPc2gQApt_YJVlbCLAngrC9GKH_TbA2cAfsDexrMh3tVqlhofOTl8GbRnI0v70AA1mK1wHqBQ" width="160" /></a> <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Woke-Antisemitism-Progressive-Ideology-Harms/dp/1637587678/ref=sr_1_1?crid=28U9Y3IA5LDIT&keywords=woke+antisemitism&qid=1685725091&sprefix=woke+antisemitism%2Caps%2C123&sr=8-1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: center;" target="_blank"><img alt="" data-original-height="364" data-original-width="271" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEibiljfon3MusXoG3gAVnrAlJgEA7KSBB2dEcI-fhyGcyrmp9W64lq72tql665kJuxEMMfbNClpgiXjhctCFAuaaK252SZWObS7i1OConMdQUd5wqqvrdG5eNFYN-Crr4AvpFng12YOVHovgI8HFffvrFDxO68VD20gIwBVy1gddgrQ5cRLMerR4iYyLA" width="179" /></a></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; text-align: justify;">I just read two recently published books, one about the UK (</span><i style="--tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / .5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; text-align: justify;">Jews Don’t Count </i><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; text-align: justify;">by David Baddiel)</span><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="--tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / .5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0; color: #222222; text-align: justify;"> </span><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; text-align: justify;">and the other about the US (</span><i style="--tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / .5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; text-align: justify;">Woke Antisemitism </i><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; text-align: justify;">by David Bernstein). I highly recommend them both. Perhaps the most notable thing about them, is that they are both written by avowedly “liberal” authors, self-described as “leftist”. But, both, in spite of this, have become completely disillusioned and alarmed by the woke (Progressive) agenda, not least because of its inevitable anti-semitic element.</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="--tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / .5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0; background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><o:p style="--tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / .5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0;"></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="--tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / .5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0; background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Baddiel is a well-known British-Jewish comedian/public intellectual. Bernstein is an eminent American-Jewish communal leader. Both became disillusioned over time, especially Bernstein, as they began to realize that the woke folk were not the traditional friends to the Jews that “liberals” had always been. Further, they came to the realization that following the well-worn path of Jewish-liberal alliances would no longer work with the latest brand of “liberalism”. In fact, and this is key, the vigorous attempt by Jewish organizations to curry favor with the organizations adopting one woke principle after another, was not only undermining <b style="--tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / .5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0;">traditional Jewish values of tolerance and open-mindedness</b>, it was not even working to maintain the alliances regarded as valuable. Instead, these efforts were rebuffed and treated with contempt (for chapter and verse read Bernstein).<o:p style="--tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / .5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0;"></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="--tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / .5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0; background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: medium;">In the woke worldview Jews cannot be victims, notwithstanding the evidence to the contrary. The Holocaust was terrible, but it is not relevant to the current environment of “systemic racism” in which <b style="--tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / .5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0;">Jews are “white adjacent” </b>– part of the privileged white class. (Whiteness has been mystified to go beyond skin color to include a state of being). In fact, Jews, because of their relative success as a group, are an obvious and easy target when it comes to attacking white privilege. They have used their “whiteness” to garner disproportionate numbers in the institutions of power. As Baddiel points out when it comes to anti-semitism, “Jews don’t count” as victims, because they are way down on the hierarchy of racisms. And, by the way, Asians are, likewise, white adjacents, who have benefitted by their token whiteness. They are not included in the club of the oppressed. Indeed, the world is divided into oppressed and oppressor and if you are not part of one you are part of the other.<span style="--tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / .5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0;"> </span><o:p style="--tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / .5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0;"></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="--tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / .5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0; background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: medium;">An important aspect of this anti-Jewish animus is the uncompromising anti-Israel rage that characterizes the woke folk. Criticism of Israeli government policy absolutely need not be anti-semitic, but, upon close examination, most of it in social media turns out to be grossly anti-semitic. To wit, the distortions that characterize the reporting, the historical misinformation, the singling out of Israel for human rights violations far less egregious than those of its neighbors or, indeed, numerous countries around the world, the insidious allusions to the Jewish character of the Israeli nation and so on. The association of Jews with the demon Israel has done much to make left-wing anti-semitism respectable.<o:p style="--tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / .5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0;"></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="--tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / .5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0; background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: medium;">You need not take my word for it. In a short essay I cannot provide the kind of evidence necessary to document the character of wokism and the implications of it for Jews and for Jewish organizations. For that you should read especially Bernstein. Anyone in any position of Jewish leadership should read that book. But, if this is right, if Bernstein is right, then Jews in America and everywhere that wokism is a factor, should understand the fundamentals of wokism and why it is necessary for Jewish organizations to distance themselves from it, and to combat its blatantly illiberal precepts. Those precepts are essentially anti-liberal and anti-Jewish in nature.<o:p style="--tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / .5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0;"></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="--tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / .5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0; background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; text-align: justify;"><b style="--tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / .5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Conclusion<o:p style="--tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / .5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0;"></o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="--tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / .5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0; background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Recently, the problem has gotten worse. Jewish students on many campuses are at pains to hide their Jewishness. Jewish organizations have to have security at their events. University administrations have caved to the demand of woke student organizations to adopt their agendas and strike anti-Israel poses. <b style="--tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / .5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0;">None of this comes from the right-wing.</b><o:p style="--tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / .5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0;"></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="--tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / .5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0; background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: medium;">As I write, as evidenced by the two books referenced here, awareness is growing, but slowly. An effective policy to combat this new anti-semitism, on campus and elsewhere, will depend on a fundamental change in the typical American Jewish mindset. It is a big change, but, one that I actually feel is possible, even likely, given the growing impossibility of denying the obvious.</span></p>Against the Currenthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12356717231233669106noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6635559730786891370.post-26473533910872554442023-06-07T11:08:00.004-05:002023-06-20T22:06:50.227-05:00Thoughts on the new antisemitism - SHORT VERSION<p> </p><p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Jews-Dont-Count-David-Baddiel/dp/000853019X/ref=sr_1_1?hvadid=598729517192&hvdev=c&hvlocphy=9026945&hvnetw=g&hvqmt=e&hvrand=6925946639993884073&hvtargid=kwd-1179083474613&hydadcr=22594_13531167&keywords=jews+don%27t+count+by+david+baddiel&qid=1685725221&s=books&sr=1-1"><span color="windowtext" style="mso-no-proof: yes; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;"><!--[if gte vml 1]><v:shapetype id="_x0000_t75" coordsize="21600,21600"
o:spt="75" o:preferrelative="t" path="m@4@5l@4@11@9@11@9@5xe" filled="f"
stroked="f">
<v:stroke joinstyle="miter"/>
<v:formulas>
<v:f eqn="if lineDrawn pixelLineWidth 0"/>
<v:f eqn="sum @0 1 0"/>
<v:f eqn="sum 0 0 @1"/>
<v:f eqn="prod @2 1 2"/>
<v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelWidth"/>
<v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelHeight"/>
<v:f eqn="sum @0 0 1"/>
<v:f eqn="prod @6 1 2"/>
<v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelWidth"/>
<v:f eqn="sum @8 21600 0"/>
<v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelHeight"/>
<v:f eqn="sum @10 21600 0"/>
</v:formulas>
<v:path o:extrusionok="f" gradientshapeok="t" o:connecttype="rect"/>
<o:lock v:ext="edit" aspectratio="t"/>
</v:shapetype><v:shape id="Picture_x0020_2" o:spid="_x0000_i1026" type="#_x0000_t75"
href="https://www.amazon.com/Jews-Dont-Count-David-Baddiel/dp/000853019X/ref=sr_1_1?hvadid=598729517192&hvdev=c&hvlocphy=9026945&hvnetw=g&hvqmt=e&hvrand=6925946639993884073&hvtargid=kwd-1179083474613&hydadcr=22594_13531167&keywords=jews+don%27t+count+by+david+baddiel&qid=1685725221&s=books&sr=1-1"
style='width:124.5pt;height:186.5pt;visibility:visible;mso-wrap-style:square'
o:button="t">
<v:fill o:detectmouseclick="t"/>
<v:imagedata src="file:///C:/Users/plewin/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image001.png"
o:title=""/>
</v:shape><![endif]--><!--[if !vml]--><span style="mso-ignore: vglayout;"></span></span></a></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Jews-Dont-Count-David-Baddiel/dp/000853019X/ref=sr_1_1?hvadid=598729517192&hvdev=c&hvlocphy=9026945&hvnetw=g&hvqmt=e&hvrand=6925946639993884073&hvtargid=kwd-1179083474613&hydadcr=22594_13531167&keywords=jews+don%27t+count+by+david+baddiel&qid=1685725221&s=books&sr=1-1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;" target="_blank"><img alt="" data-original-height="389" data-original-width="259" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgu5ZxTWXYvcmE2h0pJMjNAgpq2k17qbPA1IAW7bpNgNX4JjAeWN1R3tK-yE48pPu5xwYPqMI2a9v58QGcnNGE89pqUf6W4Dl9jXBl9wZUfMbZOk70XPIPc2gQApt_YJVlbCLAngrC9GKH_TbA2cAfsDexrMh3tVqlhofOTl8GbRnI0v70AA1mK1wHqBQ" width="160" /></a><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Woke-Antisemitism-Progressive-Ideology-Harms/dp/1637587678/ref=sr_1_1?crid=28U9Y3IA5LDIT&keywords=woke+antisemitism&qid=1685725091&sprefix=woke+antisemitism%2Caps%2C123&sr=8-1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;" target="_blank"><img alt="" data-original-height="364" data-original-width="271" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEibiljfon3MusXoG3gAVnrAlJgEA7KSBB2dEcI-fhyGcyrmp9W64lq72tql665kJuxEMMfbNClpgiXjhctCFAuaaK252SZWObS7i1OConMdQUd5wqqvrdG5eNFYN-Crr4AvpFng12YOVHovgI8HFffvrFDxO68VD20gIwBVy1gddgrQ5cRLMerR4iYyLA" width="179" /></a></div><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Jews-Dont-Count-David-Baddiel/dp/000853019X/ref=sr_1_1?hvadid=598729517192&hvdev=c&hvlocphy=9026945&hvnetw=g&hvqmt=e&hvrand=6925946639993884073&hvtargid=kwd-1179083474613&hydadcr=22594_13531167&keywords=jews+don%27t+count+by+david+baddiel&qid=1685725221&s=books&sr=1-1"><br /><!--[endif]--></a><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><b>Newsflash:
Its not what you think it is. <o:p></o:p></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">A
few years ago, I was invited to a meeting at the Jewish Community Center of
Dallas – a meeting including a diverse group of local Jewish “leaders” to
discuss the problem of antisemitism on university campuses. I was shocked to
realize that I may have been the only one in the room who knew what was really
going on. I felt that there were new essential elements in the current situation - that we
were witnessing a deep cultural shift one that emanated
from “the left wing” rather than the "right wing" of the social
divide. This was not the usual right-wing variety of antisemitism. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">In fact, over
time I have come to realize that the typical American Jewish commitment to all
cultural and social aspects of “liberalism” in America
was confusing matters and that unless the American Jewish Community at large
could be made to see past its obsolete assumptions, no effective response to this
new antisemitism would be effective.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><b>When
its about the Jews, its not just about the Jews, its not even really about the
Jews at all.<o:p></o:p></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">The
“liberals” are making a <b>big category mistake</b>, a mistake that diverts
attention away from the most serious attack on American civil society in a
century. The category mistake involves the meaning of “<b>liberal</b>” – a
concept, that, in spite of its straightforward origins, has become fraught with
confusions and ambiguities. Furthermore, a radical (per)version of what passes as
liberalism <u>has abandoned a firm commitment to tolerance, open discussion, and
the encouraging of diverse viewpoints</u>. Bias <i>plus</i> intolerance is what we
have, gross intolerance of any alternative viewpoints. This is the result of <u>a
significant radical change in the character of American “liberalism” </u>– or, more
accurately, a change in <u>who gets to set and dominate the “liberal” narrative</u>.
It is what we may conveniently refer to as the <b>”woke revolution”</b>. And, in a
nutshell, because of what it essentially is, the woke revolution is what is
responsible for the explosion of antisemitism on campus and everywhere else. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><b>If
its Woke it ain’t Liberal.<o:p></o:p></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">Woke
is not liberal. It is the opposite of liberal – in all plausible variations of
that term. The ideology known critically as <b>wokism </b>originates not from any
liberal source, but, from its antithesis, from a variant of Marxism, known as
Critical Theory. Wokism denies the validity of every important aspect of
liberalism, most significantly the value of freedom of expression and open
inquiry. Modern American “liberals” who have jettisoned the firm commitment to
protection of individual property rights, at least still agree on the
importance of <u>tolerance of individual viewpoints and the encouragement of civil
discussion </u>of alternative viewpoints. As such, they should not seek to make
common ground with the Progressives who have embraced the tenets of wokism. <b>Understanding
that wokism is illiberal is also the key to understanding why it is responsible
for the rise in (this new variant) of antisemitism. </b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><b>Jews
Don’t Count<o:p></o:p></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">Wokism,
“social justice revolution”, Critical Race Theory, “Anti-racism”, equity,
diversity, inclusion, … .and other various components of this new ideology, all
seek to articulate an alternate worldview that is antithetical to liberalism
and liberal democracy, and to the very foundations of western science. In this
worldview, the ideas and perceptions of all individuals are indelibly shaped by
their identity, in the original Marxist concept by their social class, but, in
this modern variant, by their race. Truth is not objective in the sense we
usually understand it. For example, the truth of the “black experience” cannot be
understood, therefore should not be described or researched, by anyone who is
not black. One has to have access the “lived experience” of the minority group
members themselves for this. Hence there can be no legitimate discussion between whites and blacks who disagree about this. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">In this narrative, whites, who live privileged lives, should just shut up about this, unless it is
to seek to understand the role that they have played historically, and continue
to play, in the ongoing oppression. These are not claims made as an invitation
to a discussion, they are <i>dogmas</i>, to be acted upon. <b>Identity (race) determines
character</b>. This principle is completely and insidiously destructive of the idea
of the uniqueness of the individual. The individual is completely eclipsed by
the contours of the group to which she belongs. There is no transcending the
nature of one’s group -<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>one’s racial identity. It is of a type with Marxist class determinism, where class is
replaced by race. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">According to this, Martin
Luther King’s hope for a colorblind society is naïve at best and complicit at
worst. The woke agenda, by contrast, seeks to emphasize race, to dethrone and
shame whites for benefitting from white supremacy, and remake the entire social
system (by massive government intrusions, educational indoctrination
challenging all and every “white” shibboleth imaginable). I have yet to find an
account of what the new world achieved by this revolution is supposed to look
like. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">I
just read two recently published books, one about the UK (<i>Jews Don’t Count </i>by David
Baddiel)<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>and the other about the US (<i>Woke
Antisemitism </i>by David Bernstein). I highly recommend them both. Perhaps the
most notable thing about them, is that they are both written by avowedly
“liberal” authors, self-described as “leftist”. But, both, in spite of this, have
become completely disillusioned and alarmed by the woke (Progressive) agenda,
not least because of its inevitable anti-semitic element. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">Baddiel
is a well-known British-Jewish comedian/public intellectual. Bernstein is an
eminent American-Jewish communal leader. Both became disillusioned over time,
especially Bernstein, as they began to realize that the woke folk were not the
traditional friends to the Jews that “liberals” had always been. Further, they
came to the realization that following the well-worn path of Jewish-liberal
alliances would no longer work with the latest brand of “liberalism”. In fact,
and this is key, the vigorous attempt by Jewish organizations to curry favor
with the organizations adopting one woke principle after another, was not only
undermining <b>traditional Jewish values of tolerance and open-mindedness</b>, it was
not even working to maintain the alliances regarded as valuable. Instead, these
efforts were rebuffed and treated with contempt (for chapter and verse read
Bernstein). <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">In the
woke worldview Jews cannot be victims, notwithstanding the evidence to the
contrary. The Holocaust was terrible, but it is not relevant to the current
environment of “systemic racism” in which <b>Jews are “white adjacent” </b>– part of
the privileged white class. (Whiteness has been mystified to go beyond skin
color to include a state of being). In fact, Jews, because of their relative
success as a group, are an obvious and easy target when it comes to attacking
white privilege. They have used their “whiteness” to garner disproportionate numbers
in the institutions of power. As Baddiel points out when it comes to
anti-semitism, “Jews don’t count” as victims, because they are way down on the
hierarchy of racisms. And, by the way, Asians are, likewise, white adjacents,
who have benefitted by their token whiteness. They are not included in the club
of the oppressed. Indeed, the world is divided into oppressed and oppressor and
if you are not part of one you are part of the other.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">An
important aspect of this anti-Jewish animus is the uncompromising
anti-Israel rage that characterizes the woke folk. Criticism of Israeli
government policy absolutely need not be anti-semitic, but, upon close
examination, most of it in social media turns out to be grossly anti-semitic. To
wit, the distortions that characterize the reporting, the historical
misinformation, the singling out of Israel for human rights violations far less
egregious than those of its neighbors or, indeed, numerous countries around the
world, the insidious allusions to the Jewish character of the Israeli nation and
so on. The association of Jews with the demon Israel has done much to make
left-wing anti-semitism respectable. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">You
need not take my word for it. In a short essay I cannot provide the kind of
evidence necessary to document the character of wokism and the implications of
it for Jews and for Jewish organizations. For that you should read especially
Bernstein. Anyone in any position of Jewish leadership should read that book. But,
if this is right, if Bernstein is right, then Jews in America and everywhere
that wokism is a factor, should understand the fundamentals of wokism and why
it is necessary for Jewish organizations to distance themselves from it, and to
combat its blatantly illiberal precepts. Those precepts are essentially anti-liberal
and anti-Jewish in nature. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><b>Conclusion<o:p></o:p></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">Recently,
the problem has gotten worse. Jewish students on many campuses are at pains to
hide their Jewishness. Jewish organizations have to have security at their
events. University administrations have caved to the demand of woke student
organizations to adopt their agendas and strike anti-Israel poses. <b>None of this
comes from the right-wing. </b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">As I
write, as evidenced by the two books referenced here, awareness is growing, but
slowly. An effective policy to combat this new anti-semitism, on campus and
elsewhere, will depend on a fundamental change in the typical American Jewish
mindset. It is a big change, but, one that I actually feel is possible, even
likely, given the growing impossibility of denying the obvious. <o:p></o:p></p>Against the Currenthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12356717231233669106noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6635559730786891370.post-81317480997272857422023-06-06T09:55:00.003-05:002023-06-07T11:04:19.311-05:00Thoghts on the new antisemitism<p> </p><p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Jews-Dont-Count-David-Baddiel/dp/000853019X/ref=sr_1_1?hvadid=598729517192&hvdev=c&hvlocphy=9026945&hvnetw=g&hvqmt=e&hvrand=6925946639993884073&hvtargid=kwd-1179083474613&hydadcr=22594_13531167&keywords=jews+don%27t+count+by+david+baddiel&qid=1685725221&s=books&sr=1-1"><span color="windowtext" style="mso-no-proof: yes; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;"><!--[if gte vml 1]><v:shapetype id="_x0000_t75" coordsize="21600,21600"
o:spt="75" o:preferrelative="t" path="m@4@5l@4@11@9@11@9@5xe" filled="f"
stroked="f">
<v:stroke joinstyle="miter"/>
<v:formulas>
<v:f eqn="if lineDrawn pixelLineWidth 0"/>
<v:f eqn="sum @0 1 0"/>
<v:f eqn="sum 0 0 @1"/>
<v:f eqn="prod @2 1 2"/>
<v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelWidth"/>
<v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelHeight"/>
<v:f eqn="sum @0 0 1"/>
<v:f eqn="prod @6 1 2"/>
<v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelWidth"/>
<v:f eqn="sum @8 21600 0"/>
<v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelHeight"/>
<v:f eqn="sum @10 21600 0"/>
</v:formulas>
<v:path o:extrusionok="f" gradientshapeok="t" o:connecttype="rect"/>
<o:lock v:ext="edit" aspectratio="t"/>
</v:shapetype><v:shape id="Picture_x0020_2" o:spid="_x0000_i1026" type="#_x0000_t75"
href="https://www.amazon.com/Jews-Dont-Count-David-Baddiel/dp/000853019X/ref=sr_1_1?hvadid=598729517192&hvdev=c&hvlocphy=9026945&hvnetw=g&hvqmt=e&hvrand=6925946639993884073&hvtargid=kwd-1179083474613&hydadcr=22594_13531167&keywords=jews+don%27t+count+by+david+baddiel&qid=1685725221&s=books&sr=1-1"
style='width:124.5pt;height:186.5pt;visibility:visible;mso-wrap-style:square'
o:button="t">
<v:fill o:detectmouseclick="t"/>
<v:imagedata src="file:///C:/Users/plewin/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image001.png"
o:title=""/>
</v:shape><![endif]--><!--[if !vml]--><span style="mso-ignore: vglayout;"></span></span></a></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Woke-Antisemitism-Progressive-Ideology-Harms/dp/1637587678/ref=sr_1_1?crid=28U9Y3IA5LDIT&keywords=woke+antisemitism&qid=1685725091&sprefix=woke+antisemitism%2Caps%2C123&sr=8-1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;" target="_blank"><img alt="" data-original-height="364" data-original-width="271" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEibiljfon3MusXoG3gAVnrAlJgEA7KSBB2dEcI-fhyGcyrmp9W64lq72tql665kJuxEMMfbNClpgiXjhctCFAuaaK252SZWObS7i1OConMdQUd5wqqvrdG5eNFYN-Crr4AvpFng12YOVHovgI8HFffvrFDxO68VD20gIwBVy1gddgrQ5cRLMerR4iYyLA" width="179" /></a><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Jews-Dont-Count-David-Baddiel/dp/000853019X/ref=sr_1_1?hvadid=598729517192&hvdev=c&hvlocphy=9026945&hvnetw=g&hvqmt=e&hvrand=6925946639993884073&hvtargid=kwd-1179083474613&hydadcr=22594_13531167&keywords=jews+don%27t+count+by+david+baddiel&qid=1685725221&s=books&sr=1-1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;" target="_blank"><img alt="" data-original-height="389" data-original-width="259" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgu5ZxTWXYvcmE2h0pJMjNAgpq2k17qbPA1IAW7bpNgNX4JjAeWN1R3tK-yE48pPu5xwYPqMI2a9v58QGcnNGE89pqUf6W4Dl9jXBl9wZUfMbZOk70XPIPc2gQApt_YJVlbCLAngrC9GKH_TbA2cAfsDexrMh3tVqlhofOTl8GbRnI0v70AA1mK1wHqBQ" width="160" /></a></div><br /><!--[endif]--><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Woke-Antisemitism-Progressive-Ideology-Harms/dp/1637587678/ref=sr_1_1?crid=28U9Y3IA5LDIT&keywords=woke+antisemitism&qid=1685725091&sprefix=woke+antisemitism%2Caps%2C123&sr=8-1"><span color="windowtext" style="mso-no-proof: yes; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;"><!--[if gte vml 1]><v:shape id="Picture_x0020_1" o:spid="_x0000_i1025"
type="#_x0000_t75"
href="https://www.amazon.com/Woke-Antisemitism-Progressive-Ideology-Harms/dp/1637587678/ref=sr_1_1?crid=28U9Y3IA5LDIT&keywords=woke+antisemitism&qid=1685725091&sprefix=woke+antisemitism%2Caps%2C123&sr=8-1"
style='width:130pt;height:174.5pt;visibility:visible;mso-wrap-style:square'
o:button="t">
<v:fill o:detectmouseclick="t"/>
<v:imagedata src="file:///C:/Users/plewin/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image003.png"
o:title=""/>
</v:shape><![endif]--><!--[if !vml]--><span style="mso-ignore: vglayout;"></span></span></a><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Woke-Antisemitism-Progressive-Ideology-Harms/dp/1637587678/ref=sr_1_1?crid=28U9Y3IA5LDIT&keywords=woke+antisemitism&qid=1685725091&sprefix=woke+antisemitism%2Caps%2C123&sr=8-1"></a></div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /><!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p></span><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><b><span style="font-size: medium;">Newsflash:
Its not what you think it is. <o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><span style="font-size: medium;">A
few years ago, I was invited to a meeting at the Jewish Community Center of
Dallas – a meeting including a diverse group of local Jewish “leaders” to
discuss the problem of antisemitism on university campuses. I was invited as a
Jewish faculty member at the University of Texas at Dallas. Also present were Jewish
faculty from other local schools, the head of the Dallas Jewish Federation and
other local Jewish communal bodies, the head of AIPAC (who happened to be from
Dallas), Jewish student group staff, a few prominent Jewish business leaders
active in community affairs, etc. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><span style="font-size: medium;">I
forget who chaired the meeting or even most of the details of what he and what
others said. The time was spent going around the table letting everyone have
their say – reporting on what they knew and expressing their opinions about
what could be done. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><span style="font-size: medium;">At
that time, it was becoming apparent that anti-semitism was growing on campuses
nationwide, though as yet had not become very visible in Texas. Most of the
remarks were vague or silent regarding the causes of this new development and
it became clear to me that it was generally assumed that the problem was an
increase in the familiar crude right-wing anti-Jewish (anti-black/Hispanic/Asian
– you name it) rhetoric and action – crude, rude and violent. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Somewhat
shocked I realized that I may have been the only one in the room who knew what
was really going on. There may have been others, but nobody was able to
articulate what seemed to me were essentially new elements in the current
situation. When my turn came I tried, with the limited soundbites allocated to
me, to suggest that we were witnessing the surface phenomenon of a much deeper
cultural shift that emanated from a different political demographic source,
namely, what is commonly identified as “the left wing” of the social divide. My
remarks were ignored. This forum was not there to gain a deeper understanding
and to form effective responses. It was, rather, a typical exercise in public
relations signifying not much at all. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><span style="font-size: medium;">The
truth is, if I had been asked to give a thorough analysis of this cultural
shift and why it manifested in part in an increase in anti-Jewish animus, I
would not have been able to do it. At that time, I had not connected all the
dots, nor had I realized the extent of the abiding, stubborn, and frankly naïve,
American Jewish commitment to all cultural and social aspects of what is
commonly called “liberalism” in America. But, I began to realize that unless
the American Jewish Community at large could be made to see past its obsolete
assumptions, no effective response to antisemitism would be found. Later, I
found out, it was much more serious. The weight of Jewish communal action was
actually fueling the problem – making it worse. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><b><span style="font-size: medium;">When
its about the Jews, its not just about the Jews, its not even really about the
Jews at all.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><span style="font-size: medium;">In
the intervening period, realization has begun to grow, generally, but
significantly within the Jewish community that the old categories do not apply.
The “liberals” are making a <b>big category mistake</b>, a mistake that diverts
attention away from the most serious attack on American civil society in a
century. It is a wolf in sheep’s clothing type problem. And unless you see it’s
a wolf you may think its your friend, when actually it is about to tear you
apart and eat you. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><span style="font-size: medium;">The
category mistake involves the meaning of “<b>liberal</b>” – a concept, that, in
spite of its straightforward origins, has become fraught with confusions and
ambiguities. For starters, it does not mean the same thing in the UK or
Australia or Europe that it does here in the US. I should start then by
clarifying terms before linking to the real-world problems they can help us
understand.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I have realized that
progress has been greatly inhibited by semantic confusions leading to
debilitating miscommunication. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><span style="font-size: medium;">The
most robust, yet confusing, framework for analysis among the American
intelligentsia is the “left-right”/” liberal-conservative” divide. This is
always ground zero for any political discussion, or for any discussion of
social and economic policy. It is reinforced by and is the basis of our
unalterable two party system. It has always been wrong and confusing, but, now
much moreso than ever. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><span style="font-size: medium;">A
serious, but not the most serious, problem is the naïve simplicity of this
framework. It reflects gross binary thinking. If you are a “liberal” then
anyone who disagrees with what you think is liberal is “conservative”. Equally,
if you are a Conservative (with a big C), anyone who disagrees is a “liberal”.
The only nuance comes from inserting the term “moderate” as in “moderate
liberal” (or centrist liberal), or “moderate conservative”. It is not only
binary, it is one dimensional. And once you have decided who fits wear that is
all you need to know to know whether they are right or wrong. It is a dumbing
down of the political discourse. And the worst of it is that academia, and much
of education generally, has bought into this. In terms of this linear
left-right spectrum the left outnumbers the right 18-1 in our universities, and
the number is much higher in the humanities and social sciences. This, in
itself, though at a relative high, would not be so serious, if our institutions
of higher learning were still firmly committed to the doctrine of tolerance,
open discussion, and the encouraging of diverse viewpoints. Bias <i>plus</i>
intolerance, however, is what we have, gross intolerance of any alternative
viewpoints. This is the result of a significant radical change in the character
of American “liberalism” – or, more accurately, a change in who gets to set and
dominate the “liberal” narrative. It is what we may conveniently refer to as the
”woke revolution”. And, in a nutshell, because of what it essentially is, the
woke revolution is what is responsible for the explosion of AS on campus and
everywhere else. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><b><span style="font-size: medium;">If
its Woke it ain’t Liberal.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><span style="font-size: medium;">The
critical literature explaining wokism is huge and is growing – many articles
and books exist. I won’t attempt here to provide a complete account of it, but,
instead, will concentrate on the essential relevant aspects. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><span style="font-size: medium;">The
first thing to note is that woke is not liberal. It is the opposite of liberal
– in all plausible variations of that term. Before the label was highjacked, to
be a liberal meant you were someone who believed in the sanctity of equal
individual human rights, in equal individual freedom. This freedom consists
simply of the right to be free in one’s person and property from coercion by
others. Since it applies equally to each and every individual, regardless of
race, gender, nationality, ethnicity, etc., having freedom does not imply
license to complete freedom of action. Any action I take that compromises your
body or your property – which would be a violation of your freedom – is
prohibited to me. The practical limits of individual freedom are defined by <i>property
rights</i>. Property rights include ownership of one’s body and the ownership
of any property acquired legitimately by gift or trade. As such, liberalism
looks askance at any interference in voluntary transactions. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><span style="font-size: medium;">The
details and complexities of this doctrine can be greatly expanded and
explained. But, the main point here is to understand that this, broadly
speaking, is what liberalism meant, and, many believe, should continue to mean.
Its appealing features are associated with its commitment to individual
autonomy and equality before the law - the king is subject to the same law as
the peasant; on its belief in the sanctity of freedom of expression,
association, assembly, the value of diverse opinions, etc.; and to its
association with enrichment of the masses. The advent of liberalism (not in its
complete ideal form, but, certainly in the most important of its features)
ushered in what has been called the Great Enrichment, the explosion of wealth
creation in those nations that adopted it. This is undeniable. For most of
human history, the vast majority of people were miserably poor and ignorant.
Since the rise of liberalism, for the first time (roughly over the last 300
years and picking up speed) the majority of humans do not live in poverty. To
be sure, the gains vary greatly between people, but, the gains have been
considerable. Commitment to liberalism, properly understood, has been based on
its morality and on its massive widely distributed benefits. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Toward
the middle of the 19<sup>th</sup> century, ideas critical of the foundations of
liberalism began to grow in popularity, the most common being the doctrine of
socialism. Socialists challenge the most basic ingredient of liberalism,
namely, property. They challenge the sanctity and even the meaning of
individual property rights. They challenge the notions of equality before the
law to protect such property rights, insofar as such protections are seen not
to apply to the “wealthy”. Socialists regard unequal outcomes as evidence of
injustice, and claim the right, the necessity, to “reform” the distribution of
income and wealth to make them equal. The most far-reaching variant of
socialism is Marxism, which seeks to abolish private property completely. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><span style="font-size: medium;">These
remarks are not meant to persuade as much as to clarify. But, any attempt at
persuasion would start with the consequences of implementing policies that
involved gross violations of individual property rights, such as those
involving extensive government regulation, taxation, and spending to encourage
“social justice” outcomes, like socialist countries or those with extensive
welfare states. The consequences are that poverty increases and economic growth
falls. In the extreme, socialism causes economic collapse and dictatorship.
Numerous examples exist. No example of prosperous socialism exists. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><span style="font-size: medium;">But,
the important point to make here, is that the ideology known critically as
wokism originates not from any liberal source, but, from its antithesis, from a
variant of Marxism, known as Critical Theory. Wokism denies the validity of
every important aspect of liberalism, most significantly the value of freedom
of expression and open inquiry. Modern American “liberals” who have jettisoned
the firm commitment to protection of individual property rights, at least still
agree on the importance of tolerance of individual viewpoints and the
encouragement of civil discussion of such alternative points of view. As such
they should not seek to make common ground with the Progressives who have
embraced the tenets of wokism. Understanding that wokism is illiberal is also
the key to understanding why it is responsible for the rise in (this new
variant) of anti-semitism. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><b><span style="font-size: medium;">Jews
Don’t Count<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Wokism,
“social justice revolution”, Critical Race Theory, “Anti-racism”, equity, diversity,
inclusion, … .and other various components of this new ideology, all seek to
articulate an alternate worldview that is antithetical to liberalism and
liberal democracy, and to the very foundations of western science. In this
worldview, the ideas and perceptions of all individuals are indelibly shaped by
their identity, in the original Marxist concept by their social class, but, in
this modern variant, by their race (- ethnicity, culture, etc., but mainly
race). Truth is not objective in the sense we usually understand it. Rather,
the truth of the “black experience” or the anguish of gay people, cannot be
understood, therefore should not be described or researched, by anyone who is
not black or gay respectively – and equivalently for any of the other oppressed
minorities usually identified. One had to have access the “lived experience” of
the minority group members themselves for this. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><span style="font-size: medium;">So,
whites, who live privileged lives, should just shut up about this, unless it is
to seek to understand the role that they have played historically, and continue
to play, in the ongoing oppression. These are not claims made as an invitation
to a discussion, they are dogmas, to be acted upon. Identity determines
character. This principle is completely and insidiously destructive of the idea
of the uniqueness of the individual. The individual is completely eclipsed by
the contours of the group to which she belongs. There is no transcending the
nature of one’s group (racial) identity. It is of a type with Marxist class
determinism, where class is replaced by race (and other minority designations).
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><span style="font-size: medium;">So,
Martin Luther King’s hope for a colorblind society is naïve at best and
complicit at worst. The woke agenda, by contrast, seeks to emphasize race, to
dethrone and shame whites for benefitting from white supremacy, and remake the
entire social system (by massive government intrusions, educational
indoctrination challenging all and every “white” shibboleth imaginable). I have
yet to find an account of what the new world achieved by this revolution is
supposed to look like. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><span style="font-size: medium;">The
manifold manifestations of wokism and their implications can be found in the
vast literature to which I referred. My purpose here is to address their
connection to anti-semitism. Published work has begun to appear on this. I just
read two recent books, one about the UK (<i>Jews Don’t Count </i>by David
Baddiel)<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>and the other about the US (<i>Woke
Antisemitism </i>by David Bernstein). I highly recommend them both. Perhaps the
most notable thing about them, is that they are both written by avowedly
“liberal” authors, self-described as “leftist”. As such they appear sadly
ignorant of the problems associated with the “leftist” agenda in general, to
which they remain favorably disposed. But, both, in spite of this, have become
completely disillusioned and alarmed by the woke (Progressive) agenda, not
least because of its inevitable anti-semitic element. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Baddiel
is a well-known British-Jewish comedian/public intellectual. Bernstein is an
eminent American-Jewish communal leader. Both became disillusioned over time,
especially Bernstein, as they began to realize that the woke folk were not the
traditional friends to the Jews that “liberals” had always been. Further, they
came to the realization that following the well-worn path of Jewish-liberal
alliances would no longer work with the latest brand of “liberalism”. In fact,
and this is key, the vigorous attempt by Jewish organizations to curry favor
with the organizations adopting one woke principle after another, was not only
undermining traditional Jewish values of tolerance and open-mindedness, it was
not even working to maintain the alliances regarded as valuable. Instead, these
efforts were rebuffed and treated with contempt (for chapter and verse read
Bernstein). <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><span style="font-size: medium;">In
the woke worldview Jews cannot be victims, notwithstanding the evidence to the
contrary. The Holocaust was terrible, but it is not relevant to the current
environment of “systemic racism” in which Jews are “white adjacent” – part of
the privileged white class. (Whiteness has been mystified to go beyond skin
color to include a state of being). In fact, Jews, because of their relative
success as a group, are an obvious and easy target when it comes to attacking
white privilege. They have used their “whiteness” to garner disproportionate numbers
in the institutions of power. As Baddiel points out when it comes to
anti-semitism, “Jews don’t count” as victims, because they are way down on the
hierarchy of racisms. Don’t complain about being oppressed by Jeremy Corbyn or
Ye. Your suffering pales into insignificance in this world of systemic racism
against blacks, Hispanics and others. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And,
by the way, Asians are, likewise, white adjacents, who have benefitted by their
token whiteness. No, they are not included in the club of the oppressed.
Indeed, the world is divided into oppressed and oppressor and if you are not
part of one you are part of the other.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><span style="font-size: medium;">No
small part is played in this anti-Jewish animus by the uncompromising
anti-Israel rage that characterizes the woke folk. Criticism of Israeli
government policy absolutely need not be anti-semitic, but, upon close
examination, most of it in social media turns out to be grossly anti-semitic. To
wit, the gross historical distortions that characterize the reporting, the
historical misinformation, the singling out of Israel for human rights
violations far less egregious than those of its neighbors or, indeed, numerous
countries around the world, the insidious allusions to the Jewish character of
the Israeli nation and so on. The association of Jews with the demon Israel has
done much to make left-wing anti-semitism respectable. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><span style="font-size: medium;">You
need not take my word for it. In a short essay I cannot provide the kind of
evidence necessary to document the character (caricature?) of wokism and the
implications of it for Jews and for Jewish organizations. For that you should
read especially Bernstein. Anyone in any position of Jewish leadership should
read that book. But, if this is right, if Bernstein is right, then Jews in America
and everywhere that wokism is a factor, should understand the fundamentals of
wokism and why it is necessary for Jewish organizations to distance themselves
from it, and to combat its blatantly illiberal precepts. Those precepts are
essentially anti-liberal and anti-Jewish in nature. There is no way to
compromise with them. Racial preferences for blacks imply racial discrimination
against non-blacks. Cancelling people with critical views is fundamentally
anti-democratic. Whenever and wherever freedom in society is compromised, Jews
will be targeted. Antisemitism is a litmus test for the degree of intolerance of
dissidents in general. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><b><span style="font-size: medium;">Conclusion<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><span style="font-size: medium;">If
you have read this far, you will understand why I was at a loss at that
community meeting to articulate the nature of the antisemitism that had emerged
on campus. Since that time the problem has gotten worse. Jewish students on
many campuses are at pains to hide their Jewishness. Jewish organizations have
to have security at their events. University administrations have caved to the
demand of woke student organizations to adopt their agendas and strike
anti-Israel poses. None of this comes from the right-wing. Finally, at my
campus, UTD, signs of this have emerged – so far among the student body, not
yet endorsed by the administration – which, hopefully, never will. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><span style="font-size: medium;">As I
write, as evidenced by the two books referenced here, awareness is beginning to
grow. But the anti-woke awakening is still small and slow to grow. In America,
an effective policy to combat this new anti-semitism, on campus and elsewhere,
will depend on a fundamental change in the typical American Jewish mindset. It
is a big change, but, one that I actually feel is possible, even likely, given
the growing impossibility of denying the obvious. </span><o:p></o:p></p>Against the Currenthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12356717231233669106noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6635559730786891370.post-81259792943831006492022-09-30T12:35:00.003-05:002022-09-30T12:35:24.276-05:00Today's musing minute: It's not rocket science, actually its simple economics.<p><span style="font-size: medium;"> </span><span style="background-color: white; color: var(--primary-text); font-family: inherit; font-size: large; white-space: pre-wrap;">THE FUNDAMENTAL ASSYMETRY BETWEEN PRIVATE AND GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS</span></p><div style="--tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / 0.5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0; background-color: white; color: #1c1e21; font-family: "Segoe UI Historic", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;"><div class="" dir="auto" style="--tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / 0.5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0; font-family: inherit;"><div class="d2hqwtrz r227ecj6 gt60zsk1 o9wcebwi" data-ad-comet-preview="message" data-ad-preview="message" id="jsc_c_1ax" style="--tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / 0.5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0; font-family: inherit; padding: 4px 16px;"><div class="alzwoclg cqf1kptm siwo0mpr gu5uzgus" style="--tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / 0.5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0; display: flex; flex-direction: column; font-family: inherit; margin-bottom: -5px; margin-top: -5px;"><div class="jroqu855 nthtkgg5" style="--tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / 0.5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0; font-family: inherit; margin-bottom: 5px; margin-top: 5px;"><span class="gvxzyvdx aeinzg81 t7p7dqev gh25dzvf exr7barw b6ax4al1 gem102v4 ncib64c9 mrvwc6qr sx8pxkcf f597kf1v cpcgwwas m2nijcs8 hxfwr5lz k1z55t6l oog5qr5w tes86rjd pbevjfx6 ztn2w49o" dir="auto" style="--tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / 0.5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0; color: var(--primary-text); display: block; font-family: inherit; line-height: 1.3333; max-width: 100%; min-width: 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; word-break: break-word;"><div class="l7ghb35v kjdc1dyq kmwttqpk gh25dzvf jikcssrz n3t5jt4f" style="--tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / 0.5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0; font-family: inherit; margin: 0.5em 0px 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div dir="auto" style="--tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / 0.5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0; font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Competition in the private property market economy tends to harmonize private and public interests. People acting in pursuit of their own private economic interest are led as if by an "invisible hand" to serve other people's needs and desires. The result is a spontaneous order - the result of human action but not human design. </span></div></div><div class="l7ghb35v kjdc1dyq kmwttqpk gh25dzvf jikcssrz n3t5jt4f" style="--tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / 0.5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0; font-family: inherit; margin: 0.5em 0px 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div dir="auto" style="--tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / 0.5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0; font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: medium;">The same cannot be said about the public sector. Where people work for the government and various levels they are not led automatically to serve the needs of others (the public) by any kind of market signals. Public sector services do not have prices. There is no bottom line except for the ability to pay for the those services with taxes. There are, in short, serious knowledge and incentive problems. There is an assymetry in this between the private and the public sector. Workers in the public sector are not automatically accountable to the public like private sector workers are to consumers. </span></div></div><div class="l7ghb35v kjdc1dyq kmwttqpk gh25dzvf jikcssrz n3t5jt4f" style="--tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / 0.5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0; font-family: inherit; margin: 0.5em 0px 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div dir="auto" style="--tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / 0.5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0; font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: medium;">THE FUNDAMENTAL DILEMMA OF GOVERNANCE</span></div><div dir="auto" style="--tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / 0.5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0; font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: medium;">For that reason government tends to produce waste and corruption. This is more likely the larger government is and the more centralized it is. The Founders of America understood this and provided for the separation of powers at each level of government and for decentralization of powers between the federal and state governments. James Madison, the scribe for the Constitutional Convention, and the third president of the United States famously described the problem as follows:</span></div></div><div class="l7ghb35v kjdc1dyq kmwttqpk gh25dzvf jikcssrz n3t5jt4f" style="--tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / 0.5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0; font-family: inherit; margin: 0.5em 0px 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div dir="auto" style="--tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / 0.5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0; font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: medium;">“If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.”</span></div></div><div class="l7ghb35v kjdc1dyq kmwttqpk gh25dzvf jikcssrz n3t5jt4f" style="--tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / 0.5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0; font-family: inherit; margin: 0.5em 0px 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div dir="auto" style="--tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / 0.5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0; font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: medium;">PAYING FOR GOVERNMENT</span></div><div dir="auto" style="--tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / 0.5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0; font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: medium;">In order to finance the functions of government taxes must be raised. These taxes are used to produce public services and also for anti-poverty subsidies. All taxes and subsidies create inefficiencies. Some argue that they can be used to counter cases of 'market failure'. Logically speaking maybe. But, as a practical matter for this to work, the extent of the market failure must be known, the extent of the 'government failure' produced by the tax or subsidy must be known, and the two must be weighed. In reality, it is probably more efficient in terms of value created and destroyed to deal with 'market failures' in other ways.</span></div></div></span></div></div></div></div></div><div style="--tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / 0.5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0; background-color: white; color: #1c1e21; font-family: "Segoe UI Historic", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;"><div class="hf30pyar lq84ybu9 ta68dy8c kpwa50dg lk0hwhjd cmg2g80i" data-visualcompletion="ignore-dynamic" style="--tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / 0.5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0; border-radius: 0px 0px 8px 8px; font-family: inherit; overflow: hidden;"><div style="--tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / 0.5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0; font-family: inherit;"><div style="--tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / 0.5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0; font-family: inherit;"><div style="--tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / 0.5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0; font-family: inherit;"><div class="tpvapw4o j0k7ypqs hgzrgivj k2ynmqpm" style="--tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / 0.5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0; font-family: inherit; margin-left: 12px; margin-right: 12px;"><div class="bdao358l om3e55n1 g4tp4svg alzwoclg jez8cy9q sl27f92c o9w3sbdw sr926ui1 jl2a5g8c fzd7ma4j lcfup58g o9wcebwi d2hqwtrz h42m8szp mz2m4c71 ktovzxj4 g1smwn4j" style="--tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / 0.5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0; align-items: stretch; box-sizing: border-box; display: flex; flex-flow: row nowrap; flex-shrink: 0; font-family: inherit; justify-content: space-between; margin: -6px -2px; padding: 4px; position: relative; z-index: 0;"><div class="bdao358l om3e55n1 g4tp4svg alzwoclg cqf1kptm gvxzyvdx aeinzg81 jg3vgc78 cgu29s5g i15ihif8 pdnn8mpk f1iqohp5 bmgto6uh f9xcifuu" style="--tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / 0.5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0; box-sizing: border-box; display: flex; flex-direction: column; flex: 1 1 0px; font-family: inherit; max-width: 100%; min-width: 0px; padding: 6px 2px; position: relative; z-index: 0;"><div aria-label="Send this to friends or post it on your timeline." class="qi72231t o9w3sbdw nu7423ey tav9wjvu flwp5yud tghlliq5 gkg15gwv s9ok87oh s9ljgwtm lxqftegz bf1zulr9 frfouenu bonavkto djs4p424 r7bn319e bdao358l fsf7x5fv tgm57n0e jez8cy9q s5oniofx m8h3af8h l7ghb35v kjdc1dyq kmwttqpk dnr7xe2t aeinzg81 srn514ro oxkhqvkx rl78xhln nch0832m om3e55n1 cr00lzj9 rn8ck1ys s3jn8y49 g4tp4svg o9erhkwx dzqi5evh hupbnkgi hvb2xoa8 fxk3tzhb jl2a5g8c f14ij5to l3ldwz01 icdlwmnq" role="button" style="--tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / 0.5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; align-items: stretch; background-color: transparent; border-bottom-color: var(--always-dark-overlay); border-left-color: var(--always-dark-overlay); border-radius: inherit; border-right-color: var(--always-dark-overlay); border-style: solid; border-top-color: var(--always-dark-overlay); border-width: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; cursor: pointer; display: inline-flex; flex-basis: auto; flex-direction: row; flex-shrink: 0; font-family: inherit; list-style: none; margin: 0px; min-height: 0px; min-width: 0px; outline: none; padding: 0px; position: relative; text-align: inherit; touch-action: manipulation; user-select: none; z-index: 0;" tabindex="0"><div class="o9erhkwx dzqi5evh hupbnkgi hvb2xoa8 z6erz7xo on4d8346 jkp44r48 l10tt5db s8sjc6am myo4itp8 ekq1a7f9 pym4i58u ldembo95 mwa1sm0y" data-visualcompletion="ignore" style="--tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / 0.5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0; border-radius: inherit; font-family: inherit; inset: 0px; opacity: 0; pointer-events: none; position: absolute; transition-duration: var(--fds-duration-extra-extra-short-out); transition-property: opacity; transition-timing-function: var(--fds-animation-fade-out);"></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div class="k0kqjr44 laatuukc" style="--tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / 0.5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0; background-color: var(--card-background); font-family: inherit; margin-bottom: 4px;"><h3 class="jxuftiz4 jwegzro5 hl4rid49 icdlwmnq spvqvc9t ikw5e13s ebnioo9u lq84ybu9 hf30pyar s8sjc6am rfd0zzc9" dir="auto" style="--tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / 0.5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0; clip-path: inset(50%); clip: rect(0px, 0px, 0px, 0px); color: inherit; font-family: inherit; font-weight: inherit; height: 1px; margin: 0px; outline: none; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px; position: absolute; width: 1px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">3 Commen</span></h3></div></div></div></div>Against the Currenthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12356717231233669106noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6635559730786891370.post-74429778959560179252022-09-09T12:03:00.001-05:002022-09-09T12:03:19.665-05:00RIP Queen Elizabeth, woman of character <p> </p><div align="center">
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="MsoNormalTable" style="border-collapse: collapse; mso-padding-alt: 0in 0in 0in 0in; mso-yfti-tbllook: 1184;">
<tbody><tr style="mso-yfti-firstrow: yes; mso-yfti-irow: 0; mso-yfti-lastrow: yes;">
<td style="border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 467.5pt;" valign="top" width="623">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 14.5pt;"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="color: #050505; font-family: "inherit",serif; font-size: 14.5pt;">I have been trying to articulate
how I have been feeling about the death of Queen Elizabeth.</span><span style="color: #050505; font-family: "inherit", serif; font-size: 14.5pt;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="color: #050505; font-family: "inherit",serif; font-size: 14.5pt;">I miss the opportunity to discuss
this with my dear friend Steve Horwitz. He would, I suspect, not be
completely sympathetic. He was critical of the monarchy as an irrelevant
state funded institution.</span><span style="color: #050505; font-family: "inherit", serif; font-size: 14.5pt;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="color: #050505; font-family: "inherit",serif; font-size: 14.5pt;">In principle I agree. And, to be
sure, historically speaking monarchies and monarchs were mostly evil - self
serving, ruthless and power-hungry. But, the UK was perhaps the first to
completely transform this institution into a symbolic one. The monarch became
the symbolic head of state charged with carrying out and preserving age-old
traditions. I suppose one of the purposes of this is to create a sense of
continuity in a confusingly changing world. And, after all, in terms of state
expenditure, relative to the massive government budget, it is a matter of pennies.</span><span style="color: #050505; font-family: "inherit", serif; font-size: 14.5pt;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="color: #050505; font-family: "inherit",serif; font-size: 14.5pt;">As a symbolic figure, the
monarch's contribution must then be one of character. She must project the
personality and the values that enrich the moral fiber of the nation. Queen
Elizabeth did this superbly. Like all of us, save for very few, I did not
know her as a person. We cannot really know if, as an individual, she was
generous, compassionate, empathetic, tolerant or always kept her promises to
her loved ones. We know only what we saw, what we were meant to see. And what
we saw was a woman of impeccable dignity, of profound eloquence, of great
strength of character, someone who presented as an "internationalist"
who extolled the values of "the parliamentary system and the rights of
man" for all citizens of the world, of all faiths, of all origins.</span><span style="color: #050505; font-family: "inherit", serif; font-size: 14.5pt;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="color: #050505; font-family: "inherit",serif; font-size: 14.5pt;">She valued her role as the head of
the British Commonwealth, the legacy of an often violent and grasping Empire,
and strove to make it into a voluntary international association of peaceful
nations dedicated to those British values and institutions that made large
sections of the world prosperous. That the reality did not match up was not
owing to anything she did or said.</span><span style="color: #050505; font-family: "inherit", serif; font-size: 14.5pt;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="color: #050505; font-family: "inherit",serif; font-size: 14.5pt;">Thus, I justify the sadness I feel
at her passing. She was a symbol during my parents generation, and during all
of my life. Her passing is the passing of that world. It is unsettling.</span><span style="color: #050505; font-family: "inherit", serif; font-size: 14.5pt;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="color: #050505; font-family: "inherit",serif; font-size: 14.5pt;">In the meantime we celebrate her
amazing life. She did not ask for the monarchy - personally or as an
institution. But, being thrust into it she held fast for over 70 years to
what she firmly believed was her duty. How many people could do that?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 14.5pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>Against the Currenthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12356717231233669106noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6635559730786891370.post-80782032316999873562022-03-18T11:49:00.003-05:002022-03-21T16:11:29.650-05:00The denial of school choice is, in fact, a denial of religious freedom.<p> </p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: medium;">I return to the subject of religion – specifically its role
in society and in education in particular. But my argument comes not from any
particular religious partisanship. To understand my motivation better please
see the expansive disclaimer that appears below the text at the * below - better read
before proceeding. Those for whom this is irrelevant may skip this.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: medium;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: medium;">My prime concern in this musing is education policy in
America and how it powerfully discriminates against freedom of religion in
education, and thus, by implication, against religious freedom generally.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: medium;">My claim is that, because of the way public education is set
up and regulated in America today, parents who value a significant religious
component in their children’s education, are being denied the freedom to choose
such an education for them. By “religious component” I mean a curriculum in
which the values, practices, norms, as well as the history and development, of
a particular religion are taught. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: medium;">As it stands, two aspects of the structure of public
education conspire to deny parents this option, or at least to make it much
more expensive than it would otherwise be (effectively, therefore, denying it
to those who “cannot afford” it). These two aspects are 1. The fact that public
education is produced (not just subsidized) by the government; and 2. Applying
an interpretation of the 1<sup>st</sup> Amendment to the Constitution that
prohibits the teaching of any and all religion in public schools. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: medium;">I am not competent to comment on the legal niceties of the “establishment
clause” of this amendment, which reads “Congress shall make no law respecting
an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof … .”
however, it is plain that this clause by itself is insufficient to obtain
current practice regarding religion in public education. Such practice relies
on developed precedents regarding the worthy doctrine of the separation of
church (religion) and state. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: medium;">In simple common-sense terms, this doctrine suggests that it
is a violation of the spirit of the Constitution for government to use taxpayer
money to promote or favor the practice of any religion over any other, and
therefore, government should stay out of religion. Allowing the government to
use taxpayer money to promote religious practice or education invites the
danger of serious abuse in that the public servants using the money are not the
taxpayers who paid the money. This makes eminent sense within the context of government
produced education. Parents as taxpayers do not have the ability to directly
shape or even influence the religious content of a curriculum produced by
government employees, who are accountable not to the parents, but to their
administrative superiors and ultimately to some elected school board.
Dissatisfied parents have few options. In this context, the ban on religious
content may well be construed as protecting parents – ensuring that their
children are not educated to a “foreign” religion without their consent. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: medium;">But, by the same logic, this “protection” also ensures that
parents desiring a particular religious education for their children cannot get
it in the public school to which their children are zoned. There is no choice
among public schools for parents under school zoning. In effect, what this
amounts to, it that public schools are run according to the religion of “no
religion”. And, indeed, in many parts of the country this is a preferred
outcome for those antagonistic to the teaching of any religion whatsoever – the
preferred outcome of many modern secular intellectuals hostile to the very idea
of organized religion. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: medium;">The matter could be easily and justly solved by allowing
parents to retain discretion of how the taxpayer money used for their child’s
education is spent; removing the requirement that the money be used by the
government to produce education. In other words, though government would
continue to subsidize education, it need not continue to produce it unless that
is the preferred choice of enough parents. One form of this would be an
educational voucher system, Another would be a tax-credit system. Who could
object to this?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: medium;">Of course, many do object for a variety of spurious reasons.
But the one that is relevant here is the objection that claims that allowing
such a voucher system violates the principle of church-state separation as
required by the 1<sup>st</sup> Amendment. My claim, and that of many much more
knowledgeable than I, including many legal experts, including some court
decisions, is that this is false. Courts have held that the separation doctrine
is not violated by the parents’ exercise of a choice to educate their child in
a manner including a religious component as long as that is one of many options
among which the parent may choose, thus ensuring that there is no compulsion
involved. Arguments to the contrary are predicated on the notion that somehow
that money cannot be construed as “belonging” to the parents. It is “public”
money. To argue thus seems to make a mockery of the fact that the money is
intended to educate the parent’s child, yet to argue that the parent should not
have any direct say in how the child is educated. After all, the parent pays the
tax for the express purpose of this education.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: medium;">But, I would argue further, this setup effectively denies
the parent a crucial component of religious freedom, namely, the freedom to use
his money to educate his child as he sees fit according to his chosen religion.
Far from being a consequence of the 1<sup>st</sup> Amendment, it appears to my
untrained mind, to be a gross violation of it, significantly impeding the
“establishment” of religion by making the education of it significantly more
expensive. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: medium;">The implications of this are enormous. Quite simply it has
meant the hobbling of all religious education in America by forcing those
parents who want it to pay for it twice – once in the form of taxes and once in
the form of alarmingly expensive tuition in private religious schools. The
business model of such schools, having to compete with the “free” education
available in the public school is seriously compromised. Public schools, in
effect, are protected monopolies against which private religious schools cannot
compete, especially and tragically for lower income families. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: medium;">The enormity of this can be gauged by imagining the boost
that private religious schools would get under a voucher system allowing a
chosen religious school to earn the taxpayer money earmarked for a child’s
education (as long as state secular curriculum requirements were fulfilled). It
would herald a revolutionary transformation of religious education in America. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: medium;">Parents who want affordable quality education for their
children that includes a religious component, and those who support their right
to choose this option, would do well to understand the implications of the current
system and work to reform it to allow universal school choice, starting with
their own particular school district. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">------------------------------------------------------------------------------<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: x-small;">*disclaimer:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: x-small;">At the outset I need to issue a <u>disclaimer</u>. I carry
no banner for organized religion of any kind. Though I feel a strong Jewish
identity, which is undoubtedly connected to the religion, I myself am not at
all religious in the usual sense of the word. I am, strictly speaking, agnostic
with respect to some of the factual claims of the religion and a complete
disbeliever with respect to most of them. With regard to the moral authority
claimed by its teachings, I see none. I judge the moral status of those
teachings from an external standard of my own – my own moral conscience. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: x-small;">With regard to the value of religion in society (a big
subject) I see both pros and cons. Clearly, the human inclination to be
religious (to believe in some external guiding spirit that is the source of
morality, of security, of justice and so on) is extremely powerful and
universal. One finds it in all places at all times, to a greater or lesser
extent – the current era perhaps being one in which a greater proportion of
people can claim to be without religion than ever before – justifying its
identification as a unique secular period in human history. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Personally, I find this easy to understand, yet, at the same
time, being irreligious, extremely puzzling. It is easy to understand because
this is a frightening and bewildering world in which there is comfort to be
gained from the knowledge that there is a purpose to life that is determined
and guided by a benevolent higher power. I understand and sympathize with this
belief. I almost wish I could share it. However, there is a wide gap between
the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">desire</i> to believe something and
the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">ability</i> to believe it. I find it
impossible to understand how very intelligent, rational people can believe
unbelievable things – and there are many in that category – a belief impervious
to compelling contrary evidence. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: x-small;">The pros and cons of religion can be summed up in the
observation that, when religion is a matter of free choice, it works powerfully
in favor of social harmony, stability and creativity; but when it is a matter
of compulsion it is a source of great evil and destruction. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Religion is the source of much artistic and philosophical
richness. It provides the social support and guidance for individuals to cope
with the challenges of this world. It has always been an important
manifestation of a crucial “tribal solidarity”. And, where it is a matter of
voluntary affiliation, with freedom to enter and exit unmolested, its value is
inestimable. I say this not as an endorsement of everything in organized
religion (or of the Jewish religion in particular). In terms of my own moral
code, there are many aspects of religious teaching that I regard as repugnant
and socially dysfunctional – and many as matters of annoying superstition. But,
unless coercion is involved I regard these as matters of private choice and not
as socially destructive. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: x-small;">On the other hand, whenever religion has allied with
political power it has been an overwhelmingly destructive force. Throughout
history, it has been the cause or the excuse (or, in part, both) of war,
oppression and brutality. The tyrannical impulse derives much power from the
ability to claim to be implementing the word of god (Communism invented its own
“secular god” which proved, perhaps surprisingly, to be just as powerful). The
most powerful modern-day manifestation of this is Islamist fundamentalism. It
is no accident that the European Enlightenment and the Age of Reason that
emerged in Renaissance Europe took the predominant form of the fight for
religious freedom. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: x-small;">So, I am the furthest thing you can imagine from a religious
fanatic, or even a mildly religious enthusiast looking to promote acceptance of
its teachings. My concern comes from a completely different place. It comes
rather from a powerful belief in the importance of religious freedom. I favor
an education inclusive of religious history and doctrine. We should know our
heritage, its riches, its evolution, for better or for worse, and, as free
critical thinkers should decide for ourselves how we feel about it. </span><o:p></o:p></p>Against the Currenthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12356717231233669106noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6635559730786891370.post-49647683143510612412022-02-27T22:10:00.001-06:002022-02-27T22:10:10.106-06:00An interesting new series about Abraham Lincoln<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEioLOHjGepaR7sZT_c21YZSqKOzhx5jXAhcN_oLBDCDDD0-aGHNJeUueysogUC9J5f6bDZj83O6nWjYm4WieBbAt5_Y00xln3LTjPYw-4h9UkoMcjvZF-w57_vtnYuGPF9RcdPyWgNe6a7XS8XggACgRr2EEmolnxGHTvRyPMiAiqFn031ayodYbbl4zA" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="687" data-original-width="348" height="1299" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEioLOHjGepaR7sZT_c21YZSqKOzhx5jXAhcN_oLBDCDDD0-aGHNJeUueysogUC9J5f6bDZj83O6nWjYm4WieBbAt5_Y00xln3LTjPYw-4h9UkoMcjvZF-w57_vtnYuGPF9RcdPyWgNe6a7XS8XggACgRr2EEmolnxGHTvRyPMiAiqFn031ayodYbbl4zA=w660-h1299" width="660" /></a></div><br /><br /></div><br /><p></p>Against the Currenthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12356717231233669106noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6635559730786891370.post-37981685542589585602021-11-11T11:25:00.003-06:002021-11-11T11:25:44.701-06:00South African movie on the Rivonia trial<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi6BYXTT_RUpuaaXb2h-i1Y8FNhyOsyxToGZoaPC6xSPSwcoYxq7Pyps7riuxVgvD6xTTKY0PFPANN018nO7DnGJ1B7t-E8h6iLqkov6gdX5IFXLqa3107R1nuj5aPxPnumZRe4R51Nxt84/" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="621" data-original-width="281" height="1395" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi6BYXTT_RUpuaaXb2h-i1Y8FNhyOsyxToGZoaPC6xSPSwcoYxq7Pyps7riuxVgvD6xTTKY0PFPANN018nO7DnGJ1B7t-E8h6iLqkov6gdX5IFXLqa3107R1nuj5aPxPnumZRe4R51Nxt84/w633-h1395/image.png" width="633" /></a></div><br /><p></p>Against the Currenthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12356717231233669106noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6635559730786891370.post-19004273421388451482021-11-09T23:19:00.002-06:002021-11-09T23:19:29.760-06:00Why do they say "diversity is good for business"?<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhVKC5x-eo9Gu0ICYiBGlD1HZNlb3PPLPevrllKtkyHOrW7bxTmBmi_lUdQ1dhkD0Xj8GO1-9-VsXBGgEhtZMvdX3zu5SQ1PS8L8wewNAt0XGlwFdMbaPg2R03Zis3IC6FKpbJJUNmGemqd/" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="635" data-original-width="552" height="739" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhVKC5x-eo9Gu0ICYiBGlD1HZNlb3PPLPevrllKtkyHOrW7bxTmBmi_lUdQ1dhkD0Xj8GO1-9-VsXBGgEhtZMvdX3zu5SQ1PS8L8wewNAt0XGlwFdMbaPg2R03Zis3IC6FKpbJJUNmGemqd/w644-h739/image.png" width="644" /></a></div><br /><p></p>Against the Currenthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12356717231233669106noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6635559730786891370.post-29053735476593658952021-09-24T14:23:00.004-05:002021-09-24T14:23:42.666-05:00Today’s musing minute: Dennis Prager on religion and freedom. <p><span style="background-color: white; color: #050505; font-family: inherit; font-size: 18.75px; white-space: pre-wrap;">This is where Dennis Prager loses me. </span></p><div class="o9v6fnle cxmmr5t8 oygrvhab hcukyx3x c1et5uql ii04i59q" style="background-color: white; color: #050505; font-family: "Segoe UI Historic", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 18.75px; margin: 0.5em 0px 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div dir="auto" style="font-family: inherit;">I mean he has done such and amazing job in producing media pieces pushing back against the toxic conventional wisdom on identity politics, climate policy, and some other stuff - including a bit on deficit spending, taxation, the national debt and so on. </div></div><div class="o9v6fnle cxmmr5t8 oygrvhab hcukyx3x c1et5uql ii04i59q" style="background-color: white; color: #050505; font-family: "Segoe UI Historic", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 18.75px; margin: 0.5em 0px 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div dir="auto" style="font-family: inherit;">Though, I suppose, like a lot of the people that appear on his Prager U platform, he identifies as a "conservative" I see compatibility between his views and the core values of classical liberalism. [I really hate the label "conservative"].</div></div><div class="o9v6fnle cxmmr5t8 oygrvhab hcukyx3x c1et5uql ii04i59q" style="background-color: white; color: #050505; font-family: "Segoe UI Historic", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 18.75px; margin: 0.5em 0px 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div dir="auto" style="font-family: inherit;">But, when it comes to religion he (like Ben Shapiro) goes soft. He wants to tie secularization to the loss of individual freedom. [A subtext is the incoherent implication that it is 'good to believe, it is good to be religious, as if somehow people could compel themselves to have faith.] The proposition that secularization is tied to loss of freedom is patently absurd. He suggests that secularization is 'correlated' with loss of freedom - apparently meaning that it is causally connected. He must know that correlation does not imply causation. </div></div><div class="o9v6fnle cxmmr5t8 oygrvhab hcukyx3x c1et5uql ii04i59q" style="background-color: white; color: #050505; font-family: "Segoe UI Historic", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 18.75px; margin: 0.5em 0px 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div dir="auto" style="font-family: inherit;">But, apart from that, the claim is false, the opposite of the truth. In fact, it is the embrace of fundamental universal individual human rights (John Locke leading to the Enlightenment, as exemplified by the work of the Scottish philosophers, in particular David Hume and Adam Smith, who were clearly irreligious) - the embrace of individual liberty that led to the unprecedentedly free and prosperous societies of today's world. </div></div><div class="o9v6fnle cxmmr5t8 oygrvhab hcukyx3x c1et5uql ii04i59q" style="background-color: white; color: #050505; font-family: "Segoe UI Historic", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 18.75px; margin: 0.5em 0px 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div dir="auto" style="font-family: inherit;">It was, in fact, the loss of the power that organized religions had to compel behavior (and belief?) that heralded the era of freedom of religion (ancillary to the freedom of expression, conscience, etc.). It is in no way the loss of religious belief that is responsible for the backsliding against individual freedom that we see today in America and Europe. He has misdiagnosed the problem - unforgivably, because it suits his narrative. </div></div><div class="o9v6fnle cxmmr5t8 oygrvhab hcukyx3x c1et5uql ii04i59q" style="background-color: white; color: #050505; font-family: "Segoe UI Historic", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 18.75px; margin: 0.5em 0px 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div dir="auto" style="font-family: inherit;">The loss of freedom, the expansion of government power to impose regulations on individual behavior is always a result of the rise of other kinds of organized "religions" (belief systems with another name) that are antithetical to individual liberty, antithetical to the belief in the inviobility of individual rights (including property rights, and rights to free expression). Such belief systems include “nationalism”, “communism” and most recently, the current American form of “progressivism” all of which sanction and promote the blatant violation of individual rights in the name of the “greater good” as required in the belief system (to wit, DEI). These are in a very real sense just the latest forms of secular “religions”. </div></div><div class="o9v6fnle cxmmr5t8 oygrvhab hcukyx3x c1et5uql ii04i59q" style="background-color: white; color: #050505; font-family: "Segoe UI Historic", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 18.75px; margin: 0.5em 0px 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div dir="auto" style="font-family: inherit;">Prager would be on firmer ground if he suggested, along with David Hume and F. A. Hayek, that organized religion, can be, and has sometimes, not infrequently, been a force for good in society, in providing a structure of behavioral norms conducive to moral behavior. But, this has always been in circumstances where religious organizations have had to compete for adherents, circumstances in which religion is, in fact, a lifestyle choice – not systems of compulsory commands. Where religious organizations and belief systems have been compatible with individual choice they have frequently, though not by any means always, been conducive to, or at least not contrary to, the core tenets of classical liberalism. Where, by contrast, religions have been coupled with political power, have possessed to greater or lesser extent the power to compel (such as the power to ban the teaching of evolution, or, indeed, to compel its being taught), then religion and liberty are enemies. </div></div><div class="o9v6fnle cxmmr5t8 oygrvhab hcukyx3x c1et5uql ii04i59q" style="background-color: white; color: #050505; font-family: "Segoe UI Historic", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 18.75px; margin: 0.5em 0px 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div dir="auto" style="font-family: inherit;">Prager is a religious Jew, and this is particularly relevant in his case because early on, as a result of the dispersion of the Jewish people. Jewish religious authorities lost the power to compel individual behavior (by contrast for example, to Christianity and Islam, which, upon acquiring political power became formidable systems of oppression). It is, therefore, doubly ironic for him to misdiagnose the loss of individual freedom as somehow causally related to the “loss of religion”. I wish he would just drop this stupid line of argumentation.</div></div>Against the Currenthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12356717231233669106noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6635559730786891370.post-14036372739458086652021-09-18T09:17:00.002-05:002021-09-18T09:17:55.590-05:00Race is not character<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEidC00v1CY6jl40jj-p6Gdf1igAzCs6p9GAwxrrlls8TRvNj39x-oactD-MNp4oaCRRvhm2EHZJqVCro52PsPCisqk8mieY7MxRsU-9PaeeKDh-soCsZZB2mBfMOtu-hwAIWv58rhQoMEcU/" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="399" data-original-width="570" height="449" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEidC00v1CY6jl40jj-p6Gdf1igAzCs6p9GAwxrrlls8TRvNj39x-oactD-MNp4oaCRRvhm2EHZJqVCro52PsPCisqk8mieY7MxRsU-9PaeeKDh-soCsZZB2mBfMOtu-hwAIWv58rhQoMEcU/w642-h449/image.png" width="642" /></a></div><br /><p></p>Against the Currenthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12356717231233669106noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6635559730786891370.post-35199128320335021392021-09-11T21:27:00.004-05:002021-09-11T21:31:02.904-05:00The power of foreign policy counterfactuals<p><span style="font-size: medium;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: medium;">Today’s musing minute: The power of foreign policy
counterfactuals. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: medium;">Arguing about foreign policy consciously or unconsciously implies
arguing about history, usually fairly recent history. And arguments about
history imply some level of expertise and a great deal of familiarity with mountains
of details, an understanding of local contexts, and a grasp of the inevitable
complexity of the particular social situations. Which is why I feel exasperatingly
lost in such discussions. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: medium;">Key to any argument about particular foreign policy actions
or strategies, are the myriad of counterfactual assumptions one has to make to
advance any claim. Thinking about the recent US departure from Afghanistan, I
was struck by a particular example of this. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: medium;">Those of us who feel intuitively that foreign adventures in
nation building are extremely ill-advised and immoral are often hard pressed in
concrete situations to justify our position in cost-benefit terms. Consider
Afghanistan. Yes, our occupation cost a bloody fortune. There was loss of life
of American soldiers, inefficiency and corruption. But, for twenty years, the
lives of ordinary Afghans were better than they <i>would have been </i>(note
the italics) had the US not been there to protect the government that succeeded
the deposed Taliban regime. And now, that we have left, though the future is
uncertain, perhaps it was worth it. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: medium;">You see the problem? We don’t really know what would have
happened (the counter factual) had we (the US) fulfilled the mission of routing
Al Qaeda and found a way to withdraw, with dire warning about any further
collaboration with that group, who knows how long the Taliban would have been
able to hang onto power? Even now, while the picture is bleak and expectations
are anxious, maintaining a stringent theocracy is a costly business and the
costs mount up over time. Will Afghanistan go the way of Iran and Pakistan, or
will it look more like North Vietnam. What would have been and what will be?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Choose your counterfactual and you can justify
just about any policy scenario.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: medium;">What that tells me is that, given the incentive and
knowledge problems in any large foreign policy adventure, abstinence is the
better part of valor. </span><o:p></o:p></p>Against the Currenthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12356717231233669106noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6635559730786891370.post-64556006463227889362021-08-28T23:14:00.003-05:002021-08-28T23:15:07.406-05:00Good intentions do not = good results<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEivw3FYSufbnNLU9y4fyHWR0uMzcrXZVEXGrnH-A6WO57lFRvAWByv7BgPMrM-Q4wXwgc7amzprHGXUMqiZraAflqRPA8c9WQVv4VA25RuQqWq19gayOJ8FkKDUfa40UvcpePy4Jos0M-o9/" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="591" data-original-width="542" height="609" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEivw3FYSufbnNLU9y4fyHWR0uMzcrXZVEXGrnH-A6WO57lFRvAWByv7BgPMrM-Q4wXwgc7amzprHGXUMqiZraAflqRPA8c9WQVv4VA25RuQqWq19gayOJ8FkKDUfa40UvcpePy4Jos0M-o9/w557-h609/image.png" width="557" /></a></div><br /><p></p>Against the Currenthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12356717231233669106noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6635559730786891370.post-30580876133413832532021-08-22T11:13:00.002-05:002021-08-22T11:13:31.503-05:00Climate change is a non-issue<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiY-57wj9gX1KC15priK9AO7Yv2luouKEchrjFvOChAEIAbv4eEEP91DAv2gUfixlopRsV1D_3NYy23CLJQAltp4IFrljsNivUSJN2TdL4IWgFuxrPGkgdBWcJvd3tl7l1_I_8rgyIdr5W6/" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="744" data-original-width="586" height="789" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiY-57wj9gX1KC15priK9AO7Yv2luouKEchrjFvOChAEIAbv4eEEP91DAv2gUfixlopRsV1D_3NYy23CLJQAltp4IFrljsNivUSJN2TdL4IWgFuxrPGkgdBWcJvd3tl7l1_I_8rgyIdr5W6/w622-h789/image.png" width="622" /></a></div><br /><p></p>Against the Currenthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12356717231233669106noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6635559730786891370.post-65696542691396343602021-08-18T13:00:00.002-05:002021-08-18T13:02:15.285-05:00Today's musing minute: On Biden and the Afghanistan disaster. <p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg8OPkbKModBR9sHwCoowCgE5LUdOyAWydRmtvDfCHy5pLC2IbdTC4UOCkeYkTGN7qy63Wp2rn7Wbm_ey3jdzfcfdKR5eVFi9wVIb6qQ0Uv2pJarFUhBID-ybnexVseJfVqI6pS5AZEyyXP/" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="800" data-original-width="581" height="851" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg8OPkbKModBR9sHwCoowCgE5LUdOyAWydRmtvDfCHy5pLC2IbdTC4UOCkeYkTGN7qy63Wp2rn7Wbm_ey3jdzfcfdKR5eVFi9wVIb6qQ0Uv2pJarFUhBID-ybnexVseJfVqI6pS5AZEyyXP/w617-h851/image.png" width="617" /></a></div><br /><p></p>Against the Currenthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12356717231233669106noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6635559730786891370.post-57753737815488728882021-08-07T00:16:00.002-05:002021-08-07T00:16:44.876-05:00Today's musing minute - on white privilege<p> <br /></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEis03xluX1yxRpjvsQti2mqS1lrffQjKCwoBidsGxplain5D4pv3cc3hLsImXcTSzNYRcKfpEXQmcTdPZb1e7mPdHKkUcLDxFGS0JCqMmam_XoiG0ooH7YpfjzKv8-yEXLbbmE0oFE4dExb/" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="753" data-original-width="764" height="602" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEis03xluX1yxRpjvsQti2mqS1lrffQjKCwoBidsGxplain5D4pv3cc3hLsImXcTSzNYRcKfpEXQmcTdPZb1e7mPdHKkUcLDxFGS0JCqMmam_XoiG0ooH7YpfjzKv8-yEXLbbmE0oFE4dExb/w613-h602/image.png" width="613" /></a></div><p></p>Against the Currenthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12356717231233669106noreply@blogger.com0