I posted earlier this week about the fundamentalist group Aish HaTorah's involvement in the distribution of "Obsession," the DVD mailed to swing voters that is meant to suggest that Barack Obama is some sort of Manchurian Muslim. I neglected to mention a whole set of other issues about Aish HaTorah, including and especially its pre-modern attitude toward women, pluralism and non-Jews. But Goldblog readers have filled the gap! Here's one such reader:
Please know how much I appreciate you exposing Aish for what it truly is. For a long time I have been trying to make the case to several women in my community, telling them Aish's extreme positions against Jewish pluralism and tolerance in addition to their extreme and dangerous political positions on Israel.
Steve Pearlstein, Major Dude
Pearlstein gives it to one of Glenn Greenwald's stalking horses.
Joe Klein Responds
Joe has a long and interesting response to my earlier post, which I would like to respond to at length, but can't until Sunday or Monday because of my commitments to both Judaism -- the imminent arrival of Shabbat -- and paganism. I'll be dressing this Halloween as Rashid Khalidi. Or something even scarier: Michael Goldfarb. If I were to be true to either character, I would probably wind up giving myself a splitting headache.
October 30, 2008
The Anti-Semantic Joe Klein
Joe Klein is defending
Rashid Khalidi from charges of anti-Semitism, and I, for one, am fine
with that, as I'll explain in a moment. What I'm not fine with -- what
I can't actually believe -- is this line from Joe's blog:
I've never met Rashid Khalidi, but he is (a) Palestinian and therefore (b) a semite, so the charge of anti-semitism is fatuous.
I
want to be absolutely clear that I'm not about to accuse Joe of being
an anti-Semite, but I will note that this the first time I've ever
heard a Jewish person, or a non-anti-Semite, make this sort of
malicious statement, one that perverts the universal meaning of a term
in order to mock the phenomenon of Jew-hatred. "Jew-hatred" is actually
my preferred term, because, as I'm sure Joe knows, "anti-Semitism" was
a term invented by the avant-garde Jew-hater Wilhelm Marr, who was the
founder, in 1879, of the League of Anti-Semites, which argued that
Germans and Jews were locked in a death struggle for racial superiority. And we know where that ended.
Since Marr's time, of course, the term has evolved from a compliment to an insult,
but its meaning has held steady all these years. As I said, the only people who
insult Jews by denying the meaning of the term are, in my experience,
anti-Semitic. Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, the founder of Hamas, told me in an
interview once that his organization could not be anti-Semitic, because
Arabs were the true Semites, while Jews were simply European impostors.
This interview occurred at a time when Yassin's suicide bombers were
systematically seeking out large groups of Jews in order to murder them
for the crime of being Jewish. By Joe's dangerous new standard, the
World War II-era Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al Husseini, who was a
Nazi fellow traveler and a frank advocate of total Jewish extermination, could not be called an anti-Semite because he was Arab. So,
really, who's being fatuous?
I know that Joe derives great
pleasure from criticizing Jewish supporters of the Iraq War -- the
Wolfowitzes, Perles and Feiths --in specifically Jewish terms, while
never seeming to use the Christianity of other supporters of the war,
including Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Powell, and other such marginal
figures, against them. I don't like the double-standard, but it's part of the rough and tumble. However, emptying the term "anti-Semitism" of its accepted meaning in order
to score points against John McCain? That's simply too much.
But
about Khalidi -- he's a fierce partisan of the Palestinian cause, of
course, and in my conversations with him, and in his writing, I see
that his sympathies frequently cause him to distort Middle East
history. But an anti-Semite? I don't think so. In fact, Rashid Khalidi
is one of the rare Palestinian advocates who argues, as he has with me,
that Arabs must study Jewish history, including and especially the
history of Jew-hatred, in order to better understand Israel, and to
reach a compromise with it.
By the way, the term Rashid Khalidi uses, in speeches and in his books, to describe Jew-hatred? Anti-Semitism.
The Wal-Mart Economy and the Destruction of America
Reader Steve Jozik writes to bemoan the catastrophe that befell Martinsburg, West Virginia when Wal-Mart came to town:
I just stumbled across your article on the Martinsburg, West Virginia Wal-Mart and wanted to give you my perspective. I grew up in Martinsburg from when I was born in 1979 until I graduated high school in 1998. I now live in the Outer Banks of North Carolina and go back home a few times a year to visit friends and family. I never noticed if the Martinsburg Wal-Mart was much better or worse than any other Wal-Mart, but I tend to find them all somewhat depressing (I liken them to a poverty perpetual motion machine).
I do, however, have a different grudge against that Wal-Mart. The Martinsburg Mall (especially the Wal-Mart) killed downtown Martinsburg. A number of my friends either owned or had family who owned businesses on Queen Street or in the old outlet mall. All of those businesses have been closed since the mall was constructed. Wal-Mart caused all of those personable entrepreneurs to close shop and really changed Martinsburg from a unique town with a lot of character and history into another bland piece of suburbia. My home town lost a lot of its charm not long after Wal-Mart came to town. I still have a special place in my heart for my hometown and think the surrounding area is beautiful, but I am not sure if it is the kind of place where I would want to raise my kids. National corporations have taken over the entire town and left few niches to be filled by local entrepreneurs. I miss the small mom-and-pop specialty shops and being recognized when I stopped in. Martinsburg is too small of a town for me to feel so anonymous when I walk into a business. Wal-Mart has taken so much from Martinsburg, and all we got was some "Chinese-made breakable crap". Next time you go into that Wal-Mart, please thank them for sucking the soul out of my hometown.
October 29, 2008
What if the L.A. Times Suppressed a Cheney Tape?
Imagine -- and it doesn't take much imagining -- but imagine Dick Cheney showed up at a party for Ahmed Chalabi, and made a videotaped toast? Don't you think the L.A. Times would try like hell to get that video posted on its website? Of course it would, and it would be performing a valuable service for its readers.
I don't think it's entirely necessary for me to explain, once again, why I believe that Rashid Khalidi is not a danger to the Republic. I also don't think I have to rehearse the controversial idea that Barack Obama was not, in fact, the Hyde Park chapter president of the PFLP-GC. (That was Rahm Emanuel.) But there's a video out there of Obama saying kind things about Khalidi, and on the general principle that information in an open society shouldn't be kept secret and that the voters should make up their own minds about whether or not they trust certain candidates, this video should be set free. But a pro-censorship organization called the Los Angeles Times, which has the tape in its possession, is hiding it, for reasons it won't fully explain. And it's looking more and more ridiculous each passing day.
I understand that the tape was leaked to the Times by a source or sources unknown, and that an agreement was struck with that source to keep the tape hidden, but the tape has been described in a Times story already, and it quite obviously contains no state secrets. I also suspect that the tape could be posted in such a way as to obscure its origins. The Times, however, won't discuss in detail why it's keeping the tape from its readers, and the newspaper's "readers' representative," Jamie Gold, has lined up against the readers, and argued against the release of the tape.
There is another reason why the tape should be posted: It might actually create interest in the L.A. Times. From what I understand, the mainstream media is in a bit of trouble these days. Perhaps -- this is just a thought here -- the L.A. Times could better its position in the world by drawing readers to its website.
Like I said, just a thought.
UPDATE 4:50 P.M.: Welcome, Drudge readers. Except for the guy who just emailed to tell me that I have "even less honor" than John McCain. Whatever that means. Also, I'll take the opportunity to make clear something that I didn't make clear at all up above: The first move, one I hope the L.A. Times has already made, would be to press the source to agree to allow the video to be posted. This sort of pressure is brought to bear on sources all the time. One other point, to those of you who think I'm interested in seeing this innocent source burned: We're not dealing with a wallflower here. The source already leaked the video to the Los Angeles Times. One final thought: The L.A. Times could give us a hint why it agreed to the conditions set by the source. That would certainly help clear the air. And clearing the air is important here: I'm willing to bet that the video does not show Barack Obama wearing a keffiyah. But the anti-Obama conspiracists, who all seem to have my email address, believe it shows something nefarious. Trying to serve the truth here would be a good thing.
Hawley Principle Contest Finalist
The entries to our TSA contest are pouring in. This one is a bit outdated, but good. It comes from one Dan Snyder:
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld today said that there had been, "absolutely no" violence in the unpopulated parts of Iraq. He went on to point out that, "outside of the large cities and smaller villages, Iraq is largely unpopulated."
The Chicago Way
Eli Lake with a typically astute piece in the New Republic about the recent raid into Syria.
October 28, 2008
Hope for Henry
Because of a technical glitch (namely, me), the following short film, about an incredibly brave kid named Henry Strongin Goldberg, fell off this blog last week. So I'm posting it again. Watch it. It's important. Henry, who died six years ago, at the age of seven, lives on in the work of his parents, Laurie Strongin and Allen Goldberg (who is not related to me except in the we're-all-brothers sense of related). Their Hope for Henry Foundation is dedicated to bettering the lives of seriously ill children. Our mutual friend, John Donvan, made this great film:
This McCain Scare-Ad Voiceover Sounds Suspiciously....Jewish
Goldblog friend Marc Fisher asks if it is just him, or does the voice-over in this Obama-Is-Going-to-Destroy-Israel ad sound a just a wee bit micro-targeted?
People who Watch "Mad Men" Are Muslim
I think this is what Ta-Nehisi says. I just started watching the show; it's genius. Ta-Nehisi is the go-to guy, it seems, for all sorts of Mad Men analysis.
Keep the TSA Mail Coming
Kip Hawley contestants are flooding my inbox. And, boy, is that uncomfortable, a flooded inbox. There are several decent over-the-counter medications that can stop the itch, however.
New Contest: Can You Out-Lame the TSA?
Last week, in response to my article about the idiocy of airport security, the head of the Transportation Security Administration, Kip Hawley, essentially conceded the main argument of my article, which was that America's aviation security system is not designed to catch smart terrorists, but stupid terrorists. Here's what Hawley wrote last week:
"Clever terrorists can use innovative ways to exploit vulnerabilities. But don't forget that most bombers are not, in fact, clever. Living bomb-makers are usually clever, but the person agreeing to carry it may not be super smart. Even if "all" we do is stop dumb terrorists, we are reducing risk."
Not quite believable. And yet he really said it.
And so, a contest: How would the Hawley Principle of Federally-Endorsed Mediocrity apply to other government endeavors?
To get you started, here's an example:
"FEMA Administrator R. David Paulison said yesterday in a press conference that his agency is well-equipped to cope with the consequences of strong winds and heavy precipitation. `FEMA has been criticized for its performance during Hurricane Katrina, but I would like to point out that Katrina was a very big hurricane,' he said. 'Most storms, in fact, don't become hurricanes, and it is these storms that we will focus our efforts on.' Paulison went on to say that FEMA is also prepared to handle the after-effects of such moderate storms as minor flooding, downed tree branches, and missing cats."
So, go to it. E-mail your entries to Goldberg.Atlantic@gmail.com. The Goldblog reader who comes up with the funniest application of the Hawley Principle wins a subscription to the Atlantic. If the winner is already a subscriber, well, thank you very much for your support.
October 27, 2008
The Jewish Extremists Behind "Obsession"
I've only watched the 12-minute version of "Obsession," the film sent to more than 28 million people in various swing states, apparently by associates and partisans of the Jewish movement known as Aish HaTorah, or "Fire of the Torah," but it was enough for to understand that it is the work of hysterics. One of my favorite hysterics, the Jerusalem Post's Caroline Glick, is featured prominently, pieces of the sky falling about her head as she rants about the End of Days.
Aish HaTorah denies any direct connection to the film, which is designed to make naive Americans believe that B-52s filled with radical jihadists are about to carpet-bomb their churches, and are only awaiting Barack Obama's ascension to launch the attack. But the manifold connections, as laid out in this article, among others, make it clear that high-level officials of Aish are up to their chins in this project. The most disreputable flack in New York, Ronn Torossian, who represents Aish, makes an appearance in this story, which was to be expected: Torossian last made the news when he employed sock-puppetry in defense of one of his many indefensible clients, Agriprocessors, Inc., the Luvavitch-owned kosher slaughterhouse that treats its employees nearly as badly as it treats its animals, which is saying something, because Agriprocessor slaughterers have been filmed ripping out the tracheas of living cattle.
But I digress. It's said of Ronn Torossian that he represents "right-wing" Israeli politicians, but this description does not do his clients justice. "Right-wing" is Bibi Netanyahu. Torossian represents the lunatic fringe. Several years ago, in one of my only encounters with him, he introduced me to Benny Elon, a rabbi and settler leader who was then Israel's tourism minister, and who, at various points in his career, has more or less advocated the ethnic cleansing of Israel of its Arab citizens. At one point, when Elon had gone to take a telephone call, Torossian and I started talking about Israel's right to reprisal for terrorist attacks. I was arguing in favor of some sort of proportionality (this was after Jenin, in which the Israeli army chose to root out terrorism block by block rather than bomb the city from the air) but Torossian interrupted: "I think we should kill a hundred Arabs or a thousand Arabs for every one Jew they kill." I was somewhat taken aback, of course, because this is a Nazi idea, rather than a Jewish idea. I asked him to explicate: "If someone from a town blows himself up and kills Jews, we should wipe out the town he's from, kill them all. The Israelis are suckers. They should have destroyed Jenin." He went on like this for some time. I would only note that Torossian, to the best of my knowledge, never volunteered for the Israeli army, so he seemed to me by definition a chickenhawk.
Torossian's attitude toward Arabs and toward the peace process are echoed in the approach of Aish HaTorah, which is just about the most fundamentalist movement in Judaism today. Its operatives flourish in the radical belt of Jewish settlements just south of Nablus, in the northern West Bank, and their outposts across the world propagandize on behalf of a particularly sterile, sexist and revanchist brand of Judaism. Which is amusing, of course, because "Obsession" is meant to expose a particularly sterile, sexist and racist brand of Islam.
The tragedy of "Obsession" is not that it is wrong; the tragedy is that it takes a serious issue, and a serious threat -- that of Islamism -- and makes it into a cartoon. Its central argument is that the "Islamofascism" of today is not only the equivalent of Nazism, but worse than Nazism. This is quite a thing for a Jewish organization to argue. One of the featured speakers in "Obsession" is a self-described "former PLO terrorist" named Walid Shoebat, who argues on film that a "secular dogma like Nazism is less dangerous than Islamofascism is today."
This is lunacy, of course. Islamism isn't Nazism. It's bad enough without being labeled Nazism. Martin Gilbert, the biographer of Churchill, shows up in the film as well, and doesn't cover himself in glory: "History has an unfortunate habit of always repeating itself," he says. Always? Does this mean that the Arabs are right now constructing death camps for the Jewish citizens of Israel?
Just unbelievable, but the most unbelievable part of the "Obsession" campaign is its timing: What does this film have to do with Barack Obama? The film is meant to suggest that Obama will provide aid and comfort to Islamism, or is an Islamist himself. There is not one shred of proof on this planet that Barack Obama is anything other than an Israel-supporting Christian. Yes, he went to party with Rashid Khalidi. So did I. Does that make me a member of Hezbollah?
I actually have another idea for a film: I would call it "Obsession" as well, but it would be about the poor souls who believe that Obama is a radical Muslim, that Israel has a right to expel Arabs from its lands, and that America should declare war on all of Islam.
According to this official and other U.S. experts, Israel does not
possess conventional weapons capable of knocking out the facilities.
Breaking through the thick shell would require, at minimum, several
bunker-buster bombs striking precisely the same spot. "These targets
would be very hard to destroy," said former U.N. nuclear expert David
Albright. Theoretically, Israel could do a lot more damage with a
nuclear strike. But U.S. and other Western experts say there is no
reason to believe the Israelis will abandon their policy against
shooting first with nukes.
The Sarah Palin Wig
On the one hand, most Jews, apart from Joe Lieberman, seem to hold Sarah Palin at some distance. On the other, you have this, in the Orthodox precincts of Brooklyn.
October 24, 2008
About Those Racist Jewish Voters....
It appears as if most Jews will be voting for the Democrat, as they have have done since the beginning of time. Or certainly since Jimmy Carter ran in 1980. Put another way, no other white ethnic group will support Barack Obama at anywhere the level Jews will.
"The Sopranos in Reruns Will Bore You"
Ross disagrees, rightly, though not vehemently enough for my taste. I just wasted two hours watching Vito Spatafore shop for antiques in New Hampshire, a subplot that ranks among the worst Sopranos' subplots, and it was still wildly entertaining.
Kip Hawley, the TSA administrator, has responded to my article rather tepidly, I think. Read it for yourself, but this paragraph stood out for me:
Clever terrorists can use innovative ways to exploit vulnerabilities.
But don't forget that most bombers are not, in fact, clever. Living
bomb-makers are usually clever, but the person agreeing to carry it may
not be super smart. Even if "all" we do is stop dumb terrorists, we are
reducing risk.
Quite astonishing, actually, and something of an admission. As the article says, the entire system is designed to stop stupid terrorists. When it comes to smart terrorists, well, we're on our own.
October 22, 2008
The Israeli Fear of Neo-Conservatism
From Shmuel Rosner, in our Jewcy dialogue on McCain, Obama and Israel:
In some ways, what they fear in Obama is the repetition of Bush the democracy-promoter. It's true that most Israelis think Bush was a friendly president, but readers should realise that very few of them really bought into the lets-democratize-the-region notion. Too realistic to believe, or too racist (Ariel Sharon famously said "after all, it is Arabs we are talking about here"), or too experienced -- Israelis liked the part of Bush that was supportive of security concerns, and vehement in fighting terror, but didn't as much appreciate his desire to transform the Mideast. Not that they don't want it -- they just don't think it's possible. Not now, not this way.
The Brisket King
An invaluable essay by Andrew Gow on the continuing woes of my ever-dying people:
These three mainstream movements are in serious trouble--not merely demographically and generationally, but also ontologically, in terms of their self-understanding. Renewal and Reconstructionism seem to be making gains--for the same reasons as the main denominations are in trouble, probably. All three mainstream movements are entangled in struggles of self-definition and self-legitimation vis-à-vis the others, and all seem to be on the defensive rather than actively articulating a living and viable Judaism.
From an excellent column by Ruth Marcus in today's Post. I saw Ruth on Saturday morning, and she said she was heading out to a McCain rally in Virginia, and I said, "Sucker," although in fact I was the sucker because we were at our school's chaotic fall fair, and she had found a way to lam it, and thus avoid the inevitable Excedrin headache. And then she stumbles upon this gem of a human:
"I make over $250,000 a year, between my wife and I," Thomas Jacoby, a 62-year-old contractor, tells me in Woodbridge. "I don't want to share it with anybody."
Another Terrorist Caught by TSA
From the mail:
After a non flying hiatus of 6 years, I took the plunge again in 2004. Since that time I have flown quite frequently. I am always detained either for a "random" alarm I trigger or for my baggage. Whereas I am stopped every time, the term "random" does not really apply to me. After reading your article in the current Atlantic, I now understand the profile I fit. I am a middle aged (59) white woman, with moderate arthritis, usually traveling alone to visit my family or attend a conference. I carry a small bag and tote bag filled with all the personal things a middle aged woman need for 2 or 3 days. I am stopped and searched because my profile is least threatening. I am not going to run away. I surely possess nothing other than hair gel and nail clippers (which have been confiscated) that are threatening. I am the perfect passenger to stop to ensure the safety of the TSA employees. I have even met the drug sniffing dogs, who knew I was not a threat, because I carry the scent of my own dogs. So, if you want to meet all the interesting airport people I have come to know, maybe you should travel with me.
Another Newsstand Sale!
Someone allegedly named Corey Schlichter writes to say:
i will buy a copy of the november atlantic so that i can piss on your high school journalism.
Buy two! Double the urinary fun!
October 21, 2008
Why The Candidates Should Stop Talking About Israel
Shmuel Rosner and I go back and forth on this topic at Jewcy.
It should be noted that if the candidates actually stopped talking about Israel, Shmuel and I would be out of work. But whatever.
October 20, 2008
Mark Salter on the Press and John McCain
There was an astonishing quotation in a recent New York Times story about John McCain from Robert Timberg, a biographer and admirer of McCain's. Timberg told the Times reporter David Kirkpatrick that, "Political campaigns have a way of distorting reality and turning political candidates into caricatures of themselves. In some ways that has happened to (McCain), and in some way he may have contributed to that." Mark Salter, the McCain aide who has co-written most of McCain's books, is quoted as calling Timberg's assertion "deeply offensive."
I called Salter to talk about the Timberg quotation, and the Times story - in which Kirkpatrick explores the literary influences on McCain's life (and on Salter's) and discusses the shaping of McCain's heroic image. We also talked about Salter's current view of the press: "I think the media is driven by a need to see this history happen," he said. "And I think they've rationalized it, they think they're on the level with McCain, that he's not the old McCain. But he is the old McCain. He just doesn't know what happened to the old press corps." Here is an edited transcript of our conversation.
Jeffrey Goldberg: How are you doing?
Mark Salter: No more debate prep at least.
JG: What did you think of the Kirkpatrick story?
MS: I'm kind of pissed off about that. That and a few other things. I never even read For Whom the Bell Tolls. I had to read it for the second book (I wrote with McCain). I didn't pattern McCain's life on For Whom the Bell Tolls. It pissed me off. It's McCain's fucking story. Kirkpatrick was part of the New York Times story that can't be mentioned, but I've talked to him for every one of the biographical series. I just thought the idea that we had created a sort of new John McCain, a sort of hybrid of Robert Jordan and Marlon Brando, because McCain's favorite movie is "Viva Zapata," was not fair to McCain.
JG: What specifically bothered you about the Timberg statement?
MS: Kirkpatrick never mentioned Timberg to me. I was responding to a question along the lines of, "What do you say to people who say McCain's exploiting his P.O.W. experience?" That's what I said was deeply offensive.
JG: Is Timberg wrong to say that McCain has become a caricature, that the campaign has brought out bad qualities in him?
MS: I have not talked to Timberg. And right now all I've got is the quote and Kirkpatrick's story. I would like to know what the question was, the exact quote, before I have any comment on what Bob said. I think the world of Bob.
JG: What do you think of the assertion that McCain is exploiting his P.O.W. experiences?
MS: I find that very offensive. Barack Obama gets to tell his story why? Because it's more potent?
JG: How are you feeling about the press these days?
MS: Look, I think, starting with the Democratic primary, there has been a different standard for Obama than there has been for any candidate running against Barack Obama. And maybe this should have set off more warning bells with me. I think much of the media has a thumb on the scale for Obama. I think the thumb has been there the entire time. There are many honorable exceptions, I don't mean to tar everybody, but I think there's one standard for us, and one standard for Obama. He has run more negative ads than McCain has run ads. They run from the quite misleading to the blatantly untrue.
JG: Do you think the Palin pick turned off people like me who care about foreign policy and felt that the pick undermined his credibility on the issue?
MS: I'll take your word for it that that's how it affected you. I think the press has been harsh consistently.
JG: What is your argument to people who believe Palin doesn't have any experience in defense and foreign policy? What do you say to people who say, "Mark, look, it's not there? If, God forbid, she had to step in, she doesn't know anything."
MS: Does she have vast foreign policy experience? No. No, she does not have vast foreign policy experience. What appealed to McCain about her was, you know, everybody was talking about a change election. Every challenger who ever has run a race has run on a change platform. Everybody essentially runs as a reformer. When you're a guy like McCain who really has fought for reform, he found enormously appealing a woman who ran as a change agent and then fought to be one in office. If it was going to be a foreign policy pick, then it would be somebody else, I guess, but it wasn't. And she learns quickly. She learns quickly.
JG: So what is it that David Brooks and David Frum and others are missing about her?
MS: I get what their reservations are, but you're missing that here's a woman who ran as a reformer, who got there and took on the oil companies and immediately took on the entrenched Republican power structure and then kept up the fight. In McCain's mind the biggest sin is to run as one thing and then be another. You incur an obligation, just like when you go to war, the worst thing is to not accept responsibility for the deaths that you are responsible for.
JG: But there are questions about her reform reputation. What about the so-called bridge to nowhere?
MS: To say that she didn't kill it is just false. She made a decision not to spend money on that bridge. She did it. She has cut spending, she has reduced earmarks. She's tough, she's tough. She took a lot of body blows, a lot of crap. Your blogging colleague over there seems to have lost his fucking mind, you know. Prior to Sarah Palin, he was accusing me of being a plagiarist, the whole Solzhenitsyn thing, the cross in the sand, and then it turned out that Sozhenitsyn didn't write such a story. I mean, Jesus Christ, it's just remarkable. This whole story about how the baby isn't hers? Jesus Christ. Just crazy shit.
JG: Do you agree with Bill Kristol when he said that McCain should open up to the press in the final weeks?
MS: So we can get stories that McCain is answering questions that aren't of interest to the voters?
JG: We've talked in the past about narratives, and what narrative the press is looking for with McCain --
MS: Look, Obama is blaming the "deregulators," George Bush and John McCain, for creating this whole mess, when everyone knows how this mess got started: people pushing sub-prime loans on people who can't afford to pay them back. That's how it got started. Which party is more culpable for that phenomenon? The Democrats! The Democrats are. We say, if you want to pin political blame pin it on the Democrats for the Community Reinvestment Act and all the things they did protecting Fannie and Freddie, a position Barack Obama wholly shared. But what do we get in the media? That Rick Davis lobbied for Fannie Mae. We get no competing narrative.
JG: Do you think your guy still has a shot?
MS: Yes I do. You know, we got hit with an unprecedented financial crisis that turned an extremely challenging environment into an extraordinarily extremely challenging environment, and I get it, but I see persuadables left, I see soft support for Obama, I see reservations about his readiness.
JG: Do you think your campaign has been too negative, like a lot of people think?
MS: The other guy is much more negative, by some almost immeasurable factor. His message on McCain has been consistently negative since the North Carolina primary. Barack Obama has not made a public statement in this country which did not include a full-throated attack on McCain. It's just a fact. They have ads saying McCain opposed stem cell research. McCain voted for stem-cell research as he got ready to run for President. He offered, against the consensus advice of his staff, the immigration bill. Obama runs an ad saying, "He's turned his back on you." For three weeks Obama has walked around this country calling McCain a liar, dishonorable, and erratic. Those are character-based attacks that he has been leveling at us for weeks and weeks and not a single reporter has called him on it. It's just insane. McCain won't even use Rev. Wright, out of an abundance of caution. So he raises the next guy, Bill Ayers, and you know what we get? We get called racist. How is that racist? You got me.
JG: Does McCain hold Obama in contempt?
MS: No, that's absolutely false.
JG: Does he respect him?
MS: There are things he respects about Obama. He recognizes his gifts, and we said in the convention speech that he recognizes the symbolic importance. This has a real impact on our culture, his winning the nomination. McCain understands that. It demonstrates that the country has moved to a better place.
JG: What do you say to people who say, "The McCain I like I haven't seen in two or three months, and I hope he comes back to us."
MS: That's the McCain who's running in this race. You just don't report what you see. It's the whole thing about our rallies. Ninety-nine percent of our rallies, if there's a disruption, if there's something ugly shouted, they're Obama supporters.
JG: Are Sarah Palin rallies are different?
MS: I haven't been at them so I don't know. Her rallies are bigger than ours, so it increases the possibility that you get a few more nuts.
JG: Looking back, do you think there was something false about your salad days with the press?
MS: No, I'm trying not to draw general lessons about the press or us or the meaning of life out of all of this. Otherwise I'd despair. I think the media is driven by a need to see this history happen. And I think they've rationalized it, they think they're on the level with McCain, that he's not the old McCain. But he is the old McCain. He just doesn't know what happened to the old press corps. They rationalize a reason to go get him. Every Obama attack they carry. Every McCain criticism of Obama they rush to blunt even before Obama does.
JG: Putting aside Palin, is one of the problems you're facing the fact that there's no foreign policy discussion right now?
MS: Iraq was supposed to be the issue of the campaign. We assumed it was our biggest challenge. Funny how things work.
Germans Love A Good Parade
Including parades in Teheran that threaten the existence of Israel, apparently. And I thought the Germans learned a lesson after they were busted for selling chemical weapons components to Saddam. And the Holocaust. I thought the Holocaust taught them a lesson as well.
The TSA apparently hasn't retrieved the passes and uniforms of former employees -- and there are a lot of former employees, given the agency's high turnover rate -- for years. Not that it matters, because a terrorist doesn't need a TSA uniform to talk his way through airport security.
Message from a Fallen Hero
Just a reminder, amid all the bullshit, of the real world, in which American soldiers are facing down barbarians. This is from a blog entry written by Army Specialist Stephen Fortunato, who was killed earlier this week in Afghanistan. The whole entry can be found here.
I am a proud American. i believe that my country allows me to live my life more or less however i want to, and believe me, i have seen what the alternative of that looks like. i also believe that our big scary government does way more than it has to to help complete [expletive deleted]-ups get back on their feet, a stark comparison to places where leaders just line their own pockets with gold while allowing the people who gave them their power and privilage to starve. I have chosen my corner. I back my country, and am proud to defend it against aggressors.
John Ryan, Arch-Terrorist
A reader named John Ryan writes in about my TSA piece:
As somone who IS on the no-fly list with the name John Ryan (sounds Muslim, doesn't it?) who: -can't do advanced check-in online -can't use a check-in kiosk at the airport -gets held up at the check-in counter while they check my name -gets detained by US Immigration from time to time (most recently, this week) -can't get off the no-fly list
...I thoroughly enjoyed your article.
Hamas Explains Why My AIG Stock Tanked
Ismail Haniya explain all. It's about "usurers," you see.
October 16, 2008
The TSA Follies
My new article, in the all-new Atlantic, is now up. In it, I try to get arrested at various American airports.
Wehner on Obama
Pete thinks Obama won last night's debate by a wide margin.
AIG's CEO to Shareholders: Later, Suckers!
So I get home yesterday and there's a letter to me from AIG. Several years ago, I bought 100 shares of AIG for my retirement account; I paid $36 a share, I think. In any case, a share is now, as I write, worth $2.27. A little bit less, in other words. If I sold my shares today, I could buy quite a bit of gas with the proceeds, so I suppose it's not all bad. Nevertheless, I've been substantially pissed off at this particular company. And that was before I opened the letter. It was from Edward M. Liddy, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer. "To our shareholders," he began:
"On September 23, 2008, American International Group, Inc. ("AIG") announced that it had signed a definitive agreement with the Federal Reserve Bank of New York for a two-year, $85 billion revolving credit facility," he writes. "Under the agreement, AIG will issue a new series of Convertible Participating Serial Preferred Stock to a trust that will hold the Preferred Stock for the benefit of the United States Treasury. The Preferred Stock will be convertible into Common Stock of AIG following a special shareholders meeting to amend AIG's restated certificate of incorporation."
And so on: A couple of more blathery paragraphs, all leading to the news -- surprise -- that the shareholders have no say whatsoever in the decision-making of the company (this includes, I take it, the choosing of junket destinations). Mr. Liddy closes by announcing that "the Preferred Stock will be issued when AIG has received all material approvals of governmental authorities required for the issuance and no earlier than ten days after the date of mailing of this notice to AIG shareholders."
He then signs the letter, "Very truly yours, Edward M. Liddy."
Very truly yours. He's not merely truly mine, he's very truly mine. This, of course, is very nice, Mr. Liddy. But you know what would be even nicer? If you apologized on behalf of AIG for losing my money. How about, "Dear Shareholder, on behalf of everyone here at AIG who screwed up so massively that our share price was driven down pretty much to zero, we're very sorry. We'll try to do better next time. And thanks for the tax-funded bail-out, by the way."
How about that, Mr. Liddy? You schmuck.
.
How I Know Obama Is Going to Win
Over the weekend we were out at the Big Lots in Martinsburg, West Virginia, buying decorations for our sukkah (Christmas tree decorations which we convert to Judaism at the check-out counter, actually) and I noticed in the parking lot not one but two Ford F-150 pick-up trucks with Obama bumper stickers. Ford F-150s! West Virginia! Ford F-150s have always been, for me, a leading indicator of Republicanism. They're the opposite of Subarus, in other words. In fact, when my Washington friends tell me they don't know a single person planning to vote for McCain, I ask them if they know anyone who owns an F-150. Now remember, the F-150 has been, for the past eighteen years or so, the number-one-selling vehicle in America. Of course, it doesn't sell so well in Chevy Chase and Cleveland Park, and most people around me couldn't pick an F-150 out of a line-up.
But: Things are changing. Remember, of course, that West Virginia is in the McCain camp; it's where Hillary crushed Obama, and a place whose white residents sometimes have a difficult time acknowledging Obama's Christianity, among other things. So this was quite a revolutionary find, two F-150s in the same parking lot.
I realize that this doesn't qualify as a scientific survey, but I thought I'd pass it on anyway.
October 15, 2008
A Great Source for Obama-Related Paranoia
A couple of people have forwarded me a column by an American-born Israeli writer named Naomi Ragen, who is described in her biography as "an iconoclast, an Orthodox woman, and a fiercely outspoken advocate for gender equality." Also, apparently, someone who traffics in slander. This is from a recent column, posted on the main pro-settler website:
The Presidential election of the most liberal and inexperienced politician in America, a man with strong Muslim ties and a strong Muslim background; a man who is linked to domestic terrorism through Bill Ayers, and to numerous
pro-Islamic and anti-American advisors - all of whom side with Israel's Leftist enemies (including Israelis) as well as to anti-American, anti-Semites like Reverend Wright; a man whose supporters are among the same
people who brought down the American economy with their 'liberalism' in money-lending, is just about a fait accompli.
Gevalt. Strong Muslim ties? A strong Muslim background? Numerous pro-Islamic and anti-American advisors? You mean, like Dennis Ross, Mel Levine, Daniel Kurtzer, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, Robert Wexler, Dan Shapiro, and Rahm Friggin' Emanuel? Anti-American Israel-haters like that, you mean?
Enough already. These conspiracy-mongers remind me of these cretins dug up by Ta-Nehisi.
I have two problems with this. 1.) The "Zionist control" theory is a cop-out, a kind of "the Israelis made me do it!" defense. If you have a beef with American foreign policy over the past couple decades, take it to the people you elected and supported. 2.) Why is this dude speaking for Barack? How does he know what Obama's foreign policy priorities will be? Why can't he stop talking? I don't get this at all.
A "cop-out" is one way of looking at it. But it's also a cop-out to call it a cop-out. Scapegoating is another term.
David Frum Makes for Good Liberal TV
I know I should be working, but this conservative crack-up business just fascinates. If you read National Review (the one that used to have Chris Buckley on staff), as I do, you'll see now that David Frum is being accused of sucking-up to liberals, or being a liberal himself, or something. Yes, the same David Frum who co-wrote "An End to Evil" with Richard Perle.
For what it's worth, I know David Frum (he credits -- blames? -- my writing for helping him come up with "Axis of Evil") and he ain't no liberal. He is, however, smart, and he knows, among other things, that having Sarah Palin anywhere near the levers of foreign-policy or defense power is a frigging disaster.
A great column from MoDo. I'm on Brooks' side on this one, in case you didn't know.
Jesse Jackson Hates Obama, and Not Just His Nuts
If the New York Post account is accurate, and I'm trying to dig into it a bit, then Jesse Jackson has just disinvited himself from my Hannukah party, as well as, oh, the White House for the next four years. According to Amir Taheri, Jackson said, in France (!), that though he believes that "Zionists who have controlled American policy for decades" will remain strong, they'll lose clout in an Obama administration. "Obama is about change," Jackson reportedly said. Note the Ahmadinejad-style deployment of the word "Zionists," by the way.
Jackson once called Zionism a "poisonous weed" choking Judaism. He obviously hopes to play the role of poisonous weed in the Obama campaign, in which he has no role. For those readers who believe that this outburst suggests something true about the Obama campaign, please read this.
October 12, 2008
Barack Obama and Yitzhak Rabin
In the months before Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated, he was the target of numerous vitriolic demonstrations, during which he was labeled a liar, a traitor, and a coddler of terrorists. Bibi Netanyahu, his opponent at the time, did little, or nothing, to tamp down the anger of the crowds. We know how that story ended. Those demonstrations, and the anger hurled at Rabin, created the climate for what might be considered the worst day in Israeli history, and one from which the country has not recovered.
John McCain did the right thing by calling out demonstrators and defending Barack Obama's decency last week. But we should see that continually. And Sen. McCain, how about instructing your running mate on the fundamentals of decency as well? I'm not suggesting something terrible is in the offing. But the anger of these crowds is a dangerous thing to democracy. Thank God, if nothing else, for the United States Secret Service.
Enough About Israel Already
As someone who quite obviously likes to talk about Israel, and who thinks about Israel more than is healthy, or necessary, I am probably not one to criticize other people for talking about Israel too much. But, really, if neither presidential candidate, or vice-presidential candidate, mentioned Israel between now and the election, I wouldn't mind at all. Neither would Shmuel Rosner, who wrote in Slate this week:
Barely can a presidential debate go by without the mentioning of this tiny country in a distant region. Last week in the vice-presidential debate, Israel's name was mentioned 17 times. China was mentioned twice, Europe just once. Russia didn't come up at all. Nor Britain, France, or Germany. The only two countries to get more attention were Iraq and Afghanistan--the countries in which U.S. forces are fighting wars.
The goal of Zionism is normalcy, Jewish normalcy. This, of course, is an oxymoron, but we can still hope. The cause is not helped when presidential candidates, well-meaning though they might be, constantly invoke the existential dangers to Israel when arguing for a) getting out of Iraq; b) staying in Iraq; c) talking to Iran; or d) bombing Iran. Not everything is about Israel (I'm talking to you, Walt and/or Mearsheimer). America faces complicated challenges in the Middle East, only some of which involve Israel, and it would useful to hear this truth once in a while.
October 10, 2008
Sarah Palin: Fatal Cancer?
David Brooks is taking some heat from doctrine-enforcement agents of the left and right for stating, in an interview with me at that famed redoubt of populism Le Cirque that Sarah Palin represents a "fatal cancer" for the Republican Party. Critics say that Brooks was far more blunt with me than he is in his column. At least one critic accuses him of dishonesty. It's quite the opposite, I think. David is one of the rare columnists today who wrestles with himself constantly, and who lets the public watch him
