Proving my point

Remember when I talked about the role xenophobia was playing it causing some folks to reject Obama and protest the Park51 project? Big thanks (or not) to resident yutz Jonathan Mark at the Jewish Week for being a great example.

Mark had two articles a week ago hammering home the point that Obama was, "at least technically" a Muslim. I can't decide if my favorite part is Mark's total disengenuousness (you can almost hear the Glenn Beck in him shrugging, "I'm just saying, is all,") or the way he uses Obama's parentage to bash Reform Jews on patrilineal descent, which is super-relevant to the discussion because... he decided so?

Observe:

As an Orthodox Jew, I believe that membership in a religion is not casual but legal, something like American citizenship (if you support the good people of Arizona). You can't just cross the Rio Grande and vote in Phoenix. There is a rigerous citizenship process, a conversion process, or there is Judaism's singular qualification -- being born to a Jewish mother.

But according to my non-Orthodox "Progressive" friends, religion is as religion does, you are what you feel, what you seem, and to the left of Conservative Jews (though surely soon for Conservative Jews, too), you are Jewish if your father was. Intermarried people, technically non-Jews, who never converted, are allowed to participate in the Sabbath services of many liberal synagogues. The Jewish people are filling up with "illegal aliens" given amnesty. Non-Jews claim Jewish credentials by virtue of how they act, not what they actually are.

Wow. Do you work hard to come up with these ridiculous comparisons? Or do they just come naturally after poking your brain with a stick a few times?

There are always stories in the papers about soldiers who've been killed while serving in the Israeli army but who can't be buried in Jewish cemetaries because these tragic soldiers are not Jewish, and therefore must can only be buried in non--Jewish cemetaries. There always follows an uproar from non-halachic Jews -- how dare we not bury them in the cemetaries where they want to be buried after what these soldiers did for the Jewish State!

Boy, are the Orthodox mean. Don't they know that religion has nothing to do with being Jewish?

Boy, your strawman sure is boring. Also, predictable.

By those modern and widespread standards in the Jewish community, where someone's religion is not judged by legality but by feelings and sympathy, then I'm getting more comfortable with the idea that Obama is a Muslim. Sure, he is technically a Christian, I know, he spent more than 20 years in Trinity Church in the pews of his spiritual mentor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the crude anti-Semitic and anti-American friend of Louis Farrkahn. You can't choose your family but yes, you can choose your mentors.

I know, Obama is a Christian by virtue of his maternal family, his mother was a Christian. 

And yet, by the modern Jewish standards of patrilinial descent, no questions asked, no-fault religion, Obama is a Muslim.

Except, not, because patrilineal (actually bilineal) descent in the Reform movement is actually predicated on involvement with the Jewish community. As opposed to traditional Orthodox matrilineal descent, which declares anyone with a Jewish mother Jewish until they convert. But, you know, details aren't really important here, because you're really not interested in them.

He is Muslim by patrilineal descent and what seems to be Islamic halacha.

As an op-ed contributor wrote in The New York Times in 2008, "In Islam, however, there is no such thing as a half-Muslim. Like all monotheistic religions, Islam is an exclusive faith. As the son of the Muslim father, Senator Obama was born a Muslim under Muslim law as it is universally understood. It makes no difference that, as Senator Obama has written, his father said he renounced his religion. Likewise, under Muslim law based on the Koran his mother's Christian background is irrelevant."

There is no provision in Judaism to renounce your religion, either.

Mazel Tov, so we get to include such great guys as Karl Marx, Torquemada, St. Paul and Zola Levitt back in the tribe. Yay?

So Obama is a Muslim because of his father -- patrilineal descent -- is one legitimate "halachic" position, although the topic has become so politicized it has rarely been seriously explored in most newspapers, Jewish or otherwise. 

Perhaps this has something to do with the fact that it's also irrelevant to his presidency? I mean, isn't doing an investigative report on Obama's "Islamic halacha" status sort of like trying to research what the Houston Astros thought of Bush's ownership style? At best, it's trivia. At worst, it's fodder for a hatchet job. If you think it's so significant, and it's not just about poisoning the well, make the case for why we should care. If you can't, there goes your argument.

The idea that Obama might be a Muslim was so quickly branded a slur by the left and the Obama camp, in particular

Again, no. The right has turned Islam and Muslim identity into a slur. Obama has stood by his position that he does not share his father's religion (which, again, the elder Obama renounced during his life). How is that branding it a slur?

and protecting Obama had become uppermost in the minds of so many journalists, that most Americans haven't been exposed to an intelligent "comparative religion" discussion about this.

What's to discuss? According to you, the facts are clear-cut. You claim that under Islamic law, he is Muslim. He says he does not consider himself Muslim or practice Islam. To date, no one has refuted this. You're suggesting there's some deeper layer going on here. I just don't see it. It would be one thing if he had grown up as a practicing Muslim and then converted, but this is like grilling Abraham Foxman on his Catholic connections based on his childhood experiences in hiding during WWII. Sorry Jon, but there's no "there" there.

The topic is often handled with a schoollyard brush-off, even in usually serious newspapers, by usually serious people: "He's not a Muslim, and you're stupid for saying so."

Let's break this down. If you insist on claiming Muslim connections in absence of evidence as a political cudgel to beat him with, you're not stupid, you're slimy. It IS stupid, however, to continue to beat a story that has no new developments. If he practices Christianity, not Islam, and there's no indication this has changed in the last twenty-plus years, in what way has the story changed? Was he a Muslim last week? Did he sneak into a mosque yesterday when no one was looking?

Yet, for those of us who like our religion discussed at length and with seriousness

Yeah, re-read your hatched job of The Rebbe again and say this with a straight face. I dare you.

what about the assertions in the Times' paragraph? Maybe if the topic was dealt with intelligently and properly -- not politically -- it wouldn't still be an issue going the wrong way in the polls for Obama a full two years later.

What am I missing here? Is there some magical information gap that you're holding out for, some smoking gun that would let you conclusively decide this one way or the other? Or is it that you're waiting for some upstanding journalist to "intelligently" analyze this non-story and make the call for you so you can finally cross it off your to-do list?

And what of the "non-halachic" point of view?

If service in the IDF, or working and living among the Jewish people, is the criteria, Obama had for years lived and studied and prayed among Muslims as a youth in Indonesia. 

Yeah, everyone knows that any praying you do in first grade defines you for life. Duh! Oh wait, three of those four years were in a Catholic school? Hmm. And the last one was an Indonesian public school that gave kids a free period for religious instruction once a week, not a fundamentalist madrassa, as has been claimed? Well... um... quick, look into my Hypno-coin!

And I love the assumption that "serving" one of your constituent groups is the same thing as being a member of that group. That makes sense, just ask House Representative Steve Cohen from Memphis, TN.

By every halacha-be-damned modern Jewish colloquial standard of who is a "member of the tribe," Obama is a Muslim, every bit as much as he is a Christian. 

Uh, except for the whole self-identification thing, which is kind of... what's the word? Paramount.

Two religions are OK in most modern Jewish homes, with Christmas trees and menorahs sharing the same living room, and Obama's childhood living room was both Islamic and Christian. He rejected neither, though Islam became politically inconvenient, which is why he didn't use his middle name Hussein publically until he was safely elected and inaugurated as "Barack Hussein Obama." And that is why the centerpiece of his foreign policy became outreach to the Islamic world while threatening Israel if they so much as built an apartment house in a Jewish neighborhood in Jerusalem, while Obama made zero demands on the Palestinian Abbas.

Yawn. Yeah, we know you hate intermarriage, Jon. But even though your paragraph is dripping with that special zesty mix of scorn and bitterness, it still doesn't mean that Obama's a Muslim-- particularly not by Reform standards. Sorry. Using your legal middle name does not mean you're suddenly embracing your heritage. And it seems to me like the actual centerpiece of Obama's foreign policy has been fighting major wars in two Muslim countries. I know you're writing for the Jewish Week and you've got some blinders on when it comes to Israel's significance but come on, man, read the news and have a little perspective. Israel has not been Obama's number 1 priority, positive or negative.

I'm not the only one who sees this. An increasingly number of Americans do, as well. WIth the end of legalistic standards of identification within almost all ethnic and religious groups, Americans are figuing, yeah, this guy sure seems like a Muslim.

Especially when they can say stupid crap like "seems like a Muslim" without any need to justify their remarks or define their terms. By the way, Jon, did I mention you "sure seem" like a slice of toast? I mean, you're both brittle, pockmarked, high-in-fiber...

Americans are a practical people. If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck...

But spent 4th grade in a special school that gave it two hours of platypus instruction a week, and it hasn't called for platypus genocide yet, and its middle name is "Beaver-like tail", it must be a damn platypus sleeper agent. Clever bastard.

...Sixty percent of those who say Obama is a Muslim said they came to that conclusion through the media, the overwhelmingly liberal media.

Wait, the same liberal media that has banned all discussion of the topic and surrounded Obama with a "ring of propaganda"? You're a journalist and you don't see any contradiction here? Wow. Look, either the propaganda media is criminally incompetent or the public believe what they want and make up rationales later.

The people see and hear Obama in action, with 11 percent being more specific, saying it is not the media as intermediary but they figure Obama is a Muslim from his own "words and behavior," reports Pew.

Yay, more cryptic allusions. What behavior would that be, incidentally? All his praying to Mecca, perhaps? His demand that the White House only serve halal food? No? Oh, the fact that he's perceived as tough on Israel. Oh-Kay. Didn't realize George H.W. Bush was a Muslim. That explains a lot. Or, then again, not.

Are Americans really as stupid as some politicians, Jewish leaders and journalists would have you believe? How is it that the more Americans know about Obama, the more Americans think he is Muslim?

I'm going to say the old-timey winning formula of xenophobia, ignorance, fear, and manipulation by bullshit artists? Also, consider the counter-argument: by your reasoning, the only way the 20% can be right is if the other 80% is wrong. So who's calling who stupid?

Many Americans grew up with the old Lenny Bruce routine on "Jewish and Goyish."...By Lenny Bruce standards, we can say that Obama is as Islamish as lime jello is goyish.

You can SAY whatever you want, Marky. If you're going to claim you have proof, though, you kind of need to show your work. Right now you've got a middle name, a year in a school in Indonesia, an ex-Muslim atheist absentee father, an apathetic Muslim step-father, and a coolness towards Israel (read: settlements). Hardly a slam dunk.

Of course, as a Jew who respects halacha and the legal codes of other religions, I know full well that Obama is a Christian by matrilineal descent, that he was raised in a two-religion home to understand and love both Islam and Christianity. He probably tilts toward Islam now because perhaps he resents how for so many years, fighting to reach the top, he could only admit to Christianity, forced by politics or (a lack of a courage) to deny his father. Now he is a free to be as he chooses.

Oh good, you've gotten your telepathy implant. Guess what I'm thinking of your argument right now. Hint: It rhymes with "wool-schmidt".

My non-Orthodox friends who have drummed it into my head that a Jew is anyone who sort of seems like it, halacha and technicalities be damned, so I'm increasingly of the belief that, yes, Obama is a Muslim -- actually, like many children of intermarried parents, he is both Christian and Muslim. There have been numerous articles in Jewish papers regarding Chelsea Clinton's marriage to a Jew, and how Jewish that child might be, even if that child is officially a Methodist.

In a very real sense, Obama is that child. Like Chelsea's child, the father looms. 

Except, in a more, actually real sense, Obama is not a child, but a grown man, who has chosen his own identity. You happen to not like it because it interferes with your political narrative, so you're portraying him as a Muslim converso. It's an entertaining narrative-- in a kind of Tom Clancy meets Dan Brown meets Glenn Beck sort of way-- but you're basically combining the barest of facts with the laziest attempts at psychology. You might as well write a column-- hell, make it a book-- about how Teddy Roosevelt was "totally" a zoophile (the pieces all fall into place!). I mean, have fun and all, but don't act like you're proven some profound point.

OK, OK, Obama's a Christian, please don't waterboard me, I'll confess. I'm not saying Obama prays to Allah, eats Halal, or is in any way a religious Muslim. Hardly. But I've been taught by my Reform, Secular and intermarried friends that a Jew doesn't have to believe in God, or daven, or eat kosher, or be in any way observant, or even have a Jewish mother to be Jewish.

First of all, I call BS on these alleged non-Orthodox friends. Something tells me you made them up. Second, you're conflating several different groups and their different criteria to be Jewish. In all cases, the primary issue is self-identification. That doesn't exist here, except in your mind

Despite sounding tremendously satisfied with his lack of hard work, Mark must have still been a little worried that he hadn't convinced all his readers. So the next day, he brought out the big guns: historical comparisons! With that most famous quasi-Jew, Benjamin Disraeli!

Benjamin Disraeli was born of a Jewish father but was baptized and had a Christian upbringing, joining the Church as an adult. The prime minister didn't practice Judaism.

Barack Obama was born of an Islamic father but, after some grade-school Islamic education, had a Christian upbringing, joining the Church as an adult. The president doesn't practice Islam.

...Benjamin Disraeli has an entry in the Encyclopedia Judaica. Why? How is he a Jew? Why is he so often spoken of as a Jew? Yet no one is called "stupid" for calling Disraeli a Jew. People are called "stupid" for calling Obama a Moslem.

Never mind that AFAIK Disraeli embraced his Jewish roots, whereas Obama has framed his Islamic heritage as part of a larger multicultural narrative, or that in Disraeli's time Jews were unpopular but not being actively accused of being a traitorous fifth column to the British commonwealth in the way that plenty of people (including mainstream folks in positions of power and prestige) are doing that exact thing to Muslims. Mark can't be this stupid, which means he's trying to be coy.

Obama is no less a Christian than Disraeli was a Christian.

On the other hand, how is Obama less a Muslim than Disraeli was a Jew? Why is it a crime to think of Obama that way when we speak of Disraeli that way?

Who said it was a crime? Oh right, no one. The issue is that Obama's enemies are using "Muslim" as a way of poisoning the well and painting him as a foreign agent who wants to destroy the country. They have turned it into a slur,not unlike "Communist" during the Red Scare. How are you framing the question? Who's asking, and in what context? Those are the real issues. Why are you so invested in proving Obama's Muslim-ness?

And again, why should how we talk about Disraeli be the prime criteria we use with Obama? Who's to say Disraeli would have wanted to be as fetishized as he has been by the Jewish community anyway, considering he lived his life as an Anglican? Why use one example of lazy labeling to justify another?

Sorry Jonathan. Try again. This time, preferably using your brain.

Obama as Other

The last few days, as I've been musing over the downturn in Obama's popularity, there have been a few different threads running through my head.

First is the sheer loudness, anger and nastiness of the opposition. I'm not claiming that there wasn't plenty of this during the Bush years, or even Clinton, but my impression is that it seems to be going to new levels. Of course there are always conspiracy theorists during any administration, but it seems like they're getting more of a platform and are being taken seriously by a wider range of people on the populist spectrum. The angry populist crowd also seems to be more organized than in previous years. Whether that's due to new media formats or popular/charismatic figures at the helm, who can say.

Second is the fact that Obama has not had much success in convincing so-called "neutrals" to give him a fair shake. The honeymoon is over, his mandate is gone, and without much to show for it, people who may have been on the fence about him are gravitating toward the anti-administration crowd. But more than issues of policy, there seem to be lots of personal grievances the populists have with Obama.

This leads us to the third point. Obama is an outsider. He ran on this as part of his image, that he was a multicultural candidate who "transcended" race. And clearly, that narrative was appealing to enough voters to get him elected. But even during the campaign, there were people who were using this other-ness against him, accusing him of being a Jihadist sleeper agent, a non-eligible non-citizen, a radical, and so on. This last point is what, ultimately, strikes me as being so different about this era's political opposition. The rhetoric seems to go beyond mere hyperbole-- people have actually become convinced that Obama is not just not the right kind of American (vis-a-vis politics), but un-American and anti-American. That's the real significance of the poll (and the punditry) showing that almost 20% of Americans think Obama is a Muslim, and only 34% think he's a Christian. That's the subtext of all the talk of Obama's birth certificate and his "radical connections". That Obama is not a real American, and therefore illegitimate.

Looking at conservative analysis of the poll, the same talking points pop up again and again. What has Obama done to make people "doubt" his faith? Things like:

- Not regularly attending church in public.

- Spending several years as a student in an allegedly "Muslim school" in Indonesia (debunked here).

- Reaching out to Muslims in America and around the world and downplaying the narrative that America is exclusively Judeo-Christian.

What I see in all this is that these arguments are based on perceptions and biases, not factual information. There's also a total refusal on the part of the right to admit the role that media has played in casting doubts on Obama's background. There may be some gaps in Obama's history, but his real problem is that he's being held to an unfair standard and that his opponents have so ruthlessly poisoned the well. Any supposed inconsistency, any alleged "newly revealed fact" must be true, regardless of the source. And of course, anything Obama does or says that counters the narrative is deception.

It's conceivable, says Morse, that the president never truly left Islam at all, but professes faith in Christ as a cover for his true beliefs – an allowable offense for Muslims in certain circumstances.

The "Islamic-sanctioned deception," says Morse, remains the only explanation to escaping such punishment.

"The other possibility is that President Obama is engaging in a Taqiyya, which is a lie that is spoken in the greater interest of Islam," says Morse. "There are several quotes in the Quran and the Hadith, the Islamic holy books, that set the conditions under which it is permissible for the Muslim to lie regarding his identity and his intentions when dealing with non-Muslims and the non-Muslim world. Lying is allowed, even encouraged, by the Muslim according to Shariah law, if the lie in some way furthers the agenda of Islam.

"If Obama is indeed a secret-believing Muslim, as opposed to an apostate, the effects on public policy and on American society would be profound," adds Morse. "Whether Muslim or Christian, Barack Obama is the first 'Muslim president' in the same way that Bill Clinton was the first 'black president.'"

What's so frustrating about this dynamic is the subtext that being Muslim is an automatic disqualifier for being American, patriotic, loyal, or competent. When the right accuses Obama of being Muslim, they are declaring that being Muslim is a inexcusable cultural sin. That is why people are accusing them of Islamophobia, bigotry and disingenuousness.

Of particular concern to me is the role that American Jews seem to be playing in this New Nativism, either as producers or consumers of the narrative. Shaul Magid wonders whether this new focus on "global" (read: Muslim) antisemitism has essentially replaced previous decades' obsession with the Holocaust (and, more broadly, persecution) as a focal point for Jewish life, experience and identity:

The Holocaust served to define a Judaism threatened, a Judaism that required vigilant protection from an Other. That looming threat has not disappeared with the slow ebb of the Holocaust from everyday Jewish life. Instead, it has been replaced.

...Antisemitism in the Arab/Muslim world surely exists and is a problem, not only for Jews but also for Muslims. But using that as a new way to construct what I would call a “negative Judaism” is hardly a sign of health for American Jewry.

My point is not to denigrate or delegitimize the study of Arab Antisemitism, in America or abroad. This is a phenomenon that merits our attention. However, I think we should also be studying Islamophobia in America as a “replacement” for antisemitism. And we should be examining why American Jews may be using Islamophobia to push a different agenda.

This is not only happening with Muslims. Atheists, illegal immigrants, advocates for same-sex marriage, all of them are being tarred as the scary Other as well. Which means that the more Obama reaches out to these ostracized groups, the scarier he becomes.

Over the last year, I traveled across the country seeking the sources of right-wing outrage and anger in the Obama era... I discovered...fear -- some of it innate and much of it whipped up by high-def hucksters on TV and in talk radio and even in the corridors of political power in America. Much of that fear centered on one simple fact: That America is increasingly becoming a non-white-dominated country. While many Americans take no issue with that, the prospect of an America with an increasingly non-Caucasian face is a deeply disturbing one to millions of people -- people for whom a unified and traditional culture is a source of solidarity and comfort, even -- according to some sociologists -- a bulkhead of immortality.

...the bottom line was that for many, reports that whites will be a minority of Americans by the year 2050 carried the shill ring of an alarm bell. But this concern about the submersion of a dominant white culture in America spiked prematurely in 2008 with the political rise of Obama. In researching the book, I spoke with many conservative voters who talked of their "discomfort" the first time they watched Obama speak on television, who said that in particular they were alarmed at the future president's use of the specific word "transformation."

...by mid-2009 I was hearing from the leader of the anti-Obama group the Delaware 9-12 Patriots that the 44th president of the United States "is absolutely not American" while his neighbors were screaming at town hall meetings: "I don't want this flag to change. I want my country back!" These rank-and-file citizens were often echoing what they heard in a 24/7 right-wing media bubble of ratings-driven irresponsibility -- outlandish neo-McCarthyite allegations that Obama had Commies and Maoists working in the West Wing, Glenn Beck's notorious claim that the president has "a deep-seated hatred of white people" and, perhaps more tellingly, of "white culture," and most recently radio's Rush Limbaugh's bizarre charge that Obama is probably the "best anti-American president the country's ever had."

...Once the Pandora's box of emotion and rage against "the Other" has been opened so wide, it is almost impossible to close.

Implicit in the charge of being Other is the concept that Other is not only different, it is wrong, and furthermore, is incompatible with "Authentic" American-ism or American values. That is where the discourse becomes unacceptable, and that is why I find it so unsettling.

The bottom line is that when basic identity terms like "Muslim", "Gay", "Foreigner" or even "Socialist" become a code for being un-American or a traitor, you have a problem. When your political strategy involves the demonization and delegitimization of whole swaths of people and then linking them to politicians you dislike to destroy both, you have a problem. (I realize this happens on the left as well.)

The right should fight Obama and the Muslim community on their merits, or de-merits. By stooping to these tactics, they are revealing their true colors. And they are ugly.

Taking Stock

It's been two years since Obama's election. And what can I say, it's been depressing. I am becoming more and more convinced he may wind up being a one-term president. His eloquence before taking office seems to have either disappeared or is no longer effective at reaching people, and on policy he has generally not been able to deliver on his promises. Not always his fault, granted, but it's happening on his watch.

Obama, who was supposed to be so smart, so tactical, so, if need be, ruthless, seems to have, through a number of factors, just wound up being out-matched by circumstances. Granted, he has inherited some truly dire problems. But the bigger issue has been his inability to communicate or get things done. Without communication, he can't buy any more time or slack from opponents. And without accomplishments, he makes it very hard for supporters to keep sticking up for him. Obama has shown that he does not know how to, A, deal with the daily work of getting things done in Washington, or B, how to combat the constant bombardment of criticism from conservative politicians, media, and the rising populist anger represented by the Tea Partiers.

The irony is that despite the rantings of the right, I don't believe that Obama is all that extreme in his politics (particularly when it comes to some of the crazier conspiracy theories that he's out to either hand us over to Jihadists or remake America into the Fourth Reich). When it comes down to it, I think Obama is a lefty, but less an ideologue than a pragmatist. I think at the end of the day he would probably be happy to do whatever will get results-- at least I hope so. But I question the strategy and ideology presently at work in his administration. There are nothing but tough problems and essentially all the good will he had earned through the election has been squandered fighting the Health Care fight, which may, as that bonehead said way back when, become his Waterloo.

It really comes down to trust and confidence. Obama can't point to anything concrete and say, "Look, I fixed it." Granted, that's not specifically his fault since there are a ton of problems he's trying to fix. But the lack of any real victory to rally the troops behind is definitely hurting him (the fact that Health Care was finally happened is tempered by it taking so damn long to get there and that it will be years until we see effects). And I think the fact that the opposition is so loud, so extreme, and so downright nasty, is resulting in a double-whammy: First, Obama's supporters feel overwhelmed and plain old tired. Second, Obama feels like his back is in a corner and so his only options are to fight back or to carry on, seemingly ignoring opposition. But wait, weren't accountability and transparency some of the biggest and most alienating issues with the Bush White House? The truth is we don't need Obama to fight back against Fox, we need him to work on convincing whoever he can to get on board-- and, yes, to maybe be a little more transparent to critics if only to shut them up.

I don't know how different things might have been under a different President-- I doubt Hillary, for instance, would have gotten a cakewalk from the right. But I also thing Obama, by representing the other, in so many convenient ways, has become the gold standard for anyone that could have said "no" to say it-- and then maybe even go a few steps beyond. In the age we live in people aren't just angry, they're scared. And there are forces that are cynically manipulating this and capitalizing off of it. Obama has proven repeatedly that he is spectacularly inept when wading into the fray of talk-media and weighing in on issues of the day. If he tries to be decisive, he comes off as imperial. If he changes his mind, he's a flip-flopper. When he tries to please everyone, he impresses no one. He really can't win.

When it comes to my President, I'm disappointed. But when it comes to my party, I'm downright disgusted. The Democratic Congress was elected because of the sheer corruption, inefficiency, and obscene partisanship represented by the Republican party. With that mandate, they pledged to be bipartisan and transparent-- just as Obama did. This has not happened. Dems have squandered their mandate and shown that they can be opportunist, corrupt, and partisan, too. I will not be surprised when we lose one or both houses of Congress in November-- and the fact that no one wants Obama to campaign for them is a great indicator of how terrible things are.

Am I too naive? I want a government that's responsible, functional, reasonable and sane. I want a government that keeps us safe, tries creative solutions, works together, stays honest and is actually interested in solving problems (national and global), not putting band-aids over them. And I know I'm not the only one who feels this way, because these were some of the key issues Obama appealed to during his campaign and which people voted him into office on.

I also have core social issues I won't budge on, and that's why I can't in good conscience be an independent-- because there are some beliefs that I'm not negotiable on (though I also think that compromise, civility and respect would go a long way towards resolving some of the emotional components of these political divisions-- but then people wouldn't be as fired up about supporting their media hacks or donating money to their politicians, so good luck getting them on board). But on economics, on foreign policy, on energy... I think I'm flexible. Let's find ideas that work, are feasible, and which let us sleep at night. Presumably this should not be an impossible criteria. Presumably Americans agree on more issues than they disagree. If not, why not?

Here's my dirty secret: beyond all the crazy BS of the Tea Party movement, I think they do have their finger on the pulse of the country when they point out how far removed Washington seems to be from the people. In some cases it's deliberate. In other cases it's the nature of the beast. But there has to be a better way. There has to be a way to move forward. I have to believe that, or I have nothing to hope for.

But I don't know if this President or this Congress can get us there. The sad thing is I'm all-but-certain that the Republicans can't, or won't, do it, either.

What now?

Not so Nobel Criticism (A longish post, sorry)

I admit it, I thought the Nobel was silly, too. So did plenty of other libs. But even sillier than the Norwegians' sudden urge to worship Obama as the Christ to Bush's anti-Christ (or, if Bill O'Reilly is right about Scandinavia these days, the anti-Christ to Bush's Christ) was the hysterical conservative reaction. Case in point, the psychos at World Net Daily.

Pat Buchanan chided the Nobel folks for "meddling in the internal affairs of the United States."

They have reinforced the impression that Obama is someone who is forever being given prizes—Ivy League scholarships, law review editorships, prime-time speaking slots at national conventions—he did not earn. They have put him under moral pressure to mollify a pacifist left. They have brought him to the point, dangerous in politics, where a man becomes the butt of reflexive jokes, as did Bill Clinton in the Monica affair.

The irony, of course, being that it is people like Buchanan who have been yelling about all the supposed honors Obama has supposedly not earned, and which in any case must only have happened due to his skin color, not any actual effort or merit (Buchanan's column is titled, "The Affirmative Action Nobel." Classy and a red herring! Nice job, Pat.) Incidentally, since the Nobel is awarded to people taking an active role in either their local communities or on a national/global scale, and since (post-1974) it's only given to people who are, you know, alive, under Pat's logic is there any scenario where giving the prize to someone would not constitute a potential "interference" in a country's affairs? I mean, not everyone liked Mandela or Rabin or Arafat, either. Being influential often means being controversial as well. The suggestion that the Nobel people inserted themselves into our "national conversation" by giving the Prize to a sitting President is a total non-sequiteur. The same thing happened when they gave it to Wilson and T.R. The real problem here is that it shows the committee to be ridiculously political and to have myopic vision, not that it's going to have far-reaching effects on how Americans see Obama. He's gotten far more lasting reactions (good and bad) for half a dozen speech sound bites during the last two years. Nice attempt at pretending to feel sorry for how hard this is going to make things for Obama, Pat, but I'm not buying it. This is silly, but far from a political albatross.

In the meantime, pro-life warhorse Jill Stanek, who is nothing if not, um, focused, in her weekly attempts to make every issue somehow come back to abortion, fumed that the prize went to Obama, rather than someone she felt to be far more worthy:

That the Nobel Peace Prize committee would honor this prenatal baby terrorist is insane, but this wasn't its trip around the bend.

Oh please, genteel GOPers, do remind me again about how liberals are destroying respectful social discourse.

In 2007 the Nobel Peace Prize committee snubbed nominee Irena Sendler to bestow its award to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and former Vice President Al Gore.

You may never have heard of Irena Sendler, whose humanitarian carbon footprint has been largely hidden under a bushel.

Sendler was a Polish Catholic social worker who during World War II daringly and repeatedly risked her life to save 2,500 Jewish children from the Warsaw Ghetto.

Unfortunately, since the Nobel Peace Prize may only be awarded to living people, the committee cannot correct itself, since Sendler died seven months after being bypassed, at the age of 98.

Also Obama's fault, clearly. Doesn't he have anything better to do than to go to Poland and start killing its old grandmothers, too?

Here's where Stanek crosses from jerk into jackass territory:

So Irena Sendler, responsible for saving the lives of thousands of children during the Jewish Holocaust, does not win the Nobel Peace Prize, and Barack Obama, responsible for the deaths of thousands – perhaps millions – of children during the Abortion Holocaust, does.

Oh yeah, that's a totally fair and accurate comparison to lay at the Nobel Committee's-- and Obama's-- feet. So apparently the take-home message from all of this is that the Nobel people love abortion and hate Holocaust Good Samaritans. I sure am glad we cleared that up. Oh, and the dual use of "Holocaust?" Brilliant, and in excellent taste. I'm sure Sendler would love you exploiting her war experiences and the suffering of, I don't know, everyone around you to make a cheap political point. Bravo.

Last but still stupid, Dennis Prager decided to whip out his trusty fake philosophy professor tone (with a heavy dose of Dennis telepathy) to demonstrate all the ways in which the Nobel Committee people are totally a bunch of poopy-heads.

They may be moral idiots, but they are not stupid: I believe that they had two clear aims.

One is to undercut American exceptionalism – the notion that America has a superior moral value system to that of the "world" (specifically the United Nations and the European Union) and America's willing to use its unique power, alone when necessary, in accordance with that value system. The other is to promote an essentially pacifist agenda.

Dennis may be right about the pacifism issue (in a very general way, you know, the only way Dennis is ever right about things) but the exceptionalism thing is silly. The approximately 50% of the American population that still believes that America is "the best country in the history of countries" with a specific destiny to be a super-power and which has the best moral compass on earth which can never go wrong are hardly going to have their minds changed by a bunch of goofs in Norway. And the rest of the population stopped believing that simplistic (and just plain incorrect) claptrap a long time ago and has diligently been teaching the next generations that, yeah, actually, America's done (and still does) plenty of things to disprove the notion that we are perfect, sinless, God-created angels and that our geopolitical power is somehow an indication of a special moral vision that leads us along.

Dennis then fisks the Nobel announcement. This post is already too long and it would be too confusing to fisk a fisking, but the gist seems to be that Dennis is mad because the Nobel people seem to like the UN and dislike nuclear weapons. He tosses in a Churchill-Chamberlin-Hitler reference just for fun. The one area Dennis actually tries for some substance instead of Norway-bashing is when he claims Obama's administration has not been as friendly to democratic movements worldwide as it could have been.

Under Barack Obama, the United States has not been the friend of democrats around the world. America has responded weakly to the democratic movement in Iran, ended the funding of the largest pro-Iranian human rights groups in America, pressured democratic Israel, made overtures to Hugo Chavez while denying American ally and pro-democratic Colombia a free-trade agreement, abandoned Honduran anti-Chavez democrats, and has obsequiously deferred to Vladimir Putin.

Some of Dennis' facts are right here, but others are being tilted. Obama's Iran policy has clearly been to try to prod the regime towards the bargaining table, and unfortunately it looks like they're willing to sacrifice dissidents and watchdogs to try to coerce the "moderates" in power to not get riled up against them. On the other hand, as much as Dennis might like to pretend otherwise, Obama's pressure on Israel has faded fast, as Barry Rubin noted a few weeks ago:

To this day, the US government under Obama has not taken a single material step against Israel and no such development seems to be on the horizon either.

So, nice try, Dennis, but no dice.

On Honduras things are trickier; Zelaya doesn't seem to be great (especially with that anti-Israel rant a while back) but neither are military coups or holding last-minute sessions of Congress (without everyone there, no less) to make the whole thing nice and (technically) legal. When not a single country in the world has been willing to recognize the new government of a country after a coup, that may be a sign that not everything is coming up roses. For god's sake, not even a significant number of Congressional Republicans are even pretending to care about the anti-Zelaya government-- a House Resolution supporting the Micheletti government and condemning Zelaya's return only has 32 co-sponsors: a scant one-fifth of the House Republicans. The Senate doesn't even seem to have heard about it. Don't bitch about Obama not supporting Micheletti when the Republicans won't.

Now, I know Dennis is pissy because he thinks Zelaya is too buddy-buddy with Hugo Chavez (which seems to be the biggest anti-Zelaya talking point floating out there), but if you really care about democracy in Honduras the answer should be to hold new and fair elections, not support a government that just randomly installed itself and has already been accused of human rights abuses without even being in power for four months. Not such a good start.

Admittedly, Chavez is a jerk but I haven't noticed Obama getting in line to give ol' Hugo foot massages. And they don't seem to be on the same page when it comes to this international socialism takeover thing. The Columbia thing I admit to not knowing a damn thing about, though since Dennis is including it in his Al Cheit list for Obama I'm going to assume he's somehow blowing it out of proportion.

Last, when it comes to Putin, again, Obama may not be great, but really, how can conservatives even pretend to have a leg to stand on with this when Bush spent years dying to get BFF bracelets with the guy?

Last bit:

9. "His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population."

Meaning: With Barack Obama, we in Europe finally have an opportunity to end American exceptionalism.

The Oslo committee's view is, tragically, true. Thanks to Barack Obama, America is for the first time is aligning its values with those of "the majority of the world's population." If you think the world's population has had better values than America, that it has made societies that are more open, free and tolerant than American society, and that it has fought for others' liberty more than America has, you should be delighted.

Take that, the world!

Hey Dennis, what if you think the construct that "America's values" and "the world's values" are necessarily polar opposites is moronic? America is PART of the world, bozo. It's logical that there should be some issues we can come to a global consensus on (child hunger: bad), and others where national, cultural, or social priorities affect what side people support (ex: some people in Africa don't mind the moral issues of conflict diamonds because they help them make money. Some people in America don't mind the moral issues of supporting Saudi Arabia because they help THEM make money). By continuing to hold onto his dopey exceptionalism argument, Dennis require America to stand alone in opposition to everyone else, which is particularly silly when America's history clearly demonstrates plenty of occasions where we have hardly been pillars of moral excellence when compared to our global peers. Before the American Revolution, Scandinavians had already had democratic institutions for 1,000 years. England ended slavery over thirty years before America. It passed --and enforced-- child labor laws almost 100 years before us. As far as I can find, France never had a signle anti-miscegenation law on its books. Mexico gave its Indians full citizenship and rights in 1821, again, almost 100 years before us. Exactly how many examples do you need?

Get over it, Dennis. We are not a god-blessed snowflake. We are a real country with real needs, problems, and challenges, one of which has been how to balance our own interests (however broadly or narrowly defined) with our values. The fact that you'd like to believe we're a light unto the nations doesn't make it so, just like the fact that you'd like to paint every other country as either evil or complicit with evil doesn't make that reality, either.

Sad Christian Attempts at Gematria

Apparently it's not just wacked out Orthos who can dishonestly distort the Bible to make crazy psuedo-mystical arguments. Thanks, WND!

An American Christian has produced a brief film for YouTube that connects one statement by Jesus in the Gospel of Luke to President Barack Obama.

His 4-minute video focuses on the direct quote: "I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven." (Luke 10:18)

"When I started doing a little research, I found the Greek word for 'lightning' is 'astrape', and the Hebrew equivalent is 'Baraq,'" said YouTube contributor "ppsimmons," a self-described Christian with a theological education and many years in the ministry, who spoke to WND under condition of anonymity. "I thought that was fascinating."

Let's back up, bozo. First off, let's clarify that you're starting from Luke supposedly quoting Jesus, which is not the same thing, particularly since this whole "cool coincidence" hinges on the phrasing. (This is all the more so ridiculous given that you're working from a not-very-accurate English translation of a Greek text.) Anyway, Luke says Jesus says he saw Satan "like lightning from heaven"- which, starting from the extremely little Hebrew I know, is closer to "Barak mi Shamayim." Hmm, not too convincing, there. This is verified by your OWN New Testament Lexicon Search engine.

So, off to a terrible start. Let's keep going, shall we?

As he continued looking into the rest of the words in the phrase, he focused on "heaven," and found that it can refer not just to God's dwelling place, but also "the heights" or "high places."

He then recalled Isaiah 14:14, where Lucifer, another name for Satan, is quoted as saying, "I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High."

"I wondered what the word 'heights' is," said ppsimmons, "and I looked it up in the dictionary, and it's 'Bamah.'"

Hang on. So, having found a convenient NT phrase that uses the word Barak, you then take a huge random jump over to Isaiah, writing eight hundred years before Luke, and take a single word, heights, as opposed to, say, the total phrase, heights of the clouds, and use it to make a ridiculous connection. Just one problem genius. The verse doesn't say "height", which is "Bamma." (Related to the modern Hebrew word bimah, or stage.) It says "heights", or "Bammot." Oh, that pesky Hebrew grammar. The whole phrase, incidentally, is Bammot mi Annanim. Smoking gun! (According to bloggers with better Hebrew than I, it's actually bamatei.)

Thus, on the video, the announcer notes, "If spoken by a Jewish rabbi today, influenced by the poetry of Isaiah, He (Jesus) would say these words in Hebrew ... 'I saw Satan as Baraq Ubamah.'

Absolutely not. Barak Bamah means "Lightning Height", or "Lightning Mound." A good name for an electrified candy bar maybe. Any connection to an Antichrist reference? Not really. You are taking two verses supposedly about Satan from two books that have nothing to do with each other, written in different languages hundreds of years apart, selecting random words from the verse while ignoring the conextual grammar, and then, after all that, they still don't sound like "Barack Obama" so you have to add a random syllable. You might as well be taking random vocabulary words from Faust and Lucifer and mashing them together to find analogs to modern politicians' names. Hey, I bet it would be easy to get "Michael Steele," or even "George Bush" that way.

"Gosh, was Jesus giving us a clue or was this just a freak coincidence?" thought the filmmaker at the time of his research.

Yes the term "freak" seems quite applicable to your so-called "research."

"I want to emphasize I'm not ashamed of what I put there," he told WND. "I'm not proclaiming he is the antichrist, or that I'm some kind of a Hebrew expert, but the word associations are indisputable. The Hebrew word for lightning is 'Baraq' and the word for heights or high places is 'Bamah.'"

Of course, you're not proclaiming him the Antichrist, this an objective scientific enqury. Yeah, that would explain all the pictures of demons and flaming Satans you photoshopped in.

The movie has a prominent disclaimer stressing the film does not declare "BHO" [Barack Hussein Obama] to be the antichrist, but is merely pointing out the Hebrew words and their "striking" correlations to Jesus' statement.

Except that Jesus' comment didn't say anything about the Heights. Again, Mucho BS.

When WND asked if people should take the video seriously or with a grain of salt, its producer said, "I take the middle road. I don't take it with a grain of salt, but I don't use the Bible like a Ouija board either. It's not like a magical crystal ball. Clear prophecy is one thing. Making word associations is another. Just look at it. I wouldn't take it super serious and say that's the proof we need. It's a little weird."

It's not "weird," you gamed the system. I wouldn't be surprised if this guy started by looking for words that sounded like "Barack Obama" (Bamah and Obama aren't really the same thing, BTW) and then went backwards to find the random text he needed to "connect the dots."

Congratulations, doofus. You are an intellectually dishonest dope. As is WND for giving you press coverage.

Edit: Ye Gods. When you start the movie, the producer says that some viewers found it "enlightening and interesting". Lord help us.

Update: As Ecclesiastes said, "nothing new under the sun." My thanks and appreciation to various non-Jewish bloggers (some are even conservatives) who possess a good share of intellectual honesty and common sense. It is gratifying to know that wingnuts like WND don't dominate within the Christian sphere-- even if they're convinced they do.

WND throws Jewish readers a bone... made of stupid.

One of WorldNetDaily's two or three court Jews (I'm looking at you, Aaron Klein) must have mentioned that yesterday was a Jewish holiday or something, because the bozos are whipping out as much Jew-related content as they can (all, coincidentally written by the same Klein). Observe:

- Jews call Obama racist. Which Jews, you ask? Why, lovey-dovey kumbaya rabbis like Eliezer Waldman, one of the erudite and measured thinkers involved in inciting the murder of Yithzak Rabin. Darn, he's not pro-Obama? I'm just shocked.

"How dare he tell the Jews where they can or can't live! The era when Jews were banned from living in different places has ended," Waldman exclaimed.

Yes, while the era where everyone else (including Jews) tell Palestinians where they can live is still going strong. Three Huzzahs for selective morality.

"Obama beware. This insolence will bring about the downfall of the American leadership. Anyone who dares give an order to prevent Israeli life in Jerusalem or anywhere else in the land of Israel is destined to fall," he said.

Hmm, sounds a little omnious. Obama better hope he doesn't have any Jewish ancestors lurking in his family tree, someone might decide he qualifies as a Rodef.

Pinchas Wallerstein, director of the Yesha council of Jewish communities in the West Bank, told the crowds, "This week the American pressure reached new highs that are a shame to democratic societies."

Ah yes, if there's anyone who should be lecturing the State of Israel on how to be a responsible member of a democracy, it's the director of the Yesha council. (The backup speaker was the head of Eda Haredit.)

The construction project at the center of attention, financed by Miami Beach philanthropist Irving Moskowitz, is located just meters from Israel's national police headquarters and other government ministries. It is a few blocks from the country's prestigious Hebrew University, underscoring the centrality of the Jewish real estate being condemned by the U.S.

No kidding it's blocks away from Israeli landmarks; that's because it's in East Jerusalem, which, miraculously, happens to be right next to West Jerusalem. Proximity does not equal propriety. Guess what? The Temple Mount is right next to the Western Wall. Too bad there are some pesky mosques on top of it. So much for my plans to build a giant Borscht Belt resort on top of it (but where will Jackie Mason go?).

Klein goes on to parrot the govt. line about the house in E.J. formerly belonging to the Mufti of Jerusalem. Gershom Gorenberg put it best:

That the mufti supported Hitler is undeniable. The logic connecting that fact to moving settlers into Sheikh Jarrah is unfathomable. Though the competition for cynical use of the Holocaust is stiff, this surely deserves dishonorable mention.

- Not convinced/nauseated yet? Don't worry, there's more. See? Obama is "like Rome."

"The Obama administration is following in the footsteps of Rome. He is trying to do what the Romans did, passing anti-Jewish decrees at the time of the destruction of the Temple," Nadia Matar, the protest organizer, told WND.

Try to follow the logic:

A- Holding Israel's feet to the fire regarding settlements (much of which previous govts already cynically agreed to but never bothered to enforce) = anti-Jewish decrees.
B- Rome was one of hundreds of governments to pass "anti-Jewish decrees" (which apparently can be defined however it's convenient to Matar).
C- Therefore Obama is "like Rome."

Yeah, he's also like Rome insofar as he bathes regularly. Come to think of it, so is Matar (I hope). I guess the only thing left to do is to let these two Roman lovebirds have an old fashioned Roman orgy.

"We surrounded the Old City walls like a bride goes around her groom at the marriage canopy (during a Jewish wedding) and the couple pledge allegiance to each other," Matar told WND.

"We are married to the land of Israel and the Temple Mount and Jerusalem, and we are not ever going to give it up," she said.

Geez, Nadia, get off the sex thing already. Just decide, either you and Obama can go at it like crazed pagan Roman sex fiends or you and pure, demure, Jerusalem can get a room. But you can't swing both ways. That wouldn't be halachic. Also, 2 journalism points to Klein for fabricating his quoted headline (Obama 'like Romans who destroyed Jewish Temples') instead of just writing what Matar actually, you know, said.

Showing his usual disregard for facts and details, Klein also throws in ye olde BS about Tisha B'Av being the unluckiest Jew-day in the Jew-calendar for WND's goyishe readers, presumably to guilt them into sending more money to John Hagee or Yechiel Eckstein:

Aside from the destruction of the Jewish Temples, a remarkably large number of massive calamities befell the Jewish people on Tisha B'Av. Jewish rebellion leader Bar Kokhba's famous revolt against Rome failed in 135 B.C. Following the Roman siege of Jerusalem, the razing of Jerusalem occurred the next year. The first crusade pogrom against Jews in Palestine began on that date in A.D. 1096.

The Jews were expelled from Britain on Tisha B'Av in 1290 and were expelled from Spain that same day in 1492. The Warsaw Ghetto uprising was crushed by the Nazis on that day in May 1943, resulting in the slaughter of about 50,000 Jews.

Nationalists here also mourn the removal of Jews from the Gaza Strip in 2005, which began the day after Tisha B'av.

Lazy Aaron should read more J-blogs.

Today, I am an American

(In which I out myself as a young whippersnapper.)

In 2001, I was convinced the world had gone insane. I had watched, horrified, as my grandmother and her neighbors poked their chads, accidentally voted for Buchanan, and sent us into a month-long deliberation over who the next President would be. I had watched the debates with friends and even though Gore sometimes seemed to be nothing more than an animated whittling project ("Lock Box"), I remember whispering to a friend when Bush was speaking, "There is no way that fool will be President."

Months later, it happened. I went to Washington with classmates as part of a protest trip and we stood, freezing in the icy rain, screaming our frustration out at the world. Our Alexandria hotel was full of students from Red States who had never met liberals, queers, Jews, or atheists. We were all of those things, and we were from San Francisco, to boot. Cultures clashed, repeatedly and often, over that week. Forced into endless pseudo-debate encounters, we debated over things like abortion rights, gay scout leaders, and, I distinctly remember, whether or not we might need to bomb Iraq anytime soon. As I recall, I spent part of that discussion slamming my head into the table muttering "morons" under my breath.

We had met the Red Staters and we seemed to be living on different planets. Nowhere was that better encapsulated than in our first meeting when we went around the room and introduced ourselves. I happened to be first and decided to lay my cards on the table. "I'm Friar Yid and Bush scares me." Every other student not from my school proceeded to label themselves "a Bush fan." Oy.

Part of what I remember seeming so unjust about the whole situation was not just how much of a boob Bush seemed to be, but simply the fact that the election had been so sharply contested, and then resolved through such questionable circumstances. The whole time we were in Washington I kept feeling as if I had been cheated, as if someone had stolen something from me when my back was turned.

So I stood on the sidewalk with my friends, and screamed. Even then, I was wary of the wackos-- the people holding swastikas or yelling about Bush being a Zionist puppet. I had a sophomoric sign of my own making pointing out the bathroom humor connections between Bush, Dick, and a man who pronounced his name "Colon".

I was conscious of politics during Clinton's last few years, but not really politically aware enough to pay close attention. Bush's two terms overlapped with my own political education as I attempted to become an informed member of the electorate.

I have always been happy to have been an American, but I have not always been proud, a development I can partially trace to my parents' ambivalence and partially to the political climate of San Francisco. I didn't know anyone who flew a flag, in the same way that I didn't know anyone whose parents had served in the military. It wasn't that they were specifically anti-American, just that they didn't wear patriotism on their sleeves.

I cannot remember Clinton doing anything positive that really grabbed my attention at the time except perhaps trying to stop the Albanian genocide in Kosovo. Under Bush, my wariness of "super-patriotism" only deepened. I was encouraged on 9/11 when he seemed to step up, and inspired by his speeches and actions immediately following those days when we went into Afghanistan and I got to see, for the first time in my adult life, what a newly-liberated country really looked like. That was the first time I remember seeing politics put into action, and it was a whole new concept. We actually could change the world around us. For a moment (one which many people have either forgotten or ignored), the most liberal spots in the country were also dottted with red, white, and blue. I was not immune, and put up a small flag in my parents' kitchen window.

However, as Bush's administration lagged on and his leadership consistently failed us over and over again, I grew ever-more-dissilusioned, the kind of bitterness all too familiar to young people whose idealism has been dashed. There was little to be proud of under a Bush administration, at least in my home. Abbot Yid demanded I take my flag down lest people think we were Republican, god forbid, or worse yet, war mongers. The message was clear: just at his inauguration, George Bush was not my President, and at least half of this country was not my own.

Today, surrounded by young children, squirming and bored, I watched as history was made. I heard Obama's words and quietly allowed myself to become ever-so-slightly inspired. I saw the National Mall, where I stood eight years ago, packed with people, including many who were finally allowing themselves to believe in their country, possibly for the first time. For the first time in a long time, I listened to a Presidential speech without mocking, talking back, or generally seething. For the first time, I believed again.

I am under no delusions that Barack Obama is going to be the political savior of this country, particularly given what he's inheriting. Neither do I believe that he is always going to be popular. But I am impressed that many Republicans and Conservatives are willing to give him a chance, and hope that he will do the Left proud and succeed more often than fall. I hope that he will lead from the center and work as a consensus builder so he can serve as a figure of unity rather than divisiveness, that we may have a chance to work together to fix so many of the serious problems we presently face. I hope that Obama's administration will reach out to the Right to encourage and inspire them, along with the Left, to make this country a better place. In short, I hope he will be the real Uniter Bush always claimed to be.

I was heartened to hear that despite the harsh campaign, there were few protesters there-- not because people shouldn't be able to protest, and not because Obama should be given a free pass. Rather, because it suggests what I would love to believe, that Obama might be able to, might in fact already have begun, moving beyond the mere partisanship of Left and Right. Not for Obama's sake, but for our own, to come together around uniting principles than endlessly attacking each other over wedge issues. I remember the frustration, anger, and even a little fear, that I felt eight years ago in Washington. I felt forgotten, uncounted, and alone. I felt like I did not matter, and that by pretending that he had consensus, Bush was ignoring me and millions like me. I would not wish that feeling on any of my political opponents. I do not want Obama to only be my President or the Left's President. Now, more than ever, we need a President for all of us.

Today, I am an American, and proud to be one. I am happy for my country and its people. I am proud that we have risen above our history and affirmed our values through action. We have shown that we DO mean what we say- that the words "All men are created equal," and that "America is a land of opportunity" are more than just pat phrases. If Obama can become President, then perhaps we really are living up to the promises we have made to ourselves so many times, and are capable of doing more. That will be his, and our, challenge in the years to come-- to stare at the forces of inertia, apathy and fear, the same ones that said that a black man or a "quasi-Muslim" could never become President and say, "yes we can." We must apply the same resilience to all of our other problems in desperate need of solutions- "yes we can" to improving our economy; "yes we can" to ending poverty; "yes we can" to getting universal healthcare; "yes we can" to ensuring equal rights for GLBT Americans; "yes we can" to creating humane and efficient immigration reform; "yes we can" to battling our enemies without compromising our moral values; "yes we can" to cleaning up our government, and many other battles we will face along the way.

Herzl said, "If you will it, it is no dream." Obama has proven our country has the will, and that dreams can, and do, come true. Once, for a short time, Bush had the country's will as well. Sadly, he squandered that chance by reaffirming the status-quo, lest our enemies win in changing us through terrorism and fear. It is time for us to realize that by choosing to change ourselves for the better, we will all win.

Keep Moving those Goal-Posts

It's been great fun over the past two years watching right-wingers all over the web grasp at straws to explain just why they hate Barack Obama so much. Particularly amusing have been the claims that Obama is a Marxist. Recently I queried a group of commenters over at Sultan Knish, rather innocently, I thought, for some details on exactly why they were so convinced of Obama's Communist leanings.

The response? Well, not a whole lot. I made the point that if anyone asked any Communists of the old school, such as my great-grandparents (ok, to be fair, only one of them: one read and supported the Morgen Freiheit, the other read and supported the Forward-- but my great-aunts have forgotten who was who) whether they considered Obama to be a right- (left?) thinking Communist, they would have been horrified at the comparison.

In response I got fun innuendo suggesting that I myself was a Communist!

Now, as someone who grew up comfortably middle-class and who is presently working in the ever-so-lucrative field of elementary education (and am therefore extremely aware of every penny that makes its way into my paycheck), I find this accusation fairly absurd. I am in no position to share my wealth, and nor do I expect others to give me theirs. Neither am I all that interested in abolishing the capitalist system given that, you know, I still need to pay my rent.

Furthermore, I am really not convinced that "pure" Socialism (much less Communism) is capable of being implemented on any large scale with any degree of success. Sorry Bubbe's Ghost, but it hasn't seemed to work and I'm certainly not a fan of imposing it on people (to say nothing of the whole "massive repression and totalitarianism bordering on ethnic cleansing," which, while not a NECESSARY element of creating a Communist state, certainly seem to have often gone hand-in-hand when people tried to make theory into practice.)

So, how exactly am I a Communist? What I really am is a left-leaning moderate, in that I think the optimal solution to some of the biggest problems with unchecked capitalism is through regulation. Some government intervention, yes. Abolishment of capitalism and the economy as we know it, no thanks. Or, as I put it to Sultan, Bubbe was a utopian, I'd like to see myself as an optimistic realist.

Now, here's where it really gets good. Faced with all this information-- along with repeated requests for him to back up any of the noise about Obama being a Marxist, Sultan claims that "you're talking about a change of tactics rather than a change of ideology." Again, nothing concrete, nothing to back anything up. I try again. Sultan responds with "labels change, but the basic parameters of the system are the same."

Then there was this lovely exchange:

Obama's Marxist ties and beliefs have been extensively documented. If that's what you're really interested in, a quick search can quickly help you find them. Since this isn't a post about Obama's Marxism, it's not my job to waste time documenting Obama's radical left wing beliefs for a radical left winger.

Radical? If I'm the standard for radical, then belive me, we really don't have to be worried about Obama being a Communist. Because, you know, I'm not. This reminds me of the time in college someone accused me of being a "right-wing, reactionary, authoritarian tool of the administration" because I told them the school newspaper wouldn't run their screed against The War on Terror (masquerading as a bad book review).

The line "It's not my job" was particularly amusing, as Sultan styles himself as a journalist (sorry, columnist, mea culpa. Nevertheless, given that he pats himself on the back-- not undeserved-- for his investigate work, I figured journalist wasn't an unfair leap). I love it- a journalist/investigative columnist who spews regurgitated dreck and won't substantiate an iota of it when asked. If Obama's Marxism is so all-pervasive (instead of largely being supposed-guilt by inflated-association), I would have thought this would be easy. When I commented on that, Sultan fired back:

"Somehow you confused the term Journalist with "Guy who is willing to spend weeks debating me in the comments section on an issue tangential to the actual article"

An actual journalist would not have bothered responding to you in the first place"

Wow. I can only hope that an actual journalist would not have spent almost a week weaseling around the fact that he couldn't be bothered to support statements he made on his blog (and by others that he then agreed with) and whose best excuse was "it's a waste of my time" or " not my job."

Keep in mind, the "tangential issue" here, Obama's supposed Marxism/Communism/Socialism, has been incorporated into approximately 60% of all of Sultan's posts about him. (Strangely, the crowd over there can't seem to decide whether Obama is a Jihadist or a Marxist. Unless he's also friends with George Habash, I think they have to choose on this one. Wait, someone managed to find the missing link!)

Sultan's last riposte:

Liberalism has long adopted the basic tenets of Marxism, and class warfare shifted along an oppressed group axis and wealth redistribution combined with the creation of vast bureaucratic and undemocratic entities to enforce their version of social justice are at the core of their agenda.

Huh. Let's fact-check that. The basic tenets of Marxism according to Wikipedia:

1-an attention to the material conditions of people's lives and social relations among people

2-a belief that people's consciousness of the conditions of their lives reflects these material conditions and relations

3-an understanding of class in terms of differing relations of production and as a particular position within such relations

4-an understanding of material conditions and social relations as historically malleable

5-a view of history according to which class struggle, the evolving conflict between classes with opposing interests, structures each historical period and drives historical change

6-a sympathy for the working class or proletariat and a belief that the ultimate interests of workers best match those of humanity in general

Number 1 is not restricted to liberals, as one's political orientation should not determine one's ability to merely observe facts. Numbers 2 through 4 are probably more likely to be found among liberals, though I don't see them as being specifically foundational to liberal principles. Number 5 I would say, by and large, is more specific to liberals. I would argue that Number 6 is more class-based than what political group you identify with. Don't tell me working-class people don't have sympathy for themselves or measure certain changes or developments in terms of their affects on them.

Let's also note that while on a theoretical and academic level most of these principles permeate certain aspects of liberal politics, there are plenty of people who identify as liberal and support liberal causes without having these principles in mind or figuring into their worldview. They're also quite open-ended; for instance, for Number 4, the ability to change your class and destiny is a founding principle of America- either this makes the Founding Fathers proto-Marxists or some elements of "Marxist principles" are not UNIQUE to Marxism and as such cannot be used as legitimate proofs that someone IS Marxist.

I would add that I do not consider "class warfare" to be a specifically liberal (or Marxist) tactic-- pundits attacking "welfare queens" reads as class warfare to me; and that "wealth distribution" is an extremely broad umbrella term. Ditto for "vast bureaucratic and undemocratic entities." Republicans have created bureaucracies and done undemocratic things as well.

Kudos to Sultan commenter Keli Ata, who at least bothered to suggest some reading for me-- though, again, most of the connections seem to boil down to, "Obama liked some of Saul Alinsky's ideas and worked for Alinsky-associated groups." Alinsky's politics don't sound like my cup of tea, but I'm still not convinced that the connection substantiates the bold claim that Obama is an actual Marxist. On the other hand, it's a lot more than Sultan offered.

What my issues with throwing around the Marxist label all boil down to is this: It's one thing to make the specific claim, based on actual information, that Barack Obama believes in Communism. It's another thing entirely to call him a Marxist/Communist/Socialist as a lazy CODE-WORD for "liberal," "Democrat" or "anyone to the left of me." It's not that I don't want to give people the benefit of the doubt on this one, but, well, I don't. Sue me, I'm picky.

Yay

Baruch Atah Adonai,
Eloheinu Melech Ha Olam,
Shehecheyanu, Ve'Kiyemanu,
Ve'Higianu,
Laz'man Ha'Zeh.

Last Thoughts on the Election

I didn't quite manage to stick with my goal for an Obama post every day but I was pretty close (and besides what few readers I have are probably getting sick of this stuff anyway), but I wanted to close with some final thoughts.

I think the fact that Obama is an intellectual will be good for the country. As an educator, I've been saddened and embarassed throughout the past eight years as conservative media has made being educated or thinking things through into a negative thing by tarring them with the smear of "elitist." It's particularly ironic when you consider that the majority of our Presidents have been men of wealth, privilege, and yes, education. All but eight Presidents graduated college and nine received advanced degrees, mostly in law.

I like the fact that Obama would bring an intellectualism to the White House, particularly after so many years of the polar opposite from Bush. It has been suggested, particularly on foreign policy, that there is a danger in taking an academic and putting him into a position of great power and responsibility, because often times there is no "perfect answer," only a series of ever-worsening ones. There is also the argument that in some scenarios, a decisive leader is far more necessary than one who will waffle or stall trying to figure out the best thing to do.

This is a legitimate point, but Joe Klein from Time Magazine has written that Obama is learning to trust his instincts and become more confident in his decisions- without sacrificing a crucial ability to carefully think about what he's going to do before committing.

Barack Obama has prospered in this presidential campaign because of the steadiness of his temperament and the judicious quality of his decision-making. They are his best-known qualities. The most important decision he has made — the selection of a running mate — was done carefully, with an exhaustive attention to detail and contemplation of all the possible angles. Two months later, as John McCain's peremptory selection of Governor Sarah Palin has come to seem a liability, it could be argued that Obama's quiet selection of Joe Biden defined the public's choice in the general-election campaign. But not every decision can be made so carefully. There are a thousand instinctive, instantaneous decisions that a presidential candidate has to make in the course of a campaign — like whether to speak his mind to a General Petraeus — and this has been a more difficult journey for Obama, since he's far more comfortable when he's able to think things through. "He has learned to trust his gut," an Obama adviser told me. "He wasn't so confident in his instincts last year. It's been the biggest change I've seen in him."

On foreign policy, there are some areas where McCain might have more advantages than Obama. Being able to read foreign leaders and show them we mean what we say is certainly an area that comes to mind. On the other hand, seeming tough does us no good if we make bad decisions or do stupid things. Obviously the best scenario is a compromise where you can think fast on your feet AND make good gut decisions that are also based on actual analysis.

The value of Obama is in his temperment. He actually listens to people before he makes up his mind, whether he agrees with them or not (see Klein's article about Obama meeting with Petraeus). Again, compare this with what we've seen from the Bush White House. This is not to say that McCain is a Bush clone, but I definitely sense a stubborn streak from McCain. The same people that like McCain's refusal to back down should also think about what happens in cases where he might be wrong and decides, like Bush, to shut out anyone who tries to convince him otherwise. We've seen the disasters that brings. I have much more faith in Obama's ability to develop some street smarts and instincts when it comes to dealing with immediate foreign policy debacles than I do in McCain learning to listen to people who disagree with him- which includes when talking with people from foreign governments (or have we given up on that whole diplomacy thing altogether?)

Lastly, it is undeniable that the past eight years, and perhaps even the eight years before that, have seen an acceleration of the cultural divide to outrageous proportions. The Red/Blue state, Liberal/Conservative culture war nonsense continues unabated on TV, the Internet, Talk Radio and Print Media as people spend absurd amounts of effort ripping each other down and explaining why only their way is legitimate, patriotic, or sensical.

And yet there are areas we can come together. Most of us do care about poverty, even if we disagree on the best way to deal with it. We do care about healthcare and sustaining the most important government assistance programs. We all realize the necessity of a smart and efficient energy policy, as well as protecting ourselves from foreign enemies and making sure that our economy is stable and protected from speculators. And I think that the vast majority of us do believe in America's potential to make the world, and itself, a better place. The next President will inherit many problems, but perhaps one of the most serious ones is trying to bring us together on the core issues that unite us. I think Obama can do that, at least better than McCain.

To be totally honest, I also think that Obama's ability to speak past party lines would do not only the country, but also liberal values, a great service. Seeing Obama speak at Saddleback Church showed me that he can present the values of the Democratic party is a new and appealing way which challenge the stereotypes that we support abortion because killing babies is awesome or that we think religion should be banned or that we'd sooner let us all freeze to death than inconvenience a seal.

I don't need the Republicans to become Democrats. Having two parties is an essential part of our democracy and I actually wouldn't mind having more viable parties. But showing that there are real values, emotions and thought behind some of these positions that have been so pilloried (and distorted) for years would also, I believe, be a good start to making politics a little more civilized. Obama can bridge the gap. Not only don't I think McCain can do this, I'm not sure he'd even be interested.

Sour Grapes and Checks and Balances

As conservative bloggers and pundits continue to wring their hands over the election, they're really starting to grasp at straws. Part of this last-ditch strategy is the use of their Dystopian "What-If" machines showing us just how terrible (or far-fetched) Obama's America will be. Some of the wackier ones include:

- Throwing the Constitution out the window (no suggestion of what we're supposedly replacing it with)

- Reparations for slavery and discrimination against gays (have they even asked for that?)

- Legalizing all forms of abortion and having them be available on demand ("I'd like to abort this one at two years, please. It's just not working out.")

- Shutting down Christian adoption agencies for not letting gay couples adopt; banning Christian radio for promoting "hate speech"; and stripping churches of their tax-exempt status for not performing gay weddings. (Show me where Obama has advocated any of this, please.)

- Firing all US attorneys and replacing them with right-thinking liberal activist lawyers. (See above. Also, didn't something like this, um, actually happen under Bush?)

- Christian publishers go out of business after large "liberal" bookstores refuse to sell their books (What happened to deferring to the free hand of the market? Why don't they just start a Jesus-zon.com and sell their books there?)

- Removing any restrictions on showing pornography on TV or the Internet (yeah, that's us, the party of the Donkey screwing anything he can get close to).

- Letting gays serve openly in the military (Heaven forbid!) and firing chaplains or soldiers who protest (huh?)

- By appearing weak, Obama encourages Russia to occupy the entire former Soviet bloc; the Taliban invades Iraq; and suicide bombs go off in American cities. Iran nukes Tel Aviv.

- Fairness Doctrine is enstated; conservative talk radio is destroyed (shrug)

Now the really funny thing we're starting to hear is about how awful a Democratic "super-majority" would be. Not that I disagree in principle; the checks-and-balances thing is indeed a very important element of our government. On the other hand, the whole reason the Republicans are about to become a super-minority is through their own misuse and mis-management of power for the eight-plus years that THEY were in power. Sorry guys, it's your own damn fault. Will the Democrats necessarily be a whole lot better? My gut, and the sad facts since the Dems have taken back Congress, tells me probably not. On the other hand, there might at least be some good legislation passed through there in the first few years of the next term.

Let's also not forget that we weren't hearing any moaning about "Checks and Balances" from the right when they were the party in charge. They saw their opportunity to push their agenda and weren't afraid to take it and run with it (ironically, this took them in some fairly unconservative directions). Forgive me if I'm not super sympathetic.

Lastly, before anyone starts whining about an activist Executive branch, don't forget that under the Bush administration the powers of the Executive were dramatically expanded more than under any previous administration. If Obama does wind up aggressively using his Executive powers, his opponents will only have Bush to blame for creating the precedent.