The Life of Julia

While reading Best of the Web Today, it was difficult not to be surprised and disappointed by what seemed to be a poor attempt to poke fun at Obama's policies via a girl named Julia.

Her story is told in an interactive feature titled "The Life of Julia". Julia, who has no face, is depicted at various ages from 3 through 67, enjoying the benefits of various Obama-backed welfare-state programs. As a toddler, she's in a head-start program. Skip ahead to 17, and she's enrolled at a Race to the Top high school. Her 20s are very active: She gets surgery and free birth control through ObamaCare regulations, files a lawsuit under the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, and pays off her student loans at a low interest rate. We get updates at age 31, 37 and 42--and then the narrative skips ahead 23 years when she enrolls in Medicare. Two years later, she's on Social Security, at which point she can die at any time. 

The entire paragraph seemed like a horrible parody made by Republicans to poke fun at Obama's policies by showing that a woman could basically live her whole life off the backs of taxpayers, so it was at first surprising to see that Taranto quotes a David Harsanyi raises an obvious objection to the story: "What we are left with is a celebration of a how a woman can live her entire life by leaning on government intervention, dependency and other people's money rather than her own initiative or hard work. It is, I'd say, implicitly un-American, in the sense that it celebrates a mindset we have--outwardly, at least--shunned." Why is that an objection if that's exactly the point of the feature? Overall, it's not a great parody, anyway: The missing gaps, while still a minority of her life, don't fit into the cradle-to-grave government care narrative, and there's no discussion about the actual costs to taxpayers of all these policies, which would seem to be important to make the point cogent.

...and then I realized that I'd skimmed too quickly and missed a few key words:

on the Obama campaign website

I was so surprised by this that I had to double-check and click on the link to see. It would seem quite telling that an Obama campaign feature meant to praise his policies comes off as a caricature of his policies, wouldn't it? Yuval Levin (via CWY) even notes that Obama runs the risk that it will be mocked not just by the right, but by young men and women who won't be able to resist such an easy opportunity, undermining his campaign from within a core constituency of his. (Best line: "It’s like Portlandia earnestly offered up as a drama.")

Overall, it can't help but make a person wonder if this is as outlandish as it appears or simply a vote grab early on in the campaign among his base. It tries scaring women who aren't bright enough to understand both sides of the coin and who will believe the twisted misrepresentation of Romney's policies, it promotes the idea of government assistance at every stage of life, and the like. It is very difficult to believe that these ideas resonate with most Americans, who still believe government's role is to be a safety net, not a caregiver, even if they disagree on the size of the net. Then again, perhaps the President and his advisors are so completely out of touch with what Americans want (or don't care, and these are their views on what's right), as we've seen previously with ObamaCare [interestingly referred to as such on the feature] and many other policies.

Either way, it's an important feature to see: Obama's policies as presented by his campaign. If that's what you want, vote for Obama; if not, though, I would suggest voting against.

Levels of Contention

Thanks to the discussions in the comments on posts below this (thanks Vox!), I think I realized what I believe is a dynamic difference between Santorum's approach and the approach of others to the contraception issue, even as people tend to think they're one and the same.

Specifically with the contraception issue, the argument most religious groups made was that it was an encroachment on their religious freedoms, forcing them to perform an action which was morally wrong to them (or for some groups, like Jewish ones who have no issue with birth control, simply that it was encroaching on religion in general). In other words, they're implicitly agreeing that government can make certain regulations on behalf of the people as a whole, assuming they are acting in the interests of the people. [And there are other groups who disagree with that basic premise in general.] It just happens to be that in this case that public interest is trumped by the interests of religious freedom - something people on the left disagree with.

Santorum, however, is making a different argument: Whether or not one feels that government interests should trump religious ones, and perhaps even if one would agree to that, in this case the government is actually acting against the interests of the people it is trying to protect and assist. It is his belief that birth control actually harms women (and men and particularly children) because of the consequences of living in a society which has birth control readily available. This is not an argument about government intervention or government interference with religious freedoms in Santorum's eyes; it is an argument specifically as to the merits of the intervention which is being proposed.

Interesting.

[Note: I don't necessarily agree with the various opinions, just find them interesting.]

On The Wisdom Of Old

A number of years ago, I spent three days in California interviewing with an organization which did religious outreach across various college campuses in Southern California. By the end of the three days my wife and I were offered the opportunity to move to Santa Barbara (which we turned down), then spent a number of months discussing options in Los Angeles before eventually we decided to go our separate ways.

As part of the process, I was asked to talk to various college students of all types and stripes. In particular, I remember a fascinating conversation I had with a religious theology major at UCLA about approaches to life, God, religion, etc. One of the most fascinating parts of the conversation was when I argued that it seems odd to automatically assume that a given approach should be given no credibility no matter how long-standing it is. If anything, the more long-standing a point is, the more thought one should give that approach before moving onto others - yes, it can and should be questioned, but to assume that nobody prior to one's self has asked any of these questions shows a certain sense of ego and complete lack of humility, which would seemingly preclude the ability to make proper judgments down the line. Instead, one should first make sure to fully understand where a line of thought started, how it developed throughout time, and how it reached the point it has before passing any judgment on it. What was most amazing about our conversation was that this approach had never once occurred to nor had it been presented to this obviously intelligent, educated student whom I couldn't have been more than a year or two older than, and he was really taken aback by this. 

This has been coming back to me recently as I watch various debates occur on a variety of topics, from politics to Judaism to life in general. Three good specific examples from the past couple weeks are particularly striking: Deborah Feldman's Unorthodox book; the battle waged over forcing religious institutions to pay for birth control; and a pathetic article written which suggested forgetting the Holocaust.

In the latter, the attention-seeking contrariness-driven Beacon, which was dismissed as a YU paper after its last stunt, somehow was still able to get some attention to itself by penning an absolutely horrible piece whining that Jews still use the Holocaust as a reasoning behind being for or against various policies. When I first saw the piece via email, I questioned if anyone was actually reading such drivel, and didn't think it was worth replying to, not even bothering to read a reply someone sent me later at first. But later that night, I decided to read the reply - and it was absolutely fantastic. In particular, this portion struck me as exactly the point: 

[...] Remembering the Holocaust is not only important for its own sake. It is important because memory is education, education is action, and action is necessary: for any people anywhere. The ultimate goal of Holocaust education, of course, is genocide prevention: a promise encapsulated in the rallying mantra of “Never Again,” that which we have at once chanted and yet betrayed repeatedly.
In a world without memory, we will simply lose our imagination to conceptualize peril. [...]

The same point was struck in the responses to the Obama administration's push regarding birth control without an exemption for religious organizations. Judaism is not against birth control, but the First Amendment is crucial to members of all religions regardless of the specifics of a given law. The Orthodox Union (among others) clearly noted this issue in their condemnation of the move - and yet supporters of the Obama administration on this issue believe this issue is something which should be forced upon religious organizations regardless. The Constitution, where freedom of religion was laid out originally in this country, is viewed as an old document written by people hundreds of years ago who didn't have the same social values as our enlightened, tech-driven generation. It is therefore not surprising that people would believe that it is trumped by certain important social values of today - except that however noble the intention, it ignores that the Constitution is not revered by many nor held as the basis of our laws because of its age. It is held in high esteem because of its wisdom - wisdom in how it approached, and most importantly, approaches, the future of this country. The reason there is a strict line between government and religions is so that there can never be a justification given for intruding on the religious freedoms of the people of this country. Once that line is crossed, there is no longer a concept of a religious freedom; there are only activities which the government accepts, and activities which it does not. Religion matters not at all; freedom matters not at all.

Finally, when reading reviews and descriptions of Deborah Feldman's book, in seems that in every aspect of life in one sect of Chassidim [at least among a large group], the approach to questions was simply "we don't ask". In fact, there was a review which I believe quoted one Chassidish woman as musing after a few such comments that "we don't do well with questions". But if we do not ask, we can never understand - and it is clear that Deborah Feldman did not understand much about how and why Judaism approaches life, a too common failing in the Jewish community. We cannot merely speak to traditions as the wisdom of old being passed down; we need to understand it so we can continue to pass it down as wisdom, and not some random archaic set of rules. 

It is too often forgotten today that older approaches to life, law, and even remembering the Holocaust are not simply lists of rules or mantras to be followed blindly. Instead, they are incredibly structured, developed, thought out concepts which are meant to last for centuries, if not all eternity. Our job is to delve into them in order to understand them, and only then begin to determine the appropriate approaches to the issues of our times, utilizing those concepts and the lessons from our histories.

Downgrade

Obama: "And the markets agree with me."
Markets: Dow Below 11,000; Nasdaq, S&P Lose 5% After Obama Addresses Downgrade (Yahoo)

Whoops!

Hasn't the time come for President Obama to stop thinking that people will believe something just because he says it on camera? That worked as a candidate - not as President. It is doubtful that even most Republicans and conservatives expected him to end up Jimmy Carter-esque in quality, but right now it's looking that that will be the company he keeps as far as Presidents go. That's rather sad for someone who - regardless of one's feelings about him - came in as someone with incredible oratory skills, polish, and who showed quickly that his views on defense could shift as his understanding of it grew with the office. Liberals certainly expected better of him (in different ways), but nobody of any stripe expected a Presidency this poor.

(It is perhaps just as sad that there is no current Republican candidate that one can point to and say "That would be a huge upgrade!")

Seeing is Believing in Politics, Too

It's why President Obama started his 2012 campaign before a government shutdown potentially occurs (to change the visual) even though it seemingly hurts him (to run against his own record with no clear opponent), while the NRSC wisely spoofed it quickly (and reasonably well; via SIL) and how Paul Ryan is doing far more damage to Obama with the great visual accompaniments to his own budget proposal than by simply proposing an alternate budget to the President's. (Video via YwL)

While most people won't even spend the time to watch this, it's actually a) pretty interesting and well done and b) far more likely to be watched by people than the budget proposal being read in any way, and c) gives a much more clear picture of what we're talking about.

EZ Reads 3/9/11

Happy engagiversary to Serach and me! I've updated the tabs at the top (which I will try to make more noticeable in the near future) to include and be up to date on the various series that are ongoing on this blog. If you would like to read through any major series, those are the best places to start. Some fun links today:

• Following up on their previous analysis, The New York Times determines that American Jews lead the happiest lives of all Americans. Brilliant first comment on the article (just saw it was removed!): Sure, most of them are happy, but those other 30%, boy can they complain!
• Mishpacha has a very good article this week explaining charter schools and how they can (and usually have not) impacted Orthodox schools and yeshivos. Excerpt:

  Unlike the situation in Brooklyn and East Brunswick, Florida’s Ben Gamla charter school network has attracted a solid Jewish majority in its student body, and the system is growing by leaps and bounds. Following the Hollywood branch’s popularity, Ben Gamla schools were opened in nearby Plantation (in 2009) and Miami Beach (in 2010). There is an independent after-school religious studies program available to students throughout the Ben Gamla network.
  
  However, even these schools’ success comes at a limited cost to local frum institutions. Sources familiar with the makeup of the school’s student body estimate that only about 5 percent of Ben Gamla students are from frum homes. Currently, the four-year-old network’s Jewish students are primarily either non-Orthodox, who would otherwise have attended public school or Conservative or non-denominational Jewish day schools; or special-needs students who require costly services not subsidized in private schools.

  The article is in this week's Mishpacha, which you can subscribe to here.
• Did you hear? The Maccabeats came out with a new video for Purim! (Yes, I heard about 100 times.) Admittedly, Uri Westrich put together another good one - great job sticking with themed jokes, like the sombrero and the dripping jelly.
• Chana realizes there is a difference between compassion and understanding, and publicity and support, when it comes to homosexuality in the Orthodox community.
• Finally! xkcd pokes fun at ads which say things like "Sales of up to 15% - or more!" So... you mean you have sales going on at various percentages below and above 15%? Why not just pick any number below the max percentage discount so it sounds bigger? Do people really suck this bad at math? This always frustrated me.
• Michael Medved has a great piece in today's Wall Street Journal decrying the propensity of Republicans to label Obama as a radical/extremist. This trait is especially true in the Orthodox Jewish community, and it doesn't do anybody any favors. Medved notes that realizing that Obama's views are rather mainstream Democrat is important if the GOP wishes to win the next election.
• Finally, an old neighbor from Cleveland who is absolutely hilarious has a number of videos doing various impressions of all types of people. Her latest is up on YouTube and has already picked up 11,000+ views, so I feel like it's okay to put it on the blog this time:
  
  
  I wish some of her other stuff would go up, too - she's just really, really funny.

Endangered Jobs & Needing Innovation

There is a very interesting (if obvious) editorial in today's Wall Street Journal by Andy Kessler, discussing whether people's jobs are "endangered species". In essence, Kessler is discussing how technology in particular is completely revamping the job market, making many jobs completely unnecessary while reducing the need for others. For instance, if you were a librarian or a stock trader ten years ago, there's far less of a need for your services anymore. Online trading and Google have eliminated the need and reduced the cost of performing those services. This change in the economics of our time matches up very well with the economics of the Jewish community.

Some of the best aspects of this overall economic change is that it forces innovation, competition, and ultimately, better prices and services. If one company cuts its costs, then it can keep the profits and that's it, or more likely, take those profits and expand the business, or reduce prices and pick up more business, the larger profits of which can then be kept or used to expand the business, or reduce prices and pick up more business... and so on. Even for those who have lost their jobs, while in the short-term this is very difficult (trust me), ultimately it allows them to be as innovative as possible, and seek out a way to shift into the new economy in an advantageous way. Scott Adams (yes, of Dilbert) had a great piece a few months back that noted The Perfect Stimulus is Bad Management: it pushes people to be innovative and creative, determine how best or better an industry or business can run, and pushes them as well to go do it.

At the same time, technology can't replace certain things (at least not yet). About a week ago, I was in a bank and thought that the bank manager's pitch to a customer was really interesting. She openly acknowledged that she couldn't beat another (online) bank's savings rate, a rate a full 1% higher than what they were offering - and yet still almost kept the customer from moving their money out. She shifted the banking industry into a customer service provider: "Would you be able to walk into the other bank and easily talk to a personal banker or manager, have someone to discuss your options with, etc.?" Banks traditionally are about helping people manage their money in the most efficient, money-making way possible; and yet now, this bank was offering customer service as a pitch over making money. But even then, it is about money to an extent: If someone has trouble with their bank and needs help, the instant access to a banker could easily make up for the 1% interest on a savings account - if it has $5,000 in it, that's $50 a year. There are certainly many people who would rather spend 15-30 minutes in a bank than 2 or more hours on a phone in exchange for $50 a year.

Sadly, while almost all businesses and most individuals embrace technology and its ability to cut down on costs, government is usually lagging well behind. Whenever it is suggested that a government move toward a more efficient system, there is an outcry of the number of government (or union, depending on the case) jobs which will be lost: Ignoring that essentially the argument is to continue forcing the people to subsidize unnecessary jobs and place everyone at a disadvantage. One of the best things President Obama has done is push for efficient use of technology, particularly in the medical fields, which have the thorniest privacy issues; hopefully this same push will be carried over to other areas as well. As Kessler notes as he breaks down the types of workers into types, "DMV employees and so many other government workers move information from one side of a counter to another without adding any value. Such sloppers are easy to purge with clever code." But by definition, government workers have no incentive to be efficient or to add economic value; merely to service what needs to get serviced while making sure to retain their own jobs and the jobs of their friends. There is almost no sense of "this is wasteful and must be eliminated" among government employees: It would not serve in their best interests to do so.

This theme translates over well to the Jewish community. While some places are working to cut costs, others work to increase revenues - stabilizing and protecting the jobs that exist within them. In the end, though, this can come back to hurt the community, through higher prices and less innovation: Tuition hikes; charities where large chunks of the money fund operations instead of the charity; etc. In addition, the formerly standard professions of Orthodox Jews, thanks to their perceived stability and reasonably good pay - doctors, lawyers, and accountants - are all being impacted negatively as technology and regulations make their jobs less needed or less well paid. We have far too many accounting and lawyer friends who are looking for jobs (or better jobs), and future doctors are already finding out that it's going to be far more difficult to pay off their loans. All of these factors point to a Jewish community which must start being innovative within itself (and fast), before the fallout severely impacts the infrastructure of the community. It's bad enough that living as an Orthodox Jew until now was so expensive and difficult for large portions of the community; but as things continue, unless we find a way to bring the costs of Orthodoxy way, way down we are going to find that Orthodox Jewry is no longer the middle-upper class life we like to believe it is (and hasn't been for a long time), but significantly down near the bottom after all is said and done.

EZ Reads 2/8/11

Why you should be friends with a Cavs' fan:

5. Honest - Cleveland fans know the score. They realize the team is struggling, they don't deny the many mistakes made on the court, but they still fill the seats and flip on the TV. They can present an accurate picture of the situation because they pay attention. The only friend worth having is an honest friend who doesn't pretend or manipulate for their own gain. Cleveland fans have little to gain "standing by their man" except ridicule from the rest of the NBA fans, but the alternative isn't an option for a true fan.

Damn straight.

This piece on Freakonomics about political bias in certain fields is downright disturbing... and then there's the comments, which are worse.

Ruh-Roh. John Tierney in today’s Times:
… Jonathan Haidt, a social psychologist at the University of Virginia who studies the intuitive foundations of morality and ideology … polled his audience at the San Antonio Convention Center [during the annual meeting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology], starting by asking how many considered themselves politically liberal. A sea of hands appeared, and Dr. Haidt estimated that liberals made up 80 percent of the 1,000 psychologists in the ballroom. When he asked for centrists and libertarians, he spotted fewer than three dozen hands. And then, when he asked for conservatives, he counted a grand total of three.

Funny (?) Question

It's one of those chain emails, received from my Dad, but I think it says it well:

Let me get this straight . . . .
We're going to be "gifted" with a health care
plan we are forced to purchase and
fined if we don't,
Which purportedly covers at least
ten million more people,
without adding a single new doctor,
but provides for 16,000 new IRS agents,
written by a committee whose chairman
says he doesn't understand it,
passed by a Congress that didn't read it but
exempted themselves from it,
and signed by a President who smokes,
with funding administered by a treasury chief who
didn't pay his taxes,
for which we'll be taxed for four years before any
benefits take effect,
by a government which has
already bankrupted Social Security and Medicare,
all to be overseen by a surgeon general
who is obese,
and financed by a country that's broke!!!!!
'What the hell could possibly go wrong?'

Presidential Kudos

President Obama spoke last night at the memorial for the victims of the attack in Tuscon, Arizona. I was able to watch most of it and read through the entire speech online, and he was fantastic, even if the forum ended up seeming a bit... pep rally-ish, as someone put it. If there were any Presidential moment that someone such as he was made for, it was this - with even the concern that he doesn't give off emotional depth proving to be untrue, at least on this occasion. He thankfully also implicitly chastised those who blame this on political debate, much like his former Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel was distraught (as mentioned on Best of the Web here) when a Newsweek piece utilized an old Emanuel line to argue for capitalizing on the tragedy for political gain.

On top of that, the President is finally seeming to take heed of the results of this past Congressional election, learning from his mistakes and working toward reshaping his White House staff. Karl Rove (!) heaps praise on Obama and his interim advisor Pete Rouse today in his weekly WSJ article, which is obviously saying quite a bit. To see that Obama is willing to change is quite refreshing, and hopefully he'll work closely with the GOP members such as Paul Ryan to actively cut spending as well, though this seems less likely at the moment. Certainly, though, these are steps in the right direction.

Democrat to introduce bill banning crosshair graphics in wake of AZ shooting Continue reading on Examiner.com: Democrat to introduce bill banning cro

From Here

Politicians love a crisis. It gives them an excuse to push silly freedom-killing laws that will do nothing to address a perceived problem, but makes them feel good.

Case in point:

The Caucus Blog at the New York Times reports that Pennsylvania Democrat Bob Brady plans to introduce a bill banning symbols like "that now-infamous campaign crosshair map."

The map in question is one used by Sarah Palin in an ad showing targeted districts in the 2010 elections.

The left wing Daily Kos used a similar map targeting blue dog Democrats for defeat, but little mention is made of that map outside conservative web sites.

Apparently, the mainstream media thinks such graphics are only dangerous when used by conservatives.

Nevertheless, if Brady has his way, such graphics may become illegal in campaign ads, even though there is no evidence such graphics had any role in the shooting of Arizona Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. Federal employees would be protected from such graphics as well.

"You can't threaten the president with a bullseye or a crosshair," Representative Brady said, Brady admitted to the Caucus that he had no idea if the graphic had any part to play in the assault.

"I don't know what's in that nut's head. I would rather be safe than sorry," Brady told the Caucus, adding, "this is not a wakeup call. This is a major alarm going off. We need to be more civil with each other. We need to tone down this rhetoric."

So, Brady is willing to shred the First Amendment for a false sense of security.

Given the new rules in the GOP-led House, his Constitutional citation should be very interesting.

Quantitative Easing Explained (Hilarious)

Hat tip: Dad

This is great, and right on the money (no pun intended). Once you get through 20 seconds you'll love it.

WWARD

Having (finally) recently read Ayn Rand's classic, The Fountainhead, it was easy to appreciate an interesting link Benny sent me earlier in the day. Jay Kraut, who I believe is a candidate for a PhD in Bible, interviewed Dr. Yaron Brook, President of the Ayn Rand Institute, to ask some questions regarding what Rand's approach would have been over the last few years and in general. It was somewhat disheartening at first to see that Kraut, in his own separate post-interview piece, clearly entered the discussion not understanding some basic economic principles, but in truth, the need to explain some of those principles lead to Brooks detailing extremely clearly just how an ideal financial sector should function. This helps turn the interview into a great presentation of ideas, rather than a typical, dull debate on public policy.

Both the interview and the postscript are good, worthwhile reads. One point very much worth discussing is an error that both the interviewer and perhaps a couple commenters on the piece seem to be making, addressed well by another commenter on the interview piece. Kraut writes:

I believe he accords too much of a presumption of good faith to the financial sector as a whole. I give Brook credit for condemning financiers who focus on short-term gains and – in the case of mortgage-backed securities, in particular – ignore the welfare of investors and consumers in order to reap quick profits. However, I think that he is overly kind in presuming that the primary source of such rapacious behavior is government coercion. To my mind, such a stance unfairly discounts the simple possibility that immoral people – under the current system, or in a purely capitalistic society – will seek personal gain at all costs, even if it entails cheating or engaging in dishonest, manipulative behavior. Brook seems to imply that, were government regulation to disappear, the pure (and honest) capitalists would naturally run the show. However, I am not sure that such an assumption is realistic. I would be interested in learning how – in Brook’s view – the danger of bad faith in the financial sector might be obviated.

What is often missed when discussing deregulation is what a deregulated economy would create in order to function properly. Without regulation, people become initially more hesitant to make an investment. The way companies can coax others to invest their money with them is by showing them how that investment could or would be worthwhile. The only way a rational investor would invest money in a company is if they felt they could trust that company's claims regarding its strategies - and the only way a company will earn that trust is through a rigorous combination of independent observers, auditors, and perhaps most importantly, transparency. In such a world, companies would literally compete with one another on measures of transparency, on ensuring that they are hiring the top independent reviewers, and the like, as each mitigation of risk would make investment in the company that much more likely. As Brooks commented, in a modern market, the debt-holders have no reason to watch the risk, because the government will cover the risk regardless. But without that coverage, nobody would invest in a company unless they were closely watching that risk.

The strongest antidote to corruption in finance is not regulation, but transparency. When everyone can see exactly what's happening, it becomes far more difficult to hide issues. Dishonest people have a much harder time trying to pull a fast one when the ability to do business is not dependent on the seal of a(n often inept) government organization, but on building a strong reputation through transparency and independent confirmation.

One of the best examples of this is from the housing bubble burst. Banks were leveraging assets at outrageous levels - for every dollar deposited in their banks, they were buying up to thirty-five dollars worth of investments. When a few of those went bad, it led to a rapid crumbling of those banks' stability - eventually shutting a number of them down. When Bear Stearns failed, the government bailed them out - and the other banks felt safe to continue this over-leveraging. Had the government let Bear Stearns fail, it is almost impossible to imagine that the other banks wouldn't have quickly reduced their leveraging to ensure capital stability.

In fact, as I was discussing with another friend on the subway home from work today, imagine if there were no FDIC insurance on our bank account deposits. Would you put your money into a bank unless you were extremely confident that they weren't over-leveraging your assets, placing your savings at risk? Now, one might argue that without insurance, nobody would use banks at all, placing the ability to invest in general in jeopardy; therefore, as Brooks notes, it isn't crazy to argue for FDIC insurance - but with capital requirements to match, and that's it. The absolute expectation by investors that their money is safe with a company would be constantly confirmed in such a society via transparency and independent, private organizations.

It is worthwhile to note that people in general are excellent at self-policing when allowed to do so. When people rely on government to regulate, invariably government falls well behind those who commit crimes in the first place. When people do not rely on government, they make sure to understand as much as they can, and where they cannot, they find someone who can. Randian philosophy would certainly be interesting to watch in today's times - it's too bad we're heading far off in the other direction.

Orrin Hatch's Chanukah Song

Hat tip: Mom

This is interesting and cute, and just kinda nice:

Senator Orrin G. Hatch, a solemn-faced Republican with a soft spot for Jews and a love of Barbra Streisand, has penned a catchy holiday tune, “Eight Days of Hanukkah.”

The video was posted Tuesday night on Tablet, an online magazine of Jewish lifestyle and culture, just in time for Hanukkah.

Known around the Senate as a prolific writer of Christian hymns and patriotic melodies, Mr. Hatch, 75, said this was his first venture into Jewish music. It will not be his last.

“Anything I can do for the Jewish people, I will do,” Mr. Hatch said in an interview before heading to the Senate floor to debate an abortion amendment. “Mormons believe the Jewish people are the chosen people, just like the Old Testament says.”

In short, he loves the Jews. And based on an early sampling of listeners, the feeling could be mutual.

There's also a detailed piece by Jeffrey Goldberg in Tablet about how it came about; meanwhile, enjoy!

Eight Days of Hanukkah from Tablet Magazine on Vimeo.

Chicago Mayor Daley Blames Fort Hood On America’s Love Of Guns!

From here

With no pogrom backlash after 9/11, no pogrom backlash after Bali, no pogrom backlash after Madrid, no pogrom backlash after London, no pogrom backlash after Mumbai, no backlash after countless other Jihad attacks, why would there be any reason to believe the reaction would be any different in this case? As we have written before, the West has already passed this particular civility test.

The Mayor is using a straw-man argument that conveniently provides him with an opportunity to politicize the terrorist attack as part and parcel with America’s love of guns.

Mayor Daley, and other politicians, like to blame gun violence on the guns themselves because that is so much easier than admitting any inconvenient truths which might be revealed if they were to place blame where it belongs.

Kids murdering each other in the inner city? That’s because of guns, not the War On Drugs which turns poor children into black market drug distributing gang members.

Islamists murdering people while shouting Allah Akbar? That’s because of guns, not the Jihad being perpetrated globally against all so called “infidels”.

They blame the guns because guns don’t vote.

lastly, is Mayor Daley seriously arguing for increased gun control on a military base? If there had been more guns around, this ticking Jihad bomb could have been put down a lot faster than he was.

And in case you couldn't guess, he is a democrat :)

Double Standard

Full Credit to FrumDoc

So apparently, there's been a series of posters around California decrying the Obama administration's approach to health care, the economy, and just about everything else domestic with a simple message:
(Some place said they've had signs like this since November saying "Why So Socialist?")

Anyway, apparently there are now outcries from people on the left that it's "racism" and "all that's missing is a noose". Of course, considering the obvious message and the obvious takeoff on Heath Ledger's makeup as The Joker in The Dark Knight, that seems ridiculous even on its own merit. But more importantly, this isn't even a new takeoff to not realize something like this:

...just sayin'.

Update on Rabbis and Money Laundering Scam

This scandal, involving Rabbonim, especially among the Syrian community in Deal, NJ and Brooklyn, money laundering, and bribing political figures, including mayors from New Jersey, is just horrible. As Rea emailed me:

Gotta love when people hold “yea, it’s muttar to steal from goyim”. What idiots.

It's not even just money laundering, either:

... was accused of enticing vulnerable people to give up a kidney for $10,000 and then selling the organ for $160,000.

Sick. The FBI has made 30 arrests so far, pictures are on NJ.com (via Tzvee), and it's just sad - and so, so wrong. Idiots.

Another update, via VIN - look how shtark they were, learning so much Gemora:

On or about February 5, 2009, the CW received an
interstate telephone call in New Jersey from defendant FISH in
New York, during which defendant FISH and the CW discussed
“gemoras”--a code word used by defendant FISH to refer to cash.
Defendant FISH was informed by the CW that “I have some . . .
gemoras or whatever, you know.” The CW further told defendant
FISH that the CW had “[m]aybe 25 or something,” a reference to
$25,000 in cash. Defendant FISH replied “[i]s that all? That’s
all?” In response, the CW stated “[y]eah, I think. Maybe, uh,
more. But so far that’s what I have.” The CW then asked
defendant FISH “get me the, you know, the name for the gemora,
and then I’ll take care of it.” Defendant FISH then asked “when
do you want to learn,” a coded reference to when the money
laundering transaction would occur. The CW replied “Tuesday’s
fine.” At the conclusion of the conversation, the CW asked
defendant FISH to “[l]et me know-–Sunday, Monday, the name of the
gemora,” in order to find out to what organization or individual
the CW should make out the $25,000 bank check. Defendant FISH
agreed to let the CW know.

Nice. Ugh.

Dumbing Down of Democracy

From here.

The pivotal foreign policy event so far in the Obama presidency was not this week's summit with Russia. It was instead that rarest of all events: Barack Obama's silence.

When the people of Iran filled the streets of their country demanding a fair election, the U.S. clutched for a week. Uncertain of whether U.S. interests lay with the nuke-building ayatollahs or the democracy-seeking population, the Obama team essentially mumbled sweet nothings through the first days of the most extraordinary world event in this young presidency's term. That moment of hesitation, when a genuine and strategically useful democratic moment needed support, could prove costly.

When the Group of Eight nations tried to shape a response to the Iranian government's repression, Russia knew what to say about Iran."No one is willing to condemn the election process," said Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, "because it's an exercise in democracy."

Behold the official dumbing down of democracy.

Our purpose here is not to ridicule Foreign Minister Lavrov's absurd description of the Iranian elections. It is instead to show his statement the respect that anything dangerous deserves.

Two years ago in June, Vladimir Putin's main press spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, visited the offices of the Journal editorial page. It was a remarkable meeting. The editors asked about the widely discussed criticisms of the Putin government's actions against opposition political parties and individuals and its control of the media. With a calm and confident smile, Mr. Peskov replied: "Ours is a different system of democracy." That was it. He stopped talking but kept smiling. The message sank in.

Dmitry Peskov was defining democracy in a way that could hardly be more different than the system of political pluralism developed over the past 300 years in the West. He couldn't have been clearer: We are changing the rules. Get over it.

In this light, President Obama's performance in Moscow was disconcerting, to put it mildly. In Mr. Obama's worldview, political systems apparently don't compete. They simply . . . are. "America cannot and should not seek to impose any system of government on any other country," he said, "nor would we presume to choose which party or individual should run a country."

Mr. Obama's political equivalence, conventional wisdom now among many Western sophisticates, is wrong and dangerous. Unless the West, led by the U.S. under this president, offers active push-back against the Russian definition of democracy, their version inexorably will back out ours.

The design of Iran's election was a perfect mirror of Russia's. Foreign Minister Lavrov wasn't ratifying it for our benefit. Like Dmitry Peskov, he couldn't care less what the Americans or Europeans think of his astonishing statement. His audience is the world's other leaders and parties.

Where is it written that American-style democracy will last forever, much less spread to new nations? If the members of the U.N. General Assembly could choose between the democracy of the U.S., Britain and France or that of Russia, Venezuela and Bolivia, likely it would be the latter. Genuine democracy is hard work. Why should the likes of Pakistan, Iraq, Turkey, Taiwan or Brazil endure that stress if Potemkin Village democracy is acceptable?

What Putin, Khamenei, Chávez, Morales and Mubarak want is fait-accompli legitimacy. When resistance to their dumbed-down democracy stops, they'll have it. China's Orwellian filtering software is a nice metaphor for what's at stake. Vocal criticism, even as eloquent as Mr. Obama's in Moscow this week or in Cairo, is not resistance. Real resistance requires acts of political push-back that all the world's people can see and recognize.

A study released last month by Freedom House, "Democracy's Dark Year," reported democratic erosion in most of the new European Union member states and in the then-inspiring "color revolution" nations -- Georgia's Rose Revolution, Ukraine's Orange Revolution and Kyrgyzstan's Tulip Revolution.

Latin America is also tipping toward dissolved democracies. The 34 nations of the Organization of American States just voted to readmit the Cuban dictatorship. After the vote, the OAS foreign ministers broke into applause, and the meeting's host joyously announced, "The Cold War has ended." Those words of congratulations for unrepentant antidemocrat Fidel Castro came from Manuel Zelaya, then president of Honduras.

Elected in 2005, Mr. Zelaya has been using his muscle to import the Russian-Venezuelan-Iranian political model to Honduras. That means rigged future elections and the constitution changed by fiat to validate the rigging. After meeting with Mr. Zelaya in Washington Tuesday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton off-loaded Honduras's fate to former Costa Rican president Oscar Arias.

Letting genuine democratic aspirants in places like Iran and Honduras lose in front of a watching world will exact a price. The United States and the other John Locke democracies are in an active, long-term competition with fake democrats over whose politics governs the next century. And they will presume to choose which parties should run other counties.

There is the clear sense that anything the Bush administration did, the Obama sophisticates will not do. Does the fact that the Bushies pushed democracy mean it would be bad form to support even our own political system?

EZ Reads 6/18/09: Irony

It's always nice to get the breaks you were looking for to help push a project forward... when it'll be much harder to take advantage of them. Not that they are any less appreciated, it just makes them a bit trickier to take advantage of.

• Freakonomics discusses morality, economics, and Jewish leap years.
• A really fantastic piece questioning Warren Buffet's methods and morals. Important to keep in mind when thinking about the approaches the Obama administration are trying to take.
• Daled Amos discusses the WaPo's attempts to present the shaping of President Obama's views on Israel as coming exclusively from Jews, as opposed to Arabs.
• It's always crazy to read the offers Israeli leaders have made to the Palestinians - in this case, Olmert's offer to Abbas, via Jewlicious. Geez:

  At the end of Olmert’s term he tried one last maneuver in an effort to secure a legacy. Olmert told me he met with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in September 2008 and unfurled a map of Israel and the Palestinian territories. He says he offered Abbas 93.5 to 93.7 percent of the Palestinian territories, along with a land swap of 5.8 percent and a safe-passage corridor from Gaza to the West Bank that he says would make up the rest. The Holy Basin of Jerusalem would be under no sovereignty at all and administered by a consortium of Saudis, Jordanians, Israelis, Palestinians and Americans. Regarding refugees, Olmert says he rejected the right of return and instead offered, as a “humanitarian gesture,” a small number of returnees, although “smaller than the Palestinians wanted—a very, very limited number.”

• Cool piece on the speed of baseballs coming off of bats in Major League Baseball.
• Funny rap video on Material Maidel about Jews abroad's opinions on Israeli policy.
• Interesting article about how a brain tumor has turned a painter into a Picasso.
  

Check them out.

EZ Reads 6/17/09: The God King

I will admit that I never understood the concept of (for example) a Shabtai Tzvi, or Jesus, or the like and how simple charisma and presence could somehow sweep the world (or the chunk they are in contact with) to follow such a person all on their own. I must say that I now easily understand how this is so.

• In the midst of Jason Maoz's latest Jewish Press piece, which is quite good, he cites a great paragraph from The Weekly Standard:

  "Obama being Obama, however (and Newsweek being Newsweek), this is not quite your usual God. This is not the God of Battles, to whom Henry V prayed before Agincourt. This is not 'Our fathers' God, to Thee/Author of Liberty/to Thee we sing.' This is definitely not the God of the 'Battle Hymn of the Republic,' as this God isn't given to trampling anything, and when it comes to the terrible swift sword, you can simply forget it. This God doesn't do swords, much less battles. This is a modern God, a media God, a God for Whole Foods, and the Politics & Prose bookstore on upper Connecticut Avenue, a God who is into recycling. There is the God of the Old Testament, and the God of the New Testament, but this is the God of the Newsroom. Religious tradition tells us that God created man in His image, but the press has created this God in its image - diverse, multilateral, and nonconfrontational. He is cool, hip, urbane, and extremely un-Texan. He is all that the Fourth Estate values in life, and aspires to be in its own private dealings. He is all it holds dear.

• The WSJ discusses some of the health care reforms the Obama administration is trying to push through. At least the White House Council of Economics Advisers isn't buying.
  
• A hilarious but rather enlightening satire on health care reform via tax cuts and the great President Obama, circa 2070.
• It is mind-boggling that a major news media network would perform an hour-long piece from within the White House and yet claim to have no subjective bias. It is more mind-boggling that this is largely being ignored as okay. If this would have occurred in any prior administration people would be dumbfounded and the outcry would have been incredible.
• And speaking of things that would have gotten an outcry... firing investigators for doing their job? Nice.
• On a lighter note, another Israeli scientist is trying to make strides against cancer using old herbal remedies that seem to create antioxidants that stop cancer cold.
• Been meaning to put this up for a while: The break of a curveball, and how its study won an international scientific contest.
  

Finally, a huge Mazel Tov to SweetRose on her wedding tonight!