SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (14587)10/31/2003 2:09:52 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793656
 
Sullivan called it. They are "Jewish Eagles."

"Those Jews who are staying in urban areas are fed up with the Latino and African American tribal politics [of the urban Democratic machines], which are not serving cities particularly well,"
_____________________________________________

'Coleman Republicans' Wave Moderate GOP Flag
By E.J. KESSLER
FORWARD STAFF
Call them the "Norm Coleman Republicans."

A surprising number of Jews running for office in 2003 appear to be modeling themselves after the newly minted Minnesota senator and former mayor of St. Paul — moderate, Jewish Republicans running on urban-friendly platforms.

In mayoral, city council and state senate races in New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania, these Jewish Republicans sound similar themes: They are pro-business and support lower taxes and smaller government, but remain socially moderate. Declining to call themselves "compassionate conservatives" on the model of President Bush, like Coleman they instead favor the label of "pragmatist" or even "libertarian-leaning."

Unlike New York City's Republican mayor, Michael Bloomberg, these candidates do not consider the Republican Party a flag of convenience. Though they part with the national GOP on social issues such as abortion, they share its philosophy of low taxes, limited government and fiscal restraint.

The most prominent of such candidates is Philadelphia mayoral contender Sam Katz, who is running a tight race in a rematch against incumbent Democrat John Street. Coleman has campaigned for Katz, who cites the Minnesotan as an inspiration for how he would govern in a bipartisan manner; both men are former Democrats.

Coleman "is definitely a role model of how you could work together in a community with varying political views, with an inclusive message," said Josh Yablon, a talent agent who is running for a New York City Council seat on Manhattan's Upper West Side on what he and some cohorts are billing as "the urban Republican platform."

Another Jewish candidate for New York City Council is also running under the "urban Republican" rubric: dentist Jay Golub, on Manhattan's Lower East Side.

In northern New Jersey's Bergen County, legally blind entrepreneur Barry Honig, owner of an executive search firm, is running for a state senate seat against veteran legislator Byron Baer, a Jewish Democrat. Honig, running on a platform of tort reform and tax relief for seniors, also fits the Coleman mold: Last week he was speaking about economic empowerment at the Urban

League chapter in Englewood, a north Jersey town with a large black population.

In Pittsburgh, an Orthodox Jewish real estate agent, Daniel A. Cohen, is bidding to represent the heavily Jewish Squirrel Hill neighborhood.

The trend of Jews running under a moderate Republican banner has been a long time in coming, some analysts say.

"It shouldn't be surprising," said Pennsylvania pollster G. Terry Madonna. "Many [Jews] are pro-business and socially liberal. Many Democrats are not pro-business. Breaking into the party machinery in cities and suburbs isn't easy. The Republican Party is a little more open and flexible."

Some see internal Democratic Party politics as the source of Jewish alienation from the party of Franklin Roosevelt.

"Those Jews who are staying in urban areas are fed up with the Latino and African American tribal politics [of the urban Democratic machines], which are not serving cities particularly well," said Joel Kotkin, a public policy fellow at Pepperdine University in Malibu, Calif.

Kotkin cited large Jewish swing votes for moderate Republican mayors such as Rudolph Giuliani of New York and Richard Riordan of Los Angeles in the 1990s as presaging the Jewish candidates who would carry that banner forward.

Jewish Republican office-holders were a common, if minority, feature of the political landscape through much of the past century, but they became a rarity as the GOP began swerving rightward in the 1980s.

A surge of Jewish Republican office-seekers would come in the wake of a steadily evolving shift that began in the 1970s, when Jews began taking a prominent role as Republican theoreticians and policy-makers and continued more recently with a slow shift of Jewish opinion, particularly among younger and more affluent Jews.

The "Coleman Republicans," most of whom are running in heavily Jewish districts — and several of whom are Orthodox or observant — are not shy about leveraging issues of Jewish concern to further their candidacies.

Honig, for example, hit his opponent for what he described as less-than-full-throated opposition to rabble-rousers such as former New Jersey poet laureate Amiri Baraka, who was fired from his state post for penning a poem widely regarded as antisemitic, and the pro-Palestinian protesters who tried to commandeer Rutgers University for a conference. "When things like Rutgers and Baraka come along, the community needs a strong voice," Honig said.

Yablon, for his part, scored his Democratic opponent, incumbent Councilwoman Gale Brewer, for organizing a bus to an October 26, 2002, antiwar rally in Washington, D.C., that featured pronounced anti-Israel agitation. "I was completely offended," Yablon said. "I'd never find myself in that kind of crowd."

It remains to be seen, however, just how many of the "Coleman Republicans" will gain office. Katz, who garnered the vast majority of Jewish votes in his initial race against Street in 1999, has faced an uphill struggle in the closing weeks of the current campaign because of circumstances beyond his control: Street, who is black, has seen his base energized by an FBI listening device that turned up in the ceiling of his office. While the feds have declared that the mayor is not a target of their investigation, Katz's campaign "has been flummoxed by the eavesdropping device," Madonna said. "The issues are all pushed out of the way."

Honig said that private polling shows him to be in "a dead heat" with Baer and that he plans to outspend his opponent by sinking more than $300,000 into the race.

Yablon, who is an Orthodox Jew, said an influx of Orthodox families into his district could put him over the top. Both he and Brewer lack name recognition, he said, and matching funds would allow their spending to be comparable.

Whatever the fate of this particular set of candidates, more "Coleman Republicans" are likely to step up to the plate, according to politics watchers.

"The very things the Republicans are extolling — business ability, self-reliance," New York Democratic political consultant Hank Sheinkopf said, "are the very things younger Jews have taken to heart."
forward.com



To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (14587)10/31/2003 2:16:13 AM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793656
 
VOLOKH: David Bernstein

Typical NPR "Balance": I listened to part of the "Kojo Namdi Show" on WAMU, Washington, D.C. today. The promos said there would be three women Jerusalem residents on the phone, one Christian, one Moslem, and one Jew, talking about their daily lives. As it turned out, the Christian and Moslem weren't typical Jerusalem residents, but Palestinian spokespeople who had clearly undergone extensive media training, and parroted the Palestinian authority line. And the Jew? An extreme leftist, who, at least in the segment I heard, seemed unwilling to defend Israel's right to exist as a Jewish nation. The Christian and Moslem (and the Jew, for that matter) went on and on about the suffering of the Palestinian people under the "occupation." Yet almost everything they complained about--roadblocks, curfews, massive unemployment, etc.--did not exist, or was much less common, before the onset of suicide murders, with the attendant Israeli security responses. Kojo completely failed to raise this point, and when he looked to the Jewish guest to respond to the Palestianians, she served as their amen corner. Kojo did try to note that none of the political movements represented in the current Palestinian government believe in non-violent resistance, but he backed down when the Palestinians objected. Disgusting.
volokh.com



To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (14587)10/31/2003 6:13:32 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 793656
 
Fear Us, Oh Europe
Little Green Footballs

A new poll taken by the European Commission shows that a majority of Eurosimpletons think that Israel and the US are the biggest threats to world peace. Feel the love, people. (Hat tip: fiery celt.)

The specially commissioned poll which asked citizens 15 questions on "the reconstruction of Iraq, the conflict in the Middle East and World peace", has caused controversy in Brussels.

The European Commission is coming under fire for publishing the results of a number of questions - relating to Iraqi reconstruction - while failing to publish the results which revealed the extent of mistrust of Israel and the United States in Europe, according to Spanish daily El Pais.

A Commission spokesperson today (30 October) denied that the decision to withhold some of the results until next Monday was politically motivated, adding that some of the results not yet published are still "unstable".

He did, however, add that a decision was made to publish a preview of the questions pertaining to the reconstruction of Iraq, to coincide with the Iraqi donors conference in Madrid, which took place at the end of last week.

This admission has raised questions about whether the Commission sought to suppress the results which would have came at a particularly sensitive moment.

One pollster involved in the survey told the EUobserver that some questions being raised about the poll were unfounded.

"The questions were decided upon by both the polling organisations and the European Commission", the source said.

Israeli officials dismissed the results of the poll as propaganda.

According to El Pais, a massive 59 percent of Europeans said they believed that Israel is the biggest obstacle to world peace.
littlegreenfootballs.com



To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (14587)10/31/2003 6:18:55 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793656
 
We are going to hear a lot more about this movie in the next year. Dennis Prager's account is probably the most even handed we will read.
________________________________________

The Passion: Jews and Christians are watching different films
Dennis Prager

October 28, 2003

Early this past summer, Mel Gibson invited me to see "The Passion," his film on the trial and crucifixion of Jesus. The invitation was significant in that I was the first practicing Jew and active member of the American Jewish community to be invited. He did so because he believed, correctly, that he could trust me. I have long worked to build trust between Jews and Christians, especially traditional Christians.

The increasing tension over this film has reinforced impressions I offered Mel Gibson that day. When watching "The Passion," Jews and Christians are watching two entirely different films.

For two hours, Christians watch their Savior tortured and killed. For the same two hours, Jews watch Jews arrange the killing and torture of the Christians' Savior.

In order to avoid further tension between two wonderful communities that had been well on their way to historic amity, it is crucial for each to try to understand what film the other is watching and reacting to.

First, what Jews see. The Jews in the film (except, of course, for those who believe in Jesus) are cruel and often sadistic. One prominent Christian who saw the film along with my wife and me said that while watching the film he wanted to take a gun and shoot those who had brought such pain to Jesus. I couldn't blame him. The Jews in the film manipulate the Romans -- who are depicted as patsies of the Jews and in the case of Pilate, as morally far more elevated -- into torturing and murdering a beautiful man.

Why does this bother Jews so much? Because for nearly 2,000 years, attacked as "Christ-killers," countless Jewish men, women and children were tortured and murdered in ways that often caused more suffering than even Jesus endured (e.g., not only tortured and murdered themselves, but also seeing their families and friends raped, tortured and murdered). For Jews to worry that a major movie made by one of the world's superstars depicts Jews as having Christ tortured and killed might arouse anti-Semitic passions is not paranoid. Even though Islam denies the crucifixion, it is difficult to imagine that this film will not be a hit in the virulently anti-Semitic Arab world.

It is essential that Christians understand this. Every Jew, secular, religious, assimilated, left-wing, right-wing, fears being killed because he is Jewish. This is the best-kept secret about Jews, who are widely perceived as inordinately secure and powerful. But it is the only universally held sentiment among Jews. After the Holocaust and with Islamic terrorists seeking to murder Jews today, this, too, is not paranoid.

However, what Jews need to understand is that most American Christians watching this film do not see "the Jews" as the villains in the passion story historically, let alone today. First, most American Christians -- Catholic and Protestant -- believe that a sinning humanity killed Jesus, not "the Jews." Second, they know that Christ's entire purpose was to come to this world and to be killed for humanity's sins. To the Christian, God made it happen, not the Jews or the Romans (the Book of Acts says precisely that). Third, a Christian who hates Jews today for what he believes some Jews did 2,000 years ago only reflects on the low moral, intellectual and religious state of that Christian. Imagine what Jews would think of a Jew who hated Egyptians after watching "The Ten Commandments," and you get an idea of how most Christians would regard a Christian who hated Jews after watching "The Passion."

Jews also need to understand another aspect of "The Passion" controversy. Just as Jews are responding to centuries of Christian anti-Semitism (virtually all of it in Europe), many Christians are responding to decades of Christian-bashing -- films and art mocking Christian symbols, a war on virtually any public Christian expression (from the death of the Christmas party to the moral identification of fundamentalist Christians with fundamentalist Muslims). Moreover, many Jewish groups and media people now attacking "The Passion" have a history of irresponsibly labeling conservative Christians anti-Semitic.

I cannot say that I am happy this film was made. Nevertheless, if the vast majority of Christians and Jews of goodwill try hard to understand what film the other is watching, some good can yet result. The last thing Jews need is to create tension with their best friends. And the last thing Christians need is a renewal of Christian hatred toward Jesus' people.
townhall.com



To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (14587)10/31/2003 1:28:35 PM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793656
 
“Those Jews”
If only Israel and its supporters would disappear.
Victor Davis Hanson - National Review

There are certain predictable symptoms to watch when a widespread amorality begins to infect a postmodern society: cultural relativism, atheism, socialism, utopian pacifism. Another sign, of course, is fashionable anti-Semitism among the educated, or the idea that some imaginary cabal, or some stealthy agenda — certainly not our own weakness — is conspiring to threaten our good life.

Well apart from the spooky placards (stars of David juxtaposed with swastikas, posters calling for the West Bank to be expanded to "the sea") that we are accustomed to seeing at the marches of the supposedly ethical antiwar movement, we have also heard some examples of Jew-baiting and hissing in the last two weeks that had nothing to do with the old crazies. Indeed, such is the nature of the new anti-Semitism that everyone can now play at it — as long as it is cloaked in third-world chauvinism, progressive thinking, and identity politics.

The latest lunatic rantings from Malaysian prime minister Mahathir Mohamad are nothing new, and we should not be surprised by his mindless blabbering about Jews and his fourth-grade understanding of World War II and the present Middle East. But what was fascinating was the reaction to his madness: silence from the Arab intelligentsia, praise from Middle Eastern leaders ("A brilliant speech," gushed Iran's "president" Mohammad Khatami), and worry from France and Greece about an EU proclamation against the slander. Most American pundits were far more concerned about the private, over-the-top comments of Gen. Boykin than about the public viciousness of a head of state. Paul Krugman, for example, expressed the general mushiness of the Left when he wrote a column trying to put Mahathir Mohamad's hatred in a sympathetic context, something he would never do for a Christian zealot who slurred Muslims.

Much has been written about the usually circumspect Greg Easterbrook's bizarre ranting about "Jewish executives" who profit from Quentin Tarantino's latest bloody production. But, again, the problem is not so much the initial slips and slurs as it is the more calculated and measured "explanation." Easterbrook's mea culpa cited his prior criticism of Mel Gibson, as if the supposed hypocrisy of a devout and public Christian's having trafficked in filmed violence were commensurate with the dealings of two ordinary businessmen who do not publicly embrace religion. Michael Eisner and Harvey Weinstein simply happen to be movie executives, with no stake in producing Jewish movies or public-morality films, but — like most in Hollywood — with a stake in making money from films. That they are Jewish has absolutely no bearing on their purported lack of morality — unless, of course, one seeks to invent some wider pathology, evoking historical paranoia about profiteering, cabals, and "the Jews."

Recently, Joseph Lieberman was hissed by an Arab-American audience in Dearborn, Mich. when he briefly explained Israel's defensive wall in terms not unlike those used by Howard Dean and other candidates. What earned him the special public rebuke not accorded to others was apparently nothing other than being Jewish — the problem was not what he said, but who he was. No real apology followed, and the usually judicious and sober David Broder wrote an interesting column praising the new political acumen of the Arab-American community.

Tony Judt, writing in The New York Review of Books, has published one of the most valuable and revealing articles about the Middle East to appear in the last 20 years. There has always been the suspicion that European intellectuals favored the dismantling of Israel as we know it through the merging of this uniquely democratic and liberal state with West Bank neighbors who have a horrific record of human-rights abuses, autocracy, and mass murder. After all, for all too many Europeans, how else but with the end of present-day Israel will the messy Middle East and its attendant problems — oil, terrorism, anti-Semitism, worries over unassimilated Muslim populations in Europe, anti-Americanism, and postcolonial guilt — become less bothersome? Moreover, who now knows or cares much about what happened to Jews residing under Arab governments — the over half-million or so who, in the last half-century, have been ethnically cleansed from (and sometimes murdered in) Baghdad, Cairo, Damascus, and almost every Jewish community in the Arab Middle East?

And what is the value of the only democratic government in a sea of autocracy if its existence butts up against notions of third-world victimhood and causes so much difficulty for the Western intelligentsia? Still, few intellectuals were silly enough to dress up that insane idea under the pretext of a serious argument (an unhinged Vidal, Chomsky, or Said does not count). Judt did, and now he has confirmed what most of us knew for years — namely, that there is an entrenched and ever-bolder school of European thought that favors the de facto elimination of what is now a democratic Jewish state.

What links all these people — a Muslim head of state, a rude crowd in Michigan, an experienced magazine contributor, and a European public intellectual — besides their having articulated a spreading anger against the "Jews"? Perhaps a growing unease with hard questions that won't go away and thus beg for easy, cheap answers.

A Malaysian official and his apologists must realize that gender apartheid, statism, tribalism, and the anti-democratic tendencies of the Middle East cause its poverty and frustration despite a plethora of natural resources (far more impressive assets than the non-petroleum-bearing rocks beneath parched Israel). But why call for introspection when the one-syllable slur "Jews" suffices instead?

And why would an Arab-American audience — itself composed of many who fled the tyranny and economic stagnation of Arab societies for the freedom and opportunity of a liberal United States — wish to hear a reasoned explanation of the complexities of the Israeli-Palestinian war when it was so much easier to hiss and moan, especially when mainstream observers would ignore their anti-Semitism and be impressed instead with the cadre of candidates who flock to Michigan?

How do you explain to an audience that Quentin Tarantino appeals both to teens and to empty-headed critics precisely because something is terribly amiss in America, when affluent and leisured suburbanites are drawn to scenes of raw killing as long as it is dressed up with "art" and "meaning"?

How could a Tony Judt write a reasoned and balanced account of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict when to do so would either alienate or bore the literati?

So they all, whether by design or laxity, take the easier way out — especially when slurring "Israel" or "the Jews" involves none of the risks of incurring progressive odium that similarly clumsy attacks against blacks, women, Palestinians, or homosexuals might draw, requires no real thinking, and seems to find an increasingly receptive audience.

You see, in our mixed-up world those Jewish are not a "people of color." And if there really is such a mythical monolithic entity in America as the "Jews," they (much like the Cubans) are not easily stereotyped as impoverished victims needing largesse or condescension, and much less are they eligible under any of the current myriad of rubrics that count for public support. Israel is a successful Western state, not a failed third-world despotism. Against terrible oppression and overt anti-Semitism, the Jewish community here and abroad found success — proof that hard work, character, education, and personal discipline can trump both natural and human adversity. In short, the story of American Jewry and Israel resonates not at all with the heartstrings of a modern therapeutic society, which is quick to show envy for the successful and cheap concern for the struggling.

This fashionable anti-Semitism and anti-Israelism — especially among purported intellectuals of the Left — reveals a deep-seated, scary pathology that is growing geometrically both in and outside the West. For a Europe that is disarmed, plagued by a demographic nightmare of negative population growth and unsustainable entitlements, filled with unassimilated immigrants, and deeply angry about the power and presence of the United States, the Jews and their Israel provide momentary relief on the cheap. So expect that more crazy thoughts of Israel's destruction dressed up as peace plans will be as common as gravestone and synagogue smashing.

For the Muslim world that must confront the power of the patriarch, mullah, tribe, and autocrat if it is ever to share the freedom and prosperity of the rest of the world, the Jews offer a much easier target. So expect even more raving madness as the misery of Islamic society grows and its state-run media hunker down amid widespread unrest. Anticipate, also, more sick posters at C-SPAN broadcast marches, more slips by reasonable writers, and more anti-Israeli denunciations from the "liberals."

These are weird, weird times, and before we win this messy war against Islamic fascism and its sponsors, count on things to get even uglier. Don't expect any reasoned military analysis that puts the post-9/11 destruction of the Taliban and Saddam Hussein's evil regime, along with the liberation of 50 million at the cost of 300 American lives, in any sort of historical context. After all, in the current presidential race, a retired general now caricatures U.S. efforts in Iraq and quotes Al Sharpton.

Do not look for the Islamic community here to acknowledge that the United States, in little over a decade, freed Kuwait, saved most of the Bosnians and Kosovars, tried to feed Somalis, urged the Russians not to kill Chechnyans, belatedly ensured that no longer were Shiites and Kurds to be slaughtered in Iraq, spoke out against Kuwait's ethnic cleansing of a third of a million Palestinians — and now is spending $87 billion to make Iraqis free.

That the Arab world would appreciate billions of dollars in past American aid to Jordan, Egypt, and the Palestinian Authority, or thank America for its help in Kuwait and Kosovo, or be grateful to America for freeing Iraq — all this is about as plausible as the idea that Western Europeans would acknowledge their past salvation from Nazism and Soviet Communism, or be grateful for the role the United States plays to promote democracy in Panama, Haiti, the Balkans, or the Middle East.

No, in this depressing age, the real problem is apparently our support for democratic Israel and all those pesky Jews worldwide, who seem to crop up everywhere as sly war makers, grasping film executives, conspiratorial politicians, and greedy colonialists, and thus make life so difficult for the rest of us.
nationalreview.com



To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (14587)11/2/2003 2:03:02 AM
From: Dayuhan  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793656
 

The whole idea of a secular country started in Christian countries, and was made ideologically possible by the fact that the Church did not establish itself as a government, but as separate from the government.

Where on earth did you study history? From the conversion of Constantine on Christianity was a State church, and it did not give up its hold on State power voluntarily. The idea of a separate church and state did evolve in Christian countries, but not because of anything the Christian churches did. The churches opposed the process at every step, and power had to be forcibly pried out of their hands.