Obama Tells Dems He'll Oppose Tax Cut Deal Without Unemployment Benefits, Other Relief
when I see iron float.
Sunday, December 5, 2010
No one has the right to live without being shocked.
I just stumbled across Phillp Pullman: "No One Has The Right To Live Without Being Shocked" , recently. You may already have read this, but I hadn't.
The statements were made by Pullman made on March 28 at Oxford in the defense of free speech after being challenged about the title of his novel The Good Man Jesus and the Scoundrel Christ.
It was one of those things I really wish I had said.
Questioner: Mr Pullman, the title of the novel seems to an ordinary christian to be offensive.
To call the son of god a scoundrel is an awful thing to say.
Pullman: It was a shocking thing to say and I knew it was a
shocking thing to say.
But no one has the right to live without being shocked. No
one has the right to spend their life without being
offended.
Nobody has to read this book. Nobody has to pick it
up. Nobody has to open it. And if you open it and read it,
you don't have to like it.
And if you read it and you dislike it, you don't have to
remain silent about it. You can write to me, you can
complain about it, you can write to the publisher, you can
write to the papers, you can write your own book.
You can do all those things, but there your rights
stop. No one has the right to stop me writing this
book. No one has the right to stop it being published, <
or bought, or sold or read. That's all I have to say on
that subject.
The statements were made by Pullman made on March 28 at Oxford in the defense of free speech after being challenged about the title of his novel The Good Man Jesus and the Scoundrel Christ.
It was one of those things I really wish I had said.
Questioner: Mr Pullman, the title of the novel seems to an ordinary christian to be offensive.
To call the son of god a scoundrel is an awful thing to say.
Pullman: It was a shocking thing to say and I knew it was a
shocking thing to say.
But no one has the right to live without being shocked. No
one has the right to spend their life without being
offended.
Nobody has to read this book. Nobody has to pick it
up. Nobody has to open it. And if you open it and read it,
you don't have to like it.
And if you read it and you dislike it, you don't have to
remain silent about it. You can write to me, you can
complain about it, you can write to the publisher, you can
write to the papers, you can write your own book.
You can do all those things, but there your rights
stop. No one has the right to stop me writing this
book. No one has the right to stop it being published, <
or bought, or sold or read. That's all I have to say on
that subject.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Unfitness to Govern
Sanity is a useful tool in governing, so consider these two items:
I believe a classic definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.
Now, let me think, suppose I was president, should conciliate people who have said their goal is only to destroy my policies by removing me from office?
How should I deal with traitors who try to kill necessary treaties, so I can't have a victory -- therefore letting someone run against me as in effective?
Is it as good idea to try to reach an agreement with people who do not negotiate in good faith -- anyone remember the strung out talks of the Gang of Six?
Should I propose a meaningless cut ($2Billion a year), when I could go after pet overspending that my enemies use as pork -- such as agriculture, mining subsidies an unaudited and unauditable defense department, and inducements to off shore jobs?
If I want to seem weak -- and yes that matters -- then sure. But the first job of government is to govern.
There is contention that there were ideological reasons for the reactionary's* victories. An ideological choice clearly motivated reactionary base, but I submit that perhaps the gormlessness of the party in power -- its leader in particular -- may have led to voting against the part in power.
Let me see if I get the idea, instead of standing firm for something, and getting credit for having principles, consistency and passion, we can show we don't have principles and still not get help from our enemies.
The first obligation of any political party and its leaders is to acquire effective control of events. Since being 'nice' doesn't work, a sane course might include not being nice....
_____________
*Reactionary is seeking radical change to restore a perceived past 'good'.
Conservatism, seeks to conserve virtues of the present and "make
[only] necessary changes [forward or back] without getting swept away
by abstractions" (Edmund Burke)
I believe a classic definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.
Now, let me think, suppose I was president, should conciliate people who have said their goal is only to destroy my policies by removing me from office?
How should I deal with traitors who try to kill necessary treaties, so I can't have a victory -- therefore letting someone run against me as in effective?
Is it as good idea to try to reach an agreement with people who do not negotiate in good faith -- anyone remember the strung out talks of the Gang of Six?
Should I propose a meaningless cut ($2Billion a year), when I could go after pet overspending that my enemies use as pork -- such as agriculture, mining subsidies an unaudited and unauditable defense department, and inducements to off shore jobs?
If I want to seem weak -- and yes that matters -- then sure. But the first job of government is to govern.
There is contention that there were ideological reasons for the reactionary's* victories. An ideological choice clearly motivated reactionary base, but I submit that perhaps the gormlessness of the party in power -- its leader in particular -- may have led to voting against the part in power.
Let me see if I get the idea, instead of standing firm for something, and getting credit for having principles, consistency and passion, we can show we don't have principles and still not get help from our enemies.
The first obligation of any political party and its leaders is to acquire effective control of events. Since being 'nice' doesn't work, a sane course might include not being nice....
"A prince must imitate the fox and the lion... a fox to recognize traps, and a lion to frighten wolves....If men were all good, this precept would not be a good one; but ... they are bad"This gave James Macgregor Burns the title of his biography of FDR, The Lion and The Fox. We appear to have neither.
--The Prince
_____________
*Reactionary is seeking radical change to restore a perceived past 'good'.
Conservatism, seeks to conserve virtues of the present and "make
[only] necessary changes [forward or back] without getting swept away
by abstractions" (Edmund Burke)
Friday, October 15, 2010
Women's Torah Completed
The Women's Torah Project, a project of the Kadima Community of Seattle, WA, is finishing the first woman-scribed sefer Torah created in modern times.
A siyum (completion celebration will be held this afternoon (Oct 15, 7 Chesvan), at which I have been invited to be ba'al tekiyah (shofer sounder) at the event.
A story in the Seattle Time can be read at http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2013165249_torah15m.html.
For more information see the Women's Torah Project Home Page or the Women's Torah Project Facebook Page, or the Kadima Home Page.
Saturday, August 14, 2010
The Dismal Science
Here,are two articles which provide a simple example of there is a reason why economics can justly be called the dismal science*:
Any study that no one learns from is justly called dismal.
I'm not making this up, you know.**
*Thomas Carlyle in Occasional Discourse on the Negro Question, in which he was arguing for the reintroduction of slavery as a means to regulate the labor market in the West Indies.
** Anna Russell.
Any study that no one learns from is justly called dismal.
I'm not making this up, you know.**
*Thomas Carlyle in Occasional Discourse on the Negro Question, in which he was arguing for the reintroduction of slavery as a means to regulate the labor market in the West Indies.
** Anna Russell.
Sunday, August 1, 2010
Again, Schwer zu Sein a Yid
I was raised to be proud of the ADL because it was not just Jews fighting for Jews, but Jews fighting for everyone.
The organization has been drifting rightward or the years, and involving itself in international issues inappropriately, but I thought it was still trying to do this.
Given the ADL's opposition to the possible Islamic Center (Cordoba House) near Ground Zero (see
The basically argue, yes a lot of opponents of mosque are bigots, but we should let them win anyway.
Because of some "pain" people might feel. Following this logic out would mean banning anyone appearing Muslim or Arab from the ground zero area.
Never mind that Cordoba House's charter is to "[promote] tolerance, reflecting the rich diversity of New York City," and the Muslims who also died in the attach on the Twin Towers.
Never mind that Cordoba House's charter is to "[promote] tolerance, reflecting the rich diversity of New York City," and the Muslims who also died in the attach on the Twin Towers.
I have a simple rule are either for liberty and against it. And liberty either applies to everyone or to no one.
This is another example of what Peter Beinart was speaking about in The Failure of the American Jewish Establishment.
"You shall not wrong a stranger [ger] or oppress him, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt" (Ex. 22:20).
"You shall not wrong a stranger [ger] or oppress him, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt" (Ex. 22:20).
Saturday, July 31, 2010
Edmund Burke and the Jews.
An article entitled Name Game: How Traditional Is The Conservative Movement?
recently appears The Jewish Daily Forward.
The issue is well summed up in two quotations from the article:
Ordinarily I would say that this is a matter of no interest to anyone on the outside.
But what appalls me is what it says about political language.
Historically, the definition of conservative in Anglo-Saxon polities has been traced to the 18th Century British politician and political philosopher, Edmund Burke. For the record, he was acknowledged as a leading influence by William Buckley and Russel Kirk).
It was characterized by an opposition to government based on abstract (ideological) ideas, a preference for what could be described as 'organic' change, and a care to respect political liberties (which led him to support the American colonists petitions of grievance and relief to Catholics).
It has not, historically, ever implied a particular economic strategy (though Burke was an 18th Century liberal --- that is supported what we would call a free market), no a doctrine.
The choice of the name Conservative for the "middle" movement of Jews in America (between Reform and Orthodox) was chosen to encompass this idea. That is the movement wanted to conserve that which was of value from the past, modifying with care and over time practice.
Let's not address the place in Jewish thought of this "conservative" position -- besides mentioning the fact that I agree with it.
Instead, I contend this position is consistent with the historical meaning of "conservative." One which I in fact subscribe to.
That reactionary positions -- that is ideologically driven (as opposed to pragmatic) free marketism, coupled an expressed desire to dramatically reverse that last 100 years of history -- are called conservative is a debasement of political language.
recently appears The Jewish Daily Forward.
The issue is well summed up in two quotations from the article:
When [Judy] Gold mentions her Conservative affiliation in her act, “you can see people’s heads exploding” because they think she means that she’s politically conservative — something the lesbian single mother of two is decidedly not.and
This growing misunderstanding of the name “Conservative movement” is proving a problem for rabbis, as well.
“Twenty years ago, when I introduced myself as a Conservative rabbi, people understood. But now they think I’m defining my political or theological stance as opposed to just labeling my denomination,” said Rabbi Nina Beth Cardin, director of the Baltimore Jewish Environmental Network. “This is a real issue. Now I simply introduce myself as a rabbi, not a Conservative rabbi, and that’s harsh.”
Ordinarily I would say that this is a matter of no interest to anyone on the outside.
But what appalls me is what it says about political language.
Historically, the definition of conservative in Anglo-Saxon polities has been traced to the 18th Century British politician and political philosopher, Edmund Burke. For the record, he was acknowledged as a leading influence by William Buckley and Russel Kirk).
It was characterized by an opposition to government based on abstract (ideological) ideas, a preference for what could be described as 'organic' change, and a care to respect political liberties (which led him to support the American colonists petitions of grievance and relief to Catholics).
It has not, historically, ever implied a particular economic strategy (though Burke was an 18th Century liberal --- that is supported what we would call a free market), no a doctrine.
The choice of the name Conservative for the "middle" movement of Jews in America (between Reform and Orthodox) was chosen to encompass this idea. That is the movement wanted to conserve that which was of value from the past, modifying with care and over time practice.
Let's not address the place in Jewish thought of this "conservative" position -- besides mentioning the fact that I agree with it.
Instead, I contend this position is consistent with the historical meaning of "conservative." One which I in fact subscribe to.
That reactionary positions -- that is ideologically driven (as opposed to pragmatic) free marketism, coupled an expressed desire to dramatically reverse that last 100 years of history -- are called conservative is a debasement of political language.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)