Ophir further went on to explain Abbas refuses to sit with Netanyahu and negotiate yet, still maintains the Palestinians will not recognize Israel's right to exist nor Jerusalem as its capital.
How do you resolve contentious issues when your 'partner' takes such a stance? You simply cannot but Israel continues to be blamed for intransigence and brutality.
I have posted two articles (see 1a and 1bbelow.) and wish to make these points:
a) There are many ways to destroy a democracy and/or gum up one of its critical pillars, ie. free speech and presentation of factual material.
When the press or leadership jump to conclusions ,before the fact, they color attitudes because the first impression carries the most weight. Retractions all too often appear on the back etc.
This is why a free and objective press and media are critical. This is no longer the case in America. We have a biased press and media which jumps to conclusions and circles wagons around their favored politicians and political thought. This is dangerous.
b) Another favored method of under girding a democracy is to stifle freedom of speech, to disrupt presentations of views and to allow one sided debate to occur in a public forum and most particularly on college and university campuses.. As Middle East Studies Department funding increases this has become a treasured tactic. We see constant occurrences of same from California to New York and I am posting one that recently occurred in Birmingham, Alabama. Cowed administrators afraid of losing such funding often are to blame for allowing such.
Students are impressionable, gullible and when facts and /or speakers are stifled from legitimate debate and appropriate questioning the beauty of free speech is shredded. What appears as justifiable is allowed to stand because challenges are deemed unacceptable and/or are purposely prevented and thus, sinister acts are allowed to permeate thought and minds. That too is dangerous and destructive.
The Nazis understood the power of propaganda and set up an entire agency and infrastructure headed by a man named Goebbels. The Grand Mufti of Egypt was one of his disciples.
Lies, repeated often enough, become believable. Sen. McCarthy understood this and so does Obama!
There is something cleansing about the truth and it is not always in the eyes of the beholder. Some facts are incontrovertible and as policeman are caused to wear cameras, I suspect, we shall have less riots because facts, instead of bias and lies, will rule.
Be careful what you 'aks' for!
===
Simon on Feinstein! (See 2 below.)
===
I have been out of town so much of late I have not really had time to focus on our volatile market. The decline in oil stocks along with economic pressures on Europe and China could connote deflationary circumstances are beginning to creep into investor thinking and sentiments.
It is something to watch but probably a bit early to conclude.
The pressure on Putin and Russia's economy could also cause him to do something irrational and that bears watching.
Finally, the Israeli elections might provide insight as to whether Israel feels compelled to do something about Iran as current negotiations simply provide cover for Iran's nuclear development and as economic pressures build, because of the decline in oil, the Ayatollah feels compelled to accelerate matters..
Perhaps, in the long run, the Saudis are trying to pressure Iran and Russia in the hope it will cause them to mend their ways since the Saudis no longer believe America, under Obama, will do anything constructive in preventing Iran from achieving nuclear status.
Time will tell. It always does! (See 3 below.)
===.
This from a very astute family member who has perused the new budget( I have not), and sent these comments:
"Dick,
In view of the circumstances,you should check out all the good things they were able to do.
Once again the total amount that was in the bill is less than last year as it was the year before. IRS got less.. defense got more.
There is a list somewhere it was presented by committee chairs yesterday afternoon on C span. In my opinion pretty impressive
A-----
===
More on Oren's view of Israeli and U.S. relations while he was Israel's Ambassador. (See 4 below.)
===
Obama and his knowledge of history? (See 5 below.)
===
Some Democrats are sick of Obamacare. (See 6 below.)
More liberal hypocrisy but maybe that is an oxymoron! (See 6a below.)
Aw hell, its just a shoe on the other foot kind of thing. But this time the shoe is in Warren's mouth!
===
Dick---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Preliminary Autopsy Report on Ziad Abu Ein
(Communicated by the Health Ministry Spokesperson)
The autopsy was carried out at the forensics institute in Abu Dis.
Participating in the autopsy were Dr. Chen Kugel and Dr. Maya Furman from
the National Institute of Forensic Medicine, as well as representatives from
the Palestinian forensics institute and doctors from Jordan.
The death of Ziad Abu Ein was caused by a blockage of the coronary artery
(one of the arteries that supplies blood to the heart) due to hemorrhaging
underneath a layer of atherosclerotic plaque. The bleeding could have been
caused by stress.
Indications of light hemorrhaging and localized pressure were found in his
neck.
The deceased suffered from ischemic heart disease; blood vessels in his
heart were found to be over 80% blocked by plaque. Old scars indicating that
he suffered from previous myocardial infarctions were also found.
The poor condition of the deceased's heart caused him to be more sensitive
to stress.
It is necessary to wait for the medical treatment report before determining
more incisive explanations on this matter.
Indications of CPR were found.
These preliminary findings will require verification after the results of
the investigation and lab results are received.
1a) Guardian ignores key evidence indicating PA minister was NOT killed by IDF assault
What is known at the moment is that a Palestinian minister, Ziad Abu Ein, died today shortly after a confrontation with IDF soldiers during a protest north of Ramallah. Abu Ein – imprisoned in Israel for his role in a terrorist bombing that killed two Israeli teens, but later released during a prisoner swap – collapsed and was evacuated for medical care, but died before reaching the hospital.
What’s not known is the cause of death, and there is increasing evidence (which we’ll show later in the post) that Abu Ein, who suffered from health problems including diabetes and high blood pressure, may have died of a heart attack.
However, the Guardian’s Jerusalem correspondent Peter Beaumont naturally all but avoided evidence pointing to the strong possibility that Abu Ein died of natural causes, and instead primarily cited only those sources claiming he died as the result of trauma inflicted by an Israeli soldier.
Here are the relevant passages in Beaumont ’s story, Palestinian minister dies after West Bank confrontation with Israeli soldiers:
A senior minister in the government of the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, has died following a violent confrontation with Israeli soldiers in a West Bank village near Ramallah.
Ziad Abu Ain, who deals with the issue of Israeli settlements and the separation wall, died as he was being rushed to hospital after reportedly being pushed and shoved by Israeli troops while planting olive trees in the village of Turmusiya near Ramallah.A Reuters photographer covering the demonstration, who witnessed the incident, said that the minister died after being “shoved” by Israeli troops.
Chaim Levinson, a correspondent for the Israeli newspaper Haaretz who covers affairs in the occupied Palestinian territories, posted a picture of the minister on Twitter which he said had been taken “after Abu Ain was hit by an Israeli soldiers”.A Palestinian witness at the protest told Haaretz that he saw an officer from the border police hit Abu Ein with the butt of his gun and kick him.
Beaumont ignores important evidence contradicting such claims.
These include:
1.An IDF statement - released hours before his Guardian story was published – that the minister’s death was a result of a heart attack, and that there was no significant physical confrontation between soldiers and the Palestinian minister.
2. Reporters on the scene undermine claims Abu Ein was hit by an Israeli rifle butt. BuzzFeed’s Sheera Frenkel quoted Roy Sharon, a journalist with Israel ’s Channel Ten News, who was filming at the protest.
“I was standing there the whole protest,” Sharon told BuzzFeed News. “There were about 50 Palestinians and 20 foreign nationals taking part. The Israeli army let them go until a certain point, and then would not let them pass.”Sharon said that several rounds of tear gas were fired at the crowd.
About 10 minutes later, after the tear gas, some people were standing near the IDF soldiers and were pushed back. They weren’t overly violent that I could see, they were pushing them back,” said Sharon . “Abu Ein was there among them, he was on the front line getting pushed back. Suddenly he was sitting on a rock, holding his chest.”
Sharon said that early reports that Abu Ein had been hit by a helmet or a tear gas canister were incorrect.
“I never saw that happen. There were lots of cameras there. They were pushing people back but I didn’t see anyone get hit by a helmet or with the canister,” said Sharon .
3. Videos of the incident clearly seem to show that the PA minister was merely shoved, and there is no footage we’re aware of depicting a blow capable of killing him.
Here you can see Abu Ein after the incident clutching at his chest, consistent with claims that he may have died of a heart attack.
Beaumont’s story should at least have noted that the Palestinian allegations that Abu Ein’ death – which Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has already characterized as a “barbaric assassination” – was the result of a blow by an Israeli soldier have been disputed by the IDF, Israeli witnesses, photos and videos of the confrontation.
Once again, it’s as if the Guardian journalist went out of his way to avoid reporting any evidence which would contradict the desired pro-Palestinian narrative.
1b)
| JEWISH STUDENT'S PAIN, UAB PROVOST'S APOLOGY | |||
 | ||||
By Daniel Odrezin, BJF Asst. Executive Director
My Birmingham Jewish Federation staff colleague Samantha Dubrinsky and I attended the event and found it to be an extremely biased presentation filled with misleading and negative information about Israel and lacking significant context.
STUDENT PERSPECTIVE
The format of the panel and the behavior of many in attendance created an intimidating atmosphere for those who challenged the panelists. Ashley Goldsmith-Sanders, president of Hillel at UAB, which is the Jewish students organization, was one of the Jewish students who attended the event. She later wrote an email to The BJF describing what it was like to be a Jewish student in such a hostile environment. Below are excerpts from Ashley's e-mail:
As I sat there on one side of the room where my fellow Jewish students had gathered to support each other, I actually felt like I didn't belong on my own campus. The thought that most of the panelists were faculty was hard to accept and more than a little frightening for both me and others. These are the people we trust, the people our parents trust, to teach us what we need to learn to go out into the world, but here they were teaching us falsehoods and hate.
We watched in shock as Rabbi Eytan Yammer of Birmingham's Knesseth Israel Congregation was rudely shouted down for trying to get an answer to a question, while moments later an anti-Israel audience member was allowed to speak at length. There was no one on the panel to speak for Israel, and when the attendees attempted to address the falsehoods that had been presented, they were silenced.
TROUBLING NATURE
Shortly after the panel discussion, Update featured a story which highlighted the troubling nature of the forum. After the story appeared, UAB Provost Dr. Linda Lucas reached out to the Federation to discuss the issue in more detail.
A week later, Dr. Lucas would meet with Samantha, BJF Executive Director Richard Friedman and myself. We stressed to her that we didn't want to stifle debate about the Israeli-Palestinian issue, or any other issue, but we did want to ensure that future programs were balanced and conducted in an atmosphere free or intimidation where all voices and viewpoints could be heard.
We suggested strategies that UAB could implement, especially to avoid future incidents. Among other things, we suggested that Dr. Lucas make a public statement expressing concern about how the panel was conducted and that she share her concerns with the faculty involved in the planning as well.
We also told her that through Update and other avenues, we would continue sharing our concerns regarding the situation at UAB until they were resolved. We noted that UAB also has been the site of an event called "Israeli Apartheid Week," which seeks to defame Israel by falsely suggesting that it practices apartheid toward its ethnic and religious minorities. (Apartheid was a harsh system of racial segregation that was once prevalent in South Africa.)
Earlier this week, Dr. Lucas responded to Richard, Samantha and me via email. Here is an excerpt from what Dr. Lucas wrote:
I want to thank you again for sitting down with me to share your concerns about the event. I felt we had a very helpful and productive conversation and hope you did as well.
I have continued to look into the intent of the event, and everything I have learned suggests that it was well intended, but not planned or executed as well as it should have been. I am disappointed in that and sorry the event did not promote an environment in which a healthy and respectful exchange of ideas could occur for all attending the event. The format and panelists did not provide an opportunity for open, balanced and constructive educational dialogue.
We will actively monitor activities on campus and address sensitivities and will work with our faculty, staff, and students to better organize future events. The perspectives you shared during our meeting will be helpful in our efforts, and I look forward to future interactions with you.
NATIONAL TREND
The BJF is particularly concerned about the events that have taken place at UAB because they reflect a trend that is growing nationally. Almost weekly, we read reports of anti-Israel -- and sometimes anti-Semitic -- sentiment taking hold on some of North American college campuses. This activity has led to vicious harassment, intimidation and violence against Jewish students. The below video, which we have featured previously in Update, provides an unsettling look at the growing difficulties that Jewish students who want to support Israel and express their Jewish identity are facing on many campuses. It is a short video and we urge everyone to watch it.
We at The BJF are determined to do all that we can to prevent the development of such an anti-Israel, anti-Jewish environment on any of Alabama's campuses. While there are problems at UAB, fortunately there appear to be no problems at any of Alabama's other college campuses. We will continue to advise our community of developments regarding UAB and encourage members of the Birmingham Jewish community, who have longstanding ties to UAB, to express their discomfort to university officials when necessary.
2) What Dianne Did
By Roger L. Simon
The dust is far from settled regarding the condemnatory Senate report on the Central Intelligence Agency’s use of so-called torture with terror detainees. CIA Director John Brennan is disputing the report’s claim that those enhanced terror techniques were worthless and netted no information, while Intelligence Committee chairwoman Dianne Feinstein insists that her report is correct. Former DCIA Michael Hayden and, not surprisingly, Dick Cheney had weighed in on Brennan’s side the day before.
My first thought was that this was all much ado about nothing. We have been hearing the same arguments about waterboarding and the like for the last six — or is it ten — years with the same people lined up pro and con. None of it is very new, although Feinstein and the media are pretending it is. Moreover, the release of the report was clearly timed to distract from the embarrassing appearance of Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber before Congress. It also was rushed out before the new Republican Congress can deep six it after they are sworn in next year. (They had a point. No Republicans or, more importantly, CIA operatives who actually participated in the actions in question were interviewed for the report.)
All this is SOP in heavily politicized Washington, as was Feinstein thinking about her and her Democratic cohorts’ “legacies,” although a fair number of them (Pelosi, etc.) were fully aware of the CIA’s techniques from the get go and never uttered a peep against it at the time. Again, the standard hypocrisy. Also at play here was a bit of vengeance on Feinstein’s part. Her committee’s computers were apparently hacked by the CIA, nervous about what was being said about them, possibly with some justification.
And, while we’re pointing out the obvious hypocrisy, nothing could be more obviously hypocritical than the Obama administration that putatively abhors torture employing drones that simply murder enemy combatants and often a host of innocent people who happen to be nearby into the bargain. Wouldn’t you rather be waterboarded? Nobody dies being waterboarded. In fact, it’s designed so you won’t.
But still I put this all down to the usual liberal roundelay with Dianne Feinstein competing against many of her ilk for “Moral Narcissist in Chief,” until I heard an outraged Dennis Miller on the radio Wednesday. He was treating this report as if it was the end of our country as we know it — and he had a point. His reason: who would join the CIA now knowing your own government doesn’t have your back? And we need the CIA more than ever in the covert struggle against the likes of ISIS, Iran, al Qaeda, North Korea, China and Russia.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3) AllianceBernstein's Masters: US Companies 'Can Continue to Prosper'
U.S. companies' buoyant earnings have helped major stock indices continuously reach record highs this year, most recently last Friday.
So can U.S. companies "continue to prosper" while overseas economies struggle? Seth Masters, chief investment officer at AllianceBernstein, asks in a commentary.
"The answer could be yes," he writes. "The U.S. is still in the early stages of a cyclical expansion, and we think the overall growth rate will be supported by key trends among consumers, governments, and companies."
Consumers and governments at all levels are trimming their debts, he says. Meanwhile, "companies are gaining market share globally, and U.S. manufacturing is now undergoing something of a renaissance," Masters says.
"We think that these trends could continue for a while and that they are positive for U.S. stockholders." That doesn't make the stock market "invulnerable," he says, but does show its "resiliency."
As for foreign stocks, just because the U.S. has outperformed many overseas markets over the past two years, that doesn't lessen the diversification benefit of investing abroad, Masters says.
Meanwhile, Dan Chung, chief investment officer at Alger, thinks the Nasdaq Composite index will break through its March 2000 peak of 5,132.52 next year.
The Nasdaq closed at 4,708.15 Thursday, 8.3 percent below its zenith.
"I am very confident that the Nasdaq will reach new highs," sending "a very positive, powerful" message to investors, Chung told USA Today.
The Nasdaq is a whole different animal than 15 years ago, he notes. It's less technology-centric, with more healthcare, biotechnology and consumer companies.
In addition, "the valuations today are much lower, with the Nasdaq's price-to-earnings ratio based on next year's earnings estimates in the high-teens," Chung says.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4) 'THIS ADMINISTRATION HAS A WORLDVIEW THAT IS NOT IN ACCORD WITH ANY ISRAELI GOVERNMENT.'
Author: Gary Rosenblatt
During his four-year tenure as Israel’s ambassador to the United States, marked by an often-stormy relationship between Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Obama, Michael Oren was the consummate diplomat. He was dignified, thoughtful, articulate, knowledgeable and tactful.
In the Cairo speech, this was presented as a kind of apology for the West’s alleged transgressions against Islam. But it also essentially announced Obama’s new age world view, which continues bedevil American policy to this day. The president has oft repeated his view that leaders like Vladimir Putin are swimming against the tide of history, which serves as an excuse for inaction, or ineffective action.
But those days are over.
Fourteen months after returning to Israel, where he is lecturing at the IDC Herzliya College and writing a book about his experiences in Washington, the 59-year-old Oren is speaking out about his deep concerns over Israel’s standing in the world, and particularly its relationship with its most important ally, the U.S.
In a dialogue at The Plaza here last week at the annual Scholar-Statesman dinner of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, where he and another former Israeli ambassador to the U.S., Tel Aviv University President Itamar Rabinovich, were the honorees, Oren said that “this administration [in Washington] has a worldview that is not in accord with any Israeli government,” not just the current one. Describing the Obama administration as “ideological” on the Mideast, with the president’s 2009 outreach-to-the-Arab-world Cairo speech as its source, Oren said the White House views east Jerusalem communities like Gilo, for example, as not necessarily part of the Jewish state, a position he said no Israeli government would accept.
(Gilo is over the Green Line but part of the Jerusalem municipality, with a largely Jewish population.)
After the March 17 elections, Israel’s next government “likely will move to the right,” Oren predicted, “and America may be going a different way.”
Though he said the U.S.-Israel relationship is crucial — “we [Washington and Jerusalem] have no choice but to be allies” — he asserted on several occasions that “Israel has to take responsibility for itself.”
It was clear, if not explicitly stated, that Oren feels the Obama administration has not lived up to its “no daylight” pledge to be in sync with Israel on key strategic and diplomatic issues. (On security matters, it should be noted, Israeli officials give the U.S. high marks on cooperation. The relative quiet on the West Bank and support for Iron Dome during the Gaza war are examples.)
But the sentiment that the president views Israel at times as a stubborn child, if not an adversary, rather than a major ally adds to the speculation that Oren’s first-person memoir, which in part will deal with his 2009-2013 stint in D.C., will be highly critical of the president’s dealings with Israel.
The book is almost completed and is due out next June.
Asked by moderator Robert Satloff, the executive director of the Washington Institute, about the West’s negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program, Oren first noted that Israel’s “margin for error is exactly zero” on this issue, given Iran’s longstanding threat to destroy the Jewish state.
Then, his voice rising, he said that if you believe that Iranian President Hassan Rouhani is indeed the moderate he claims to be, if you believe that Iran has reversed its policy of being the world’s leading exporter of terror, if you believe that its leaders have changed their long pattern of lying about the nuclear program, and if you believe the West is capable of and willing to respond militarily to prevent the production of a nuclear bomb, then yes, you should support the U.S. effort to reach an agreement with Iran.
“But if your children and grandchildren’s’ lives depended on it, you may reach a different conclusion,” he asserted, adding: “We [the Jewish people] have not come back after 2,000 years to disappear.”
(During the course of the discussion, Rabinovich and Oren largely agreed on key points, but Rabinovich sounded less emotional, more diplomatic. In discussing how to improve relations with the White House, for example, he said the next Israeli prime minister should be up front with Obama and encourage him to work together to improve relations. On Iran, Rabinovich said the U.S. seemed “too eager” in the negotiations, giving Iran a critical advantage.)
‘Solution’ Not Possible Now
Oren, a native of New Jersey who made aliyah more than 30 years ago, was a surprise choice as ambassador when he was tapped for the job five years ago. He was not a professional diplomat but came from the academic world, building a solid reputation as an historian and author. His books on the 1967 conflict, “Six Days of War,” and history of the U.S. involvement in the Mideast since 1776, “Power, Faith and Fantasy,” were widely acclaimed. His years as ambassador were marked by tensions between Netanyahu and Obama, though Oren received high marks for making Israel’s case in the U.S.
He offered an historian’s perspective at the Scholar-Statesman program when he said that the chaos in the Arab world we are witnessing now is “the unraveling of the post-World War I plan for the region.” When the allies carved up the region based on geography rather than by affinity groups, he said, they created states that cannot sustain themselves.
As for the prospect of peace with the Palestinians, he said he is “very skeptical,” adding, “I’ve erased the wold ‘solution’ from my vocabulary.”
What can be achieved, he said, is “a two-state situation” that calls for “movement” with the Palestinians incrementally. He spoke of “managing the conflict” and seeking to enhance the lives of Israelis and Palestinians through cooperation in trade, exports, etc., until conditions improve enough to explore a real peace.
Amplifying those thoughts this past weekend at the Saban Forum on the Mideast, sponsored annually by the Brookings Institute in Washington, Oren asserted that “the left in Israel has crashed because it has not yet internalized that the Palestinians are not part of the negotiations, and aren’t interested in being so. The Palestinians have chosen a different path, the destructive path of delegitimization of Israel.
“On the other hand,” he added, “the right doesn’t yet have the courage to admit that Israel isn’t able to protect its identity and its alliance with the U.S., while ruling 2.5 million Palestinians.
“Inaction isn’t an option,” he said. “Israel needs to take its fate into its own hands, and to come out with a political initiative that will serve its interests.”
Many believe that Oren has his sights on a political career in Israel and that his experience in seeking to improve the relationship with the U.S. will stand him in good stead.
An ‘Overdraft’ With Washington
In a follow-up interview the day after the Scholar-Statesman event, Oren was critical of Israel’s lack of a viable narrative regarding the Palestinians. “We have outsourced our security” to the Palestinians, he told me. “They’re calling the shots, and we need to come up with an initiative of our own.” He favors setting out a plan for Israel’s borders that “would include as many Jews as possible” and end Israel’s rule over 2.5 million Palestinians.
Oren worries that the Palestinian Authority’s planned diplomatic initiative at the United Nations is “insufficiently appreciated” as “a strategic threat” by Israel and its supporters. The Palestinian effort to take its case to the International Criminal Court in The Hague, arguing that Israel commits war crimes, and to seek statehood at the UN, would not only delegitimize Jerusalem diplomatically but also hurt it economically, he said.
Will the U.S. stand by Israel? Oren compares the U.S.-Israel relationship to a bank account where Israel has to make deposits and is then able to write a check. He said that Israeli deposits, like agreeing to a 10-month halt on settlements a few years ago, endorsing a two-state solution and taking part in peace talks, resulted in U.S. support for Israel in its wars with Hezbollah (2006) and Hamas (2008-2009).
“Last summer we had an overdraft, an empty bank account,” he said, referring to the most recent Hamas war, with its heavy civilian casualties in Gaza, coming after Secretary of State Kerry’s failed peace initiative. He said Israel needs “space and time,” adding that he would be wary of any new settlement building plans by Israel on disputed land, certain to further darken the mood in Washington.
Discussing his memoir in general terms, he said it will include his family history — his dad is a World War II hero — and his wife Sally’s journey from her San Francisco youth as a fan and muse of rock groups like Jefferson Airplane, to settling in Israel. There will be sections on the U.S.-Israel alliance, media coverage of Israel, and the American Jewish community, where, he said, “the biggest challenge” in promoting support for Israel among younger Jews, “is apathy.”
If Oren’s book lives up to its promise as an insider’s critique of American Mideast policy during the Obama years, it will be worth the wait.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5) Barack Obama, Student of History?
Teaching history can be frustrating, but sometimes students actually figure stuff out and learn a thing or two, unlike some of our political leaders. For example, just the other day one of my students asked why there are no great empires anymore, and countries don’t go around conquering like they used to do. That’s a big question, without a certain answer, and some would say states a false premise. But it is also true that since the end of World War II the world has witnessed something unprecedented in the rest of world history, which is a benevolent nation as the world’s dominant power. Never in history was there a nation (particularly in the immediate aftermath of World War II when the U.S. held a nuclear monopoly) which like the United States, held an overwhelming military advantage against all comers, that chose not to aggrandize itself through domination of others and conquest. That restraint, and the immense military and economic power that lay behind it, also prevented other weaker nations from pursuing imperial ambitions.
I explained this to my students, and then proposed that this unique period of world history appears to be ending, thanks in part to the outlook and policies of the Obama administration. I gently discussed this with the class (mostly African-American) and asked if anyone could think of an example that backed my case. “Russia’s invasion of the Ukraine” somebody quickly proposed (teaching has a lot of intangible gratification.)
Russian imperial aggression in the Ukraine may be the best example of the resurgence of empire and conquest that is gripping the world today, in the wake of Obama’s orchestrated American retreat from its post-World War II role. But it is not the only one. China recently surpassed the United States in economic output (which was inevitable) but is also engaged in an unprecedented military buildup, is reasserting its traditional role as the “Middle Kingdom” in East Asia, and continues (as with Russia) to run circles around Obama’s policy initiatives (most recently the ridiculous climate-change negotiations.) And Persia (modern day Iran) seeks not only to establish regional hegemony, but to reassert imperial imperatives through a nuclear arsenal, and the defeat of ancient enemies, Arab, and Jews both.
But fear not. President Obama is a student of history. He said so in his famous Cairo address. There, after making this typically grandiose statement, he proceeded to demonstrate that, unlike my classroom questioner, he was not a very good student. Let’s just look at he learned about Islam, a subject of particular interest to him.
After bragging about his studiousness, Obama first broadly asserted “civilization’s” debt to Islam. As described by Obama, we owe Islam for “paving the way for Europe’s Renaissance and the Enlightenment.” The truth is that Islamic scholars helped preserve the works of Aristotle and other Western scholars for their own purposes. Arabic translations of these Western works ultimately reached medieval Europe. Of course, this occurred amidst centuries of bloody warfare between Islamic kingdoms and the West
Obama then credits “Muslim communities” with developing algebra. This is another specious claim, similar to Obama’s first general assertion. While it is true the word “algebra” originates in the Arabic, algebra did not originate in Islam. Its origins date back to Babylon, and run through China, Greece and India. Modern algebra is really an Indian innovation, which reached the Muslim world through conquest and trade, and ultimately made its way further west. Just as we erroneously refer to our number system as “Arabic” (the numbers we use are Hindi and originated in India) crediting algebra to Islam is a triumph of semantics over actual history.
Obama then credits Islam with inventing the magnetic compass and “tools of navigation.” Any of my students knows this is wrong, as these inventions originated in China (along with paper -- that also made its way west after an Islamic army captured Chinese paper-makers at the Battle of the Talus River in 751 C.E.) Same with Obama’s next claim, that “pens and printing” originated in the Islamic world. Wrong, these were Chinese inventions too.
Obama concludes this portion of his treatise by saying “Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.” I’m not sure what “demonstrating” “possibilities” means exactly, although one can cherry-pick the Quran to for peaceful and tolerant statements. But in practice, Islamic polities treated non-Muslims as second-class citizens if they were fellow monotheists, and much worse if they were not. As for racial equality, one only has to know that the trans-African slave trade began with Islamic states 700 years before the trans-Atlantic slave trade, and continued for decades after it was abolished in the West.
Obama goes on, magnifying his errors. Islam is an interesting and important world religion. But it is wrong to attribute false accomplishments to the Islamic world or excuse its excesses. Suffice it to say, that Islamic culture at its height between the 7th and 15th Centuries helped to both preserve and transfer knowledge and technology throughout the broad swath of dar al Islam, much of which ultimately reached the West, despite the efforts of many Islamic polities to conquer and destroy Western civilization.
It is worth noting one more passage: “For human history has often been a record of nations and tribes subjugating one another to serve their own interests. Yet in this new age such attitudes are self-defeating.”
In the Cairo speech, this was presented as a kind of apology for the West’s alleged transgressions against Islam. But it also essentially announced Obama’s new age world view, which continues bedevil American policy to this day. The president has oft repeated his view that leaders like Vladimir Putin are swimming against the tide of history, which serves as an excuse for inaction, or ineffective action.
Many people think that Obama has refused to release his college transcripts because his grades were poor (or at least not consistent with his supporters’ claims of genius.) I’m guessing it is less Obama’s grades, and more his choice of courses that is problematic. Evidence suggests that even good students leave college with less knowledge of history than on entrance. Perhaps this afflicted Obama. His understanding of both Islam and historical determinism suggests that a lot of his coursework was less than rigorous. With regard to the former, it’s the type of stuff you get in courses taught by advocates, and authors of popular histories, rather than scholars. The latter, a watered-down versions of Marx, Hegel, and the like, by professors who prefer to agitate, rather than actually teach doctrinaire historical determinism, which is really the only kind that makes any sense conceptually.
It is one thing to be weak in history, another believe ignorance is expertise. Likewise, one can strongly disagree with Marx or Hegel’s ideas and theories, but appreciate the discipline and hardheadedness of their approach. Obama spouts on about Islam and the course of history with regular abandon, as if wishful thinking will prettify ugly ideas and actions, and made bad guys disappear. He really seems to believe his own nonsense, at least in part because he lacks a firm grasp of history, and of the very doctrines he espouses. It’s almost like he’s still back in the dorm, working his way through a pot-fueled Choom Gang debate. And it’s there you probably have the education of Barack Obama.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6) Dems sick of ObamaCare
By A.B. Stoddard
Watching Jonathan Gruber testify before the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee on Tuesday was likely too much for most Democrats to take, as he characterized his remarks describing Congress as tricking Americans into approving a new tax as “thoughtless,” as well as “mean,” “glib,” “uncalled for” and “embarrassing.”
It’s the very definition of the door hitting them on the way out. Four years after the Affordable Care Act (ACA) was passed by only Democrats, the law has contributed to giving Republicans their strongest hold on Congress in more than half a century.
What’s even more frightening than the law’s unpopularity is the prospect of ObamaCare being dismantled by a coming Supreme Court review. Should the court rule that a suggestion by Gruber — an economics professor and healthcare expert credited with building not only the ACA but also the Massachusetts program said to have inspired the ACA— is true, the law will implode. Gruber has said in secretly videotaped comments that the intent was always to provide subsidies only to states operating their own exchanges, as an incentive for participation. That would make the subsidies now provided in 37 states with federal exchanges illegal.
The cumulative damage the Democratic Party has suffered, as well as the casualty rate — half of the 60 senators who supported the bill are since deceased, defeated or retired — has brought its leaders to an unhappy inflection and reflection point. Two years ago, President Obama was reelected to the surprise and delight of Democrats who believed that, not only would his unique coalition provide them with dominance in presidential cycles for the foreseeable future, but that perhaps the ACA backlash had passed. After losing their Senate majority and watching the GOP cement gains across federal offices, statehouses and regions Democrats might have lost for generations, however, buyer’s remorse on healthcare reform has led to angry division inside the party.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) now blames the debacle of the healthcare rollout for the GOP winning a 10-seat majority over Democrats last month. Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) came out in the days following the ghastly midterm election losses to declare Democrats hadn’t listened to the voters when they passed reform in 2010. “Americans were crying out for the end to the recession, for better wages and more jobs — not for changes in their healthcare,” Schumer said in a speech blasted by several high-profile Democrats.
Schumer’s catharsis was followed by comments from retiring Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa.), also instrumental in drafting the bill, who lamented how “complicated” it was and said a single-payer system would have been better.
This dread was anticipated by some before the bill was even passed. Back in August of 2009, as the economy continued to suffer despite the promises of “recovery and reinvestment” of the $831 billion stimulus, both Vice President Biden and White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel counseled against passing a large, comprehensive bill and advocated a more incremental approach because they worried the ambitious task was, as The New Republic described, “sucking the political life out of the presidency.”
But the dissenting view was rejected, the ACA passed, and it remains politically toxic nearly five years later.
Now Democrats hope a better website, more enrollees, some bipartisan fixes and a second affirmative Supreme Court decision can save the law before Hillary Clinton or another Democratic nominee has to finesse a position on it two years from now. If not, these four years are just the first in what could be decades before the Democratic Party is cured of its healthcare ills.
Stoddard is an associate editor of The Hill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment