+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
A response to Trump's Kurds and Whey matter!
This from long time friend and fellow memo reader: "Dick - if Trump loses, the seed for his ultimate demise will be traced not to the circus sideshow of impeachment, but will have its origin in this tragic decision (made impetuously without consultation in classic Trump style) to withdraw from NE Syria and cede the territory, initiative and strategic advantage to Iran and its proxies. R------"
And
Another: "So what were we going to do when Erdogan sent his troops into Syria to create a buffer for Turkey from Kurds coming into Turkey? Were US soldiers going to fight the Turks? I don't think so. Was there a really good chance that there were going to be US troop casualties? I think so. The point is that the rebels in Syria are clearly not going to be able to defeat the Syrian government. Are we going to have troops there forever? I don't think so. So what was the alternative to removing the US troops completely? I don't know of one.T--"
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Sherman fires at doves. (See 1 below.)
And: A defense without an offense is a menu for disaster. (See 1a below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I recently wrote about the latest biography on Gershwin. Here is another article about this musical genius. (See 2 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
MEMRI responds to Trump's proposed sanctions against Turkey. (See 3 below.)
And:
https://foreignpolicy.com/
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Out of kilter? (See 4 below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Trump rids Long Beach port from China control:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Is Finland finished? (See 5 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Adam Schiff continues to run a Gulag Committee. Everything is secret and that is not the American
Way. It does fit with sleezy Democrats who have decided Socialism is preferable. (See 6 below.)
And :
Was Trump blindsided by Erdogan?
:https://www.google.com/amp/s/
-mistake-thought-turkey-
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
And :
Was Trump blindsided by Erdogan?
:https://www.google.com/amp/s/
-mistake-thought-turkey-
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
A myriad of choices that swing right and left:
The Terrifying Madness of Dems' Impeachment Game MichaelGoodwin, NY Post
Trump, the Conspiracy Theory President Juan Williams, The Hill
We're In a Permanent Coup Matt Taibbi
Why I Support House Dems' Impeachment Inquiry Fareed Zakaria, Washington Post
How Giuliani's Bungling Gives Biden a New Punchline Marc Caputo, Politico
7 Questions Ahead of Next Democratic Primary Debate Domenico Montanaro, NPR
LGBTQ Town Hall Showcased Democratic Extremism Steve Cortes, RealClearPolitics
Should We Soak the Rich? You Bet We Should. Nicholas Kristof, New York Times
Why Price Transparency Can Revolutionize Health Care Tom Coburn, FOX Business
Why the 'Medicare for All' Tax Question Matters Bill Scher, RealClearPolitics
U.S.-China Trade Deal: What It Is, Is Not, and May Become Patrick Cronin, The Hill
Stop Scapegoating Christopher Columbus Sirey & Vivolo, New York Post
Columbus Day Is the Outgrowth of a Whitewashed History Kevin Gover, USA Today
Dreaming of a U.S. Where Solutions Trump Ideology Joel Kotkin, New Geography
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The more I read of O'Reilly's "Trump" book the more interesting it becomes because O'Reilly
writes well and obviously has a relationship established over many years and his insights are
worthy.
I found Chapter 8,most interesting because the author discusses circumstances that made
Trump desirous of not only being wealthy but also being a powerful Manhattan (affluent part)
player whose reputation (brand) rivaled Joe Namath's (Broadway Joe.) We also gained insight
into the relationship Trump had with his father and the tension between them because of
their personality, styles, values and aspirations. We further learn about Trump the father and
what philosophical advice he imparted to his kids and how his own relationships with non-
family people evolved.
Trump revered his older brother Fred who died, at 42, from alcohol and drug abuse and how he
saw how Fred taken advantage of by others and this helped caused Trump to keep his guard
up and he admits to being un-trusting because people are out for themselves. No one can.
be a real estate tycoon in New York with out experiencing events that can make them
cynical and untrustworthy.
Trump is also, basically, a loner and has few truly close friends. He also lives within himself
according to Reilly, does not rest easy, can be gregarious but seldom revealing. Reilly reveals a
conversation with Trump's older son who was asked by is father whether he trusted him and the
son said of course, you are my father. Trump replied: 'wrong you cannot trust.'
The author then turns to Trump as president and how politics and New York and D.C social life
have impacted Trump's innate cynicism. Today Trump believes everyone he meets must be
viewed through a prism of how they can effect him. (Little wonder he is sensitive to all the
fake news reporting.) A distrustful attitude frequently goes with the territory of many egocentric
and successful people.
Neither is Trump good at hiding his moods and this impacts working with his staff. Additionally,
Trump failed to understand social acceptability differed in D.C and New York. In New York one's
check book and ability to out hustle the competitor are social marks by which you are graded
whereas, in D.C. you must out-ingratiate the competiton to gain acceptance according to
O'Reilly. Consequently, the Trump's remain D.C outsiders as were the Nixon's, Clinton's and
Carter's. (Pat and the cloth coat thing.)
Trump feels most comfortable among the "deplorables" who he deems are the real working
people and, interestingly, see Trump as genuine.
Obviously Trump's extraordinary and quick success and many marriages had an effect on his
kids and that is where I now am - about a third through.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dick
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1)INTO THE FRAY: Dopey doves
By Martin Sherman
The more I read of O'Reilly's "Trump" book the more interesting it becomes because O'Reilly
writes well and obviously has a relationship established over many years and his insights are
worthy.
I found Chapter 8,most interesting because the author discusses circumstances that made
Trump desirous of not only being wealthy but also being a powerful Manhattan (affluent part)
player whose reputation (brand) rivaled Joe Namath's (Broadway Joe.) We also gained insight
into the relationship Trump had with his father and the tension between them because of
their personality, styles, values and aspirations. We further learn about Trump the father and
what philosophical advice he imparted to his kids and how his own relationships with non-
family people evolved.
Trump revered his older brother Fred who died, at 42, from alcohol and drug abuse and how he
saw how Fred taken advantage of by others and this helped caused Trump to keep his guard
up and he admits to being un-trusting because people are out for themselves. No one can.
be a real estate tycoon in New York with out experiencing events that can make them
cynical and untrustworthy.
Trump is also, basically, a loner and has few truly close friends. He also lives within himself
according to Reilly, does not rest easy, can be gregarious but seldom revealing. Reilly reveals a
conversation with Trump's older son who was asked by is father whether he trusted him and the
son said of course, you are my father. Trump replied: 'wrong you cannot trust.'
The author then turns to Trump as president and how politics and New York and D.C social life
have impacted Trump's innate cynicism. Today Trump believes everyone he meets must be
viewed through a prism of how they can effect him. (Little wonder he is sensitive to all the
fake news reporting.) A distrustful attitude frequently goes with the territory of many egocentric
and successful people.
Neither is Trump good at hiding his moods and this impacts working with his staff. Additionally,
Trump failed to understand social acceptability differed in D.C and New York. In New York one's
check book and ability to out hustle the competitor are social marks by which you are graded
whereas, in D.C. you must out-ingratiate the competiton to gain acceptance according to
O'Reilly. Consequently, the Trump's remain D.C outsiders as were the Nixon's, Clinton's and
Carter's. (Pat and the cloth coat thing.)
Trump feels most comfortable among the "deplorables" who he deems are the real working
people and, interestingly, see Trump as genuine.
Obviously Trump's extraordinary and quick success and many marriages had an effect on his
kids and that is where I now am - about a third through.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dick
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1)INTO THE FRAY: Dopey doves
By Martin Sherman
“Until 1967, Israel did not hold an inch of the Sinai Peninsula, West Bank, Gaza Strip or Golan Heights…Year after year Israel called for …peace. The answer was a blank refusal and more war”-Yitzhak Rabin, 1976
The most righteous of men cannot live in peace if his evil neighbor will not let him be– from Wilhelm Tell Act IV, scene III, by Friedrich von Schiller, 1804.
It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions in favor of vegetarianism, while the wolf remains of a different opinion. – R. Inge, Dean of St. Paul’s Cathedral, 1915.
He who comes to kill you, rise up early and kill him first – The Talmud
The Oslo process that resulted in the signature of the “Declaration of Principles” on the White House Lawns on September 13, 1993, was in many ways a point of singularity in the history of Zionism, after which everything was qualitatively different from that which it was before. It was a point of inflection in the time-line of the evolution of Jewish political independence, at which what were once vaunted values became vilified vices.
Metamorphosis: From deterrence to appeasement?
Thus, almost at a stroke, Jewish settlement and attachment to land, once the essence of the Zionist ethos, were branded as the epitome of egregious extremism. Jewish military might, once exalted as a symbol of national resurgence and self-reliance, was excoriated as the instrument of repression and subjugation.
This metamorphosis is decidedly perplexing. After all, even by the early1990s, Zionism had proved to be one of the most successful—arguably, the most successful—movement of national liberation that arose from the dissolution of the great Empires—providing political independence, economic prosperity and personal liberties to a degree unrivalled by other such movements.
Moreover, despite the manifest justice on which it was founded, Zionism was always territorial and only prevailed, progressed and prospered because it was reinforced by force of arms. Without either of these two components—the land and the sword—it would be no more than an historical footnote today.
The staggering metamorphosis that took place in the Israeli leadership’s approach was aptly described by Daniel Pipes, who—almost two decades ago—wrote:
“the policy of deterrence dominated Israeli thinking during the country’s first 45 years, 1948-93, and it worked well…. Eventually, Israelis became impatient for a quicker and more active approach…That impatience brought on the Oslo accords in 1993, in which Israelis initiated more creative and active steps to end the conflict. So totally did deterrence disappear from the Israeli vocabulary, it is today not even considered when policy options are discussed.”
“…Historians will be baffled…”
Presciently, he summed up the consequences of this ill-advised change:
“In retrospect, the 1990s will be seen as Israel’s lost decade, the time when the fruits of earlier years were squandered, when the country’s security regressed. The history books will portray Israel at this time, like Britain and France in the 1930s, as a place under the sway of illusion, where dreams of avoiding war in fact sowed the seeds of the next conflict.”
His dour prediction was starkly borne out.
Indeed, since then Israel has been compelled to wage four major military campaigns to quell Palestinian-Arab carnage against its citizens and its cities—one in Judea-Samaria, Operation Defensive Shield (2002); Operations Cast Lead (2008-9), Pillar of Defense (2012) and Protective Edge (2014) in Gaza—with a fourth round of fighting in Gaza widely considered only a matter of time.
Pipes’s caveat is eerily reminiscent of Winston Churchill’s stern address to the House of Commons barely a year before the outbreak of World War II:
“…historians a thousand years hence will still be baffled by the mystery of our affairs. They will never understand how it was that a victorious nation, with everything in hand, suffered themselves to be brought low, and to cast away all that they had gained by measureless sacrifice and absolute victory….”
It is difficult not to see much of the same pattern reflected in Israel’s behavior after its sweeping victory in the 1967 Six Day War. For it has frittered away nearly all the fruits of that great triumph.
How terrorist nuisances evolved into strategic threats
It relinquished the vast expanses of the Sinai Peninsula for a grudging peace agreement with Egypt—which resembles an uneasy state of non-belligerence far more than harmonious set of relationships between the two signatories. The one major achievement of the agreement—the demilitarization of Sinai—is being eroded away, even without Israeli consent, as Cairo bolsters its military presence on the peninsula in a (less than successful) effort to deal with sustained and stubborn Jihadi insurgency. Concern over this is two-fold. Firstly, this could permanently undermine the demilitarization of the Sinai—especially if a more inimical regime than the present Sisi one is (re)installed in Cairo. Secondly, it is an open question whether the Egyptian military will have the resolve and the resources in the long run to impose law and order in Sinai, and much of its weaponry will fall into the hands of the Jihadi militants it is meant to subdue—as has happened in the past on a thankfully small scale.
In Gaza, the dovish doctrine of political appeasement and territorial withdrawal lead to the razing of Jewish communities, the uninterment of Jewish graves and the desecration and destruction of Jewish places of worship. With the IDF gone, the extremist Hamas ejected the somewhat less extreme Fatah and exploited the freedom of action the evacuation provided it to transform itself from being a terrorist nuisance into a quasi-strategic threat.
On Israel’s northern front, territorial retreat (or rather flight) from South Lebanon and the dishonorable desertion of local allies there, abandoned the area to the Islamist Hezbollah, who amassed a formidable arsenal, bristling with rockets and missiles, trained on Israel’s population centers and strategic installations. Here again, the concept of concessions allowed—indeed, induced—a terrorist nuisance to evolve into a genuine strategic threat.
“Destroying peace; promoting violence…”
On Israel’s eastern flank, Oslowian concessions allowed armed militia to deploy within mortar range of the nation’s parliament, the Prime Minister’s office and the Supreme Court; and gave the Palestinian-Arab terror groups free access to military grade explosives and automatic weapons that brought tragedy and trauma to Israel’s streets, sidewalks and shopping malls. In trying to coax the Palestinian-Arabs into an agreed resolution of conflict, Israel made perilous, gut-wrenching concessions and in return, received not only waves of gory terror, but a flood of Judeophobic indoctrination and Judeocidal incitement from the official Palestinian Authority (PA) media and education system.
Indeed, recently, the PA changed the content of schoolbooks used from “first grade through[out] high school”, in which virtually any reference to peace, the peace process and any agreement concluded with Israel has been erased. Likewise, removed from the new curriculum was any information, previously taught to Palestinian pupils, relating to ancient Jewish history in “Palestine” and the Jewish presence and connection to Jerusalem.
, according to Marcus Sheff, CEO of IMPACT-se (the Institute for Monitoring Peace and Cultural Tolerance in School Education) that conducted the study of the new Palestinian school books: “The new curriculum destroys any possibility for peace with Israel, enhances and promotes violence and hatred more than ever.”
“I trust Obama to get a good deal.”
Further afield, the application of concession rather than coercion continued to bear bitter fruits for Israel. Instead of being brought to its knees by the Obama administration in 2015, the tyrannical theocracy in Tehran was given much needed relief that allowed it to continue its mischief far and wide, sowing murder and mayhem across the Middle East.
By the terms of the scandalous JCPOA signed between Iran and the P5+1 nations, the “Islamic Republic” was given free rein to promote terror and enhance its military power (especially its missile capabilities) with relative impunity and considerably more cash.
True, the decision regarding the Iranian deal was not an Israeli one, but domestic rivals of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu strongly criticized his rigorous opposition to the Obama approach to Iran and its nuclear ambitions, and chastised him for publicly clashing with the US president—this despite the fact “…that Netanyahu [had] tried to impact the president’s stance in years of one-on-one conversations and in the endless top-level contacts between his officials and the Obama administration…indicated that private argument and entreaty…failed.”
Indeed, during the high profile 2015 Saban Forum, just months before the conclusion of the Iran nuclear accord, then-head of the opposition, the dovish Isaac Herzog, declared: “I trust the Obama administration to get a good deal.” Just how unfounded that trust proved to be is now a matter of historical record.
There, of course, can be little doubt that domestic division in Israel on the Iranian issue, or at least on the approach to it, helped accentuate the bipartisan rift in the US and facilitated the Democratic majority that approved the deal.
Today, almost five years and billions of dollars later, Iran’s recent attack on Saudi oil installations has demonstrated how it has upgraded its prowess, leaving Israel to confront a new and deadly menace, within the appalling parameters of the JCPOA!
Imagine the dread
But not only have continued concessions, withdrawal and retreat precipitated continued conflict and violence, but the converse seems true as well.
Indeed, one can only shudder with dread at the thought of the perilous predicament the country would be facing, had it heeded the call from the allegedly “enlightened and progressive” voices, who – right up until the gory events of the Syrian civil war that erupted in 2011—hailed the British trained doctor, Bashar al-Assad, as a moderate reformer, with whom a durable peace deal could be cut – if only an intransigent Israel would yield the Golan to his regime.
For, as ominous as the current Iranian military deployment in Syria is, it might well have been far more menacing. After all, the fact that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard is not perched on the Golan Heights, overlooking the Sea of Galilee, is solely because Israel did not fall prey to the seductive temptation of the land-for-peace formula, as urged by many, in both the international community and in its own security establishment—and did not cede the strategic plateau that commands the approaches to the entire north of the country.
The lessons of what transpired when Israel made concessions and when it did not, when it favored diplomacy and when it relied on deterrence, are lessons Israel can ill afford to ignore.
Real reasons & recalcitrant realities
Yet despite decades of proven failure, Israel’s doves still cling doggedly to their fatally flawed dogma, insisting if only Israel would make additional concessions, a new epoch of Judeo-Arab peace and prosperity would dawn.
Thus, impervious to reality and oblivious to reason, they refuse to acknowledge error, no matter how blatant. Undeterred by catastrophe, unmoved by disaster, they persist in urging Israel toward ever greater perils.
Just how different things once were, before the doves began to dominate the discourse, is starkly underscored by an address by Yitzhak Rabin before a joint session of the US Congress (28 January 1976).
In it, he pointed out that, “Until 1967, Israel did not hold an inch of the Sinai Peninsula and the West Bank, the Gaza Strip or the Golan Heights. Israel held not an acre of what is now considered disputed territory. And yet we enjoyed no peace. Year after year Israel called for – pleaded for – a negotiated peace with the Arab governments. Their answer was a blank refusal and more war.”
He then went on to identify the causes of conflict: “The reason was not a conflict over territorial claims. The reason was, and remains, the fact that a Free Jewish State sits on territory at all.”
Although Rabin later diverged from his diagnosis, the subsequent chain of death and destruction proved its validity. The real reason for the conflict is “the fact that a Free Jewish State sits on [any] territory at all!
The unpalatable, but unavoidable, conclusion, for doves and hawks alike, that arises from this is that: The maximum Israel can hope for is to be grudging accepted. The minimum it must strive for is to greatly be feared. Its very survival depends on it.
Martin Sherman is the founder & executive director of the Israel Institute for Strategic Studies
1a)
1a)
| Weekly Commentary: Defense Without Offense Recipe For Disaster |
| Weekly Commentary: Defense Without Offense Recipe For Disaster Dr. Aaron Lerner 6 October, 2019 Iran's strike against Saudi targets was certainly stunning. And as is unfortunately typical, this is yet another case that the military apparently was only able to appreciate what an enemy could do with a collection of technology they were known to posses AFTER the enemy DEMONSTRATED what it could do. I daresay that the apparently one-dimensional response to this development reflects this. I term the response one-dimensional because we are apparently going to pour billions of dollars into detecting and intercepting the equipment that was employed in the attack against the Saudis without any significant investment in upgrading our ability to carry out offensive operations to address the threat that the Jewish State faces. This is pretty much what happened with Iron Dome. It could have been used to reduce our exposure to attack as we carried out operations decimating our enemy's offensive capabilities but instead Iron Dome has acted as a crutch to enable us to indefinitely postpone addressing ever growing security threats. Suffice it to say that even in an ideal world, a detection/interception system can only intercept as many incoming platforms as it has interceptors. And in the case of enemy platforms that feature guidance systems every incoming platform must be intercepted. So a one-dimensional detection/interception response would be doomed to failure. Let's not forget: we are talking about platforms that are delivering conventional warheads. The damage that x kilograms of explosives delivered by these particular precision guided Iranian platforms can also be caused by an equal quantity of explosives delivered by other precision guided platforms launched from Lebanon or even the Gaza Strip. Yes. We need to invest heavily today in upgrading the IDF. But a holistic approach is crucial. |
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2) Porgy and Bess: George Gershwin's Masterpiece
They don't appear too often, musical geniuses, and when they do, they sometimes die too young. Of these immortals, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart died at 35, and George Gershwin, originally named Jacob Gershowitz, born of Jewish Ukrainian and Lithuanian parents, in Brooklyn in 1898, died in Los Angeles of a brain tumor at 38.
His first hit was "Swanee," lyrics by Irving Caesar, composed in 1919 and made into a major hit by Al Jolson's recording. Among later well known ballads are "Fascinating Rhythm," "Lady Be Good," "Embraceable You," "I Got Rhythm," "The Man I Love," "A Foggy Day in London Town," "Someone to Watch over Me," and "Our Love Is Here to Stay." He was nominated posthumously in 1937 at the Oscar Academy Awards for his song "They Can't Take That Away from Me," but the award for best original song went to "Sweet Lelani," a ballad made well known by Bing Crosby.
Turkish President Erdoğan with Qatari Tamim Al-Thani (Source: atimes.com)
2) Porgy and Bess: George Gershwin's Masterpiece
They don't appear too often, musical geniuses, and when they do, they sometimes die too young. Of these immortals, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart died at 35, and George Gershwin, originally named Jacob Gershowitz, born of Jewish Ukrainian and Lithuanian parents, in Brooklyn in 1898, died in Los Angeles of a brain tumor at 38.
Mozart began composing at age 5, composed over 600 works, symphonic, concertante, chamber, operatic, and choral. His friend Joseph Haydn said of him, "Posterity will not see such a talent again in 100 years." Haydn was almost exactly right. Gershwin, who began playing piano at 10, and left school at 15 and became a song-plugger in Tin Pan Alley, began composing at 17, a song that earned him 50 cents, and wrote popular, jazz, and classical music, combining highbrow and lowbrow sensibilities.
Mozart died while writing his Requiem. Gershwin died just after he finished his masterpiece Porgy and Bess, now performed in a new production by the New York Metropolitan Opera.
Gershwin's first piano teacher referred to him as a genius, and history has concurred. From his early years he was a virtuoso pianist, producing hundreds of piano rolls.
Gershwin was a dominant figure in the pantheon of the composers of popular songs and jazz standards, making up the Great American Songbook from the 1920s to the 1950s, who ranged from Irving Berlin to Cole Porter. Gershwin composed, mostly with lyrics by his older brother Ira, a considerable number of songs for Broadway musicals and Hollywood films, now regarded as standards. It is worth mentioning a few, since many have become part of American culture.
His first hit was "Swanee," lyrics by Irving Caesar, composed in 1919 and made into a major hit by Al Jolson's recording. Among later well known ballads are "Fascinating Rhythm," "Lady Be Good," "Embraceable You," "I Got Rhythm," "The Man I Love," "A Foggy Day in London Town," "Someone to Watch over Me," and "Our Love Is Here to Stay." He was nominated posthumously in 1937 at the Oscar Academy Awards for his song "They Can't Take That Away from Me," but the award for best original song went to "Sweet Lelani," a ballad made well known by Bing Crosby.
Gershwin was different from the other composers of the Songbook — Jerome Kern, Rodgers and Hart, Harold Arlen, Irving Berlin, and Cole Porter — in his ambition to write classical music and operas. He was the bridge between classical and popular music. In 1922 he wrote a one-act opera, Blue Monday, a short piece of about 20–30 minutes, regarded as the first piece of symphonic jazz, an attempt to combine popular music with classical music, and one influenced by the black American culture of Harlem. Like his later famous opera, Blue Monday was composed of African-American characters, but unlike Porgy and Bess, it was performed by white singers in blackface and linked to the production of George White's 1922 Scandals.
Eager to master classical music, Gershwin went to Paris to study with well known composers Nadia Boulanger and Maurice Ravel but was rejected by both of them, on the grounds that his classical study would ruin his jazz-influenced style. Ravel posed the question, "Why become a second-rate Ravel when you're already a first-rate Gershwin?"
The first-rate classical Gershwin emerged in the Rhapsody in Blue, a 20-minute piece commissioned by the orchestra leader Paul Whiteman and first played in New York on February 12, 1924 with George at the piano. As a result of its success, Gershwin at 25 was now regarded as a serious composer. His classical contributions continued with his Concerto in F, a work of three movements in 1925; the Second Rhapsody, a piano and choral work in 1931; and the Cuban Overture in 1932, which, as he explained, "combined the Cuban rhythms with my own thematic material. It is a symphonic overture which embodies the essence of the Cuban dance." In 1928 George had composed An American in Paris, an orchestral piece influenced by the time he spent in Paris. The ingenious score uses a full orchestra plus a celesta, saxophones, and four Parisian taxi horns, each played in a specific key.
Gershwin was familiar with black music, especially that of Eubie Blake and black American culture. He was attracted by the novel, Porgy, written by Edward DuBose Heyward, a native of Charleston, South Carolina, in 1925 and adapted as a play two years later. With Heyward as the librettist, Gershwin decided to compose a "folk opera" about the inhabitants, a variety of poor blacks living in Catfish Row, Charleston. The result was Porgy and Bess, a work difficult to characterize in simple fashion, with its varying aspects of Broadway musicals, blues, minor Jewish chords and liturgical music, black church passages, spirituals, street cries, splicing actions and rhythms, traditional arias and recitatives, jazz fugues, syncopated wind chords, and popular songs that have endured on their own. A clarinet motif introduces the beautiful and moving song Summertime.
Porgy is a remarkable work, a landmark of American culture, dealing sympathetically with the vivid characters and the deprivation of their lives. The abused Bess, the gambler Sporting Life, the crippled beggar Porgy, become figures of pathos, and the life of Catfish Row is honestly depicted with its poverty, drug addiction, racial tension, passion, and violence. It is an opera, written not for a black audience, but for the whole society. It is more than an anthology of Gershwin songs. Stephen Sondheim held that Porgy had the finest set of lyrics in the history of the American musical theater.
Critics have argued that the opera deals with stereotyped black culture or with contradictory cultural symbols, but though it does deal with violence and drug-dealing, it is not detrimental to black culture, and blacks are portrayed seriously and without malice.
Porgy and Bess is the most important 20th-century American opera, full of remarkable music for a humble setting. It was honored in 1993 by a U.S. commemorative postage stamp. It is an extraordinary combination of the narrative voice and the dialect of Catfish Row.
Gershwin's score is remarkable because the music is so closely related to the characters and events. It is a mixture of orchestral devices, syncopation, and solo piano and chorus. Songs convey wickedness, others heroic pathos, others opera arias tinged with the blues.
It was always controversial. Duke Ellington is said to have initially been critical of Gershwin's "lampblack negroisms" but later repudiated his comment. Certainly, a more potent criticism has been that the characters in the opera might be seen as promoting stereotypes of a black community in poverty and drug-taking.
At first, well known black performers, actors, and singers, including Harry Belafonte, refused to play Porgy. Yet Gershwin always insisted that only blacks should sing in the opera. He rejected Al Jolson's request to perform in blackface.
To some extent, the controversy lingers: did Porgy do justice to blacks, or was it only a minstrel show? Was it too black or too white? Yet this criticism is unjustified. It is true that Gershwin had written Blue Monday in 1922 about blacks but with all white singers performing in blackface, but he insisted that only black singers should perform in Porgy.
Porgy and Bess is a masterpiece of American culture. Gershwin created a new form, combining opera with theater. As he himself explained in 1935, Porgy and Bess "dealt with Negro life in America and brings to the operatic form elements that have never before appeared in the opera, and I have adapted my methods to utilize the drama, the humor, the superstition, the religious fervor, the dancing and the irrepressible high spirits of the race."
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++3)
Dear Mr. President: You Are Unable To Destroy The Turkish Economy, As You Warned – Because Your Bogus Ally Qatar Will Save Turkey Yet Again From Your Sanctions
"As I have stated strongly before, and just to reiterate, if Turkey does anything that I, in my great and unmatched wisdom, consider to be off limits, I will totally destroy and obliterate the Economy of Turkey (I’ve done before!)..."
-President Donald Trump, October 7, 2019[1]
In view of President Trump's warning to Turkey that if it "does anything" that he "consider[s] to be off limits" he will "totally destroy and obliterate the Economy of Turkey," it is worth considering the analysis below which explains why the president is, in fact, unable to do this.
The following is the analysis published by MEMRI on January 15, 2019,[2] at the time of the previous U.S.-Turkey crisis:
There have been inexplicable phenomena in the Middle East for some years now. Any attempt to explain them logically comes up against a dead end, and gives way to conspiracy theories. How can one logically explain both Israel's and the U.S.'s prostration to Qatar? Theories range from the conspiratorial, such as Qatari infiltration of the two governments, to the seemingly implausible assumption that these governments and their agencies are simply naïfs, fools, and ignoramuses (pick one or more).
Let us list some examples: The U.S. is the only country that surpasses Israel in groveling to Qatar, despite the latter's unending anti-U.S. incitement, particularly against the current U.S. administration. As far as the Al-Jazeera TV channel, owned by the Qatari emir, is concerned, the Democrats are the only legitimate party in the U.S., and the few Republicans worthy of coverage are Sen. Rand Paul – presented as a political heavyweight – and former senator Bob Corker, whose decision to not seek reelection in 2018 was concealed from the viewers as if it were a trifle.
For years, the U.S. has felt indebted to Qatar for hosting the Al-Udeid airbase and CENTCOM headquarters. Pentagon chiefs and American political leaders come and go, and no one remembers that it is Qatar that is indebted to the U.S. for maintaining the base. Qatar originally built it, at a cost of $2 billion, to guarantee an American presence there, since without this presence the Qatari regime would have been devoured long ago. Today, faced with the threat of a Saudi or Emirati offer to the U.S. outdoing Qatar, Qatar is buying Pentagon goodwill by building an entire city to host the American servicemen's dependents, and is expanding Al-Udeid. But this deal, that assures Qatar's survival, has exacted a heavy price from the U.S. American fighter bombers are engaged in the Sisyphean task of setting out from Al-Udeid to strike at Islamic terrorists who were nurtured by Qatari propaganda – propaganda that cultivates a new crop of jihadis for the Americans to bomb – and the cycle continues.
Qatari TV lavished favorable coverage on Iran and Turkey, even though the former is a declared political target of U.S. policy, and the latter, under President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, relentlessly spreads propaganda demonizing the U.S. and painting it as a sworn enemy. But no one has told U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo about this. On his current Middle East trip, Pompeo hailed Qatar as a "great friend."[3] He insisted on promoting a self-defeating policy of Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) unity – including Qatar – against Iran, while Qatar's regime-owned TV channel works ceaselessly to bring down the regimes of other GCC countries such as Saudi Arabia and the UAE. So what unity is Secretary Pompeo talking about, and how can he consider Qatar an ally? While he attempts to cobble together an anti-Iran front to curb Iran's expansion, his "great friend" Qatar insists that "Iran, just like any other country, has legitimate interests" in Syria, as long as it does not disregard the interests of the Syrian people.[4] Interestingly, the "great friend's" Al-Jazeera TV has signed a cooperation agreement with the official Iranian news agency IRNA – whose managing director, Mohammad Khoddadi, visited Doha this summer, at the invitation of the Qatar Human Rights Committee, for a freedom of speech conference at which the major human rights violator Iran took a star turn.[5]
Moreover, U.S. President Trump wants to deter Turkey from striking the Kurds, and is warning them that he will destroy their economy. Erdogan phoned him, in an attempt to placate him, – but should push come to shove, President Trump will find that he is unable bring Erdogan to heel. This is because the bogus U.S. ally Qatar will save Turkey yet again from Trump's sanctions, much as it did in 2018 when it tossed Erdogan an $18 billion lifeline, stopping the plunge of the Turkish lira, assuring Erdogan of funds to disburse in advance of the local elections, and prolonging the suffering of the captive Pastor Brunson. Another problem that Trump and Pompeo ignoring the Doha-Ankara military pact, under which Turkey may build bases in Qatar and may freely use Qatar's airspace. Since the pact gives Turkey the right to operate freely in Qatari airspace, the freedom of the U.S. Air Force at Al-Udeid will be limited. But is this the behavior of a "great friend" who depends on the U.S. for its very survival?
Turkish President Erdoğan with Qatari Tamim Al-Thani (Source: atimes.com)
Qatar's support for terrorism as it feigns opposition to it has been a fundamental element of Qatar's political conduct since the Al-Thani clan took power in Qatar. MEMRI has exposed this duplicity in numerous reports. The following are just a few examples: In a live broadcast in November 2014, Al-Jazeera TV allowed Islamic scholar Hussein Muhammad Hussein to pledge allegiance to ISIS leader Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi (Islamic Scholar Pledges Allegiance to ISIS Emir Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi Live on Al-Jazeera TV). A decade earlier, Al-Jazeera allowed the Iran-affiliated terrorist operative Anis Al-Naqqash to call for attacks on U.S. oil facilities, also live (Terrorist Anis Al-Naqqash Calls on Al-Jazeera TV for Strikes against U.S. Oil Facilities).
In September 2017, Oman deported Indian cleric and ISIS supporter Salman Al-Nadwi for inciting against U.S. President Trump and Saudi King Salman, and Qatar took him in. The next morning, he met in Qatar with the antisemitic, anti-U.S. Muslim Brotherhood (MB) ideologue Sheikh Yousuf Al-Qaradawi, who has long enjoyed safe haven there, along with the freedom to spread his venom across the Muslim world on Al-Jazeera (see Oman Deports Indian Cleric Salman Al-Nadwi to Qatar after He Lambasted Saudi King and U.S. President; see also In Letter, Leading Indian Islamic Scholar Maulana Salman Al-Nadwi Congratulates Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi On Assuming Role Of Caliph: "You Are Bravely Standing As A Rock").
Two months before 9/11, Al-Jazeera aired a program lionizing Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda[6] (Terror in America (30) Retrospective: A bin Laden Special on Al-Jazeera Two Months Before 9/11) a call-in from a supposedly random member of the audience who was actually Al-Qaeda spokesman Suleiman Abu-Gheit making a recruiting pitch . Years later, in 2014, Al-Jazeera published a lengthy and sympathetic interview with Abu Muhammad Al-Joulani, commander of Jabhat Al-Nusra, the Al-Qaeda affiliate in Syria (see In Wide-Ranging Interview, Jabhat Al-Nusra Commander Al-Joulani Discusses Jihad in Syria, Declares: Our Conflict with ISIS Has Been Resolved). The list goes on and on (see Qatar, The Emirate That Fools Them All, And Its Enablers).
The U.S. prostration to Qatar was understandable, though unwarranted, during the tenure of U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, since he was known as Qatar's man. Reportedly, during his time as CEO of Exxon-Mobil, he promoted the Qatari LNG project that transformed the Lilliputian Qatar into the gas Gulliver that it is today. But now that he has been replaced by Secretary Pompeo, the continuation of this pro-Doha policy is as inexplicable as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's courtship of Qatar.
Israel's collusion with Qatar allows the latter to circumvent U.S. law prohibiting bank transfers to Hamas – a designated terrorist organization according to both the U.S. and Israel – by sending cash in suitcases to Gaza. Israeli representatives justify this by insisting that Israel determines the recipients of these funds, and that Qatar is abiding by these Israeli instructions. But this is beyond pathetic. Gaza in its entirety is in the iron grip of Hamas, and Qatar's cash shipments can go only to recipients designated by Hamas – and, indirectly, to Hamas itself.[7] Just a few days ago, on January 11, 2019, Hamas offered $1 million to anyone who could reveal the identity of the Israeli soldiers who participated in the abortive November 2018 operation south of Gaza City. Where is this $1 million coming from? The Netanyahu government's naiveté surpasses even the gullibility of the Labor government that preceded it – that trusted Yasser Arafat. Today, even Israel's political center acknowledges that Arafat was fooling Israel from day one.
Furthermore, the Israeli government allows Qatari diplomat Muhammad Al-Imadi to move freely between Israel and Gaza, with no demand for diplomatic reciprocity – even though there was once an Israeli delegation in Doha that was shut down by the Qataris. Israel not only permits Al-Jazeera to operate in both Israel and the West Bank – it grants it special privileges, such as entry to Israeli army bases and interviews with army commanders, again with no demand for reciprocity. And all this goes on while Al-Jazeera, the Qatari propaganda channel, continues its unrelenting incitement and demonization of Israel and spews venom about U.S. attempts to reconcile between Israel and the Gulf states.[8]
It is inconceivable that in the fight against antisemitism, Israel itself is showing favoritism to an emirate, and a TV channel, that has given safe haven to, and showcased, one of the MB's most notorious spiritual leaders, who called the Holocaust divine punishment for the Jews and added, "Allah willing, the next time will be at the hands of the believers" – i.e. the Muslims (Sheikh Yousuf Al-Qaradhawi: Allah Imposed Hitler upon the Jews to Punish Them - "Allah Willing, the Next Time Will Be at the Hand of the Believers").
This phenomenon of illogical actions on the part of both the U.S. and Israel vis-à-vis Qatar is bound to give rise to theories based on Qatar's reputation as a country that can buy anyone or anything – including, reportedly, FIFA.[9] It is noteworthy that Qatar has pledged to invest $45 billion in the U.S. over the next two years.[10] Could this be inducing the U.S. to ignore its own strategic interests?
Whether out of ignorance or venality, the U.S.'s clinging to Qatar despite its anti-U.S. actions dooms the Trump administration's Middle East policy – just as the Obama administration's Iran fixation doomed its Middle East policy. Likewise, Netanyahu will discover what is clear as day to everyone else – that that his enabling of Qatar's support for Hamas will backfire in the next Gaza war, at the cost of many Israeli lives.
*Yigal Carmon is President of MEMRI.
[1] Twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1181232249821388801, October 7, 2019.
[3] The New Arab, January 13, 2019.
[4] Interfax.com, January 5, 2019.
[5] IRNA, July 25, 2018.
[6] The Qatari claim that this was simply professional journalism CNN-style is devoid of truth. There is a critical difference between concise Western media coverage of bin Laden's speeches for Western audiences and Qatar's showcasing of bin Laden's videos that were aimed at winning Muslim support for Al-Qaeda and at promoting jihad.
[7] Israel peddles the line that its support for Hamas is a Machiavellian stroke aimed at reinforcing the schism between Gaza and the Palestinian Authority, thereby indirectly preventing an agreement involving Israeli withdrawals. This argument merely shows that the Likud government has, like its predecessors, failed to realize that no agreement is possible because the Palestinians are unwilling to renounce the right of Palestinian return that is rejected even by the Israeli left. Thus, the schism will remain without Israeli intervention.
[8] Israeli government representatives' argument that Israel is using Al-Jazeera as a conduit for Israeli messages and thus serve Israel's interests is nonsensical. The final product show that Al-Jazeera is taking advantage of this privilege to produce yet another anti-Israel, specifically anti-Netanyahu, propaganda piece.
[9] Theguardian.com/football/2017/nov/14/fifa-bribery-corruption-trial-qatar-2022-world-cup , November 14, 2017.
[10] Alaraby.co.uk, January 13, 2019. Also according to this source, the Qatari sovereign wealth fund has purchased major stakes in Deutsche Bank, Credit Suisse, the London Stock Exchange, and Volkswagen.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
4) In his Summa Theologiae, medieval theologian Thomas Aquinas called lust a “special kind of deformity”:
4) In his Summa Theologiae, medieval theologian Thomas Aquinas called lust a “special kind of deformity”:
This may occur in two ways: First, through being contrary to right reason, and this is common to all lustful vices; secondly, because, in addition, it is contrary to the natural order... as becoming to the human race: and this is called "the unnatural vice."
While Aquinas was talking about a different form of lust, we can easily transfer his words to today’s economic picture.
Negative interest rates, stock buybacks to raise valuations, and the idea of printing limitless amounts of money out of thin air... it’s hard to argue the fact that these run contrary to reason and that they violate the natural order.
A recent Deutsche Bank analysis shows that the major global economies now have an average government debt of more than 70% of GDP. This is the highest peacetime level in the past 150 years.
It should be quite obvious that this is unsustainable. That doesn’t seem to deter economists and bankers from trying to sustain it anyway—this time not with monetary tools, but with fiscal policy strategies like helicopter money, debt monetization, MMT, and worse.
All of these essentially say that government debt doesn’t matter and that, in some cases, we actually need more of it.
Looking at past precedents, the only way that can be true is if we are on the cusp of another WW2-like crisis.
Bridgewater founder Ray Dalio recently made headlines by saying the current economic situation reminds him of the 1930s. Ray and I often have differing opinions, but this time I couldn’t agree more.
As Mark Twain supposedly said, history may not repeat but it does rhyme. The fundamental economic conditions, and especially technology, have changed significantly since the 1930s, but human reactions and motivations are still pretty much the same.
You can hear me talk more about it in this short clip of my interview with moderator Jonathan Roth.
I hope you’ll get a lot of value out of our “7 Deadly Economic Sins” Week!
Your always trying to find the perfect rhyme analyst,
John Mauldin
Co-Founder
Co-Founder
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
5Finnish government collapses...why it matters
6)
5Finnish government collapses...why it matters
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++By Mike HuckabeeDon’t look now – seriously, the media really don’t want you to look – but Finland, the “Democratic” Socialists’ most favored nation, their example of the country America should emulate, just saw its government collapse and its Prime Minister and Cabinet resign due to the unsustainable costs of universal health care This happened last week. Did you hear about it in the news? Didn’t think so.This comes less than a year after Finland killed its experiment with a “universal basic income,” replacing it with mandatory job training and work requirements for people on government benefits.There’s more at the link, along with a few ironic tweets from Bernie Sanders, lavishing praise on Finland. In one, he demands, “If Finland can provide everyone with health care, send everyone to college for free and provide affordable child care, why can’t the US?”Well, Finland can’t. Neither can you, Bernie.Incidentally, I just checked Bernie’s two Twitter feeds, for Senator and Presidential candidate. As expected, there was a lot of ranting against billionaires and millionaires (he is one of the latter, by the way, and somehow became one while he was a socialist “public servant,” as so many socialist public servants do), and about completing his mission to transform America with a lot of big government handout programs.But strangely, not a word about the collapse of the government of Finland due to the exact policies he’s espousing. In fact, I scrolled all the way back to last week, and the word “Finland” never appeared – even though that’s obviously what he wants to transform America into. But at least he can take solace in knowing that with people like him in Congress, he’s already made a lot of headway in turning the US into a place where the cost of government is unsustainable.
6)
|
No comments:
Post a Comment