The Good Rabbi's Blog

Out here in California, there has been extensive coverage (as nationally, I would imagine) of the Michael Jackson trial. There's been a lot of talk around town about the mother of the accused, and her lack of credibility as a witness. Some people have claimed that she should never have allowed her child to stay at the Neverland ranch alone with someone that has been accused of child molestation before.

All of this is well and good, but I don't find that it's relevant. Put in slightly more legal terms, I don't find it probitive (in other words, it doesn't establish guilt, or lack of guilt). The real question here is whether or not a crime was perpetrated by Michael Jackson, not whether or not the mother was at fault for leaving her kid there.

There's no question that Michael Jackson is just plain weird, even if he did not molest this child, or the child that accused him in 1993. So my question is, why do people constantly try to do this at trials? Why argue simply to discredit people, and not to actually show that actions are appropriate? Is Michael Jackson the new OJ?

Earlier this week, Steve Fosset once again felt the need to set a Guiness record by being the first to travel around the world without refueling his plane. With all the media focus on this, one question burns in everyone's mind:

Who cares?

My writing this post to my weblog has advanced modern aviation more than his little stunt. Why do they keep talking about him on the news? I didn't care when he flew around the world in a hot-air balloon, and I don't care now. Why does he keep trying to make me think he's doing something of any relevance?

The New York Times has an article (subscription may be required) today regarding how the Supreme Court heard arguments about the File-Sharing lawsuits. Specifically, the case focuses on lawsuits against Grokster, and Kazaa for fostering file sharing technology that encourages people to steal.

A friend of mine recently pointed me in the direction of this article in the Washington Post. It looks like more people are starting to get my particular brand of Judaism. Also, for the record, the He'Brew beer (both the Genesis Ale, and Messiah Stout) is pretty good. Rock on!

Recently, there has been a lot in the news regarding this whole immigration thing. Yesterday (May 1st, the international Labour Day) a protest was held in San Francisco in order to demonstrate what the impact would be without immigrants. Most businesses closed for the day "in support" of their workers. The funny thing is that for all practical purposes, nothing happened. The huge impact on our economy that was promised never occured, and it pretty much seemed as if there was nothing going on downtown (where the protest rally was). It got me thinking about this whole immigration business, and I was going to post something about it, but then my friend Peter posted to his weblog pretty much exactly what my thoughts are, so I'm just going to reprint his posting here.

It started as an arcade game, quickly became a fad, morphed into a fitness routine, and now it's about to become a TV show on a major national network. That's right, Dance Dance Revolution is about to become more than just a way for kids to get all sweaty at the movie theater arcade. This fall, CBS will debut its new series, Dance Revolution (apparently they decided "Dance Dance" was redundant), featuring the best and brightest of America's youth pounding out the beats and showing off their moves. I'm not remotely convinced that televised DDR will prove to be the spectacle CBS is probably hoping for, but it's no dumber than competitive air guitar.

So I was in the gym yesterday, watching a bunch of muted tv's while I was finishing up a workout on the elliptical machine of my choice. As is custom, they had one tv on each of the major national networks, and one tv on CNN. As it happened, my machine was right in front of the CNN tv. I'm really wondering what is wrong with CNN these days. They're clearly not the news network they once were, and to be honest, they're not even a news network at all. Say what you want, but at least Fox News openly admits their biases (the whole "fair & balanced" thing does not mean that it's actually neutral, but rather that they see themselves as counteracting a huge liberal bias in the media).

Recently there has been a rash of news regarding the use and abuse of the government's eminent domain power. Governments (usually local city governments, but at times the state & federal governments) have the right (according to the fifth ammendment of the constitution) to seize privately owned land. This has two caveats. First, the owner of the land must be duly compensated, and second, the land must be put toward a public use. Here is where the controversy lies.

Well, with all the issues that the world has to face today, it appears that the United Nations is once again living up to its reputation of not actually being productive, and pursuing ideas that are simply not realistic. This week's Economist magazine reports in an article that the UN is now focusing on campaigns to rid member countries of their guns. As expected the National Rifle Association has a few things to say about this, and the push to do so in the United States.

The International Herald Tribune is reporting (article is here) that academics in Britain have voted on Monday to approve a resolution urging its sixty-seven thousand members to boycott Israeli academics who fail to renounce what they called Israel's "apartheid policies." This is not a new idea. It's been floated many times before, although I do think this is the first time it has been officially voted on by such a large group (it has been considered, however, by pretty much every academic body in the western world).

After a few days of unbelievable amounts of rain in the D.C. area, we're starting to dig out and get back to normal again. We've basically received (in three days) approximately five times as much rain as we normally get for June and July combined. Amazingly enough, the basement seems to have held up well. In digging through some items that I need to get through, I found this story, which has amazingly gotten very little press. Apparently, there is a vast left-wing conspiracy, at least in the blogosphere.

Well, as if the world isn't fucked up enough already. As further proof that anyone can bring a lawsuit, here's a guy out of Oregon that is suing Michael Jordan and Phil Knight (the founder of Nike). For what, you might ask? For looking like Mike (really). What is this world coming to? I'm going to get some ice cream.

Well, it's happened again. The middle east has proven the iron law of its own geography: just when you think things are at rock bottom, they can always get worse. It started with some expatriate Hamas fighters ambushing an Israeli military unit, and capturing an Israeli corporal as a prisoner (presumably for use as leverage in negotiations to release militants). Then, on the northern border, Hizbullah militants (who admittedly, are just trying to stay relevant in a new Syria-free Lebanon) attacked a military base, killed a few soldiers and took a couple of hostages (presumably for the same purpose). What's more, they ran out of Falafel in the north country.

The activity in the north is surely the handiwork of either Syria, Iran, or both. This is why Ehud Ohlmert's reaction is both irresponsible and foolish. The attacks in the north were perpetrated by Hizbullah, and not by the Lebanese government, who likely is unable to control Hizbullah (especially since they're awash in Syrian and Iranian money), not to mention that they really can't stand Hizbullah (they represent the Syrian and Iranian influence in Lebanese society). Personally, I believe that it's a coincidence that this activity happened around the time of the G8 summit, and that it happened around the time of the Gaza issues. This seems to represent more of the same from this part of the world, and the only thing that's clear is that all parties are to blame, and all parties must work to apply the brakes to this conflict.

An excellent analysis of how this has come up, and where it's going can be found courtesy of The Head Heeb, who generally has some very good perspective on the way things work in that part of the world.

This morning, the girlfriend passed an article from Salon.com to me. It was authored by Stephen Hirsch, a software developer from Passaic, New Jersey, who apparently fancies himself an authority on Halacha, the tomes of Judaic law that govern everyday living. What follows is the response I posted on Salon's site (not that it matters, I'm just a simple fake Rabbi, that happens to have a pretty good knowledge of Halacha).

Now that the Israelis have pretty much realised that they lost this war in a big way, it's worth noting a major implication of the war. First, there was the boy band so aptfully pointed out by the disgracefully aging gentleman, and now this:

A patriotic Israeli pothead has launched a campaign to boycott Lebanese hashish, in a bid to starve Shia militia of funds raised from drug-smuggling. Dan Sieradski began the campaign on his blog, OrthodoxAnarchist.com. “A Persian-backed terrorist organisation is the primary supplier of hashish to the Israeli market today,” Mr Sieradski wrote, “and this is why, with a heavy heart, I am officially boycotting hashish, effective immediately.” Media reports have since spread news of his campaign.

Hash-smoking has boomed in Israel since the late 1990s. Police believe that most of the hashish enters the country via Lebanon. The inspiration for Mr Sieradski's campaign seems to have been a Jerusalem Post report in which a police captain, Avi ElGrisi, said that Hizbullah was “directly overseeing” the illegal drug’s export to Israel.

So now I ask you, what, in fact, is this world coming to?

After reading the recent news that a Turkish lawmaker compared the Pope to Hitler, I did some research. As it happens one of my fellow bloggers seems to have captured the same sentiment. I guess in the future, everyone will be hitler for 15 minutes.... I'm especially concerned that Rosie O'Donnell would make a very effective Hitler...

Well, as it turns out, they don't. They were just paid to blog about their candidate, or their pet issue. First it was the Daily Kos offering up the same kind of stupid shit they railed against Tom Delay and company for doing. Now, the New York Times had an article in this past Sunday's paper about how a lot of these bloggers are actually working for their pet candidates. How about that?

I also don't think this is over. Next month, the Federal Elections Commission spending reports come due, and then we will be able to see where the money is going. It's odd about these political bloggers. They all think that they can sing tenor, and that their shit doesn't stink. Well, the truth is, they can't, and it does.

I was poking around on the web today, and I found this op-ed in the L.A. Times. I think it's an interesting perspective. Frankly, though, I'd add anyone connected to the Kennedys as well. I really have grown tired of these political dynasties.

Anyone but a Bush or a Clinton
The U.S. needs a leader in 2008 who doesn't inherit the office because of a last name.

January 22, 2007

HAVING REFUSED a third term as president, George Washington offered the nation a farewell address in 1796, urging Americans to cherish the Union and to avoid the "baneful effects" of political partisanship. Successors such as Thomas Jefferson warned against the formation of an "unnatural" aristocracy of men who inherited great fortunes and political office.

Both of these warnings have been overlooked in the debate over Hillary Rodham Clinton's 2008 presidential run. But if she secures the Democratic nomination, wins and serves two terms, by 2017 the United States will have been governed by either a Bush or a Clinton for 28 years. That's three decades governed not just by the same two families but much of the same supporting staff. As Dick Cheney is a name familiar to both Bush presidencies (as George H.W. Bush's secretary of Defense and his son's vice president), so too may a Hillary Clinton presidency resuscitate familiar names such as Harold Ickes, Paul Begala and James Carville.

And it might not end there. Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, encouraged by Republican leaders and the current president (who said, "I would like to see Jeb run at some point"), has not ruled out a White House bid or a vice presidential slot on the ticket in 2012 or 2016.

If Washington's caustic, partisan atmosphere is to change, the era of Bushes and Clintons needs to end in 2008.

Three times in American history have close relatives of former presidents won the office. John Quincy Adams, son of John Adams, lost the popular vote to Andrew Jackson in 1824 but won in the electoral college amid charges of a "corrupt bargain." Benjamin Harrison, grandson of William Henry Harrison, lost the popular vote to Grover Cleveland in 1888 and also suffered as a "minority president" and mere figurehead. George W. Bush lost the popular vote to Al Gore in 2000.

Recent polls suggest that a significant body of Americans, perhaps 40%, will not vote for Hillary Clinton under any circumstances — so it is unlikely that she could enter the Oval Office with a strong electoral mandate. The ironic upshot is that such a Hillary Clinton presidency — weakened by low approval and beset by partisan sniping — would mirror George W. Bush's presidency.

That the Bush's administration has been consumed by political partisanship comes as no surprise to students of history. From the time of John Quincy Adams — whose term in office marked the end of the Era of Good Feelings — the children, grandchildren and spouses of presidents engender exceptional hostility when they seek office themselves. For all their personal capacities, the latter Adams, Harrison and Bush — like Hillary Clinton — inherited their claims to the presidency. George W. Bush would not be president today were his name not George Bush, nor Hillary a senator from New York absent the Clinton name. This nation's traditional commitment to meritocracy inclines many to reject these "unnatural" aristocrats, who never garner widespread popularity.

Minority and bare-majority presidents are weak leaders because nothing undergirds presidential power like an election mandate. The strongest post-World War II presidents — Dwight Eisenhower, Lyndon Johnson and Ronald Reagan — were also its most popular. (Eisenhower and Johnson won at least 55% of the vote; Reagan polled just over 50% in 1980 with independent John Anderson in the race, then 59% in 1984.) Presidencies enveloped by partisanship — Harry Truman, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton — were made of men who won office on the barest of majorities or pluralities (Truman won 49.6% of the popular vote in 1948; Carter won 50.1% in 1976; Clinton won 43% and 50% in 1992 and 1996).

Pundits compare 2006 to the late Nixon years, with a country disillusioned by war and a deep distrust of its political leadership. In one of his last interviews, former President Ford lamented the "extreme partisanship that exists in the nation's capital today," suggesting that partisanship is even worse than in the post-Watergate era he inherited.

The nation needs today, as it got in Ford then, a president respected by both Republicans and Democrats who can restore trust in politics. It needs new faces and new ideas if it is to confront advancing crises of war, debt and entitlement reform. And it needs a president who can assume office in 2009 swimming in the political capital that only a mandate can bring. The nation needs a candidate who can win 55% or more.

And that will not happen with a Bush or Clinton on the ballot.

Well, there you have it. According to a New York Times article, Reverend Haggard is now completely heterosexual. I guess that settles that....

Recently, I read an article in the New York times about an individual who is attempting to live for a year without leaving any impact on the world (in terms of a footprint). Basically, this guy has decided to live a life devoid of electricity, money, and other amenities of a modern world. He doesn't use toilet paper, and generally tries to live life with absolutely no impact at all. Oh, and he also blogs about the experience, and has already secured a book deal.

Quite frankly, I must admit, I'm very tired of this kind of thing. First of all, a lot of environmentalists' claims are nothing more than tired arguments that fail to hold up to a good scientific evaluation. I know, it hurts. We want to believe that eating organic food is better for us, that we'd be better people if we were vegetarians or vegans, paying for "fair-trade" certified foods actually helps someone, and that recycling actually does the planet and the economy some good. It seems like the right thing to do, but in reality, none of these are true.

When one examines the true costs and benefits of all these things, it turns out that most environmentalists have sold us a big steaming pile of compost. Why these are not true is the subject of another blog post, as I'd like to focus on this particular individual here (if you're interested in some details, shoot me a note and ask away. I'll do my best to respond (either via e-mail or via blog post) with some details).

Leaving the particulars aside for a moment, it's interesting to me that people have these ideas, sometimes cool, but mostly weird, to do crazy things and then blog about it during the process. On one hand, I think it's interesting to see how people document various things, but I have to wonder about what led them to the original idea in the first place. Some ideas make sense, like a friend of mine's idea to couch surf for a year across the country, and write about the process. That remotely interests me. I guess it wouldn't be so bad, if the people that did this were halfway decent writers. At the end of the day, I think they're not really all that good, and their kids are even worse.

In this case, however, I must admit that I'm getting very sick of these tired arguments that somehow these pinko commie liberal hippie treehuggers are better than the rest of us because they use organic products and recycled toilet paper. The simple fact of the matter, is that they're not, and they're actually dumb enough to pay double the price in order to use substandard products just because someone put the word organic on the label.

In the case of this guy from New York, he is blogging about this (uses electricity both for posting updates, and reading them), already has a book deal (the book will most likely be printed on paper, and people will probably have to pay for it), and he's also making a documentary of the experience (which will most likely be shown in an air-conditioned or heated theatre that charges $16 for a ticket and a small popcorn). All this sounds like a lot of impact to me. It's also impossible to measure the effects of his "lack" of an impact. I guess I can take solace that he's imposing this lifestyle on his wife and two year-old daughter. I guess he never thought about the impact this would have on them...

Yesterday I read an interesting paper on the efficacy of terrorism:

This study analyzes the political plights of twenty-eight terrorist groups -- the complete list of foreign terrorist organizations (FTOs) as designated by the U.S. Department of State since 2001. The data yield two unexpected findings. First, the groups accomplished their forty-two policy objectives only 7 percent of the time. Second, although the groups achieved certain types of policy objectives more than others, the key variable for terrorist success was a tactical one: target selection. Groups whose attacks on civilian targets outnumbered attacks on military targets systematically failed to achieve their policy objectives, regardless of their nature.

The author believes that correspondent inference theory explains this. Basically, the theory says that people infer the motives of an actor based on the consequences of the action. So people assume that the motives of a terrorist are wanton death and destruction, and not the stated aims of the terrorist group:

The theory posited here is that terrorist groups that target civilians are unable to coerce policy change because terrorism has an extremely high correspondence. Countries believe that their civilian populations are attacked not because the terrorist group is protesting unfavorable external conditions such as territorial occupation or poverty. Rather, target countries infer from the short-term consequences of terrorism -- the deaths of innocent citizens, mass fear, loss of confidence in the government to offer protection, economic contraction, and the inevitable erosion of civil liberties -- the objectives of the terrorist group. In short, target countries view the negative consequences of terrorist attacks on their societies and political systems as evidence that the terrorists want them destroyed. Target countries are understandably skeptical that making concessions will placate terrorist groups believed to be motivated by these maximalist objectives.

This certainly explains a great deal about the U.S.'s reaction to the 9/11 attacks. Many people -- along with our politicians and press -- believe that al Qaeda terrorism is different, and they're just out to kill us all. (In fact, I'm sure I'll get blog comments along those lines.) The paper examines this belief: where it came from, how it manifested itself, and why it is wrong.

During my morning news roundup today, I came across this article from the BBC News Service. It seems that this guy in North Carolina, who had his leg amputated above the knee, stored his leg in a smoker, so that he "could be buried whole." The smoker was stored in a storage unit, and the man fell behind on his payments for that unit. As such, the storage facility auctioned off his belongings and all the contents, including the leg.

Now the man who bought the smoker is claiming that he is the rightful owner of the leg, and he stands to make a good amount of money from it (given that Halloween is coming). Naturally the leg's former owner disagrees. It's obvious to me that the man doesn't live in North Carolina anymore, because if he did, the fight would be over the smoker, not the leg...

Well, it seems that a hangman's noose has been found at Columbia University. Of course, everyone's going all ape-shit again. This is in addition to the noose found at the Coast Guard Academy, the one found at the University of Maryland, and of course, the one that started it all in Jena, Louisiana.

Of course, rallies have been held, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and the rest of the Black agitators have marched, and yet, everyone seems to be missing the two real questions that need to be answered: First, why, in 2007, do we still have an informal segregation that produces things such as "black bleachers" and a "white tree?" It doesn't surprise me that Sharpton, Jackson, and the rest of the crazies aren't focusing on this, as they're particularly poorly positioned to do so (remember Tawana Brawley?).

But even leaving this alone, the bigger question is who actually knows how to tie a noose, anyway? Does anyone else find it disturbing that people can't handle basic math, but they can tie nooses? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?

Well, here's an interesting topic (albeit a couple days behind schedule). The other night on CNBC's Big Idea with Donny Deutsch, Donny had Ann Coulter on. During the course of the interview, Donny asked her what her vision of heaven would be like. She responded that it would be "like New York during the Republican convention." As odd as I find that, she went on to open her mouth and insert her foot. Describing everyone as "good Christians" prompted Donny Deutsch to ask her about other peoples, and whether or not they'd be included, specifically Jews (Donny is Jewish). She basically said that good evangelical Christians (like herself) just want Jews to perfect themselves by becoming Christian.

Now, I have two reactions to this. First, Ann Coulter has always substituted shrillness for intellect, and has always been quite the publicity whore. She doesn't care whether it's good or bad, as long as people are talking about her. For that reason alone, I'm sort of reluctant to post this, as I feel like I'm playing into her hands that way (not that I have a huge readership, but still). I'm not sure why people are surprised that she made this comment, as she ALWAYS tends to say things specifically to get a rise out of people. One of these days we'll just ignore her.

The second reaction I have to this, is that she's actually right (I bet you didn't see that one coming). Now, I'm not defending Ms. Coulter here, but she articulated perfectly exactly how most evangelical Christians see Jews. See, in particular there are two verses of the New Testatment that evangelicals really hold to. First, in John 14:6 (KJV), Jesus tells Thomas (his disciple):

...I am the way, the truth, and the light. No man cometh unto the Father but by me.

For by one offering, he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified,

In this way, many evangelicals think that Jews are just about there, and need to take that one final step to become, well, perfected. I'm sure that many will call Ann an anti-semite, and this would be a tremendous mistake. She's not anti-semitic, she's simply stating (quite articulately at that) what a lot of people think.

This sort of religious dick-waving (my god has a bigger dick than your god) is completely pointless, and anyone that gets involved in it is just proving that they are backward tribal people who wouldn't know modernity if it bit them in the ass. The best response here is to simply ignore both her, and the professional victims that will undoubtedly call her an anti-semite (rumour has it that Abraham Foxman is on his way across the country, so he can sneak into a lecture and be deeply offended, as is his usual M.O.). I hope that people are better than this, but to be honest, I haven't been very impressed by either the Jewish people I've seen or the evangelicals. Hopefully they'll prove me wrong.

Well, the 2008 presidential election, which, curiously enough, started in 2006, has entered a new phase. Instead of the 47 people that originally declared their candidacy, we've now been whittled down to two real candidates and two fake candidates in each party. There's been a lot of posturing going on, analysing the results, so I thought I'd add my own perspective. I'll start today with the results of the Republican party.

Now that Mitt Romney has effectively ended his campaign, the nomination has basically been handed to John McCain, which is just as well, because he is the most qualified of all the Republican candidates. McCain stands an excellent chance of winning the presidency in the fall, but first, he'll have to unite his party. A lot of the conservative talk-show windbags have been spouting off about how McCain is not a real conservative, and is not a real Republican (practically Democrat, blah, blah, blah). This drives me crazy. I will be the first to say that these blubbering vaginas certainly have a right to their opinions, but they do not have a right to spread untruths over the airwaves. So in addition to an excellent op-ed about the hypocrisy of McCain's critics, I'd like to add some thoughts, courtesy of Michael Medved. I think his analysis is spot-on.

I would also like to say that I think this so-called Republican civil war is much shallower than people think. There is something rather ridiculous about people that want to prosecute the war in Iraq, but threaten to vote for Hillary Clinton in a hissy-fit because they don't like John McCain. These windbags are not the only ones that are sharpening their knives. People like Dick Armey and Phil Gramm see this as an opportunity to expunge the Republican party of those that hijacked the party earlier in the decade (people like Tom DeLay and Bill Frist). I think that Senator McCain will soon consolidate power and ranks within his party, and will put this to bed for good. More on that later. Now, the top six lies that people say about John McCain.

Yesterday, I posted my analysis of the 2008 election thus far from the Republican perspective. Today, I'd like to focus on the Democratic perspective. Before I continue with my look at the two main candidates (curiously enough, Mike Gravel is still in the race, despite the fact that he's basically polling exactly even with me, and I'm not even running), I'd like to address a main difference between the Republican and Democrat approaches to primaries. In keeping with their general philosophy of sharing, holding hands, and singing Up With People! songs, the Democrats tend to split the state and district delegates proportionally. Republicans tend to be more about winning, so their primaries are winner-take-all (i.e. if a candidate wins a state, they get all the delegates from that state). Figuring out the delegate counts involves an abacus, and a very complex formula, that closely rivals handicaping college basketball teams during the Holy month (which may explain why my previous attempt showed that the Carolina Tar Heels would secure the nomination). Because math is not exactly the forte of California hippies, the San Francisco Chronicle has an excellent article that explains how this all works.

Now that we've gotten that out of the way, the big news that came with Super Tuesday is that believe it or not, Obama seems to have overtaken Hillary's delegate count. Whether or not this turns out to be true (remember, the math here is hard), I think that I have to give the man his dues and point out the obvious: Obama won super Tuesday, hands down. I say this because Hillary Clinton has over a hundred super delegates (delegates to the convention that are not bound to a particular candidate), and is still barely ahead, if at all, in the overall delegate count. She has all the machinery and the operatives the Democratic party has to offer, including the ultimate political juggernaut in the party, her husband. Even with all this, Obama continues to show increasingly stronger results. What's really telling is the margins between Clinton's and Obama's respective votes. Clinton only won the states that she needed to survive super Tuesday (although the sheer size of New York and California obscure that fact). The momentum has definitely shifted to favour Obama, as even in the states he did not carry, he was right behind Clinton. Clinton won California because of a deliberate attempt to stoke a disdain for Blacks among Latinos and Asian Americans. Amongst White voters (even women) he pulled even with Clinton in California. In most of the toss-up states (Utah, Missouri, Minnesota) Obama has won handily. He even managed to get at least 40% of the vote in Clinton's adopted home state of New York, came in under ten points behind Clinton in New Jersey, and out-and-out won Connecticut (both of which are in New York's back yard). All of this was done with about two weeks for Obama to campaign in states where the Clinton had name recognition and a comfortable double-digit lead for months. He's managed to bridge the racial divide in the south, as well has win states such as Alaska, Idaho, and North Dakota, that are not exactly known for their huge Black populations.

Pretty good coverage if you ask me...

NO ONE should doubt the magnitude of what Barack Obama achieved this week. When the president-elect was born, in 1961, many states, and not just in the South, had laws on their books that enforced segregation, banned mixed-race unions like that of his parents and restricted voting rights. This week America can claim more credibly than any other western country to have at last become politically colour-blind. Other milestones along the road to civil rights have been passed amid bitterness and bloodshed. This one was marked by joy, white as well as black.