I’m starting a new category: Lincoln. For two reasons. Because I’m obsessed. And because I believe that Lincoln would absolutely share my views on the Middle East and the American interest. I’ll get to that later. For now, here is Lincoln writing to his friend William Herndon, when Herndon was 29 and Lincoln 39. Lincoln was a congressman and had experienced a great deal of disappointment in life. Herndon was a lawyer and abolitionist back in Springfield, Illinois. Evidently he had complained to Lincoln of being pushed down by more successful people.
Now, in what I have said, I am sure you will suspect nothing but sincere friendship. I would save you from a fatal error. You have been a laborious, studious young man…You cannot fail in any laudable object, unless you allow your mind to be improperly directed. I have some the advantage of you in the world’s experience, merely by being older; and it is this that induces me to advise.
Fine in my view, Phil, but I really urge you to get away from these 'humanistic' wallowings in shmaltz, and look at the really interesting Lincoln questions, like, did the greenbacks work, or did they run the economy into the ground, and, would he have let the russian fleet that came to defend the north against the british fleet that came to defend the south actually join battle.
rowan i know nothing about the economy and as you observe im schmaltzy and dont know that i can correct it at this point. will get to the russians/british when i get there in my reading, phil
why phil your writing style all of a sudden reminds me of don marquis's archy the cockroach
- the palaces i have been kicked out of in my time exclamation point –
he wrote this way because being a cockroach he wasn't able to reach the character keys and the shift keys at the same time
rowan is a big meanie exclamation point.
I think he needs a vacation, hehe.
Interesting to compare the schadenfreude theory with Nietzsche's theory of resentment pertaining to the geneology of morals.
i have been meaning to write how much i enjoy the lincoln quotes.
The bankers (Rothschild et al) did not approve of Lincoln's greenbacks, instead, they wanted to lend paper money to the U.S. and charge us interest for it. If memory serves they eventually got their way by exempting paying of US public debt in greenbacks. The banker network controlled the price of gold at the time.
(Pedantry Alert)
I suspect Phil didn't actually mean to say that Lincoln warned against schadenfreude (taking pleasure in the misfortune of others). The quotation is clearly a warning against bearing a grudge, or carrying a chip on your shoulder (whatever the German noun for that might be).
You're starting to sound like a victim…how did the American Conservative see you fit to write for them? Stop whining about Jewish schmaltz; you sound obsessed. When there were signs on Miami Beach that read âNo Jews and Dogs Allowedâ, the Jews moved north to Boca. When WASPY country clubs barred Jews from entry, they started their own clubs. Warren Buffet writes in his new book, âSnowballâ, that Jews were barred from financial services firms in the 1960âs and 1970âs. Instead of crying about it, they started their own firms. Stop playing the victim card and do something. Youâre trying to expose something that is not unique: American Jewry, like Cuban-Americans, WASPs, the Irish Catholic, Russians, African-Americans, etc, feel connected to each other, and have formed a community. Whatâs wrong with attempts to preserve identity anyway?
While political Zionism is relatively new, the concept of a âJewish Nationâ is not. It is, and has always been, central to Jewish religious belief. Jews have, until very recently, lived together is seperate communities (in the US, Jews are more "mixed" then any ethnic group; you fail to mention that these horrible Zionist philantrhopists are often half-Jewish, or converts).
I donât think there is anything wrong with being proud of being a part of a small group of 13 million with a 3,000 year old history. Almost every generation of our ancestors choose misery over assimilation so we could be Jewish. We existed as a cohesive unit for nearly 3,000 years because of commitment to our heritage; that's something special and worth preserving, Phil. While your intention is to shed light on âJewish extremismâ and influence (which I think both you and the âLobbyâ inflate), you actually appear to attack Jewish identity as a whole. Jews, like every group, have crazies. The reality is, the mainstream American Jewish community does not support radical causes like the settler movement (not even AIPAC supports the settler movement). The American Jewish community is extremely divided; rich Jewish philanthropists arent part of a close-knite community, as you claim).
Itâs not justifiable for anyone to call you âself-loathingâ for your criticism of Israel (which goes beyond the pale of criticism), but it is appropriate when you attack the very idea of Jewishness.
Ben, saying "the reality is" (or, as others like to do, "truth to tell") is always the preface to some claim that we damn well don't agree on.
"Whatâs wrong with attempts to preserve identity anyway?"
Nothing, so long as you're not going to make others suffer by your attempts.
Rowan–
I was referring to a fact…hence "reality." Phil already admits that most American Jews are against the settler movement. What everyone fails to realize is that major Jewish organizations are against the settler movement as well:
"AIPAC recently referred to settlers as âsquatters.â"
You meant to say, AIPAC recently referred to a single particularly obnoxious household of settlers as âsquatters.â A household which, by the way, was drawing unwanted global attention to The Jewish State's racial policies. AIPAC has NEVER condemned or even criticized the settlement program.
Ben, I am glad you replied to my criticism, because your reply really reinforces the implausibility of your claim.
But the AJC, UJA and URJ and other mainstream Jewish activist groups have. You fail to acknowledge that AIPAC is a lobbying group. Its goal is not to react to events, issue statements, etc. It does not even make not official announcements. The organization has a narrow focus: lobbying Members of Congress, the Senate and White House on a consensus agenda, one that can be found on its website. The agenda includes Foreign Aid to Israel and Iran Sanctions, issues that all pro-Israel groups (including J-street) seem to agree on. In fact, the bulk of J-street endorsed candidates spoke at AIPACâs policy conference, and many J-Street donors are pushing for J-street to join AIPACâs advisory board, along with American for Peace Now. As a consensus organization (Americans for Peace Now is on its advisory board), AIPAC strays away from controversial issues. Taking a stance on the settler movement would either piss off AIPAC's more conservative or liberal members and it would weaken AIPAC's voice. Right wingers and doves, who want the US to stand by Israel, unite at AIPAC to send that message loud and clear. But you'll never get that info from Walt and Merm, Phil et al. I bet you didn't even know that AIPAC isn't a PAC (Political action committee); AIPAC is not allowed to rate or endorse candidates, or give $ to candidates.
Rowan, you said "Ben, I am glad you replied to my criticism, because your reply really reinforces the implausibility of your claim." Ya mind pointing out how?
To Mr./Ms. "Committee for Historical Accuracy", who said references the "Jewish State's racial policy":
Funny, I didn't know Jews constitute a race. In fact, I'm quite sure that Jews come in all colors. Jews, both Zionist and anti-Zionist alike, see themselves as a nation.
Fact: Arabs residing in Israel proper have the same rights as Israeli Jews; they are Israeli. Another fact: Palestinians living in the West Bank are, for the most part, subject to the laws and jurisdiction of the Palestinians Authority. I am in no way asserting that the Palestinians are not suffering. You are welcome to criticize Israeli policies, or even Israel's presence in the West Bank. However there is no such Israeli policy of "racial" segregation; such an assertion is pretty absurd. Moreover, the Israeli government is officially opposed to the settler movement. After Israel's withdrawal from Gaza, Israel also began evacuating settlements from the West Bank, and continues to do so, DESPITE the fact that is risking micro-civil war in the process. Until you can convince me that Israelâs security wonât be at risk, I see no reason why Israelis, Jews and Arabs alike, should not continue to democratically elect representatives who oppose withdrawing from the territory prematurely. Prove to me that Israel wouldnât be sacrificing her security, and I agree with you; câmon, be pragmatic. Until then, youâre just another fool blinded by ideology to me.
Iâm expecting the deluge of comments labeling me a blind supporter of Israel. Irony?
I knew that.
I hope they are paying you to post these boilerplate apologetics in some currency that isn't rapidly approaching worthlessness, Ben.
Rowan —
Paid? I'm actually just a college student procrastinating on his Middle East paper, lol. My mother isn't even Jewish, so technically I'm not. Parents have never been to Israel; I've been there 4 times, twice on a fellowship. I've spent loads of time in Ramallah, I'm pretty sympathetic to the Palestinian cause. However, I understand and agree with the Zionist movement, and reject Philâs attempt to highlight fringe Zionists and link them to moderate and liberal Zionists. It is an attempt to delegitimitize Israelâs very existence as a Jewish State, and it is counter-productive to peace making efforts.
BTW, anyone know how the shekel is doing these days?
dunno about the shekel but here's a classic case of the israeli eocnomy being the only one in step (from October, if genuine):
Phil-I don't know why you would like Lincoln:
(1) Came out in support of creation of a Jewish state in Eretz Israel
(2) Supported appointment of Jewish chaplains in the Union Army
(3) Revoked General Grant's order barring Jews from entering Union controlled part of Tennessee
(4) Quoted the Hebrew Bible all the time
(5) Just before he was assassinated expressed a wish to visit Jerusalem .
Another thing,
Lincoln was unshakeably committed to democracy and human rights. Do you seriously believe he would take the side of the corrupt, repressive, dictatorial states like Egypt, Syria, the Palestinians and the various terrorist groups allied with them against Israel. You are projecting your twisted, Orwellian "progressive" values on a man of a different era. People who claim that "Palestinian nationalism is universalist and democratic unlike Israel" are living in another plane of reality from the rest of us.
In the 1970s, when Congress put a cap on the amount its members could earn from speakers' fees and book royalties over and above their salaries, it halted AIPAC's most effective ways of paying off members for voting according to AIPAC recommendations. Members of AIPAC's national board of directors solved the problem by returning to their home states and creating political action committees (PACs).
Most special interests have PACs, as do many major corporations, labor unions, trade associations and public-interest groups. But the pro-Israel groups went wild. To date some 126 pro-Israel PACs have been registered, and no fewer than 50 have been active in every national election over the past generation.â¨An individual voter can give up to $2,000 to a candidate in an election cycle, and a PAC can give a candidate up to $10,000. However, a single special interest with 50 PACs can give a candidate who is facing a tough opponent, and who has voted according to its recommendations, up to half a million dollars. That's enough to buy all the television time needed to get elected in most parts of the country.â¨Even candidates who don't need this kind of money certainly don't want it to become available to a rival from their own party in a primary election, or to an opponent from the opposing party in a general election. As a result, all but a handful of the 535 members of the Senate and House vote as AIPAC instructs when it comes to aid to Israel, or other aspects of U.S. Middle East policy.â¨There is something else very special about AIPAC's network of political action committees. Nearly all have deceptive names. Who could possibly know that the Delaware Valley Good Government Association in Philadelphia, San Franciscans for Good Government in California, Cactus PAC in Arizona, Beaver PAC in Wisconsin, and even Icepac in New York are really pro-Israel PACs under deep cover?
————————————————–
A former AIPAC staff member described for me how the system works. A candidate will contact AIPAC and express strong sympathies with Israel. AIPAC will point out that it doesn't endorse candidates but will offer to introduce him to people who do. Someone affiliated with AIPAC will be assigned to the candidate to act as a contact person. Checks for $500 or $1,000 from pro-Israel donors will be bundled together and provided to the candidate with a clear indication of the donors' political views. (All of this is perfectly legal.) In addition, meetings to raise funds will be organized in various cities. Often, the candidates are from states with negligible Jewish populations.
"One congressional staff member told me of the case of a Democratic candidate from a mountain state who, eager to tap into pro-Israel money, got in touch with AIPAC, which assigned him to a Manhattan software executive eager to move up in AIPAC's organization. The executive held a fund-raising reception in his apartment on the Upper West Side, and the candidate left with $15,000. In his state's small market for press and televised ads, that sum proved an important factor in a race he narrowly won. The congressman thus became one of hundreds of members who could be relied upon to vote AIPAC's way.
Thanks for that, anon : that is precisely what I meant when I said "I knew that" to Ben's point that "AIPAC is not allowed to rate or endorse candidates, or give $ to candidates."
In the 1970s, when Congress put a cap on the amount its members could earn from speakers' fees and book royalties over and above their salaries, it halted AIPAC's most effective ways of paying off members for voting according to AIPAC recommendations. Members of AIPAC's national board of directors solved the problem by returning to their home states and creating political action committees (PACs).
Most special interests have PACs, as do many major corporations, labor unions, trade associations and public-interest groups. But the pro-Israel groups went wild. To date some 126 pro-Israel PACs have been registered, and no fewer than 50 have been active in every national election over the past generation.â¨An individual voter can give up to $2,000 to a candidate in an election cycle, and a PAC can give a candidate up to $10,000. However, a single special interest with 50 PACs can give a candidate who is facing a tough opponent, and who has voted according to its recommendations, up to half a million dollars. That's enough to buy all the television time needed to get elected in most parts of the country.â¨Even candidates who don't need this kind of money certainly don't want it to become available to a rival from their own party in a primary election, or to an opponent from the opposing party in a general election. As a result, all but a handful of the 535 members of the Senate and House vote as AIPAC instructs when it comes to aid to Israel, or other aspects of U.S. Middle East policy.â¨There is something else very special about AIPAC's network of political action committees. Nearly all have deceptive names. Who could possibly know that the Delaware Valley Good Government Association in Philadelphia, San Franciscans for Good Government in California, Cactus PAC in Arizona, Beaver PAC in Wisconsin, and even Icepac in New York are really pro-Israel PACs under deep cover?
————————————————–
A former AIPAC staff member described for me how the system works. A candidate will contact AIPAC and express strong sympathies with Israel. AIPAC will point out that it doesn't endorse candidates but will offer to introduce him to people who do. Someone affiliated with AIPAC will be assigned to the candidate to act as a contact person. Checks for $500 or $1,000 from pro-Israel donors will be bundled together and provided to the candidate with a clear indication of the donors' political views. (All of this is perfectly legal.) In addition, meetings to raise funds will be organized in various cities. Often, the candidates are from states with negligible Jewish populations.
"One congressional staff member told me of the case of a Democratic candidate from a mountain state who, eager to tap into pro-Israel money, got in touch with AIPAC, which assigned him to a Manhattan software executive eager to move up in AIPAC's organization. The executive held a fund-raising reception in his apartment on the Upper West Side, and the candidate left with $15,000. In his state's small market for press and televised ads, that sum proved an important factor in a race he narrowly won. The congressman thus became one of hundreds of members who could be relied upon to vote AIPAC's way.
In the 1970s, when Congress put a cap on the amount its members could earn from speakers' fees and book royalties over and above their salaries, it halted AIPAC's most effective ways of paying off members for voting according to AIPAC recommendations. Members of AIPAC's national board of directors solved the problem by returning to their home states and creating political action committees (PACs).
Most special interests have PACs, as do many major corporations, labor unions, trade associations and public-interest groups. But the pro-Israel groups went wild. To date some 126 pro-Israel PACs have been registered, and no fewer than 50 have been active in every national election over the past generation.â¨An individual voter can give up to $2,000 to a candidate in an election cycle, and a PAC can give a candidate up to $10,000. However, a single special interest with 50 PACs can give a candidate who is facing a tough opponent, and who has voted according to its recommendations, up to half a million dollars. That's enough to buy all the television time needed to get elected in most parts of the country.â¨Even candidates who don't need this kind of money certainly don't want it to become available to a rival from their own party in a primary election, or to an opponent from the opposing party in a general election. As a result, all but a handful of the 535 members of the Senate and House vote as AIPAC instructs when it comes to aid to Israel, or other aspects of U.S. Middle East policy.â¨There is something else very special about AIPAC's network of political action committees. Nearly all have deceptive names. Who could possibly know that the Delaware Valley Good Government Association in Philadelphia, San Franciscans for Good Government in California, Cactus PAC in Arizona, Beaver PAC in Wisconsin, and even Icepac in New York are really pro-Israel PACs under deep cover?
————————————————–
A former AIPAC staff member described for me how the system works. A candidate will contact AIPAC and express strong sympathies with Israel. AIPAC will point out that it doesn't endorse candidates but will offer to introduce him to people who do. Someone affiliated with AIPAC will be assigned to the candidate to act as a contact person. Checks for $500 or $1,000 from pro-Israel donors will be bundled together and provided to the candidate with a clear indication of the donors' political views. (All of this is perfectly legal.) In addition, meetings to raise funds will be organized in various cities. Often, the candidates are from states with negligible Jewish populations.
"One congressional staff member told me of the case of a Democratic candidate from a mountain state who, eager to tap into pro-Israel money, got in touch with AIPAC, which assigned him to a Manhattan software executive eager to move up in AIPAC's organization. The executive held a fund-raising reception in his apartment on the Upper West Side, and the candidate left with $15,000. In his state's small market for press and televised ads, that sum proved an important factor in a race he narrowly won. The congressman thus became one of hundreds of members who could be relied upon to vote AIPAC's way.
In the 1970s, when Congress put a cap on the amount its members could earn from speakers' fees and book royalties over and above their salaries, it halted AIPAC's most effective ways of paying off members for voting according to AIPAC recommendations. Members of AIPAC's national board of directors solved the problem by returning to their home states and creating political action committees (PACs).
Most special interests have PACs, as do many major corporations, labor unions, trade associations and public-interest groups. But the pro-Israel groups went wild. To date some 126 pro-Israel PACs have been registered, and no fewer than 50 have been active in every national election over the past generation.â¨An individual voter can give up to $2,000 to a candidate in an election cycle, and a PAC can give a candidate up to $10,000. However, a single special interest with 50 PACs can give a candidate who is facing a tough opponent, and who has voted according to its recommendations, up to half a million dollars. That's enough to buy all the television time needed to get elected in most parts of the country.â¨Even candidates who don't need this kind of money certainly don't want it to become available to a rival from their own party in a primary election, or to an opponent from the opposing party in a general election. As a result, all but a handful of the 535 members of the Senate and House vote as AIPAC instructs when it comes to aid to Israel, or other aspects of U.S. Middle East policy.â¨There is something else very special about AIPAC's network of political action committees. Nearly all have deceptive names. Who could possibly know that the Delaware Valley Good Government Association in Philadelphia, San Franciscans for Good Government in California, Cactus PAC in Arizona, Beaver PAC in Wisconsin, and even Icepac in New York are really pro-Israel PACs under deep cover?
————————————————–
A former AIPAC staff member described for me how the system works. A candidate will contact AIPAC and express strong sympathies with Israel. AIPAC will point out that it doesn't endorse candidates but will offer to introduce him to people who do. Someone affiliated with AIPAC will be assigned to the candidate to act as a contact person. Checks for $500 or $1,000 from pro-Israel donors will be bundled together and provided to the candidate with a clear indication of the donors' political views. (All of this is perfectly legal.) In addition, meetings to raise funds will be organized in various cities. Often, the candidates are from states with negligible Jewish populations.
"One congressional staff member told me of the case of a Democratic candidate from a mountain state who, eager to tap into pro-Israel money, got in touch with AIPAC, which assigned him to a Manhattan software executive eager to move up in AIPAC's organization. The executive held a fund-raising reception in his apartment on the Upper West Side, and the candidate left with $15,000. In his state's small market for press and televised ads, that sum proved an important factor in a race he narrowly won. The congressman thus became one of hundreds of members who could be relied upon to vote AIPAC's way.
In the 1970s, when Congress put a cap on the amount its members could earn from speakers' fees and book royalties over and above their salaries, it halted AIPAC's most effective ways of paying off members for voting according to AIPAC recommendations. Members of AIPAC's national board of directors solved the problem by returning to their home states and creating political action committees (PACs).
Most special interests have PACs, as do many major corporations, labor unions, trade associations and public-interest groups. But the pro-Israel groups went wild. To date some 126 pro-Israel PACs have been registered, and no fewer than 50 have been active in every national election over the past generation.â¨An individual voter can give up to $2,000 to a candidate in an election cycle, and a PAC can give a candidate up to $10,000. However, a single special interest with 50 PACs can give a candidate who is facing a tough opponent, and who has voted according to its recommendations, up to half a million dollars. That's enough to buy all the television time needed to get elected in most parts of the country.â¨Even candidates who don't need this kind of money certainly don't want it to become available to a rival from their own party in a primary election, or to an opponent from the opposing party in a general election. As a result, all but a handful of the 535 members of the Senate and House vote as AIPAC instructs when it comes to aid to Israel, or other aspects of U.S. Middle East policy.â¨There is something else very special about AIPAC's network of political action committees. Nearly all have deceptive names. Who could possibly know that the Delaware Valley Good Government Association in Philadelphia, San Franciscans for Good Government in California, Cactus PAC in Arizona, Beaver PAC in Wisconsin, and even Icepac in New York are really pro-Israel PACs under deep cover?
————————————————–
A former AIPAC staff member described for me how the system works. A candidate will contact AIPAC and express strong sympathies with Israel. AIPAC will point out that it doesn't endorse candidates but will offer to introduce him to people who do. Someone affiliated with AIPAC will be assigned to the candidate to act as a contact person. Checks for $500 or $1,000 from pro-Israel donors will be bundled together and provided to the candidate with a clear indication of the donors' political views. (All of this is perfectly legal.) In addition, meetings to raise funds will be organized in various cities. Often, the candidates are from states with negligible Jewish populations.
"One congressional staff member told me of the case of a Democratic candidate from a mountain state who, eager to tap into pro-Israel money, got in touch with AIPAC, which assigned him to a Manhattan software executive eager to move up in AIPAC's organization. The executive held a fund-raising reception in his apartment on the Upper West Side, and the candidate left with $15,000. In his state's small market for press and televised ads, that sum proved an important factor in a race he narrowly won. The congressman thus became one of hundreds of members who could be relied upon to vote AIPAC's way.
In the 1970s, when Congress put a cap on the amount its members could earn from speakers' fees and book royalties over and above their salaries, it halted AIPAC's most effective ways of paying off members for voting according to AIPAC recommendations. Members of AIPAC's national board of directors solved the problem by returning to their home states and creating political action committees (PACs).
Most special interests have PACs, as do many major corporations, labor unions, trade associations and public-interest groups. But the pro-Israel groups went wild. To date some 126 pro-Israel PACs have been registered, and no fewer than 50 have been active in every national election over the past generation.â¨An individual voter can give up to $2,000 to a candidate in an election cycle, and a PAC can give a candidate up to $10,000. However, a single special interest with 50 PACs can give a candidate who is facing a tough opponent, and who has voted according to its recommendations, up to half a million dollars. That's enough to buy all the television time needed to get elected in most parts of the country.â¨Even candidates who don't need this kind of money certainly don't want it to become available to a rival from their own party in a primary election, or to an opponent from the opposing party in a general election. As a result, all but a handful of the 535 members of the Senate and House vote as AIPAC instructs when it comes to aid to Israel, or other aspects of U.S. Middle East policy.â¨There is something else very special about AIPAC's network of political action committees. Nearly all have deceptive names. Who could possibly know that the Delaware Valley Good Government Association in Philadelphia, San Franciscans for Good Government in California, Cactus PAC in Arizona, Beaver PAC in Wisconsin, and even Icepac in New York are really pro-Israel PACs under deep cover?
————————————————–
A former AIPAC staff member described for me how the system works. A candidate will contact AIPAC and express strong sympathies with Israel. AIPAC will point out that it doesn't endorse candidates but will offer to introduce him to people who do. Someone affiliated with AIPAC will be assigned to the candidate to act as a contact person. Checks for $500 or $1,000 from pro-Israel donors will be bundled together and provided to the candidate with a clear indication of the donors' political views. (All of this is perfectly legal.) In addition, meetings to raise funds will be organized in various cities. Often, the candidates are from states with negligible Jewish populations.
"One congressional staff member told me of the case of a Democratic candidate from a mountain state who, eager to tap into pro-Israel money, got in touch with AIPAC, which assigned him to a Manhattan software executive eager to move up in AIPAC's organization. The executive held a fund-raising reception in his apartment on the Upper West Side, and the candidate left with $15,000. In his state's small market for press and televised ads, that sum proved an important factor in a race he narrowly won. The congressman thus became one of hundreds of members who could be relied upon to vote AIPAC's way.
Phil, if people post innumerable duplicate comments, wouldn't it be quite all right for you just to delete them? No one can really claim that this would infringe their freedom of expression here, surely?
I think that newcomers are finding posting difficult: sometimes comments appear immediately and sometimes they just go into the black hole for a while. Also, several people complained recently that their comments appear in duplicate – something to do with newer versions of TypePad editor.
I find my Post and Preview keys grayed out for the last few weeks. I need to click into and then out of my name and e-mail boxes for them to activate.
me too, I just stay logged out, and write in 'Rowan' each time. despite my being logged out, it seems to know who I am.
Speaking of schadenfreude and posting difficulties I'm reminded of this little altercation I had with Rowan some time ago:
===================
Phil, please consider letting your comments feature less overprotected. I have seen some very good
blogs become dry because of overprotection.
Posted by: Anonymous | March 23, 2007 at 08:42 PM
I don't agree. Anonymity is cowardice.
Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | March 24, 2007 at 01:00 AM
===================
Hehe, now I feel somewhat schadenfreudian about Rowan's difficulties…