Ruminations on a Coalition Crackup

The NYTimes informs us that President Obama apparently spoke through Martin Indyk to Nahum Barnea in the now-infamous Yediot Ahronoth piece that thrashed PM Bibi Netanyahu's government and singled out the settlement movement - the raison d'être of the national religious revisionist Zionist Israeli right wing that now characterizes the rank and file of Likud, Yisrael Beitenu, and Jewish Home - as the primary reason for the peace talks breaking down.  This apparently ignored Mahmoud Abbas' refusal to speak straight to President Obama about the rumored Kerry Framework, despite Bibi's acceptance with reservations.  The real takeaway from this turning point is this: the Likud-YB coalition is about to fall into tatters. To wit:

- Tzipi Livni looked like a rock star in that piece.  It should come as no surprise that she's taking the peace talk initiative and meeting with Abbas to restart talks.  The once likely PM has begun her road back to the top spot.
- Netanyahu is so frayed that he's focusing on a Jewish Nation State Basic Law and codifying Torah/Talmud as the basis and inspiration of Israeli Law.  I wonder how Ben-Gurion would have felt about that?
- The Hamas-Fateh unity deal continues to march forward.  From this, Abbas' successor shall come, but perhaps not before the dissolution of the PA in an attempt to burn the Israelis.  We'll come back to this.
- Germany, with US backing, has suspended a gunboat deal with Israel.  Will this finally snap the Coalition's back?
- Would Yair Lapid enter a coalition with Shas?  If he would, then Livni's Hatnuah, Herzog's Labour, Gal-On's Meretz and Lapid's Yesh Atid could form a ruling coalition.

There's a parallel here and I want to put it down: Israel's politics right now, in a very broad way, look like the US of the mid/late 00's.  The old Reagan coalition of conservative working class Democrats, Evangelicals, fp hawks, economic libertarians was fraying and the burgeoning Obama coalition was being born.

In Israel, something similar is happening.  The national-religious movement is becoming more insular and subject to "no true Scotsman" tests.  The secular Zionist middle class that seeks to preserve the basic Zionist dream and improve living standards has broken apart from that (save for the 5 major settlements.)  These people, the Livni/Lapid/Shavit/Oren-bloc, seek to "unburden" themselves of the Occupation and be done with it.

Unilateralism will emerge as the Israeli buzzword.  The self-reliant backbone of Zionism is growing stronger and while Lebanon and Gaza were botched withdrawals, there is an obvious course of conduct:

- Abbas will saber rattle about PA dissolution, the increased settlement activity will make Judea and Samaria more intertwined.  The median Israeli will want out of this predicament.
- A new, pro-2 state (note: not pro-peace) Coalition will emerge based on completion of the security fence, withdrawal from beyond it, and a Marshall Plan of aid to the new West Bank Palestinian government.
- Annexation of the major settlement blocs and fortification of the fence will create a potential Gaza situation, but more likely a propped up PA (perhaps briefly dissolved and reconstituted as more blatantly Fayyadist) will re-emerge and massive state building will ensue.
- Israel and Palestine will sign an accord recognizing this state of affairs and dual sovereignty.  The Palestinians may take their cases to court, but the Right of Return will never happen (there may be national compensation.)
- Israeli entry to NATO and I/P both joining the EU.

This platform, along with massive nation-building through the Negev, will carry the day and set the score for Consolidationist Zionism.  Finishing the victories of the movement and establishing a durable, if imperfect peace not unlike South Korea's.

An Honest Broker

Please, if you have any interest in the I/P conflict at all, READ THIS.

This is absolutely stunning, and something close to the inverse of Camp David. I think the key takeaways here are that:

a) This was in Hebrew in the largest newspaper. The key readership is Israeli. Netanyahu’s coalition is shaky enough as it is. Note the glowing words about Tzipi Livni, who despite Hatanuah’s poor showing in the last election, has already carried a general once. I think this is as much about trying to change the hearts and minds of Israeli voters and build the antipathy towards the settler movement and its representatives like Bayit Hayehudi. Kerry’s recent statement reflected that, too. The current coalition simply doesn’t have a realistic vision of peace and most of it doesn’t want it under any circumstance (like Uri Ariel.)

b) Tom Friedman’s reporting on the Framework was accurate, that the general reaction (the Framework was very favorable to the Israeli position) was not unnoticed by the Americans, and that coalition intransigence was at the center of the breakdown.

c) Urgency. Abu Mazen is nearing the end of his time in public life, is seeking a successor, and seems to genuinely want peace. Yair Lapid this week said that Hamas can be negotiated with. Livni no doubt agrees. Bougie Herzog obviously does, and Zahava Gal-On (whoever many seats Meretz has) would probably rather as many people at the table as possible. This is meant to create urgency, precisely to counter the sort of inertia and “sustainability” that Roger Cohen described the Occupation as having.

“Unsustainable” is the administration keyword on this. It’s the keyword of the secular Israeli middle class and Tel Avivians. It’s the way any right-thinking Zionist thinks of this. The idea is to foment a coalition that gets it and is willing to make peace, especially on favorable and mutually agreed upon terms like the potential Kerry Framework could be/have been.

I am very, very curious as to the domestic Israeli media response to this as well as the NYT/WaPo response.

Framework

Regardless of my (secular, Diaspora) own inclinations (a duly, fairly negotiated two or three state settlement) I suspect the actual outcome to the peace process will look like this:

a) Completion and fortification of the security barrier, akin to annexing an additional 7%-ish of the West Bank.

b) Declaration of the barrier as a border. There would be total withdrawal from beyond the border with the exception of necessary and duly administered security coordination. Functionally, this means that most of Jerusalem would be Israeli.

c) Settlers who do not repatriate and are beyond the Wall become Palestinians. The Right of Return would not be recognized. Very significant aid and assistance would be available to any Arab Israeli wishing to move to Palestine.

d) A massive aid package to the PA in the West Bank.

e) Economic + security coordination and cooperation with the PA in the West Bank, along with massive EU/Jordanian/American influence and dozens of Rawabi projects in a sort of Marshall Plan in exchange for implicit recognition.

f) This last bit could be a bit pie in the sky, but: passage of a formal constitution encompassing the existing Basic Law and defining the borders of the State of Israel and its character as a Jewish nation-state (I'm very curious as to opinions on this.)

Essentially, something like what Michael Oren or Ari Shavit has laid out. I think it happens sooner rather than later. I think it goes without saying that the coalition that enacts this likely won't include Jewish Home or Yisrael Beteinu (maybe even not Likud, considering the rank and file?) I think there's some European protest, but not a ton. I think Americans would largely support this, despite the lack of a peace process imprimatur. I don't think relations with Jordan or Egypt would break down. It's a crappy but likely livable solution (akin to South Korea?)

Chemi Shalev says it better than me

http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/west-of-eden/1.587895

Israeli protestations notwithstanding, the West Bank and Gaza can be compared legitimately – if not altogether accurately - to places such as Bophuthatswana, Venda, and Ciskei, the South African Bantustans with which Israel, sadly, was the only country in the world to maintain formal ties in the early 1980s. Ariel, “the capital of the Shomron” actually signed a twin city agreement with Bhisho, the capital of Ciskei.

Indeed, Israel’s prolonged support for the apartheid regimes of white South Africa is one of the main adhesives that help the comparison between the two to stick. Contrary to latter-day revisionism, Israel’s deep links with the apartheid regime were not only a product of its international isolation following the 1973 war, but also of a basic identification of many in both Labor and Likud governments with South Africa’s self-portrayal as a bastion of Western civilization withstanding communist, anti-Zionist and Third World hordes, including the African National Congress.

Whatever the other pros and cons of the apartheid allegations about Israel, they provide biblical proof, at the very least, that what goes around comes around, or as Hosea puts it, “they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind." 

The Incredibly Disappointing Week That Was

(This ran longer than I expected it to, it’s still a touch embryonic. If anyone reads, please do comment!)

I don’t really think it’s an accident that this leaked. I don’t really think Kerry’s assessment is wrong, either.
As the Occupation continues and deepens, a two state solution grows more and more imperiled. With that comes the choice: a Jewish state or a democracy. Plans to annex Area C only add to this problem, as would the “Autonomy on Steroids” Bantustan proposed by Naftali Bennett today. Given the events of the last week (Fatah-Hamas unity involving Gazan leadership, Abbas’ acceptance in Arabic of the Holocaust), I don’t see how anybody can take Bibi Netanyahu’s commitment to a 2 state solution at face value anymore. Even if you accept that there is a 2 state vision he’d get behind, it is as far removed from reality as Hamas’ unitary solution.
Andrew Sullivan (in a piece I disagree with for reasons I’ll get to in a moment) just posted this well-written bit: link to dish.andrewsullivan.com

Sullivan’s analysis isn’t out of place with anything you’d see on Mondoweiss or Electronic Intifada. Probelmatically, it also ignores Yesh Atid, Hatnuah, or the desperate-for-peace Israel left led by Labour’s Bougie Herzog. I suppose, by Sullivan’s analysis, Americans were all pro-torture warmongers in 2004? Roger Cohen’s piece in the Times was essentially true: the status quo is sustainable for Israel, and however odious it may seem, most Israelis appreciate their safety and economic growth. That’s the real problem, particularly as Netanyahu pivots towards being a Russian client due to common ethos and the growing influence of the Soviet bloc.

The animosity between the Netanyahu and Obama administrations is real, visceral and clear as day. The neutral vote on the Ukraine may well have been the final straw for Obama (whereas Moshe Ya'alon's slur of Kerry and the lack of appropriate sanction by Netanyahu appears to have burnt that bridge.) The pivot towards Putin is as much a product of the Soviet segment of Israeli society as any other, but the Soviet anti-democratic culture has clearly suffused the Israeli body politic: this ain't your father's Israel with Labour as the party of Government. If it was, then the Olmert Plan would still be on the table, the Arab League proposal would be taken seriously, and the differences would be hashed out in short order.

My hope is that the Obama admin’s pressure cracks up the Netanyahu coalition, that Lapid bolts to the opposition along with Livni, and that a newly installed Prime Minister Herzog meets with the moderate new Palestinian President (al-Masri? Fayyad? Dahlen?) Even if you think that’s Utopian (and even I’m inclined to say that my hope might be…) I think the likelihood is that Michael Oren is right and there will be a unilateral disengagement in the near-future contemporaneous with PA efforts towards UN recognition that the US may well support. The moment that a two state solution is impossible and a one state solution is inevitable (which I contend is still a little ways off), the position of the Israelis will shift from immoral Occupier to apartheid governor.

One final bit: The Daily Beast (which also hosted Andrew Sullivan and Peter Beinart) just released the American Secretary of State saying this after Barack Obama spoke with similar frankness to Jeffrey Goldberg a mere month ago. There is no war with Iran. Apartheid is a loaded word meant to scare the Israeli public and government, a sort of step up from the mention of BDS a few months back. These are not things that puppets say. At what point can we speak frankly on this blog about the nature of the “Israel Lobby”: that it’s not some all powerful tail that wags the dog, but rather the more obvious answer that the reflexive Likudnik tendencies of most Washingtonians are dulling due to a combination of the obstinacy and shameful governance of the Netanyahu coalition and the deeper influence of realpolitik retrenchment following the neocon adventurism of the Aughties (as embodied in Obama’s foreign policy)?

An Orderly Treason: Part I, The Scene

Without having any real bearing on my life, I have to admit that I find the upcoming Scottish Independence vote endlessly fascinating.  For a few reasons. 

One one level, the UK's constitution-less, democracy is such a novelty onto itself, so any systemic change is the wonk version of watching a slo-mo version of Jenga. Those of us raised in a stable constitutional Republic have no idea what's going to happen.  We can only watch the wobble and wonder.

On a more specific level, this is watching a version of our own fringe impulses play out in HD.  Whether it's certain Southern states who periodically have propositions on their ballots calling for succession.  Or the liberal parties where I've heard people idly talk about either allowing the Southern states to succeed or calling for the coasts to succeed and form their own union.  Scotland is the reality.  However, the other reality is that this is only possible in a parliamentary system where third-tier parties can affect wide change in a matter of years and make a Shakespearian power grab.  The Scottish National Party is a far left party that has almost no influence in Whitehall but holds absolute power in Scotland.  Labour and the Tories have been harried out of Scotland, with as much totality as Bishop Laud harried the Puritans out of England.  So the SNP and First Minister Salmond are able to carve out their own fiefdom within the UK but, as so often happens when upstarts take power, they see no end to how much power they COULD have.  If they would only stick their courage to the sticking post.  Ask Aarron Burr. 

First Minister Salmond thinks he has a shortcut to being Prime Minister Salmond.  I know that that is slightly slanderous, since we can name plenty left wing leaders who wish to escape right wing control during Republican years, and vice-versa, based mostly on sincerely held beliefs and not personal ambition.  I have no good reason to assume that Salmond is any different. 

I just have my assumptions.

(I have more to write about this but wanted to do it in pieces, this one just meant to set the scene.)

Healthcare Reform 2: The Quickening

My co-author, being an ignorant slut, is still parroting his belief that what he reads on the syndicated NYT opinion pages or the WSJ opinion pages have any traction within the larger right-wing rank and file.  Specifically, on one topic: healthcare.

What my friend cannot seem to see is that healthcare reform reform, much like immigration reform, is a cause without an Army.  On the right-wing.  A banner with no legions behind it.  Those who even broach the idea, in a lesser-of-two-evils vein, are almost immediately shot down as collaborators.  The right-wing (not even the far right) have talked themselves into a corner.  They have not said that ACA is wrong or ineffective or bad policy.  They say, and have the conviction I might add, that it is fundamentally unconstitutional and illegal.  Without a hint of irony, they say that President Obama and all those who have passed ACA are guilty of treason.  They say this quietly, to their own.  Boehner goes on TV and says that ACA is bad policy but I think we can finally appreciate that this is the thin veneer of moderation.  Most of his members and the blogs and the talking heads, when discussing it, say words like "un-American" and "unconstitutional."  This is the reality of the right-wing.

They no longer have the ability to talk about ACA in any vein except the repeal vein.  I think most pundits say and think that they refuse to talk about anything but repeal out of some simplistic old-fashioned stratagem of refusing to accept defeat and give your enemy a victory by backing down. Buying time for them to work a backroom deal. That would imply that they COULD talk about anything but repeal.  The rank and file right-wing will paint anyone who even attempts to keep and alter ACA as on par with Neville Chamberlin's negotiations.  Fundamentally flawed.

The polling about whether this constituency or that group supports certain provisions, such as the pre-existing conditions provision, misses the point entirely.  The author, the brief history, the name, the paper the law is written on is, itself, toxic in the right-wing's calculus.  And let's be honest, this isn't SS or medicare or income tax, which all share a similar hatred with ACA in the eyes of most of the right-wing.   Those are propped up by a much longer history to make them appear much more solid and complicated in the calculus of the rank and file.  That time has interwoven them into the fabric of many people's idea of America.  ACA has no such luck.  To right-wingers of all stripes it is a cancer within the American system.  The (vast) majority of right-wing is convinced of two things (1) repealing ACA is possible and (2) repealing ACA is their patriotic duty.

No reform plan, no matter how well made or sensible or conservative will make it past the most vocal/passionate/convinced/active members of the right-wing, or as more commonly known: the Republican primary voters.

Stephen Walt joins John Mearsheimer again

This strikes me as not unlike the moment in which John Mearsheimer doubled down on his defense of the anti-Semite, Gilad Atzmon.There is, at this point, good reason to believe that both Mearsheimer and Walt's motives are indicative of something much darker, and their analysis should be viewed through that prism. 

http://www.haaretz.com/news/features/.premium-1.586082

 

 (I don't think it's paywalled, as I don't sub and was able to read it in full.)

Shalev: "Aren’t you absolving the American hawks, who ruled this country for at least eight years, of any responsibility? Are you saying that Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld were just putty in the hands of the Israel lobby? Are they simpletons?"

Walt: “Well, if you’ve read the book and I haven’t persuaded you, then I haven’t persuaded you. And we’ve spent almost all of our time talking about one chapter of the book.”

I certainly think that Walt and Mearsheimer had impeccable academic credentials prior to the publication of the Israel Lobby. However, I think that's inapposite here. The question is one of motivation and overtones. I don't think that the article was unfair in its depiction of Walt. 

Shalev was very, very upfront about his own misgivings heading into the interview and while I obviously posted the salacious "money quote" from the very end, I don't think there's any misrepresentation there, either Mearsheimer & Walt's original critique was massively mono-causal, used a definition for the Lobby so broad as to be worthless, and utterly imbalanced. I don't think it's a stretch to say that their support for Israel doesn't go much past lip service (which is strange, especially considering Mearsheimer's own advice on the former Yugoslavia.) This is probably a point where I should make clear that I am strongly opposed to the sitting Likud-YB coalition, the rightward drift empowering the likes of Uri Ariel, Moshe Ya'alon, the forever odious Naftali Bennet and his disturbing Area C annexation plan, and look forward to the moment that the burgeoning Labour-Shas alliance forms the basis for a new coalition (perhaps picking off Livni/Hatnuah? Would Lapid go back on his promise to avoid any coalition with Shas?) after elections (which seem like they might happen soon?). A peace based on the Kerry Framework, the 08 Olmert offer, or the '02 Arab League Initiative would be immensely preferable to the untenable, morally and pragmatically appalling Occupation. 

I think it's reasonable to mention that the imagery invoked by The Israel Lobby is similar to the tropes which have defined anti-Semitism for ages. It's obviously important to consider that when writing on the topic. The allegation, repeated by Walt in this interview, that Israel is the tail that wags the American dog (in the personage of Paul Wolfowitz, to start) is a deeply troubling one. It is not hysterical to say that the modern anti-Zionist cottage industry (the Andrew Sullivan/Mondoweiss school, not quite the MEM/Electronic Intifada variety) owes a heavy debt to Walt and Mearsheimer. 

Moreover,  Mearsheimer's own dark motivations were made clear when he endorsed - and then doubled down - a book by Gilad Atzmon, an outspoken anti-Semite of the most boorish variety (http://www.theatlantic.com/.../john-mearsheimer.../245518/

 

 I went with Goldblog, but Walter Russell Mead is similarly useful if you'd prefer:http://www.the-american-interest.com/.../john.../

 

). Here, Walt took a step in the same direction by elucidating what amounts to a rank conspiracy theory with deeply pernicious undertones. It's not the first time, either (http://ottomansandzionists.com/.../stephen-walts.../

 

 ). 

That's the point of this post. Not that Adelson-style blind faith and devotion to Eretz Yisrael is the only politically viable statement (it's prima facie not), but rather that Walt has given away his darker motives, just like Mearsheimer, and it's time that we reckon with that in the discourse, just as we should any other factor.

On Ascendant Israeli Conservatism

I certainly think Israel is veering rightward in a problematic way. However, the conflation of this with the rise of religiosity is indicative of a seriously thin understanding of Israeli politics.

The latest election cycle was predicated on Lapid’s Yesh Atid’s ascendancy, which is a secular party which sought (successfully) to integrate the Ultra-Orthodox through ending draft exemptions and the like. FM Lieberman’s YB is a secular-zionist party. Naftali Bennett is threatening (with no seriousness) to bolt from the Coalition. The latest rumblings are that there’s a Shas-Labour union in the offing (potentially with Meretz?) which is trying to pick off Lapid and Tzipi Livni’s Hatnuah (something that I think is actually fairly likely, in a way similar to the undoing of Barak’s tenure in the early 00′s.) Herzog (Labour leader who is explicitly pro-peace) has been saying that Israel needs to adjust to something similar to the Arab League Initiative terms!

Pegging religiousity to ascendant conservatism in Israel is utterly falacious. The State of Israel remains a recognizable liberal democracy and I sincerely doubt that’s changing any time soon, even with the demographic shift underway due to massive Haredi birthrates.

I think the Times is right here. If Kerry were to just publish his rumored framework and leave it on the table as the official US position, it would have to effect of likely breaking the Likud-YB coalition. Most of the Israeli moderate right, and virtually all of the center and left seek a peace deal and the Kerry Framework would placate all of those groups. In the meantime, it would leave open the possibility of someone more sensible like Livni, Herzog, or Lapid becoming PM, and that is obviously an outcome the Obama administration would prefer. Similarly, an officially stated US position might actually push the Palestinians to move away from Abbas (who certainly isn’t the most moderate leader the Palestinians could put forward) and towards someone new and more reasonable such as Dahlen, al-Masri, or Fayyad. 

Chag sameach! 

In re. Warrior

(This is my original writing, culled together, and originally posted on CagesideSeats.com) 

I figured I'd pile on with Warrior. He was my first favorite wrestler, and I had this bizarre moment on Monday night as he was welcomed onto Raw when I was just as excited, just as psyched, and could remember distinctly the last time, in 1996, I eagerly awaited the return of Warrior.

When I was a freshman in college, I shlepped out to the Island on the LIRR to hear Warrior speak.

He gave a big ol' speech to College Republicans or Federalists or whomever about how "queering don't make the world work", "the founders had balls so big they dug trenches when they walked" and "philosophy isn't fake, like rocket science. It's real, like concrete." Nobody really cared.

Once his speech was over, Warrior turned around and gave out a snort and he was suddenly The Ultimate Warrior. For the next hour, he completely candidly answered every question about his career and his life, including his steroid abuse (he couldn't get over 300 lbs, and if you wanted to be a serious bodybuilder/wrestler in the 80's, you took steroids to get over your natural limitations. That's just how it was.)

Afterwards, and this is the really fucking cool part, he actually talked to everybody who waited to speak to him. Not to shake your hand, ask your name and take a picture, but spoke to you for a real conversation. I waited probably 45 minutes, and it was clearing out so I went a little longer. We talked about Nietzsche (hey, I was a freshman!)

Yes, his political views were odious, but he really was all about motivating people. Yes, he was supposedly awful to fans in his heyday, but he couldn't have been better in retirement. Things change, people evolve. I'm glad he made peace before he died.

I shat on Warrior's promo from Raw because I thought the mask was ridiculous, his delivery was poor, and he just didn't look or feel or seem like Warrior anymore. I hadn't really paid attention to the words. He gave his own eulogy, for the gimmick and for the man. I regret that now, because this was a sick man doing his best to recreate my childhood hero in an honest and faithful way, and because I didn't even pay attention to what he was saying. I was too busy paying attention to the aesthetics. In fairness, aesthetics were what defined Warrior during his prime.

This is the first time a celebrity ever really upset me, and I finally get what Baby Boomers felt when Mickey Mantle passed away.

I'm also taking the liberty of including a link to this:http://www.cagesideseats.com/2012/6/13/3081645/css-pro-wrestling-tournament-match-3-gorgeous-george-vs-14-ultimate#105210931 (opens in new window)

It's what I consider to be my best, and it is certainly my favorite, comment I've ever made at cSs. Keep in mind that it was summer of 2012, but it delineates how I perceive Warrior's career, and especially how I think he really did get short shrift prior to making peace with Vince McMahon. More than anything, it shows us what Bruno Sammartino, Bret Hart, and Warrior himself were wise enough to know: if you care about your legacy in the pro wrestling business, then you must be willing to find peaceful terms with Vince McMahon for it to be shared.The returns are early, but it seems like Vince will actually be a good custodian for Warrior's legacy, a fact made all the more remarkable when you consider the DVD produced nearly a decade ago at the nadir of their relation.

If the Reality Era has indeed kicked off, then The Ultimate Warrior's farewell address may well be looked at as a moment that embodies it, either in tandem with or even moreso than the way in which Brock Lesnar ended the Streak of an older athlete who happened to be The Undertaker. In that promo, Warrior made it clear that the fans drive the product, and Warrior made it clearer than ever that there's a huge distinction between the public kayfabe character and the private man.

Still, I'll always believe. *snort*

Not that anti-Semitism is still ingrained in Western culture or anything...

http://www.timesofisrael.com/spanish-village-called-kill-jews-mulls-name-change/

"In parts of Spain, and especially in the north, locals use the term “killing Jews” (matar Judios) to describe the traditional drinking of lemonade spiked with alcohol at festivals held in city squares at Easter, or drinking in general.

Leon will hold its “matar Judios” fiesta on Good Friday, April 18, where organizers estimate 40,000 gallons of lemonade will be sold.

The name originates from medieval times, when converted Jews would sometimes be publicly executed in show trials at around Easter, Maria Royo, a spokesperson for the Federation of Jewish Communities of Spain told JTA."

Rhetoric (I feel like Camera)

During my time as a Violet, I studied rhetoric fairly closely. Let's put those chops to use! 

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/11/world/middleeast/mideast-tensions-sideline-a-gazan-marathon-runner.html?ref=middleeast&_r=0

Continuing its recent trend, the NY Times has run an article sympathetic to the plight of a Palestinian distance runner.  To be clear, it flat out sucks that this poor fellow's running career has been derailed due to the I/P conflict, and it serves as (once again!) a reminder as to why a 2 state solution is urgently needed for the most practical of purposes.  It is prima facie ridiculous that Palestinian runners cannot cross Israel to get from Gaza to the West Bank for the purposes of running a marathon and Jodi Rudoren is right for highlighting this.  Security clearances can and should be issued, and this is emblematic of the childish tit for tat which has characterized the Likud-YB's governance, particularly as of late.   So, how clear are we that ol' Anime Bollocks thinks there's a massive human toll to Gazan oppression and that the Israeli government is acting in bad faith?  Crystal.  Now, onto the meat of this...

That having been said, leave it to the Old Grey Lady to give short shrift to the Israeli side in this highly biased piece.  The article dedicated exactly one line to the militant anti-Zionist Hamas gov't, made exactly zero mention of the rising Islamic Jihad movement which is even further radicalized than Hamas, mentioned "occasional Israeli airstrikes" without citing the fact that they are *always* measured and in retaliation to state sanctioned rocket attacks on southern Israel (ask the good folks of Sderot how they feel about this), and while it took pains to describe the impoverished nature of Gaza due to Israeli sanctions since the 2005 withdrawal, made only a brief reference to the fact that Egypt imposes the same policies right down to the Rafah border crossing.  

Real talk: Gaza is an independent, Islamist state which is under heavy sanctions from its two neighbors due to its policy of state-sponsored terror.  It sucks to be a citizen there, and that's because the government is oppressive and refuses to recognize the legitimacy of a neighboring state.  Israel's hands aren't clean, but their actions are understandable.  This runner's plight should have been framed as a reason for a continuation of the peace talks, a revived set of talks along the Arab League Initiative, something, but not a puff piece on how rough and tumble it is at the hands of the Israeli oppressors.  

Be sure to watch the video piece, too. At 1:08, there's a sign which makes references to Yaffa (Yaffo) but not the far larger Zionist city of Tel Aviv, which has subsumed it (and whose inspiration is the namesake of this blog).

On Warrior

When I was a freshman in college, I shlepped out to the Island on the LIRR to hear Warrior speak.

He gave a big ol' speech to College Republicans or Federalists or whomever about how "queering don't make the world work", "the founders had balls so big they dug trenches when they walked" and "philosophy isn't fake, like rocket science. It's real, like concrete." Nobody really cared.

Once his speech was over, Warrior turned around and gave out a snort and he was suddenly The Ultimate Warrior. For the next hour, he completely candidly answered every question about his career and his life, including his steroid abuse (he couldn't get over 300 lbs, and if you wanted to be a serious bodybuilder/wrestler in the 80's, you took steroids to get over your natural limitations. That's just how it was.)

Afterwards, and this is the really fucking cool part, he actually talked to everybody who waited to speak to him. Not to shake your hand, ask your name and take a picture, but spoke to you for a real conversation. I waited probably 45 minutes, and it was clearing out so I went a little longer. We talked about Nietzsche (hey, I was a freshman!)

Yes, his political views were odious, but he really was all about motivating people. Yes, he was supposedly awful to fans in his heyday, but he couldn't have been better in retirement. Things change, people evolve. I'm glad he made peace before he died.

Yesterday, I shat on his promo from Raw because I thought the mask was ridiculous, his delivery was poor, and he just didn't look or feel or seem like Warrior anymore. I hadn't really paid attention to the words. He gave his own eulogy, for the gimmick and for the man. I feel very bad about that post, especially because he really was my hero growing up.

I'm gonna stop now because I'm at work and I'm getting the feels. This is the first time a celebrity ever really upset me, and I finally get what Baby Boomers felt when Mickey Mantle passed away.

In re. Zion

This is, I think, the first time I ever really spelled out my case for Zionism. It was in response to a troll, but I think it's valid.  Unedited, here it is. 

"I find your use of the phrase "ideally shaped" interesting. Would you care to clarify it? Are you aware that the majority of Israelis are secular and support a 2 state solution? Or that a state can have a state religion and still fulfill a promise of equality and largely secular governance, like England or Denmark does?

Look, I'm a secular member of the Diaspora myself, and I identify as a Zionist. That is to say that I believe that the Jewish people have a right to self-determination as expressed through a sovereign national homeland. Moreover, I believe that right exists as a fact in 2014 because Israel exists and there is an 80/20 Jewish majority within her borders.

We can argue the Nakba, the placement of settlements (which don't expand outward, but rather grow denser within settlement blocs which are almost universally placed strategically on the borders of the Green Line), or the treatment of Palestinians within the Occupied Territories or the Gaza, but the fact is that this Zionist project has created a bulwark of actual democracy in the Middle East while also growing into a first world economy. This is to say nothing of the incredible historic persecution of Jews which continues to this day in France, Hungary, and as state policy throughout the Arab world.

The existence of a Jewish state is important because there is an Israel which is succeeding, because that state has saved Jews from the world over (look up Aliyah from Ethiopa or the Arab States in 1948) and offers a right to self-defense and self-determination, and this state has a right to exist like any other state does.

It's not a matter of pro-military or pro-Zionist (which just means that you support the existence of a Jewish sovereign nation state) in the abstract, but rather a question of whether or not you think that France should exist for the French, Australia for the Australians, or Israel for the Jews."

The ultimate warrior is dead

RIP

The new anti-semitism, pt. >9000

http://legalinsurrection.com/2014/04/the-anti-israel-cultural-revolution-at-vassar/

Learning to eat shit and like the taste

http://www.timesofisrael.com/how-the-palestinians-view-the-peace-talks-collapse-and-its-consequences/

"Speaking to The Times of Israel from London, Rajoub explained that “the status quo will not continue.”

He added that he was “convinced” that “big changes will take place if the Israeli occupation and settlement construction continue. We won’t raise a white flag.”

Rajoub added that he didn’t trust Netanyahu, who had become a “pathological liar.”

Netanyahu “didn’t uphold agreements and is leading [Israel] towards disaster,” Rajoub said.

“On the one hand, he talks about a Palestinian state, but in the same breath, continues to expand the tumor called the settlements. He is trying to control the conflict instead of solving it. But he – and you – need to understand something,” he said. ”We are in a difficult, even very difficult, stage. The Israelis can’t go on eating honey while we eat shit. Either we both eat honey, or we both eat shit. You must decide what you would like to eat.”"

Somewhere, Stephen Walt is cackling

http://nyti.ms/1kx7SBM

"The new Palestinian demands, according to Maan, included a written commitment from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel recognizing a Palestinian state along the border lines from before the 1967 war, with East Jerusalem as the capital; the release of 1,200 Palestinian prisoners; and an end to Israeli travel, import, export, fishing and farming restrictions in the Gaza Strip.

Israeli officials involved in the talks said they could not agree to such conditions because they were final status issues that need to be negotiated.

 Several Palestinian leaders were quoted in the local news media Friday as saying the Maan report was not accurate, but they declined to specify what new demands had been made."

The real upshot to all of this is that Naftali Bennett is emerging as a cross between Sarah Palin and Dick Cheney, but with vastly more wit. 

The Urban Myth of Party Shifts

I was talking to my co-author on Gchat, specifically about his hilariously ridiculously child-like optimism about a left/libertarian shift in the entire Republican platform.  He bases this idea mostly on Paul Ryan's proposals, Rand Paul's "popularity", and the overall conservative "intelligentsia" like Ross or others of the "respectable" crowd.  I'll let him go into the details of where he thinks the party is headed in his own post but trust me, it's a laundry list.  Of stupid.

First of all, the conservative intelligentsia has just about zero traction inside the party.  I cannot think of a more perfect example of inside-the-beltway isolation than the "autopsy" Priebus commissioned after Romney's re-enactment/slow mo version of the Hindenburg in 2012.  That was a report commissioned by the intelligentsia for the masses/candidates.  It has been universally ignored/mocked/outright denied by the entirely rest of the party to the point that he has had to disown his own baby.  And it was fairly watered-down advice. This was the bare-minimum that the party intelligentsia thought  was actually feasible!  "We don't need to change on SSM, just don't openly mock or  insult LGBT Americans and let's keep a little quiet on this for a while."  Good lord, fellas, good lord.  Apparently Arizona/Alabama/Mississippi/Georgia/Missouri/Indiana/Kansas/et. al. didn't get the memo.       

Second, neither party does tidal shifts.  Republicans didn't after 2010.  They didn't after 2012.  We didn't after 2004.  And contrary to popular belief, the Democrats didn't in 1992.  As simple proof, I would ask anyone to look at the party platforms from the 80s to now and tell me where the big differences are in philosophy or substance are.  Being perfectly honest, if they have changed at all, it has been more conservative/more liberal.  

I think this urban myth about the shifting party comes from the optics of one big concession, which is usually in the form of a switcheroo.  Clinton did Welfare reform, mostly to avoid deeper cuts or complete nixing.  Bush replaced Rumsfeld, in order to continue the wars.  McCain came out in support of woman's equality......by nominating Sarah Palin.  I could list others on all three of those moments in time but I think you get the picture.  The parties only shift so far and generally it's by semantics rather than position.  

However, when it does shift on a position, it's almost always to the detriment of all other positions.  Bush gave the right a marriage amendment position and in return they shut up about abortion/vouchers/school prayer.  Obama gave the left DADT repeal and a SSM position and they have generally shut up about the environment/abortion/surveillance/Afghanistan.  The party base gets satisifed and the intelligentsia gets satisfied at the same time.  They can all walk away saying "we're moved the party."  The only problem is they don't realize that this has blunted any momentum left or right.  

So, my prediction, the Republican party will come out in support of SSM and/or immigration reform in the intermediate future (I heavily lean towards being 2 or 3 cycles away from any actual change in the party).  And that's it.  They will be able to tell themselves that they have "evolved" or whatever, just like Clinton convinced them that the Democratic Party had "evolved" or whatever, and just keep on turning.  

I know this seems to say that both parties are equal in this sort of dance but I think the opposite is about to happen.  The formerly fringe ideas of the Democratic party (immigration reform, SSM, pot reform) are going to continue to get popular until they are passed.  Then the Republican party will simply grow around those ideas and accept this new America.  I do not however think that the party will do so en masse and of their own volition now or anytime in the future.  The elderly right now hate these ideas and they pretty much control the primaries.  The baby boomers will be the elderly when our generation is in control and they merely loathe the ideas.  A step up but not nearly high enough for the Republicans to see the new America before it's right on top of them.           

On trutherism

http://ottomansandzionists.com/2013/10/31/israel-lobby-truthers/

I just saw this and thought it an invaluable reference. Someone should staple this to Andrew Sullivan's head. 

Sup?

Is there anything more lovely than watching Austrians forced to play Hatikva?

(but why would they speak English?  Is that the lingua franca?)
 

Up to Bat

Been a little while.  Let's get back into it.

Crimea

Putin has made no new moves in Eastern Ukraine.  The G-8 is now officially the G-7.  Crimea is firmly in Putin's hands but President Obama has started to lay the rhetorical groundwork for a third round of sanctions based on the build-up of Russian troops on the Ukrainian border.  The Kremlin's relative silence over the past week means two things to me.  (1) Russia is trying to see how far the US/EU is willing to push penalties before officially responding, since it is always easier to start staunching the PR wound after the blows have stopped.  (2) Russia is quietly negotiating with the West to reverse the current sanctions and, more importantly, stop any future sanctions before they get proposed.  

On the first count, I think Russia/Putin is just now being forced to weigh the long-term consequences of his recent purchase.  Aside from the short to moderate term economic depression, what he really has to worry about are the coming government subsidies/investments in alternate energy and alternate market that will start popping up in the US/EU.  Obviously he cares about one more than the other but they tend to spiral together.  On the second count, this is anyone's guess.  If the first true, then I would hope that means the second is true.

(Update: the phone call between Obama and Putin has been been much talked about.  Strange PR move from the Kremlin.  I think it is a genuine concession that Russia wants to at least appear to be looking for diplomatic solution.  I know everyone wants to talk about the troops on the border as a guarantee that Russia wants to invade but, take it from me, a country putting large numbers of troops on the border can often just be for show.  Trust me, I was one of 3,000 soldiers staged in Kuwait purely to send a message to the Middle East.  Sometimes they're just there to check a block.)

Priebus, It's Worse, It Really Is

I was talking with my friend Jake about age/branding IRT political parties here in America.  Specifically, how I believe that the Republican Party has, by and large, lost my generation and at least one or two after me.  Jake argued that the lifecycle of generations shows that they will change allegiances as they hit middle-age and on.  I agree, that the overall temperament changes but I think that certain branding issues remain regardless of the personal beliefs.  Especially when there are certain emotional issues tied to that branding.  My mother is my best example of this uncomfortable Republican fact.

My mom was a child of the 70s, and a Hispanic woman who grew up in small-town Texas.  The defining political movement in her childhood was the labor movement of Caesar Chavez.  Her parents had the whole family boycott California grapes, she followed his campaign, and because of that movement she grew up seeing the world through the lens of racial inequality apparent in her own life.  Whenever she talks about it, I can see that young girl's fire in her eyes.  

A lot has happened since the 70s.  She's grown up and grown more conservative, slightly.  Perhaps it's more that the world finally caught up to her liberalism and slightly overtook it.  But she does not forgive or forget how bitterly the Republicans of the 60s/70s opposed the movement.  She can't.  She will occasionally take Republican positions and will even vote Republican once in a blue moon.  But she will NEVER consider herself a Republican.  The emotional impact of her childhood remains.

It also doesn't help that the Republicans have botched up few things as completely and repeatedly as Hispanic outreach for the last half century.  But still.

I believe, and there have been a slew of articles/polls recently that back this up, that while the Democratic ranks are not necessarily controlling the entire Millennial vote, Republicans are not growing at all.  Instead more and more are considering themselves Independent or Libertarian.  Even many of those who consider themselves severely conservative want nothing to do with the Republican Party.  No one suggests the Democrats are having this same problem with Liberals.  

The Republicans wish this was just an issue problem, those are much easier to cure than a branding problem.  Issue problems go away the minute a platform changes.  Branding sticks long past facts have changed.  

The uncomfortable truth is that when you add up the various emotional issues (same-sex marriage, climate change, immigration reform, etc.) the emotions are so completely against the Republican platform and so are the percentages.  I would imagine that more than 50% of the population falls somewhere on one of those major issues.  When you add in the remaining amount who are Democratic for other, less knee-jerk, reasons, then that is a sizeable percentage who will never intend to be a part of the Republican Party. They may vote for the occasional candidate but they will never consider themselves a part of the overall system.

Whenever I hear someone like Priebus talk about how the RNC is changing course on it's negatives, I have to wonder if he honestly believes this.  I would assume he doesn't.  To be more charitable, I would hope that he at least believes that the current actions are starting to staunch the wounds for the generation just reaching awareness and onwards.  So, in his own way, he believes that, yes, the Republican Party is beginning to dig itself out of the hole that is currently 2-3 generations deep by looking towards the post-post Millennials.  If this is not true then he's simply delusional.  A successful 2014 midterms is a sign that the 40+ crowd is more fluid than many of us think, not that the Millennials are "starting to come around."  It doesn't even begin to address a point that I have been telling to anyone who will listen since 2012: the post-Reagan Republican platform can no longer win a national election.  Period.

Greetings, Professor Putin. How about a nice game of chess?

A quick thought about the recent “tit-for-tat” of US and Russian sanctions over Crimea.  For one, they aren’t “tit-for-tat.”  Everyone on the Right loves to make comments semi-praising Putin and outright-dissing Obama by claiming that on most topics “Putin is playing chess and Obama is playing checkers.”  (Note: Many on the Left have extensively, and I think correctly, discussed Senator McCain’s apparently man-crush on Putin.  The hate-lust is palpable.  And sometimes I wonder if these old weirdos recognize the fact that they continue to demand that a US president act more like a Russian quasi-strongman/despot.)  Well here is one area in which they emphatically are not.  Obama has imposed real and painful economic sanctions against some of the highest advisors and “cronies” in the Kremlin, on top of a major Russian bank many of the oligarchs use for their personal piggy banks.  He has even left open the possibility of directly sanctioning their major industries, and I think is a fair bet that Obama will end up following through on those threats.      

Russia has made it harder for seven Americans to get visas.

….

This is emphatically chess and checkers.  It could be said, charitably, that Putin has no interest in actually trying to respond to the US sanctions since he is more interested in consolidating his control in Eastern Ukraine.  He will convince his sanctioned countrymen to just “wait it out” till the next thaw.  Maybe.  I think a more likely explanation is twofold.  (1) The token economic advisors remaining in the Kremlin have explained to Putin that any attempt to impose a penalty will also have the effect of imposing a cost on Russia as well (as all sanctions do in a free trade environment) and the last thing Russia needs is further damage to their markets and a dive in investor confidence in the event of a trade war.  Perhaps nosedive is a better word for it.  (2) Russia understands that any sanctions they impose on the US would have little or no effect on a sluggish but growing US economy.  The thud of sanctions failing to have any impact is much louder than imposing tooth-less sanctions and calling it a day.  The weak trading relationship between the US and Russia makes sanctions a tricky proposition.  The main reason the US has teeth in this is the usual reasoning of the US as an investors haven and the dollar’s control over international finance. 

Putin called an emergency meeting of his economic advisors in Sochi back in April 2013, almost exactly a year ago.  (Note: what a perfect backdrop for an economic emergency meeting, then the scene of the 2014 Winter Olympics.  They could have looked out the window and seen the ongoing orgy of government waste, corruption, Pyongyang-level hubris, and overall fiscal irresponsibility as they get berated by Putin about why his toxic policies aren’t growing the economy.)  From that meeting, Putin made stopping and reversing the economic slowdown in Russia a top priority.  It hasn’t gone well.  This won’t help.   

Soviet Stock Markets

I want to piggy back on AB and give my own bit on isolationism and the elephant in the room of his post: Russia's ongoing annexation of Crimea.  

I will skip the legitimacy issue, which I think is, oddly enough mostly on Russia's side in this one. (Note: I could instead expound on Russia/Putin's absolute idiocy in fixing an election that he would have easily won and seizing a region that would have mostly gone over willingly.  But I won't do that either.)  The parts of this affair I find interesting are directly related to how this is and is not similar to Russia's invasion of Afghanistan.  

Similarities are obvious enough, Russian invasion and annexation with little to no opposition against their overwhelming force.  International outcry.  Russia attempting to use petro-state influence to sideline the West (especially Europe).  

Differences are much more interesting.  The existence of a Russian stock market.  There was no such stock market in the USSR.  In a matter of days, taking into account ongoing fluctuations, the Ruble has sunk to a five-year low and lost somewhere from 20-25% of it's value.  This is all without a single formal sanction being enacted.  It'll be interesting to see if this trend continues or abates, now that the first sanctions have been passed.  (Note: I would assume that the devaluation is going to start reversing, since the trend was mostly a product of investor fears over possible sanctions.)

I had a brief but friendly squabble on Facebook with a more conservative friend, quoting an article comparing Putin's more "traditional/materialist" view of power and Obama/Kerry's wishy-washy idea of power as being "on the right side of history."  I can appreciate that Putin was, apparently, working towards more concrete goals (naval ports and some generic talking point about "gas pipelines", even though all Crimean pipelines run through Western Ukraine, so that gain is dubious at best) but that's the real point here.  The US had almost nothing to gain here, except for some vague goal of resisting Putin, while Putin had an entire country and very well an entire region's worth of influence to gain here.  And on both counts he has failed spectacularly.  Kiev is, diplomatically and internally speaking, more united in opposition to the Kremlin than ever and the rest of the region has been left far from cowed and if anything, are more wary of a Russian government which is none too worried about international norms like territorial integrity.  

And a crashed Russian stock market to boot.  Them's been some expensive ports.

My main critique with the saber-rattling "get-tough-with-Putin" types and the "America is turning isolationist" types is that, at least in this case, it clearly wasn't needed.  I don't think any honest, sober assessment of the situation makes a case that anything or anyone could come between Russian and Crimea if the Kremlin was dead-set on taking it.  And they clearly were.  So if stopping this annexation was a foregone conclusion, the only positive result possible (in the interests of the West) is for Putin/Russia to suffer a penalty so punitive, as to be dissuaded from making such a decision in the near future.  The goal should be to change the Kremlin’s calculations.  On this I think most rational critics of the US administration agree.  

With that in mind, the reason why I don’t think it is honest of either camp to cry foul in this instance is that, Obama/Kerry’s actions or in actions have worked.  Russia is/will suffer a massive economic hardship from this and is only going to fall further into economic slowdown.  The calculations are going to change.  Mission accomplished.

 It is my strong belief that this entire enterprise is spin on a massive level.  Putin’s equivalent of being denied the deed to a store, settling with taking some clothes off the nearest rack, and pretending that this was his goal in the first place and is a great personal victory as well.  I find it sad that most of the MSM/Beltway insiders seem to buy into this spin.  This was a monumental miscalculation for Putin, which I have heard can be chalked up to an inner circle that no longer contains any sane voices who understand/care one iota about economic policy.   I understand something which, I believe, Obama/Kerry understands as well.  This did not need big pushes.  It needed a few small nudges.  You can call it isolationism when their inactions are having a negative effect on US/allied influence in the world but that is simply not the case here.  This has worked.  Anyone who thinks that a government can watch its currency lose 25% of its value almost overnight, for factors directly tied to its actions, and not have to re-assess its strategy is living in even more of a fantasy world than Vladamir Putin.

It's not 2000 anymore...

A thought that's been trickling about my brainstem....

Progressives often decry (correctly) conventional GOP formulations on economic recovery because "it's not 1979 anymore."  Tight money is antithetical to what we need.  I think there's a similar moment emerging on foreign policy with the shoe on the other foot.  The following idea is still deeply embryonic, so bear with.

The last decade+ has seen a significant rise in liberal advocacy for isolationism masquerading as realism and retrenchment.  The idea that there's an emergent multipolar world and that the US has no choice but to retrench for its own sake and take advantage of its own natural cover.  This foolishness amounts to a self-fulfilling prophecy.

As the police stop walking the beat, crime rises.  As crime rises, you need more cops to walk the beat.  As the US retrenches from hard and soft power projection, international lawlessness spikes.  As the Obama administration turns its head towards myopic Pollyannas like Mearsheimer, America is losing its natural alliances with Westernized democracies and the soft power projected from its role as global hegemon.  Because of some bizarre, fetishized devotion to an Eisenhower presidency that never existed (mimicking the right's own Reagan fetishism), the Obama administration has successfully completed the task started by the Bush 43 administration by drawing down the US' role after bungling imperial wars that have confused a public that probably still broadly supports their more righteous cousin, liberal interventionism.

And so, it's 1979 all over again.  It's not 2000.  We've drawn down to the field and made ourselves small enough to be sniffed.  For once, the right is at least a little right.  The US must return to projecting power in a meaningful way, to abandoning counterproductive detente policies, and to buttressing liberal democracy the world over against its pernicious foes.

The world's gone multipolar, and the tonic is Reagan-era neoconservativism.

Andrew Sullivan, shut up and take my money!

Last week, I spent $20, the minimum possible amount, and became a subscriber to Andrew Sullivan’s current events blog “The Dish.”  While I don’t agree with all of his positions and points of view, I am consistently impressed with his voice as a writer and his refusal to pigeonhole the blog to topics which are his traditional strengths.  His tendency to use “ctd” posts to showcase responses to his posts or to the ideas in general is an especially interesting way to do business. 

But what I what you to take away from this is the fact this is the first time I’ve ever paid for a blog.  And now I’m scratching my head on a general idea that comes from this fact: what is a blog worth to me?  I understand that this idea is hardly new and has already been debated ad nauseum by some in the blogosphere and MSM, but it’s the first time I’ve had to consider it myself.

On the one hand, a professional blog such as The Dish is little different from my subscription to the New Yorker.  I’m paying for news and opinion and analysis which are rich enough and numerous enough to warrant hours out of my week spent on it.  Now that I’m paying, I visit it daily, when before I was only visiting it when another site or friend (AB) had recommended something to me.  But that is itself ipso facto logic.  Still, it is certainly interesting enough to warrant a daily visit and the voice of the blog is distinct enough to offer me something I can’t get elsewhere.  So time spent and the exclusivity of materials are two factors on my side here.

Next is the price.  $20/year?  Too much?  I’ll skip the usual Save the Children type comparison (for the record, this works out to about $0.05/day) and instead focus on personal value.  How much would I spend for the free blogs I currently enjoy and MUST visit at least once a day?  If I’m really being honest with myself, if one of my main blogs (io9 [the sci-fi blog], Towleroad [the gay news blog], or Politico [guess what it’s about]) were to suddenly become a paywall, I’d probably cough up a bit of cash.  In fact, for io9 definitely, I’d probably cough up a bunch of cash.   If someone were to quote me the price of $1 per day, I’d probably think that is fair for the value I get out of it.  I’d balk at the $365 price tag but might very well end up paying it.  (I NEED sci-fi, much like Bill Kristol needs puppy blood.) 

The issue I think a lot of us have over price is that this price comes before the value.  I’d say this is the default way we do transactions in society.  Cars, food, apartments, etc.  But the internet has made us think differently about something as intangible and, seemingly, fungible as blogs.  For so long they have been relegated to the domain of “they should just be happy I’m paying attention” that they have had an infinitely weak bargaining position.      

Has that changed?  I suppose.  For me it has, at any rate.  After years of enjoying and being impressed by how much a professional blog can influence my life, I’m willing to take a leap of faith based on good reviews, good “samples”, and over a decade of built-up respect for a medium that I have come to consider irreplaceable.

Truth and Reconciliation

Sometime in the near future, I pray, there will be a vast and difficult undertaking of Truth and Reconciliation between the Israeli and Palestinian people.  I look forward to that day.  Mostly because it would mean that there is some measure of peace between them and an end to the conflict.  In so far, as there is ever an "end" to anything.

But I do not know when that day will come.

Instead, let me talk about one such undertaking, which many people think has yet to come but I believe is already underway and will continue for many years to come.  To be more specific, one side in this struggle has given in and has begun to sue for peace, truth, and reconciliation.  To be even more specific, that side is the anti-gay rights faction.

To be clear, I do not believe that the fight is in fact over.  Mostly because it isn't.  The signs and facts are so many and obvious that I do not need to list them here.   However, I think we can all agree that the majority of the US conservative "intelligentsia" have finally and quietly thrown in the towel.  Those who continue to rail against gay marriage for instance have lately been looked upon by their conservative peers as if they were repairing an old house on a beach, when a mile or so off the coast there is a tsunami approaching.  Which is to say, "that's a beautiful house and I'd love to help, but that's not just the daily tide and it is soon to drown us all if we don't GTFO."  These are the ones who have begun to sue for peace.

Ross Douthat being the most recent example, with his post in the NYT, conveniently (for me) named The Terms of Our Surrender.  I will admit that Ross' article gave me the impetus for this post but this is a topic I've had to think about for a few years now.  I do not pretend that there is not still years ahead of us in this fight and many hearts/minds to win over but sooner or later the gay community is going to be faced with the question all civil rights movements are forced to ask themselves.  What is to be done with those who stood in our way?  Even after this is over, we will continue to be a small minority so our "power" to exert some penalty or fine on those who continue to oppose gay rights will continue to be only as large as the straight community allows it to be.  Perhaps even less so, since in progressive circles a group's "influence" tends to be in direct proportion to how much "oppression" it appears to be under.   So at least in that sense, our victim card will be severely diminished as more time elapses.  But what we do after winning will define our movement and the growth of our community for the next generation or two.  So it requires some thought.  

This topic of "what is to be done" has been explored in depth by Andrew Sullivan here and with links to other ideas here.  The consensus being that the conservative intelligentsia want to "carve out" some space for religious protections and the gay activist community is just as eager to deny them that space.  I won't rehash their arguments here, you can follow the links for the full stories.  And before I give my own opinion I want to tie this into a larger strategy that is happening and will become even more obvious as we approach/reach equality: the all-mighty backpedal.

It comes in stages and this one is no different.  As we've already seen, it starts with the qualified peace-offering of support: "I believe all states should be allowed to vote on this issue however they wish."  And let's be honest, anyone who says that they always held this view is going to have to completely white-wash over the fact damn near all of them supported a constitution amendment that would have, theoretically, taken the choice away from many many voters/states.  (Since it did not need 100% of states to approve it for it to be ratified.)  It continues with a tepid offering of slight support: "I believe same-sex couples deserve the same rights as other couples."  It follows with an outright declaration of support: "I believe that same-sex couples should be allowed to enter into civil marriage, so long as the rights of religious believers are protected."  And finally, the day will come, as it always comes in these situations, when the stage is set for the final act: "I have always had nothing but respect for the rights of LGBT Americans and a belief in marriage equality."

Who here doesn't believe that we will all hear those words come out of the mouths of many current politicians in the years to come.  Hopefully delivered in the most awkward gay pride/celebration setting as possible.  Many of our current politicians who are against gay rights will most likely be dead or retired (hopefully due to being fired) before things like marriage equality are universally praised.  But the rates on incumbent re-election and the youth of some of our current representatives correlate sufficiently, so many of them will live to prostrate/humiliate themselves by trying to ingratiate themselves to "the gays."  Frankly, I can't wait to see Paul Ryan awkwardly holding a rainbow flag and, oh, I don't know.....hugging an equally uncomfortable gay intern while trying to connect how "awesome" gay marriage is to how awkward tax reform is.  Make no mistake, not only will they come out in support of it one day, but they will deny in no uncertain terms that they have EVER been against same-sex marriage.  There will be a period where they will use words like "evolve" or whatever but much like our most famous "evolve-er", President Obama, it will quickly be shucked aside and replaced with a revisionist, eternal support.  The difference being that I think President Obama has perhaps the much better case for it actually being true.        

You can already see shades of this every time a "moderate" like Christie or Rand Paul says something to the effect that "I have no problem with gay people in general and I have nothing but support for those in committed same-sex relationships, I just think it should be left up to each state to decide."  If you take out most of the middle and replace "gay people" and "same-sex marriage" you can hear the future being spoken right now.

How does this tie into a discussion of SSM v. religious protections?  To be honest, how we fight against one is going to directly influence how we fight against the other.  And here is my opinion: we shouldn't.

Let me be clear: in the pursuit of full rights and full equality, we must not stop fighting until every ounce of denied liberty has been gained.  This will not be given to us.  Despite my "optimism" on the surrender of the conservative brain-trust, I know that the rank-and-file conservatives of this time will not be so gracious and will fight us tooth and nail.  The House of Representatives and the Senate will fight us tooth and nail.  When we win it will be because we fought for every inch of ground.  And victory should not be accepted as anything less than total and complete recognition of our dignity as citizens and human beings in the eyes and laws of our government.  Any who stand in our way must be confronted and called out for who and what they are until they are made as irrelevant as their policies.

But after that?  We must be gracious and we must be forgiving and we must be respectful.  Even if it means accepting that there will be those who will re-write their own histories or hold into their old prejudices.

I understand the yearn to see justice for rights denied and to see those who denied those rights to have to pay some price.  But we must fight this impulse at every turn.  To do otherwise would be to lead our movement away from a long and noble history of fighting for the rights of others and plunge it the tragic and predictable dead-end of "settling scores."

There are more people in this country and in other countries who will continue to have their rights denied, and every ounce of effort we make trying to punish those who have wronged us is one less ounce of effort we make towards more worthy causes.  Also, there is an important debate that needs to go on in our country.  In fact, in every country.  Between conservative and progressive.  Between spending more, spending less, more government, less government, higher interest rates, lower interest rates, more isolationism, less isolationism.  Neither side is ever completely right, because facts do not stay facts for long.  Our world grows and sheds its skin and changes.  We find ourselves coming back to these same arguments for a reason.  None of them generally stay true for very long.  These fights are important and when they are shut down because of old fights and old positions, we all lose out.        

We will not forget those who stood with us and those who stood against us but that doesn't mean we need to devote more of our lives to seeing our opponents punished.  And once they support us and our movement, we accept it, hope that they have truly learned something, and get on with the real work of progress.  And for those who will continue to fight us and deny us equal rights in whatever small ways they can, for whatever reasons they claim, we must accept them as well.  We do not need to sue or attempt to bring the sword of civil power down on them.  We need only turn our backs and encourage our friends/family to turn their backs and leave them behind.  It should be enough that history, the law, the government, and their own children will most likely become so strange to them that they will indeed feel as if they are alone in the wilderness.

And, yes, we should be ready to accept them as well with open arms if/when they should tire of the solitude.    

The Contrarian

I can literally remember the first time I saw Christopher Hitchens speak on television.  It was 2003, just before the start of the Iraq invasion.  I was watching CSPAN for some reason (I was a fairly odd kid) and it was a debate on the merits/legality of the invasion of Iraq and Hitchens was on the side of the invasion, of course.  I was, at the time, a knee-jerk liberal teenager and ready to hate anyone who spoke for it.  The anti-intervention speaker was kind of bland and generic.  Then Hitchens came on and instantly made me angry.  I hated everything he said and stood for.  But as I kept listening, I realized something else was happening at the same time.  Bit by bit, he was convincing me.  I had this deep, emotional, gut feeling about the coming war and then using nothing other than his own words he was convincing me to ignore my gut.  That onto itself felt like a magic trick.  

I still didn't like a man who spoke so eloquently and, most damning of all, so persuasively about something I would go blue in the face shouting against.  So I didn't intend to follow him but as he continued to show up on television or write columns in Slate or Salon or Vanity Fair, I took notice.  Until at some point, for his second magic trick, he made me into not only a fan but into someone who considers him a mentor and a model for living one's life.  All this even though I never got the chance to see him speak in person.

I think few people can claim to have had as rich and full of a life as Christopher Hitchens.  To quote one of the loveliest lines from Tony Kuschner, he was "a whole kind of person."  From chasing after mujhadeen for an article to hosting a cocktail party in his own home and "popping off" for 30 minutes to write a full Slate article in the time it would take most of us to think of the title.  More importantly, to me, he did it all with a Roger Williams-esque zeal and devotion to the truth.  He enjoyed grandstanding and he enjoyed throwing molotov cocktails, sure, but I don't think anyone can call his passionate opinions on the worth or lack of worth of various ideas and public figures as anything but painfully honest.  He was willing to lose friends and lose jobs for the right to speak his mind.  An atheist Trotskyist who rubbed shoulders with the US conservative elite for a time.  That right there probably tells you exactly how much he subscribed to orthodoxy and the opinions of others.              

He's been dead for quite a while now, but I recently started reading his final book of essays, "Arguably."  I've only started but every sentence reminds me of his voice and that sadness I felt when he died.  It's probably a sign of how little I'd had to deal with the death of loved ones in my life at that point, that his death hit me the hardest I had felt for a long while.  But the point is that his death hit me because I knew he was the kind of person who would not get replaced in my life.  I do not think I will ever have another mentor who makes me want/need to be a more....complete man.  Maybe it's a part of aging where your goals get more specific and less expansive.  I'll admire this person or that their achievements in one field or another.  He makes more money, she's gone further up the ladder, etc.

But I will not have another Hitchens in my life.  He was one and done.

This is Not About HBO's True Detective

I want to mention that I just downloaded the first three episodes of HBO's new show True Detective.  It's received amazing, yet somewhat also low-key, acclaim.  (Note: The low-key part I find particularly intriguing, since I am a huge Game of Thrones fan, which has a much splashier and trumpeted media presence but I have never read anything about it quite like the recent story wherein True Detective's season finale crashed the HBO streaming site.  Weird, right?). 

Now I don't mention this to talk about the fact I downloaded True Detective.  I mention this to talk about the fact I have not downloaded HBO's OTHER new show Looking.  You know, the show made expressly for me.  (Note: Demo: Gay males age 25-40.)  Ish. 

Now there are a couple of different ways I can talk about this.  On the one hand, I can talk about the fact HBO has a knack for merging art and commerce (see: The Wire, Rome, GoT, Deadwood, Carnivale, etc.) as so few TV networks have before or since.  However, this is apparently a good example of art and commerce working against each other, where the creators are so dead set on not being JUST entertainment that they forget to actually BE entertaining.  On the other hand, I can talk about the fact I’ve dismissed this show based purely on ads and reviews of the show.  This could be a pretty fertile topic, vis a vis the inherent idiocy/douchiness of dismissing any piece of art based purely on the opinions of others or the counter fact that I think the wisest course of action is to pull a Nate Silver and realize that when the gross aggregate of criticism is uniformly negative, it’s almost dumb to waste your time on something unless your job is to be one of those unhappy reviewers. 

Instead I’m going to chose the third hand (?) and talk briefly about the inherent fallacy about trying to make any kind of art about a generic “you” or “them” or “us.”  Art, especially a visual/language medium like TV, really only works when it is a specific you/them/us.  Game of Thrones has magic and gods and dragons.  It has a woman who gave birth (kindda) to dragons.  It is implied that she will one day ride said dragons.  She is utterly captivating but not because she is a pastiche of dragon queens or warrior princesses or some idealized version of a woman with the will to command this mythological force.  She is a fully realized character with a specific back-story that has made her into a distinct/flawed character.  She can be childish and thick-headed and make some really bad choices because, based on what we know of her, these are the choices we would probably make in her position. Or not.  She’s not the strength that you find in all women or the wisdom that all mothers find within themselves or some other cliché intended to make her into an everywoman. She’s a person. 

In regards to Looking, I understand their goal is to show the kind of groups that I’m told are pretty common, even if I’m not part of one, gay men who “hang out and smoke weed and talk about whatever and just basically act kind of boring.”  But apparently that's it.  A group of guys that could exist.  As the creators have said to dismiss the charges of being a boring show, they made it boring “intentionally.”  Instead of complex/complicated/interesting characters, the show presents us with characters who have been made as generically as possible so as many gay men as possible are able to identify with each of these precise arch-types.  But therein lies the rub.  We (the viewers) don’t connect with characters because we think they have a certain minimum percentage of similarity to our own existence.  We connect because they are a unique character and we either recognize a moment of their existence as mirroring a specific moment of our own or even just because they are portrayed well and force us to empathize with the joy/suffering/experience of another human being.  Even someone emphatically not us.

This brings me to probably the single most depressing idea this show has wrought on our already troubled world.   The fact is that the creators have essentially told the gay male community, and by extension the whole of humanity, that when we think of ourselves we want to be bored.  That the best way to make people connect with their own lives is to show us “similar” lives.....in which not much really happens.  Is this meant to be auto-biographical?  Do the creators think their lives are quintessentially boring?  Maybe they just think “our” lives are boring.  This is either the most nihilist television show since The Prisoner or the most complex/expensive hate letter directed at the gay community in television history.  Are the creators endicting just themselves, all gay men, or all of mankind in this modern day adaptation of No Exit?

In either case, the best takedown of this idea of life as boring has already been delivered and the words are not mine.  So I won’t even pretend I deserve the last word on this.  Instead I will leave you with the words of Mr. Charlie Kaufman in his 2002 film, Adaptation:

[at a seminar, Charlie Kaufman has asked McKee for advice on his new screenplay in which 'nothing much happens']

Robert McKee: Nothing happens in the world? Are you out of your fucking mind? People are murdered every day. There's genocide, war, corruption. Every fucking day, somewhere in the world, somebody sacrifices his life to save someone else. Every fucking day, someone, somewhere takes a conscious decision to destroy someone else. People find love, people lose it. For Christ's sake, a child watches her mother beaten to death on the steps of a church. Someone goes hungry. Somebody else betrays his best friend for a woman. If you can't find that stuff in life, then you, my friend, don't know crap about life! And why the FUCK are you wasting my two precious hours with your movie? I don't have any use for it! I don't have any bloody use for it!

Charlie Kaufman: Okay, thanks.