Home » Politics (Page 17)
Category Archives: Politics
Senator Claire McCaskill and the Iran Deal
Letter to Senator Claire McCaskill’s field representative in St. Louis, 9/1/15:
Dear _____
Thank you for taking the time to meet with me and my colleague yesterday afternoon. Please allow me to summarize the main points of our position.
- To frame the choice between the proposed deal with Iran and no deal at all is misleading because a) the premature relaxation of sanctions put the United States in a position of weakness, b) the administration’s eagerness to achieve a deal resulted in unnecessary concessions that render the deal largely ineffective, and c) as the president himself has said all along, and as Senator McCaskill has said herself, no deal is better than a bad deal.
- Even if Iran adheres to the conditions of the deal, the Iranian government will be able to achieve nuclear capability within ten years. This is not our opinion, but the understanding of Henry Kissinger and George Shultz, explained in their April 8 op-ed in the Wall Street Journal: “Negotiations . . . to prevent an Iranian capability to develop a nuclear arsenal are ending with an agreement that concedes this very capability .”
- Iran has long demonstrated and continues to demonstrate dishonesty in upholding its own commitments, and should be taken seriously in its unchanging refrain “Death to America.” Iran’s procurement of ICBMs will put every American in danger.
- Experts from all quarters express little faith that the verification procedures will be effective.
- The release of billions into the hands of Iran will certainly be used to continue its sponsorship of international terrorism.
- The described “snapback” of sanctions if Iran violates the terms of the deal is a fantasy. Russia and China are far more concerned with the profits available from doing business with Iran than with the security of western nations, and our allies in the west won’t want to forgo their own profits to let Russia and China be the sole beneficiaries of free trade. If the United States reinstates sanctions now, perhaps it can convince its allies to do the same and restore at least some of the pressure that had been effective until it was unilaterally withdrawn.
- American credibility around the world will not be diminished by rejecting the deal, since it is already non-existent as a result of failing to support our allies (Poland, Czech Republic, Ukraine), failing to stand by our own principles (Syria, Cuba), and failure to show concern for our own people (American hostages held by Iran).
- In sum, because of a series of ill-advised policy decisions by this administration, the only sane option that remains to us is to deny the deal its legitimacy in hope that a future leader of superior vision and courage will be in a better position to stem the aggression of this terrorist regime. To endorse a deal that provides no security is the worst possible decision, for it perpetuates the administration’s fantasy of achieving security while making the world a far more dangerous place.
Thank you again for you time. Please forward these points to Senator McCaskill, as we discussed. We are eager to hear her responses.
Sincerely,
Rabbi Yonason Goldson
In Praise of Superficiality
As we get deeper into campaign season and the Trump phenomenon gains traction, here’s a look back on my retrospective of 2008, a year of political circus and economic implosion.
Beauty is only skin deep. Don’t judge a book by its cover. All that glitters is not gold.
These well-heeled sound-bytes of conventional wisdom warn us against granting value to appearance, form, and externality. They assert that depth and substance are the determinants of genuine value and true worth. They teach us to look behind every facade and eschew form over content.
Obviously, the people who composed these popular aphorisms were themselves unattractive, moodily self-conscious, or terminally unpopular — quite possibly all three. Yet somehow they succeeded in foisting upon Western Civilization one of the great propaganda victories of the ages, convincing the masses that physical form is quantitatively less important than such insubstantial qualities as character, aptitude, and integrity.
Astonishingly, this shameless hoax continues to shape our outlooks and attitudes even though we all know better. After all, no one would dream of visiting Washington D.C, without seeing the National Gallery, Paris without taking in the Jeu de Paume, or Croatia without experiencing the Muzej Turopolja. And what are these meccas of cultural sophistication? Art galleries — collections of paintings, sculptures, and countless testimonials to aesthetic form and external beauty. When was the last time you visited a metropolitan museum of internal organs or auto parts?
True, beauty may be only skin deep, but that’s precisely the point. Where would Julia Roberts’s career be without her skin? She may be a fine actress, and I’m sure she’s a very nice person, but her movies wouldn’t draw much of an audience if she had her skin surgically peeled away before production.
WHAT’S IN A NAME? EVERYTHING!
Modern psychology has begun to recognize the fallacy of substance over form. In his bestselling book Blink: the Power of Thinking Without Thinking, Malcolm Gladwell marshals compelling evidence in support of superficiality. In one study, college students concluding their semester courses were asked to evaluate the quality of their teachers. Other students, who had not attended these classes, were shown three ten-second videos of the same teachers in action. Their evaluations matched closely those of the students who had actually attended.
The experimenter then shortened the video samples to five seconds, and then to two seconds, each time with comparable results. And this was with the sound turned off! Unfortunately, Mr. Gladwell does not pursue his train of thought to its logical conclusion. If two seconds is just as good as five seconds, ten seconds, or half a year, why do we need any seconds at all? A picture of the teacher should be enough to determine his competency or, even better, merely his name. It should be obvious that Mr. Sunshine, Professor Smiles, or Ms. Summer will create a more positive classroom experience than Mrs. Stern, Dr. Gaunt, or Miss Winter.
A rose by any other name would smell as sweet, observed William Shakespeare, but let’s remember that most historians now believe that those revered plays and sonnets were not actually written by William Shakespeare, the merchant who lived in Stratford-on-Avon. For all his great literary work, Shakespeare wasn’t really Shakespeare, and no one knows who he was. Imagine if the real author stepped forward today and claimed credit for his writings. Nobody would believe him. Of course, hardly anybody would care. We’ve all moved on to reading more relevant novels about teenage vampires.
Consider the last presidential election. Almost the entire Republican Party establishment agreed that Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee was the best candidate to lead the country. But he never had a chance. Can you imagine the elites of vote-laden New York, New England, and California ever voting for someone named Huckabee? If he’d been clever, the governor would have changed his name to Mike Skywalker-Sanchez, thereby establishing himself as an epic hero while attracting the critical Hispanic vote at the same time.
MIND OVER MATTERS
Consider also the recent economic collapse. Everyone was perfectly happy until someone found that all those companies enjoying soaring stock prices weren’t really making any money. As soon as the media started uttering words like downturn, recession, and pyramid scheme the entire market dove into a tailspin. Wouldn’t we all be better off if those misguided people obsessed with digging beneath the surface had simply satisfied themselves with the illusion of prosperity?
Of greater consequence is the effect of our misguided quest to bring depth, complexity, and meaning into our personal lives. Human nature as it is, how much anxiety do we cause ourselves through self-help books that teach us to look for inner peace, and through therapy that prods us to resolve neuroses of which we weren’t even conscious? How many relationships would flourish if we accepted physical attraction and physical gratification as the ideal rather than pursuing fantasies like “self-actualization” and the search for “soul-mates”?
Further evidence can be found in America’s obesity epidemic. Our subconscious minds, confused by the contradictions implicit in the rejection of two-dimensionalism, leave us with no alternative than to impose our misguided objective of becoming three-dimensional upon our physical bodies. The more we seek depth, the more three-dimensional we become — which may be good for the diet-book industry but not for our wardrobes.
So why don’t we all stop pretending? If superficiality is bliss, and if depth and meaning cause only confusion and discontent, it should be a no-brainer.
Here’s the problem. Superficially, depth is “in.” We don’t want to appear shallow because shallowness appears superficially inferior. Of course, on deeper reflection, we understand that superficial appearance is infinitely preferable to the complexity of depth, but our superficiality doesn’t allow us to admit this fact because it seems too obvious to be significant. Get it?
But today we find ourselves poised on the brink of a new era. Ours is the generation of change! Let us seize the moment and rise up as one people with one objective. Let us cast off our superficial adoration for depth and substance. Let us not be afraid to declare our commitment to all that is two-dimensional and raise up the banner of simplicity and externality. Let us purge our worldview of the pernicious urge to discover meaning in our existence, and let us join hands in our conviction that everything worth having should be available to everyone without any effort, thought, or accountability.
Well, aren’t you feeling better already?
The Greatest Moment in the History of the Universe
But to hear Ann Coulter tell it, it was awfully close.
Just to be clear, this has nothing to do with politics. Hardly anyone thinks that Donald Trump’s immigration plan is viable, no matter how much it may appeal to hardliners. It probably would require a constitutional amendment, it would certainly take half a century and over 100 billion dollars to implement, and it would effectively make Mr. Trump unelectable — if he isn’t already.
But none of that is the point.
What is absolutely clear, beyond any doubt or debate is this: Donald Trump’s plan is not the greatest political document since the Magna Carta.
No matter what Ms. Coulter says.
This is the same kind of irresponsible hyperbole that turns every ideological opponent into a Nazi, a terrorist, a rapist, or a child molester. It shows the same kind of disregard for history that led Ms. Coulter to attempt to resurrect Joseph McCarthy as a fallen hero in place of the paranoid pit-viper that he was. And it’s the same kind of disregard for language and reality that allowed Al Sharpton to laud Bill Clinton as “the first black president,” that enabled Bill Clinton to redefine the word “is,” and that lies at the heart of the political correctness that Ms. Coulter herself (correctly) abhors.
To brand every antagonist a Nazi is to devalue the horror of the Holocaust and to insult its millions of victims. To call newspaper columnists and television hosts terrorists shows a vile lack of empathy for the victims of 9/11 and Oklahoma City. And to suggest any comparison between the Magna Carta and a political platform that is 90% grandstanding and 10% policy is to muddy the waters of logic and reason whey both are clouded enough already.
What an insult to the Summa Theologica, the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, Thomas Paine’s Rights of Man, and the Emancipation Proclamation. What a mockery of political history.
“Words, words, words,” wrote William Shakespeare. When we don’t respect them, when we twist them to gain cheap rhetoric advantage without regard for accuracy or authenticity, we become complicit in accelerating the Orwellian doublethink that is already eating away at the civil discourse that is the foundation of a functioning democracy.
Channeling Anger and Solving our Common Problems
My thanks to Dan Mason of KKOH in Reno for inviting me to be a guest on his show. We talked about the anger driving voters, resolving conflict, and transforming negatives into positives.
Email of the Week — The Haircut
Blessed are those that can give without remembering, and take without forgetting.
One day a florist went to the barber for a haircut. When the barber finished he said to the florist, “I can’t take your money: I’m doing community service this week.” The florist was pleased and left the shop.
When the barber went to open his shop the next morning, there was a Thank You card and a dozen roses waiting for him at his door.
Later, a policeman came in for a haircut. When he tried to pay his bill, the barber again explained, “I can’t take your money: I’m doing community service this week.” The officer was happy and left the shop.
The next morning when the barber went to open up, there was a Thank You card and a dozen donuts waiting for him at his door.
Then a Congressman came in for a haircut. “I can’t take your money,” said the barber once again. “I’m doing community service this week.” The Congressman was very happy and left the shop.
The next morning, when the barber went to open up, there were a dozen Congressmen lined up waiting for a free haircut.
And that, my friends, illustrates the fundamental difference between the citizens of our country and the politicians who run it.
As Mark Twain said:
Both politicians and diapers need to be changed often, and for the same reason.
Hat tip: Mom and Ginny Harrigan
A Letter to Every Senate Democrat
Dear Senator,
The president’s deal with Iran will make the world safer. That’s what President Obama has told us. But there are no facts to support his claim.Not only has Iran has repeatedly violated UN resolutions, but the administration and other governments may have worked to conceal those violations. Iran has declared its intent to destroy the United States — the Great Satan. The demands upon Iran are minimal, temporary, and unverifiable. Even before the ink is dry, Iran is violating the treaty with Maj. Gen. Ghasem Soleimani’s trip to Russia. Iran will only grow more brazen, because its leaders know that they will not be held accountable by a weak president and an international community in denial.
Senator, this deal is built on a fantasy. The lessons of Neville Chamberlain’s appeasement are written on the monuments to the martyrs of the Holocaust and World War II. The lessons of Jimmy Carter’s appeasement treaty are written on the nuclear arsenal of North Korea. Do we really want to risk the world’s future so that Barack Obama and John Kerry can claim a fictitious victory that is worse than useless?
You don’t have to be Thomas Jefferson to recognize that you can’t make peace with people who don’t want to make peace with you. Do you really want your name appended to the list of Obama loyalists who will choose politics over common sense?
Fox and Hounds: A Debate for our Time
More than 1500 years ago, the Talmud predicted an era in which the generation would have “the face of a dog.”
Dogs walk out in front of their owners, creating the appearance that they are leading the way. But a sharp pull on the leash and the dog falls into line, surrendering its will to the will of its master.
Could there be a more accurate description of modern leadership, where our “leaders” look to polls and constituencies before tailoring their message and their policies to fit what is popular and what will keep them in office?
It seems to work, despite the irony that public approval of our public officials continues to plummet. Like the family pet, too many of us are happy enough if we have food, a place to sleep, and masters who tell us how much they love us.
Others are disgusted by the implosion of the system, so much so that they are willing to embrace a self-promoting egomaniac with no redeeming qualities except the one that might matter most: a willingness to say what he really thinks.
This is where things will stand tonight as Fox News hosts the first Republican debate. Maybe a true leader will rise up out of the melee. But for now, all we hear is a lot of barking.
Mike Huckabee’s the Bomb Thrower?
“This President’s foreign policy is the most feckless in American history. It is so naive that he would trust the Iranians. By doing so, he will take the Israelis and march them to the door of the oven. This is the most idiotic thing, this Iran deal.”
These are the incendiary words of Mike Huckabee in an interview with the Breitbart News Network. Woe upon us.
It’s hardly surprising that Barack Obama found the governor’s words offensive; for six years the president has taken offense at every utterance that isn’t laudatory, obeisant, or downright reverential.
It’s also no surprise that John Kerry found the governor’s comments offensive. The Iran deal is Mr. Kerry’s only shot at a Nobel Peace Prize, and the unwelcome reality check of fear-mongers like Prime Minister Netanyahu and Governor Huckabee might, if they find traction (which they won’t), jeopardize his chance to join the ranks of such great historic peacemakers as Jimmy Carter, Al Gore, and Yasir Arafat.
Napoleon’s Wisdom
According to legend, Napoleon was riding through the streets of Paris one evening when he ordered his carriage driver to stop. Passing by a synagogue and glancing in the window, he had witnessed an entire congregation of Jews sitting on the floor by candlelight and raising their voices in cries of sorrow.
Napoleon sent his aide to investigate, and was informed that it was the ninth day of the month of Av, when the Jews were mourn the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem.
“How long ago was it destroyed?” asked the Emperor.
“Over 1700 years ago,” he was told.
“1700 years and they’re still mourning!” exclaimed Napoleon. “Such a nation will endure forever and will rise to power again.”
Is Anyone Still Wild About Harry?
As a boy in junior high school, I bought the soundtrack of “Give ’em Hell, Harry” at a school book and record sale. I have no idea what prompted me to spend a dollar on that particular piece of vinyl — I wasn’t living in Missouri then, but in Los Angeles, California.
Whatever the reason, it proved one of the best investments of my life. By the time I reached high school, I had practically committed James Whitmore’s entire 90-minute monologue to memory, and Harry Truman had become my hero.
I found the video on YouTube recently and, just last week, returned to the beloved performance. With my recent essay on honesty and integrity so freshly pressed, the following words jumped out and seized hold of me:
“Dictatorship? No, it’ll never happen. The Constitution will stop ‘em every time.
“I’ll tell you, there’s only one way that could happen, and that’s if we had a liar in public office. There’s nothing more dangerous on this earth than a liar in public office, because the people might believe him.
“But if the people every found a fellow like that they ought to show him the same amount of compassion that he showed the constitution. No more, no less.”
What would Harry Truman say about a president like Barack Obama who, according to the Washington Post, claims three of the twelve most egregious lies of 2014 and three of the ten biggest lies of 2013? What would Harry say about a candidate like Hillary Clinton, the “congenital liar” who seems emboldened to tell ever-inflating whoppers without a shred of shame or contrition?
And what would Mr. Truman have to say about an American electorate willing to overlook the brazen dishonesty of politicians willing to say and do anything to get into office and push through their self-serving agendas?
As the song says: Harry, where are you, now that we need you?

