Likelihood of Success

Ron Coleman’s pretty good blog

CAIR in the Capitol

Posted by Ron Coleman on March 12, 2007

The Captain’s Quarters blog reports that Democratic Representative Bill Pascrell is hosting a reception for CAIR, a front for terrorism, tomorrow at the U.S. Capitol:

CAIR’s ties to terrorism have been outlined by Joe Kaufman at Front Page for some time. They first came to light when the Islamic organization attempted to hijack 9/11 donations by sending them to the Holy Land Foundation — a “charity” that funded Hamas. After getting caught, CAIR explicitly noted that the funds would go to the HLF and to a new entity called Global Relief Foundation — which sent money to Al-Qaeda and other related groups.

Pascrell’s approval of CAIR’s meeting request was confirmed by the Washington Times and by me, just now, with my fancy black telephone. One remarkable aspect of this is that Pascrell — my representative — represents the very orthodox Jewish communities in Passaic and Clifton, New Jersey. But his District also includes Paterson, a major Muslim population and cultural center.

So Pascrell is in a tough spot, politically, but it should be tougher. Realpolitik concerns and the self-immolation of the GOP in my home state have guaranteed Pascrell a lifetime tenure in New Jersey, a one-party state if there ever was one.

I don’t know how much can be mobilized in my neighborhood to protest against Pascrell’s support of CAIR in this short time (though it is not really news), but this demonstrates how Jews, for all their purported political clout and sophistication, can be co-opted as fast as any other interest group once there is no longer a political alternative. This is what has happened in New Jersey.

UPDATE: More context from Lynn B. InContext (hat tip to David Gerstman) and Jihad Watch.

UPPERDATE: Maybe they will get to Washington via AIR-CAIR! No security checks needed.

Posted in Orient, Politics and Poker | 2 Comments »

In the nicest possible way

Posted by Ron Coleman on March 12, 2007

I don’t know Megan McArdle. She has her own blog (she’s “Jane Galt”). I don’t read it. It may be very good; it seems to be very popular, but once I hit the Ayn Rand iconography you lose me. That’s just me. By all the evidence, it is, or she is, good enough to substitute for Glenn Reynolds on Instapundit this week. That is a major feather in a blogger’s cap, to say the least, something to be jealous of. So of course, yes, I’m jealous of her blog, and her blogging fame, and her Wikipedia article, and all that.

I just don’t think she’s writing so good on Instapundit (besides the fact that she spells like a Canadian — that’s just wrong!). And it’s not usually my business to say that about other bloggers, but here’s why I think it matters. I mean it in the nicest possible way. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Blogophilia | 7 Comments »

Pure and chaste … from afar

Posted by Ron Coleman on March 11, 2007

Dawn Eden, more than a little interested in the subject, clarifies the word chaste:

[E]veryone is supposed to observe chastity according to their state in life, so there’s single chastity and there’s married chastity. Chastity is really a way to look at all your relationships so that they no longer become mere exchanges of commodities. It’s a plan for your whole life, for your happiness, and for eventually going to heaven. I look at chastity as a way to practice what it’s like to be in heaven.

Huh — live and learn. It reminds me of the Jewish concept of tzeniuth, which is usually translated as “modesty” (typically alluding to modesty in matters of dress) but which I learned really means “dignity.”

There is one use of the word “chaste,” though, that I will always remember. It was on the old Mary Tyler Moore Show, when Murray Slaughter — the crypto-Jewish copywriter played by Gavin McLeod — his heart filled to bursting, finally has to tell Mary that he’s in love with her. (This was before McLeod became captain of, ironically, the Love Boat.) Mary, perpetually single but very desirable, expresses how flattered she is and gently reminds Murray that he’s married (thus avoiding the more painful truth that he’s not in her league). Murray, the literary romantic, resolves it by assuring her that he knows this, he loves his wife, and that he will still always love Mary (“Myeh-ry” as he says it; the Jewish part of his character is not played out as Rhoda Morgenstern’s is, but with that accent in Minneapolis, and his literary pretensions, it’s pretty clear) “pure and chaste from afar.”

I found that very touching, and of course somewhat sad, but also was impressed by the level of maturity that Murray showed in making this acknowledgment. I must have been impressed — I am sure I saw that episode about 30 years ago, and it still sticks with me. Still and all, the higher service for Murray would have been to keep his feelings to himself — this would truly have been pure and chaste and, especially, “afar.” In Jewish sensibility we call this k’rivath hadaath, literally, “the bringing-close of the mind” — for such a revelation of one’s feelings about another, regardless of acceptance or rejection, opens up new mental gateways between the two people in conversation. The Torah teaches us that merely expressing something verbally, among other things, can cross a line of the heart, breach a wall of emotional propriety that protects far more than mere emotions.

Murray, in fact, pushes the point and cannot restrain himself from asking Mary if the feeling is mutual. Of course, it isn’t. So she kind of says, “I love ya, buddy” and bear hugs him as his aunt might — thereby bursting his bubble — not as if he could ever have dared to think otherwise.

Yes, Murray would have been better nurturing, or neutering, his secret love secretly. I wish I could remember in whose name I saw this bit of doggerel — it went something like this: “Not everything that is said should be written; not everything that is thought, should be said.” Imagine where the blogosphere would be with such a worldview; and yet this golden rule — and not merely whether my swinging fist implodes your visage — is , perhaps, the very minimum guideline of a civilized, i.e., social, person. Perhaps this too it is of a piece with Dawn’s definition of chastity.

Posted in Faith and Works, O Mores! | 16 Comments »

You’re not helping…

Posted by David M. Nieporent on March 11, 2007

Headlines that make you go “Hmmm…”:

Giuliani defends Gingrich during campaign stop in Nevada

Newt Gingrich’s admission of having an extramarital affair as he pursued President Clinton’s impeachment in the Monica Lewinsky affair has been defended by Republican presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani.

Yes. The guy who let the media find out about the affair he was having by bringing another woman to public events, the guy who allowed his wife to find out he was leaving her by calling a press conference to tell the media about it, is defending Gingrich’s adultery. You know, I don’t really care about the issue, but for those voters who do, about the only such defense that would be less helpful would be one coming from Bill Clinton. (That having been said, the media’s attempt to link this to the Lewinsky case is disingenuous. So what if Gingrich was having the affair while “pursuing” Clinton’s impeachment? The impeachment wasn’t about extramarital affairs.)

I guess I should clarify my claim about not caring about the issue, because that’s not really true. I don’t intend to become the morality police, but I’m not a “Judge Not Lest Ye Be Judged” sort of guy (wrong religion). I have no problem judging him as a person, and I conclude he’s somewhat distasteful. But as Ron said, he’s not running for the position of my son-in-law.

It does demonstrate poor judgment, though. I mean, there are bad ways to handle these sorts of situations, and really bad ways. Gingrich’s way — having an affair and keeping it secret — is bad. Giuliani’s way — having an affair in public and hoping people won’t notice — is really bad. Still, if it’s the only instance of poor judgment, I can live with it, and if it isn’t, well, let’s look at all those other instances.

As an aside, the article I linked to above had this bizarre comment:

About a dozen anti-war protesters waved placards near the house where the evening fund-raiser was held. They criticized Giuliani’s support of both the war in Iraq, and the expansion of police powers under the USA Patriot Act and other legislation. “As a presidential candidate and a firm supporter of (President) Bush’s policies, we want to let the public know that his views are not those of the majority of Americans,” said Lisa Stiller of the Reno Anti-War Coalition.

They want to let the public know what the public thinks?

Posted in O Mores!, Politics and Poker | 6 Comments »

Imus redeems entire career

Posted by Ron Coleman on March 11, 2007

Breathtaking. Unprecedented. Fearless. Historic. Excerpt:

Imus: Let me interrupt you for a second, but this is nonsense, Senator Schumer. I want to be respectful, but you can’t possibly be serious and suggest — I mean I’m not a fool. You can’t suggest to me that because the Democrats are now in power that something is going to be done about Walter Reed and about the mess in the Veterans Administration and all of this, and that if the Democrats hadn’t taken control of Congress that nothing would have been done. That’s preposterous; of course it would have.

Schumer: Well, something would have been done if the story would have gotten out . . .

Imus: Here’s another question. Have you ever been over to Walter Reed?

Schumer: Ahh, not in a while, no.

Imus: How long has it been since you’ve been over there?

Schumer: Oh, before Iraq.

Imus: So, before Iraq since you’ve been over to see the soldiers. So, we have elected you — first in the Congress and now in the Senate — and you’ve got a bill now to do something we’ll get to in a minute; but you haven’t even been to Walter Reed Hospital.

Schumer: No, no, no. But I have visited regularly the veterans’ hospitals throughout my state. That’s where I have focused on . . .

There’s much more. As to Imus — I guess there is something to be said for making so much money that you simply don’t care any more. On the other hand, Schumer is the Senate’s most Jewish Jew (sorry, Joe — nothing personal — it’s really a compliment, in a way — see you at the kiddush). And we do know what the “I Man” thinks about them. That’s the only reason I can think of that Imus challenged Schumer head-on while he’s usually pretty obsequious to his left-wing guests (and new friend anti-“neoconservative” Pat Buchanan).

You know what? It’s worth it.

(Via Instapundit.)

Posted in Medialites, Politics and Poker | Leave a Comment »

Real estate burp?

Posted by Ron Coleman on March 10, 2007

The New York Times says we’ve hit the ceiling of spiraling high-end real estate prices:

Consumers are rejecting any projects that involve developers turning existing hotel units into condominiums because the consumers fear that they could lose their deposits if these projects are never converted.

Instead, Wall Street bankers, baby boomers and Europeans are more often snapping up condominiums from developers with projects that are being built from the ground up.

“The market is separating the contenders from the pretenders,” Mr. Semilof said. “The consumer is not buying projects where they sell units and then do the conversions. People are willing to put money where they know where the building is going to be built.”

In other words, they’re pulling back from involvement in what was essentially absurd speculation. Is this the sign of a beginning of the end of the real estate boom? Or — more likely, I would think — a sign that a boom need not be a bubble?

Posted in Gelt | 2 Comments »

Churchill was right about the Jews

Posted by Ron Coleman on March 10, 2007

Winston Churchill, it turns out, wrote an article in 1937, three years before he started leading Great Britain in which he addressed the wave of anti-Semitism sweeping across Europe and the United States at the time, and which would culminate in the Holocaust. It was withheld from publication — too hot, even for then — even for England. What did the Great Man think was the problem?

The central fact which dominates the relations of Jew and non-Jew is that the Jew is “different.”

He looks different. He thinks differently. He has a different tradition and background. He refuses to be absorbed.

Churchill was right. I agree with everything he says, and so does the Jewish tradition. We may quibble over whether “the Jew” truly “refuses” to be absorbed in a conscious way, or whether instead he cannot be absorbed because he looks, thinks and springs from difference.

In fact Jews have absorbed, millions of them, and to a large extent by choice. In Western Europe alone large portions of the population have Jewish blood coursing through their veins. In America assimilation is a fact. You might also say that the ones who do get absorbed aren’t really Jews any more so they are no longer a “problem.” But the Jews always manage to spring up a stubborn branch of different that indeed will not be absorbed.

That doesn’t justify oppression or prejudice, and Churchill did not, from the excerpt available, attempt to justify it. He just laid it on the line: They’re not like everyone else. To the extent that that gets under peoples’ skin, people are going to lash out. Not because of the difference, though. Because the difference, rather, is a statement that causes resentment. The statement is: We Jews have a special relationship with God.

That riles certain people up. Now, why it does is a good question, since almost every religious group in history, and many national and ethnic groups, have made the same exact claim without getting everybody so angry. William Norman Ewer (not Hillaire Belloc!) wrote:

How odd of God

To choose the Jews

Lots of people understand why it’s not odd. Churchill may not have, but this article doesn’t seem to suggest anything but sympathy, limited by his own class’s attitudes — the suggestion implict, for example, that assimilation would be a good thing. This is an attitude that is as old as the Jews, and certainly beats the alternative. There’s no question that Churchill’s attitude toward the Jews, and Jewish-related questions, was complex (though complexity should not be confused with incoherence) and he was a complex man with a complex set of responsibilities, influences and goals.

But this attitude, and Churchill’s comment, do miss the point: The Jews’ job in this world is to be the Jews.

UPDATE:  David Kelsey agrees, down to the choice of picture.  Great minds?…

Posted in Faith and Works, Past is prologue | 15 Comments »

The peace party

Posted by Ron Coleman on March 10, 2007

Frank J. explains the stragety animating the Democratic Party’s conception of “supporting the troops”: “They’re shooting back! We have to pull out troops now!”

Posted in Jocularity, Orient, Politics and Poker | Leave a Comment »

Anything you say can and will be used against you

Posted by David M. Nieporent on March 10, 2007

Of particular interest to anybody blogging (or posting comments), is Randy Barnett’s post at the Volokh Conspiracy:What is Off The Record?:

I love the Internet, and it was the advent of accurate search engines, Google to be specific, that really brought out its potential. Add to this the ability to reach an audience via blogging. So far as I am concerned, the Internet + search + blogging is a modern miracle. But, as with any technological marvel, there are downsides. One for me is the threat to the sanctity of a private conversation. I once had private lunch at a restaurant with two student interns who peppered me with questions. Afterward, one of them posted an account of my answers as though it had been an interview. The account was positive and generally accurate, but contained candid statements concerning my career ambitions that, while I had no qualms about offering them in private, would certainly not want published. I later learned that a goodly number of my students had read it.

His specific point is about people posting accounts of private conversations on the internet, where they become open to the world. Or, as he poses the question:

In the world of Internet + search + blogging, however, what is “off” and what is “on” the record?

The sad answer is that you can’t assume that anything is off the record. (We lawyers, of course, have always operated from the premise that you don’t put anything on paper that you wouldn’t want someone else to read.)

That isn’t really the issue here, of course; when you blog, you realize (hope!) that people will read it. But the underlying question — about whether people will suffer negative consequences based on what’s out there about them on the web — is still valid.

(As I note in the comments over there, the real problem is search engine archives; those effectively ensure that once something is posted, it exists forever, at least in Google’s cache, even if the official web page is later deleted.)

I guess I have two predictions:

First, as to things we did when we were young popping up again in the future and derailing our political careers, or our regular careers: I bet the public is actually a lot more sensible than private businesses are. The public is more likely to forgive candidates who engaged in “youthful indiscretions” than employers are to forgive job applicants. (Perhaps that’s because the public can’t be sued for negligent voting, the way private businesses can for negligent hiring.)

Second, this issue will be hyped in the near future, but it won’t take long to bore people. Just as smoking marijuana was a big deal for a candidate at one point, but now even Barack Obama’s admitted cocaine use barely rates a yawn. Or, you know, some American Idol contestant got kicked off for appearing in racy photos online a few seasons ago — but now it’s a big snore. And once everyone on the planet has their own blog (if that isn’t the case already), employers aren’t going to waste their time reading them just to see if they can find something bad about job applicants — so even if there are posts out there that show, I don’t know, people molesting porcupines, who’s going to notice?

Posted in Blogophilia, Futurama, Nuvo-Techno | 1 Comment »

The second time as farce

Posted by Ron Coleman on March 9, 2007

I’ve suggested before that the poor man’s Castro — wrap that one in a genuine Havana and smoke it — Hugo Chavez seems to be on the cranky side because oil prices were down from last year. They’ve perked up a bit since then, but he’s as low-class as ever. A uniter, not a divider — that’s Baby Hugo:

In an interview with Argentine state television Channel 7, Chavez promised his scheduled soccer-stadium rally Friday night in Buenos Aires “will be confrontational. I believe you have to point out the contrasts. If he says ‘Yes,’ we say, ‘No!'”

El Presidente por la Vida knows the best way to distract El Pueblo from empty store shelves, rampant inflation, environmental pillage, political oppression and stifled expression: ¡Blame El Tío Samuel for your problems!

What a payaso. Venezuela: Another democracy giving itself the leadership it deserves.

UPDATE: Not everyone south of the border is buying. But others are — irony aside — really trying.

Posted in Politics and Poker | Leave a Comment »