Golden Shield

We usually read stories regarding, for example, the Great Firewall of China, with the confidence that our contentious, open society is immune from that sort of control. It is, therefore, un-nerving -- in a Matrix-y way -- when we bump up against an apparently American analogue.

Bill Simmons, explaining Lebron's latest meltdown, writes:

Remember when Wade tore into LeBron with three-plus minutes remaining in Game 3? When he yelled at him for eight solid seconds? When there was genuine anger in his eyes? When he did it right on the court, right in front of the other players, right in front of 20,000 fans and 10 million TV viewers?

The answer is, strangely, "no". 20,000 fans may have seen it, but it was not televised and not to be found on Youtube.

While there are certainly many people who would enjoy that video, its absence doesn't threaten our civilization. But it does raise the question of what else are we missing...

Circumcision

San Franciscans have stirred controversy by putting an anti-circumcision ordinance on the ballot. Adorably named "intactivists" argue that infant boys have a right to keep their foreskins intact.

The debate is not quite much ado about nothing. Circumcision is not, simply, an old tradition or the sign of our covenant. It has a clear symbolic meaning: We are created imperfect. As such, it stands clearly against that contemporary theology that teaches "God makes no mistakes."

The opposition to tradition, in this instance, is also an opposition to science. For example, Russell Crowe's tweets argue "Who are you to correct nature?" and "'human' science has caused too much damage" (they also argue: "Why don't you sew up your @$$?").

In the end, the contemporary assertion is tied to the understanding that we are the best -- or primary -- judge of ourselves. We can easily experience ourselves as "on the right track" -- if you do not then "just love yourself and you're set" -- but we are often not experienced by others in that way. The (hard) scientific and religious traditions command us to confront the world outside our heads.

Israel and The Arab Spring

Drudge headlines: Obama, Cameron compare themselves to Reagan, Thatcher for over-seeing the Arab Spring.

USA Today reports that Israelis are wary of the Arab Spring for good reason:

Tarek Khouly, a coordinator for the April 6th youth movement in Cairo... says "We're not at a situation now where we can confront Israel... Once Egypt is strong... Israel will choose to go away."

Netanyahu, in his adress to Congress, warned that the democratic "hopes could be snuffed out, as they were in Tehran in 1979... [and] Lebanon’s democratic Cedar Revolution.". Ben Stein argues they were a fraud to start with.

The simple truth is this: The Arab world has a once-in-a-generation opportunity to re-ground their societies in liberty and democracy. Whether -- or to what degree -- they succeed, or whether they condemn themselves to another generation of tyranny, will be a strong function of whether they -- paraphrasing Golda Meir -- love their own more than they hate the other. It is most straightforwardly so in Syria, where Assad would long ago been overthrown if Alawites didn't reasonably fear massacre, but it is equally true in Egypt where both the Army and Muslim Brotherhood will happily manipulate passions to thwart liberty and democracy.

Obama's Audacious AIPAC Speech

The President, in his address to AIPAC, argued that "the march to isolate Israel internationally — and the impulse of the Palestinians to abandon negotiations" has gained "momentum in the absence of a credible peace process". Heading this off demanded he state explicitly the "1967 border" formula. In truth, the current absence of negotiations is largely due to an administration policy which, of all the complex and difficult issues, decided to focus on kitchen renovations in Efrat, strengthening the Palestinian "impulse" to abandon negotiations. More to the point, there are fundamental issues raised if the "march to isolate Israel internationally" is strengthened, not weakened, by Palestinians abandoning negotiations, and hard to see how the presidents policy speaks to those issues.

He then clarified that "'1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps' means... a border that is different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967." He implied that those who criticized him where of bad faith, or limited English comprehension. In this he misses (willfully?), the point. There is a clear difference -- in framing negotiations -- between stating that the final borders will look something like the 1967 borders adjusted for demographic realities and security needs -- what "everyone knows" and he clarified himself as having meant -- and that the 1967 borders represent the basis for negotiation -- what it easily sounded like he said.

More to the point, this maneuvering is taking place under the shadow of the Palestinian determination to seek statehood at the UN in September. A determination which, itself, the President inspired. It would certainly further "the march to isolate Israel internationally" should it entail recognition of the 1967 borders without reference to demographics or security. Supporters of Israel are right to fear that the President's speech will be easily, predictably, used to further that cause.

Obama's Middle East Speech

In his latest speech, the President layed out his view of the middle east negotiations.

Upon any reflection, his layout is as coherent as the sound of one hand clapping. Or rather, he manages to be on two sides of the fence at once. On one hand, he grants Israel military presence in the Jordan River valley ("Israel must be able defend itself - by itself - against any threat"), one the other hand he precludes it ("The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps"). On one hand, he closes off any right of return of Palestinians to Israel ("Israel as a Jewish state and the homeland for the Jewish people"), on the other hand he leaves it open ("two wrenching and emotional issues remain: the future of Jerusalem, and the fate of Palestinian refugees"). Ultimately, he asserts, the only thing "America and the international community can do is state [this all] frankly."

Netanyahu's response appears childishly imperious. A savvier diplomatic response would be to accentuate the hand that defended Israel's position, and ignore the other hand. On the other hand, Netanyahu's response reflects the seriousness of the stakes -- millions of lives in balance -- where-as Obama's empty speech reflects less world-concerned foreign policy, and more re-election concerned, domestic political posturing.

The Female Rabbinate

This blog has previously taken the position that opposition to an egalitarian Orthodox Rabbinate is foolish.  Rationally, it certainly seems the case: It is hard to see the direct, Halachic, arguments against as being, today, compelling. 

I was enthusiastic, then, when my congregation welcomed a “congregational intern”, who while not titular-ly on the rabbinic staff serves, for-all-intents-and-purposes, a rabbinic function. 

Unfortunately – and, given her relatively mainstream background and the synagogue's prominence, surprisingly – in each the three speeches I have heard her present, she made a distinct point of delivering apiquorsic lessons, that – for good reason – one would never hear from the male Rabbinic staff.

One wonders, when she was selected, was there no more orthodox option available? 

In the end, perhaps it is only realistic to expect that prospective Rabbanits will naturally/largely seek to fundamentally subvert, or overcome, and not uphold or conserve.  Perhaps opponents of an egalitarian Orthodox Rabbinate are, almost despite themselves, correct in their view of the stakes.  Above all, perhaps wise promoters of an egalitarian Rabbinate ought more closely follow Branch Rickey .

Crazy Talk

Drudge links:

The little guy appears to be losing out on the General Motors initial public offering. Trading shops like E*Trade, TD Ameritrade and Charles Schwab aren't getting access to the GM public offering, expected to occur next week. Despite 35 underwriters and at least 365 million shares, there isn't enough to distribute to online brokers that cater to small, retail investors.

As the powers that be are certainly aware of the political sensitivity surrounding the GM IPO, this exclusion seems tone-deaf. That said, a bigger political risk may lie in the pricing of the IPO: an under-priced IPO profits politically connected financial institutions -- having excluded retail investors -- at the expense of taxpayers. If the IPO turns out to have been overpriced, such that those in on the IPO lose money initially, excluding small investors will turn out to have been politically fortunate.

As to why politically connected financial institutions might collectively overprice the GM IPO...

Less conspiratorially, its reasonable to observe (conflictingly) that retail investors represent a more uncontrollable/unpredictable element in the mix, and that excluding people from the initial offering may serve to build-in immediate demand for the stock in the markets.