Misc. Observations

Written September 11, 2009

1. Obama's latest speech. Regardless of where you stand on healthcare, I trust we can all agree that, notwithstanding Obama's assertions, there are NO free lunches. Here is his scenario: the economy is being pushed towards bankruptcy by the spiraling health care costs, so we will spend 1 TRILLION dollars to fix the problem, and no taxes will be raised, and there will be no increase in the federal debt. So while I disagree with the Congressman who yelled "you lie" (regarding the coverage of illegal aliens) during the President's speech to a joint session of Congress, can there be any doubt that the fiscal scenario Obama laid out can possibly be truthful?

He says there will be enormous savings because of all the "waste and abuse." Now, I have suggested for some time that ALL government budgets be subject to periodic review to cut out true waste. (What are the odds of that truly happening?) Obama's plan is to create an independent commission (doctors and medical experts) to identify and cut waste. He believes the "waste" runs in the hundreds of billions of dollars. As Charles Krauthammer said, if there is so much waste and abuse in the healthcare system dragging down our economy, then why hasn't he been working on that issue from day one? It would be much less controversial than an overhaul of the entire system; and he says the need is immediate.

The reality is, every time I have heard Obama talk about waste in healthcare, it has been in the context of too much testing and too much treatment. In other words, he is talking about rationing. In Britain, a woman gave birth to a premie at 21 weeks and 5 days. But their National Health Service has a "guideline" that says babies born at less than 22 weeks should not get treated. So the baby died. DEATH PANELS, ANYONE? And for those of you who can't believe they would let a baby die because he was only 2 days earlier than the guidelines allowed for treatment, I can only say that based on my experience that is exactly how bureaucratic mentality works. So they told this woman to just think of her baby (born alive) as a miscarriage. (Story from the 9/11/09 Wall Street Journal.)

2. Why Are Jews Liberal? This is a question that I am often asked by my Christian friends. Norman Podhoretz has just written a book with that title. Given the fact that John McCain had a significant history of strong support for Israel, while Barack Obama's associates expressed open hostility towards Israel, one might have expected a large Jewish vote for McCain. Instead, Jews voted for Obama in greater numbers than any other group except blacks. While a large number of Jews in this country are secular, it does not mean they are non-religious. Rather, their religion is Liberalism. (Nature abhors a vacuum.)

Secular Jews tend to believe that their religion of Liberalism is consistent with the Torah and Jewish values. But as Podhoretz points out, Jewish Law is restrictive on abortion (only to protect the life of the mother), is opposed to suicide (assisted or otherwise) except to prevent forced conversion or incest, and prohibits sex between men. Podhoretz concludes that, given the inconsistencies, Liberalism has in fact replaced Judaism as the religion of choice for many American Jews. (Summary of Podhoretz's book from the 9/10/09 Wall Street Journal.)

The September, 2009 issue of Commentary magazine asked five prominent Jews to give their own take on why Jews are liberal. Of particular interest was the commentary by Michael Medved. He points out that the one thing Jews seem to have in common is their rejection of Jesus/Christianity/the New Testament. As he points out, even pro-palestinian Jews are given a voice in the Jewish community. But not Jews for Jesus. Now, there is no denying that Jews have suffered greatly at the hands of Christians (the Holocaust for example). And Jews here distrust the Republican party precisely because of its ties to the Christian community (or more accurately, the Christian Right). And then you get the occasional Pat Buchanan to reinforce Jews ideas about Republicans.

So Jews still fear that Christian conservatives/Republicans will try to impose their values on the much smaller Jewish population. I believe there is much truth in what Medved says. The fact that times have changed and that conservative Christians in large numbers are strongly supportive of Israel (as are Republicans in general) has not changed these long held beliefs/fears. On the other hand, many of these same Jews have a distrust (and even dislike) for their fellow Jews who are Orthodox. There is simply no comfort level with those who "make faith the center of their lives."

3. Hollywood idiots. The latest morons out of Hollywood are Jane Fonda and Danny Glover. At the Toronto International Film Festival they were showing a film celebrating the 100th anniversary of Tel Aviv, the main city in Israel. But these morons signed onto a letter decrying the film and the festival, claiming that Tel Aviv was built on the land where many "palestinian" towns had been destroyed by the Jews. Now, I have said before that the "palestinians" are good at propaganda. And it does not take much to convince leftists like Fonda and Glover, who already think the worst about the U.S. and Israel.

But let's be clear. Notwithstanding their denial of anti-semitism, there can be no other explanation. They are basically saying the Jews are not entitled to live on the land which constitutes the State of Israel. Desert land on which the Jews created a modern and productive society, without the benefits of any oil riches. And other than foreign conquerors, the only "state" to ever exist on the land was the state of Israel - 2000 years ago and again today. There was never a country or state of Palestine. It was a geographic area that Jews in the Diaspora have always considered their homeland. And the Arabs who live there are just that - Arabs. The use of the term "palestinian" is just part of their propaganda. And then morons like Glover and Fonda probably think the "palestinians" had a state that was stolen from them. Then again, so does our President, apparently.