Schumer cites problem at high school in Queens!

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 30, 2023

Making a world we can live in: In our earlier post, we cited Chuck Schumer's guest essay in today's New York Times.

Early on in his essay, he cited an incident at a high school in Queens. Headline included, this is the passage in question:

Chuck Schumer: What American Jews Fear Most

[...]

Today, too many Americans are exploiting arguments against Israel and leaping toward a virulent antisemitism. The normalization and intensifying of this rise in hate is the danger many Jewish people fear most.

Since Oct. 7, Jewish-owned businesses that have nothing to do with Israel have been boycotted and vandalized. Jewish students on college campuses have been harassed and assaulted with alarming frequency. A Jewish high school teacher in Queens told me about being forced to hide in a locked office from student protesters who were demanding that she be fired because she attended a rally supporting Israel.

These are just a few examples, but they point to a troubling trend. Too often in Jewish history, legitimate criticism of Israeli policies or even older disputes over religious, economic and political issues have crossed over into something darker, into attacking Jewish people simply for being Jewish.

What happened last week at the Queens high school is an example of crossing that threshold. Walking out of school to march in support of Palestinians is completely legitimate. But forcing a Jewish teacher to hide because she had attended a rally in support of Israel is antisemitism, pure and simple.

Schumer's essay doesn't link to news reports about the incident in question. For that reason, it isn't entirely clear what incident he's citing.

That said, Tuesday morning's New York Times included a news report about an incident at New York City's Hillcrest High School. 

Is that the incident to which Schumer refers? Here are the key parts of that news report, headline included

After Students Target Pro-Israel Teacher, Officials Try to Quell Outrage

New York City officials are investigating after hundreds of Queens high school students protested against a pro-Israel teacher, who was moved to another part of the building during the demonstration, the schools chancellor said Monday.

The recent episode at Hillcrest High School erupted after the teacher, who is Jewish, had changed a social media profile photo to an image of her holding up an “I Stand With Israel” sign, the chancellor, David C. Banks, said. On Nov. 20, as roughly 400 teenagers roamed the school in between class periods, the teacher was moved to a different floor, Mr. Banks said. 

Mr. Banks said the teacher had been targeted for her backing of Israel and for “expressing her Jewish identity,” adding that it was “completely unacceptable.”

[...]

Still, the chancellor also called for a measure of understanding, saying the war was a “very visceral and emotional issue” at Hillcrest, where about 30 percent of students are Muslim. “They feel a kindred spirit with the folks of the Palestinian community,” Mr. Banks said, adding that the “notion that these kids are radicalized” was irresponsible.

Within hours of first reports of the incident last week, Mayor Eric Adams condemned the episode as a “vile show of antisemitism.” Melinda Katz, the borough’s district attorney and a Hillcrest alumna, said it “both angers me and breaks my heart to see young people using violence to try to silence” supporters of Israel. And one Republican city councilwoman called for Hillcrest to “be shut down pending a full and thorough investigation.”

The incident at Hillcrest was a stark example of just how fraught the fallout from the war has been for school communities across the nation.

Schumer's account doesn't perfectly match those facts. Still, we assume that this may be the incident to which his essay refers.

The incident at Hillcrest High got plenty of attention on Fox. We're not saying it shouldn't have. We'd like to see some journalists interview some of those students.

In our view, the incident might raise a point of concern. In part, it may illustrate an important fact—"diversity" can be very challenging, especially within the global context.

Senator Schumer drew a conclusion about what those Hillcrest students did. He assumed that they were exhibiting antisemitism, perhaps even a "virulent" form of same.

We don't know how to evaluate that assumption. It may be true for some of the students, not true for others. Young people often do very dumb things. So do older people. 

Diversity can be hard! That's especially true in the global cultural context, as an earlier incident at MIT might suggest or illustrate. (We hope to get to it later.)

Given the way we humans are wired, diversity can be challenging! We tend to respond poorly to difference. We've been that way for a long time.

That said, and as the iconic song goes—we have to learn how "to make a world we can live in."

We don't have to make a world some particular group can live in. We have to learn to make a world all sorts of groups can live in.

Were those Hillcrest students displaying antisemitism? Was it wise for Schumer to make that assumption, then say it? 

Chuck Schumer is a good, decent person. At this point in human history, we're called to learn how to build a world which all kinds of people can live in.

The standard editing lapse: "Today, too many Americans are...leaping toward a virulent antisemitism?"

Obviously, one such person would be "too many!" It's a standard editing lapse!

INCOMPREHENSIONS: Chuck Schumer is a good, decent person!

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 30, 2023

In search of "a world we can live in:" As we noted yesterday, it isn't hard to understand the depth of Donny Deutsch's concern.

As we noted, the depth of his concern emerges from disastrous historical roots. We'll quote his words again:

DEUTSCH (10/30/23):  I want to draw the line back to why Israel is in the defensive posture after being attacked because it's about antisemitism, and it's about the hate toward Jews that's now surfacing in this country.

[...]

Every Jew I know is calling me and is terrified for the first time in their life about being Jewish. They feel it. When you are a generation away from the Holocaust, from the annihilation of six million Jews, being Jews there's something that goes from generation to generation. And people are feeling something in their stomachs in this country that we've never felt before. And they're terrified...

As you can see by clicking this link, his comments continued from there.

Deutsch was referring to one of the greatest moral disasters in human history—to a giant mass homicide which took place within the memory of living people. The depth of his feeling makes perfect sense—but very deep feeling, however understandable, can sometimes cloud our persistently fallible human judgment.

To our ear, Deutsch was possibly sunk in a certain type of incomprehension as he spoke on Deadline: White House that day. So too as he discussed this topic on other programs, even including The View. 

To cite one trivial but apparently clearcut example, at one point he offered this as he spoke with Nicolle Wallace:

DEUTSCH: There's something that, for some reason, evil is not graded the same way when it's against Jews, and it's against Israel. And I don't understand that.

I do— Actually, I do actually understand it.

WALLACE: What is it?

DEUTSCH: Antisemitism. There's something about, for some reason, Jews as a group—there's 15 million in the world; there would have been 250 million without the Holocaust—for some reason, since the beginning of time—and I'm actually getting upset—it's somehow OK to go after these people in a way that no other people—

I don't— I'm not a history student. I just know the history.

For the record, we aren't history students either. That said, based upon our own knowledge of history, we'd judge that account of this history to be (essentially) accurate.

Deutsch specifically said he was getting upset. There's no reason why he shouldn't have felt that way.

That said, we were puzzled:

Was that highlighted demographic statement actually accurate? No, the number doesn't exactly matter. But would there be 250 million Jews in the world today had the Holocaust never happened?

We fact-checked the figure as best we could. Based upon actual academic estimates, that number seems to be massively wrong. We'll offer this link to the Washington Post, though other links exist.

It's an utterly trivial point, but it calls attention to a certain fact. When we feel very deeply about some subject, we may be even more inclined to accept and promulgate misassessments than we humans normally are.

Some such misassessments will be trivial. Other misassessments may not be.

It's very easy to understand the depth of Deutch's feelings. In this morning's New York Times, a major political figure describes a similar set of reactions to the events of October 7, and to certain aspects of the events which have followed.

That political figure is Chuck Schumer, the Senate majority leader. He writes a guest essay in today's Times—a guest essay which is supported by a New York Times editorial, and by a news report.

Because Chuck Schumer is a person, his feelings and reactions are important. Many people share those feelings. Here's part of his guest essay, online headline included:

Chuck Schumer: What American Jews Fear Most

[...]

When I was a boy, I learned what happened when the Nazis invaded my family’s town in Ukraine. The Nazis ordered my great-grandmother to gather her extended family on the porch of her home. When the Nazis told her to come with them, she refused, and they gunned her down, along with 30 members of her family, from 85 years old to 3 months old.

When I heard the story of what Hamas and its allies did in Kibbutz Be’eri, where they killed more than 120 Jews, from the elderly to babies, it struck me on a deeply personal level.

Most Jewish Americans have similar stories—stories that we learned at a young age and will stay imprinted on our hearts for as long as we live.

We see and hear things differently from others because we understand the horrors that can follow the targeting of Jewish people. We’ve learned the hard way to fear how such attacks can easily erupt into widespread antisemitism if they are not repudiated. I am sure Arab Americans have similar fears when they see the rise in Islamophobia and horrific crimes like the gut-wrenching murder of the 6-year-old Wadea Al-Fayoume.

The story Schumer tells in that passage is the same story Donny Deutsch told. Obviously, that story is deeply important.

Do most Jewish Americans have similar family stories? We don't know the answer to that. But it isn't hard to understand the feelings and reactions Schumer describes in his essay.

Schumer's essay is accompanied today by one the editorial board's increasingly rare editorials. The headline on that editorial says this:

A Doctor Who Left Russia Remembers the Pain of Antisemitism

Schumer's essay is also reinforced by a news report in the National section. The report describes a speech Schumer made just yesterday, in the Senate. Online, the dual headlines on the news report say this:

Schumer Condemns Antisemitism, Warning the Left Against Abetting It
The majority leader and highest-ranking Jewish official in the country cautioned progressives and young people against unwittingly embracing bigotry in the name of social justice.

It's certainly true that progressives, young people and "the left" should try to avoid "unwittingly embracing bigotry in the name of social justice." 

So should everyone else. Having said that, we'll add this:

Older people can sometimes make unwitting errors in judgment too. That's even true of good, decent people like Schumer and Deutsch—good, decent people whose feelings and reactions are thoroughly understandable, given the vicious history from which those reactions stem.

Was Deutsch perhaps involved in a type of incomprehension when he spoke to Wallace that day? For whatever it may be worth, it seemed to us that he was.

Is it possible that Senator Schumer, a good, decent person, is failing to see a larger picture in the essay he offers today? Especially given some recent events right here in this country, that strikes us as possible too—and it seems to us that this arguably imperfect assessment could imaginably make an extremely difficult situation just a little bit worse.

We'll speak to that question tomorrow. For today, it will have to be as we recently noted:

"Make a world that we can live in," an iconic song implores. What would be the best way for good and decent elders—for good, decent people like Schumer and Deutsch—to help the world's "young people" build that more livable world?

Inevitably, some of those younger people may have very limited judgment. That said, we humans all have limited judgment. 

We humans have imperfect judgment. Working from that starting point, what's the best way to take things from there?

Tomorrow: Disregarded peoples


College kids actually buy a house!

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 29, 2023

A sign of a bad economy: Friend, have President Biden and his "Bidenomics" produced a good economy?

Within our blue tribe, we're constantly told that the answer is yes. Beyond that, we're told that it's hard to know why so many people tell pollsters something different. 

We expect to explore these questions in more detail next week. It seems to us that this may be one of the areas where blue tribe pundits have possibly agreed to wallow in a bit of incomprehension. 

It seems clear to us that our tribe is wallowing in incomprehension with respect to immigration issues. On Fox, the border is flogged around the clock. Within our own blue tribe, we pretend that it doesn't exist.

We expect to explore both topics next week. For today, let's focus on that original topic. How good is the Biden economy? Also. why do so many blue tribe voters give it a lousy grade?

On the front page of yesterday's New York Times, Lydia DePillis explored those very questions. Before long, she offered one of the strangest anecdotal examples we have ever seen.

Why do so many Biden voters "say they’re not impressed with the economy?" Here's the anecdote  DePillis offered:

DEPILLIS (11/28/23): The demographics of Mr. Biden’s 2020 supporters may explain part of his challenge now: They were on balance younger, had lower incomes and were more racially diverse than Mr. Trump’s. Those groups tend to be hit hardest by inflation, which has yet to return to 2020 levels, and high interest rates, which have frustrated first-time home buyers and drained the finances of those dependent on credit.

[...]

Mackenzie Kiser, 20, and Lawson Millwood, 21, students at the University of North Georgia, managed to buy a house this year. Mr. Millwood’s income as an information-technology systems administrator at the university was enough to qualify, and they worried that affordability would only worsen if they waited because of rising interest rates and prices. Still, the experience left a bitter taste.

“The housing market is absolutely insane,” said Ms. Kiser, who wasn’t old enough to vote in 2020 but leans progressive. “We paid the same for our one-story, one-bedroom cinder-block 1950s house as my mom paid for her three-story, four-bedroom house less than a decade ago.”

Are we reading that correctly? A pair of undergraduates, ages 20 and 21, actually went out and bought a house—while they're still in college! Somehow, this is supposed to help us see why so many Biden supporters think the economy isn't real strong!

Let's go over that again:

At the ages of 20 and 21, before they even got out of college, they actually bought a house! 

That said, Kiser's mother allegedly got a better deal on a different house nine years ago. On that basis, the undergraduate Home Alone Two feel like they got a bad deal!

Single anecdotes are almost always pointless, of course. But with regard to this report, we'll ask you to riddle us this:

Does that basic story make sense? Are housing prices so out of control that a "one-story, one-bedroom cinderblock 1950s house" actually costs more than a four-bedroom house cost less than a decade ago?

Our first reaction would be this. If that's really what it takes to buy one of These Cinderblock Houses Today, then the economy does seem to be awful! 

On the other hand, Lawson and Kiser were able to buy their house thanks to his job as a college kid! The economy must be great!

Does that example really make sense? Is that what cinderblocks actually cost?

Meanwhile, we worked on dorm crew back in college. Should we have taken our $23 and bought a four-bedroom Cape Cod?

More insights from the kids: Why did their cinderblock cost so much? When DePillis asked, Kiser answered:

DEPILLIS (continuing directly): Ms. Kiser doesn’t think Mr. Biden has done much to help the economy, and she worries he’s too old to be effective. But Mr. Trump isn’t more appealing on that front.

“It’s not that I think that anybody of a different party could do better, but more that someone with their mental faculties who’s not retirement age could do a better job,” Ms. Kiser said. “Our choices are retirement age or retirement age, so it’s rock and a hard place right now.”

According to Kiser, if Biden had his mental faculties, they could have purchased more house! 

So it goes, on page 1A, as the New York Times spans the globe. For the record, we have no idea if that anecdote actually makes any sense.


INCOMPREHENSIONS: Deutsch and Wallace had spotted a bias!

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 29, 2023

And our tribe seemed to have a new bomb: In our view, it isn't hard to understand the ardor—the depth of feeling—of Donny Deutsch's reactions.

On October 30, he appeared on Deadline: White House, where he discussed his reactions and views with Nicolle Wallace. It had been three weeks since the vicious events of October 7. 

As you can see by clicking this link, this is part of what he said:

DEUTSCH (10/30/23):  I want to draw the line back to why Israel is in the defensive posture after being attacked because it's about antisemitism, and it's about the hate toward Jews that's now surfacing in this country.

[...]

It's so heartbreaking. I have— 

Every Jew I know is calling me and is terrified for the first time in their life about being Jewish. They feel it. When you are a generation away from the Holocaust, from the annihilation of six million Jews, being Jews there's something that goes from generation to generation. And people are feeling something in their stomachs in this country that we've never felt before. And they're terrified...

The depth of Deutsch's feeling was evident all through the segment. In our view, it isn't hard to understand the depth of his feeling. 

As you can see if you watch the full conversation, Deutsch described ugly behaviors by some individuals in this country which reeked of antisemitism. He said that he and other American Jews "are feeling something in their stomachs in this country that we've never felt before."

The people who call him are "terrified," he said. That doesn't mean that he would necessarily exercise perfect judgment—that he would automatically be "right"—as he expressed his various views about the situation in Israel, or in Gaza, or even in the United States.

In our view, Deutsch didn't exercise perfect judgment during this conversation with Wallace. For her part, Wallace, who is very skilled, tends to maintain and advance the dominant view of the side she's on at any particular time.

In our view, Deutsch didn't exercise perfect judgment, but no one ever does. As far as we know, no one has ever had perfect judgment. That's especially true with respect to a situation like this—with respect to a terrible, deadly, simmering war which dates to (at least) 1948, depending on where you decide to start counting.

The depth of Deutsch's feeling isn't hard to understand. For whatever it may be worth, it's entirely possible that he grew up within the cultural framework Ruth Marcus described in the Washington Post—within this allegedly limited cultural framework:

MARCUS (11/23/23): I was born in 1958, just 10 years after the establishment of Israel. The nation’s existence was new and tenuous; it was embattled, encircled by enemies committed to its destruction. It needed our support—our dimes diligently tucked into the cards we collected to plant trees in its fledgling forests.

My childhood memories are of the Six-Day War and the accompanying joy over access to the Western Wall; of the shock of the Yom Kippur War. I was walking back to synagogue to join my father for evening services that day when a neighbor stopped to ask: Had I heard the terrible news?

And, I am obliged to confess, the narrative of Israel’s founding that Jewish children of my generation were offered in Hebrew school and on trips to Israel was deeply misleading at best, tinged with anti-Palestinian bias at worst. This account utterly failed to acknowledge the expulsion of Palestinians from their homes in 1948 or consider Palestinians’ legitimate claims to a homeland. The tenor of our rabbi’s sermons, the discussions in my childhood home, were that Israel could do no wrong.

Needless to say, Israel—like every other nation; like every human institution—can in fact do wrong. At one point in his conversation with Wallace, Deutsch acknowledged that obvious fact:

WALLACE: There's such an anti-Israeli bias because their domestic politics under Netanyahu—

DEUTSCH: Netanyahu still needs to go, by the way.

WALLACE: Correct! And I think U.S. foreign policy experts think that he may not be there, but there is this real bias against the plight of Israel, even in the wake of 1400 primarily civilians being slaughtered over an eight and a half hour period—mutilated, slaughtered, raped in front of their children and husbands.

DEUTSCH: And what is Israel? Since then, been on the defensive, explaining every move they make...

Does Netanyahu need to go? Not everyone will agree. But some such disclaimer was frequently offered on blue tribe cable news programs like this one, with the conversation rapidly switching back to discussions which gave voice to a heavily "pro-Israel" point of view.

There's nothing "wrong" with adopting a "pro-Israel" point of view.  It also isn't hard to understand the depth of Deutsch's feelings. 

That said, it's as we noted yesterday. The claim of "anti-Israeli bias"—the claim to which Wallace referred—was, according to Deutsch, a bias on the part of "the media," with CNN and the New York Times being singled out by name. 

Had Deutsch been right in spotting such "bias" on the part of "the media?" Sweeping claims of bias are easy to make, especially at times of high feeling.

That said, no specific examples were cited—not by Wallace, not by Deutsch. The claim of anti-Israel bias on the part of "the media" was simply allowed to stand.

At the time of this conversation (and others), we ourselves were especially interested in the aggressive criticism directed at college students—at students who were giving voice to a "pro-Palestinian" point of view. 

Were these students expressing antisemitism? Or were they merely criticizing the Israeli government and its past actions, in much the way a person might do with respect to any government?

On Morning Joe and on Deadline: White House, the insinuations and claims of antisemitism tended to come thick and fast. Such insinuations were also directed at the presidents of some major universities—and as is typical on these blue tribe programs, there were no voices in the program's panels who spoke up to challenge or question the Standard Group Judgments which were being expressed. 

A certain type of incomprehension frequently seemed to dominate these blue tribe "cable news" discussions. Why in the world would these college kids be expressing "pro-Palestinian" views?

On these programs, blue pundits generally seemed to be thoroughly puzzled as to the source of such views. Nor were any such students being asked to come on the air and explain the content and source of their views.

Those college kids, with their slogans and signs, might not be perfectly wise. Especially given their age and their standing in life, some might be just a bit clueless.

Presumably, those college kids aren't perfectly wise! In our view, neither were Joe Scarborough or Wallace or even Deutsch as they sometimes became ranting-adjacent in the course of expressing their views.

All in all, blue pundits seemed to have a new bomb to drop on the heads of a new group of Others. If someone expressed a "pro-Palestinian" view, such persons were antisemitic!

Almost surely, some of them surely may be! But how all about all the others? And how about the political problem this new name-calling has caused?

Tomorrow: The New York Times almost seems to be puzzled by a certain choice of words


Krugman links to health care figures!

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 28, 2023

Only The Shadow knows: We're so old that we can remember when this sort of thing seemed to matter.

In his new column for the New York Times, Paul Krugman discusses Nikki Haley's stance on Social Security. Here's what the headline says:

Nikki Haley Is Coming for Your Retirement

This isn't a favorable column about Candidate Haley. Along the way, Krugman discusses the best way to close Social Security's "funding gap." 

(According to Krugman, that funding gap is real, but it isn't as large as you might think. It could be easily closed.)

We can recall when such discussions almost seemed to matter. Along the way, Krugman also says this:

KRUGMAN (11/28/23): It’s true that the budget office projects a much bigger rise in spending on Medicare and other major health programs. But much of this projected rise reflects the assumption that medical costs will rise much faster than economic growth, which has been true in the past but need not be true in the future. Indeed, since 2010, Medicare spending has been far less than expected. And there is every reason to believe that smart policies could further curb health care costs, given how much more America spends than other wealthy nations.

"Given how much more America spends" on health care? How much more is that?

As part of his decades of MVP work, Krugman first wrote about this topic long ago. This isn't his major topic today, but he offers a link to this recent set of figures:

Health consumption expenditures per capita, U.S. dollars, PPP adjusted, 2021 or nearest year
United States:  $12,914
Germany:  $7,383
France:  $6,115
Canada:  $5,905
Australia:  $5,627
United Kingdom:  $5,387
Japan:  $4,666

PPP adjusted? Don't even ask! (Instead, you can just click here.)

It's been a while since we presented figures for per capita health care spending. As you can see, the spending gap remains extremely large—and it remains unexplained.

Where's all that extra money going? Once again, don't ask!

Krugman first discussed this topic in a striking series of columns back in 2006. He stressed the fact that health care outcomes were largely the same, despite the massive difference in health care spending.

Those columns generated exactly zero discussion in our major news organs. For whatever reason, this is a topic which doesn't seem to generate interest within such upper-end orgs.

At any rate, we Americans spend more than twice as much per person as all but one of those comparable nations. Where's all that extra money going? Why do we spend so much more, per person, than other nations do?

We're so old that we can remember when presidential campaigns, and the years leading up to same, involved discussions of such topics—discussions which were generally bungled within the upper-end press corps.

Example: Back in 1995, was Speaker Gingrich proposing a Medicare cut? Or was he simply "reducing the rate at which the program would grow?"

As we discussed in some detail, that conundrum puzzled the press corps for several years. Long ago, Krugman once linked to our work on the topic, though we no longer have the link to Krugman's blog post.

Today, we talk about Donald J. Trump and his various trials, and we talk about little else. Where's all that extra money going?

Apparently, only The Shadow knows—and The Shadow doesn't care!


INCOMPREHENSIONS: On the subject of Israel, our favorite blogger...

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 28, 2023

...adopted a slightly odd tone: As readers will know, we've often described Kevin Drum, late of Mother Jones, as our favorite blogger.

We long for the day when we get to see a fuller discussion of his lengthy cover report for that magazine about the so-called "lead-crime hypothesis."

That cover report appeared in the January 2013 issue of Mother Jones, with a great deal of blogging to follow. Ten years later, we're still waiting for a fuller excavation of the fascinating suggestions it contained.

We don't think Drum is always right—but then again, neither is anyone else. That said, we thought one recent post by Drum was perhaps a bit strange in its tone.

It dealt with a very sensitive topic. Headline included, the initial post went like this:

Israelis and Arabs have both acted abominably over the years

I know this is hardly a brilliant insight, but I continue to be sort of stunned by how absolutist Americans are—or seem to be, anyway—on the subject of Israel and its enemies. It hardly requires a scholar's dedication to nuance to understand that both sides have acted horrifically at various times over the past century. There are no heroes in this story and no clean hands.

I get that tribalism accounts for much of this, but the sins of both sides are so numerous and so appalling that it's hard to see how anybody can be a die-hard supporter of either one. The best I can bring myself to believe is that perhaps one side is slightly less repellent than the other.¹

¹In my view, Israel is the less horrible. But it's hardly a slam dunk.

This post dealt with a very sensitive topic in a largely imprecise way. In part for reasons of personal history, the somewhat curt tone of the post struck us as somewhat unhelpful.

Drum's post triggered a large number of comments, and he offered an UPDATE about the point he was trying to make. For ourselves, we'll offer this:

We don't think it's hard to understand the depth of feeling which has often surrounded this ongoing matter in the aftermath of October 7 To cite one basic example:

For many American Jews, the horror of the October 7 killings and kidnappings directly recalled the events of the Holocaust. It's also clear that many American Jews were greatly surprised by the number of college students and academics who were soon expressing a "pro-Palestinian" view with respect to Israel's military action in Gaza.

Quite plainly, many American Jews were deeply shocked by both sets of events. As for the devotion to Israel felt by many American Jews, Ruth Marcus offered this overview in her recent, deeply humane column for the Washington Post:

MARCUS (11/23/23): I was born in 1958, just 10 years after the establishment of Israel. The nation’s existence was new and tenuous; it was embattled, encircled by enemies committed to its destruction. It needed our support—our dimes diligently tucked into the cards we collected to plant trees in its fledgling forests.

My childhood memories are of the Six-Day War and the accompanying joy over access to the Western Wall; of the shock of the Yom Kippur War. I was walking back to synagogue to join my father for evening services that day when a neighbor stopped to ask: Had I heard the terrible news?

And, I am obliged to confess, the narrative of Israel’s founding that Jewish children of my generation were offered in Hebrew school and on trips to Israel was deeply misleading at best, tinged with anti-Palestinian bias at worst. This account utterly failed to acknowledge the expulsion of Palestinians from their homes in 1948 or consider Palestinians’ legitimate claims to a homeland. The tenor of our rabbi’s sermons, the discussions in my childhood home, were that Israel could do no wrong.

In that passage, Marcus describes the way Jewish kids of her generation were taught about a very important country—about a very important country which "could do no wrong." For the record, many American kids have been taught in a broadly similar way about the United States itself.

Marcus was taught that Israel "could do no wrong." Her daughters have come of age with a different set of understandings, she went on to say:

MARCUS (continuing directly): My children grew up in a different environment—more honest about the contours of the conflict, more complex in the nature of the political discussion, and more fraught. They have scarcely known an Israel without Netanyahu, which is to say an Israel whose aggressive settlement policy that has made a two-state solution increasingly unattainable, and an Israel that fails to treat Palestinians with fairness and dignity.

That's how it has been for Marcus' two daughters. But for many people of Marcus' generation, Israel was the country which emerged from the Holocaust with the purpose of providing the world's Jews with a homeland, full stop. 

Most people don't follow world events in great detail. It isn't surprising that many people of Marcus' generation, or that many people who are younger, may continue to hold the overall picture of this situation which Marcus associates with her upbringing.

For such reasons, it isn't surprising that many American Jews reacted to "pro-Palestinian" demonstrations with surprise and deep concern. That doesn't mean that it was helpful or wise when some major voices in our own blue tribe's cable punditry reacted to these events in some of the ways we saw on programs like Morning Joe and Deadline: White House.

Major pundits went on the air, seeming to say they had no idea why anyone could possibly adopt a "pro-Palestinian" viewpoint with respect to these ongoing events. 

"This is just so black and white stuff," one major pundit told Nicolle Wallace on the October 30 Deadline: White House. "There's no gray areas here." 

In largely murky fashion, he angrily complained about the way "the media"—he specifically named CNN and the New York Times—"are so quick to blame Israel" in the course of covering these events.

In fairness, Donny Deutsch was specifically comparing Israel to Hamas when he made those statements. But in one conversation after another, pundits railed against college students who were "pro-Palestinian" without offering any idea of the background which might underlie such viewpoints.

In her column, Marcus described some of the behaviors by Israel which helped inform her own daughters' sympathies for the Palestinian people. 

According to Marcus, she herself remained more heavily aligned with Israel—with its need to survive in a dangerous region and world. But she was willing to cite the events which had more heavily influenced the viewpoints of her own daughters—of her own Jewish daughters. 

On major cable news programs, blue tribe thought leaders made amazingly little effort to do any such thing. They railed against those college kids without offering any idea about the possible source of their possible viewpoints.

There's no one reaction to these recent events which can be said to be intellectually and morally perfect. It's also true that the blue tribe pundits we have in mind—we include the irate Joe Scarborough—have seemed to scale back their rhetoric in the past few weeks.

In real time, these pundits seemed to have no earthly idea why anyone might sympathize with the ongoing situation of the Palestinian people. Frequently, they almost seemed to be proud of their total incomprehension—and we're afraid that this attitude affects our current set of blue tribe pundits when they approach other topics too.

Could Donald J. Trump get elected next year? Yes, of course he could!

Like other blue tribe members, we see that as a massive point of concern. (Tens of millions of friends and neighbors disagree with us about that.) 

Tens of millions of friends and neighbors disagree with our assessment! But with that major concern in mind, the ongoing situation in Israel and Gaza has become a challenging topic for our own blue tribe—and so are several other major political and policy topics.

Donny Deutsche is Jewish. It isn't surprising that he was unmistakably deeply upset by the events of October 7, and by some of what followed.

In our view, it isn't surprising that he sounded like "a die-hard supporter" of Israel when he appeared on a range of programs, even including The View.

That said:

As we noted yesterday, Michael Dukakis ended up losing in 1988. As we blues proudly persist in our varied incomprehensions, we leave you again with a basic question:

Could such a thing happen again?

Tomorrow: Diversity can be hard


We'd never heard of Ramallah Friends School...

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 27, 2023

...until this very morning: We ourselves wouldn't have written the headline that way. That said, headline included, here's part of the Washington Post's news report about the latest shooting, this time in Vermont:

Man arrested after three Palestinian students injured in Vermont shooting

[...]

The victims’ parents identified them in a statement as Hisham Awartani, Kinnan Abdalhamid and Tahseen Ahmed. The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC), a civil rights advocacy group, said it believed the students were targeted because they are Palestinians. Police said two are U.S. citizens and one is a legal U.S. resident.

Many others have noted a basic issue concerning identity. If two of these victims are U.S. citizens, is it accurate to headline them as "Palestinian students," full stop?

We might have been inclined to headline these young people as "college students," then to let the facts unfold from there. That said, here's another part of the Post's news report:

A Palestinian high school in the West Bank, Ramallah Friends, said all three of the men had attended school there before enrolling in U.S. universities.

We'd never heard of Ramallah Friends until this very morning. The leading authority on the school offers this somewhat inaccurate thumbnail account:

Ramallah Friends Schools

The Ramallah Friends Schools are two private schools founded by Quakers in the city of Ramallah, in the West Bank. The Friends Girls' School was inaugurated in 1869; the construction of the Friends Boys' School began in 1901 and the school opened in 1918. The Schools were run by American Quakers. The schools are now co-educational and divided into Senior and Junior sections...

At its own web site, Ramallah Friends describes itself as one school, in the singular. It offers this account of its mission and its values:

School Mission

Guided by Quaker principles and values, enriched by being in Palestine, and strengthened by collaboration within the school community and with external partnerships, Ramallah Friends School (RFS) offers children and youth with an academically rigorous, balanced, engaging and inclusive learning environment of the highest quality standard, every day.

We inspire our students to become a living expression of a spiritual life, and to be in constant search for God in all human situations. By doing so, we nurture confidence and intellectual curiosity through experiential learning and innovative application of knowledge and skills, enabling our students to become independent, adaptable but principled, socially responsible, and internationally-minded citizens.

RAMALLAH FRIENDS SCHOOL strives to be a leading educational institution in the Palestinian community. The Lower and Upper Schools were founded in 1869 and 1901 respectively, for the purpose of offering Palestinian youth a rigorous program guided by Quaker principles.

Central to Quaker education is a vitality that comes from being a living expression of a religious life. A Friends School education seeks to promote a constant search for God to all human situations and to cultivate ethical, moral and spiritual values.

[...]

Equality

Quaker education believes that all people are equal before God regardless of gender, creed, culture, color or social status. Since our beginning, we have focused on the education of women to develop their potential and realize their opportunity to be equal members of their community. Quaker education is built on the belief that all are children of God and that within each person here is that of God to be nurtured.

We don't have religious beliefs ourselves. That said, good people trying to do good things are found all over the world. As every sane person knows, an incredible number of Jewish institutions also serve the wide-ranging interests, all over the world, of us in the human race.

Good people are found all over the world. Also, troubled people are commonly found. Tragically, some are inclined to be violent.


STARTING TOMORROW: Incomprehensions!

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 27, 2023

No Cluelessness Left Behind: We've cited the famous old SNL skit before.

When we say "old," we do mean old! The skit was performed on October 8, 1988, during the Bush-Dukakis campaign.

The sketch presented Candidates Dukakis and Bush in a (fake) presidential debate. Jon Lovitz was cast as Michael Dukakis. 

In the impression which helped make him famous, Dana Carvey was cast as George H. W. Bush. Here's why the sketch is remembered:

Midway through the fake debate, Candidate Bush offers a series of silly evasions in response to a repeated question from a Diane Sawyer character. Famously, the Dukakis character ends up saying this:

SAWYER CHARACTER: You still have fifty seconds left, Mr. Vice-President.

BUSH CHARACTER: Let me just sum up. On track, stay the course. A thousand points of light. 

Stay the course.

SAWYER CHARACTER: Governor Dukakis, rebuttal?

DUKAKIS CHARACTER: I can't believe I'm losing to this guy!

AUDIENCE: [Laughter, applause]

To watch the videotape, click here. For a transcript of the sketch, you can just click this.

"I can't believe I'm losing to this guy!" The site which prepared that transcript offers this assessment of the famous old SNL sketch:

This sketch is a parody envisioning of the soon-to-be-held second and final presidential debate of the 1988 presidential election campaign, which was contested primarily by Republican candidate George H. W. Bush...and Democratic candidate Michael Dukakis. 

[...]

As time has passed, this fake debate has proven to be (relatively) more memorable than the actual debate it is portraying, which did not have any particularly memorable events.

In fact, the actual debate included one of the most famous—and unfortunate—events in the history of presidential debates (see below). But SNL's fake debate has lived on in memory too. 

I can't believe I'm losing to this guy! In our view, the skit is memorable because it seems to capture an unfortunate yet enduring characteristic of blue tribe political culture.

All too often, we blues almost seem to pride ourselves in our failure to comprehend why red tribe voters could possibly be supporting The Other Guy. It's almost like we blue tribe members are all "fake Dukakis" now.

Why in the world are people voting for him? When we can't imagine anything like a valid reason for some such choice, we start dropping our various bombs.

We call them racists, misogynists, deplorables—even irredeemables. In doing so, we may make it that much more likely that our own candidate won't win.

Indeed, in the age of Trump, we've gone so far as to complain when major newspapers interview voters about such questions. As such, we aren't just uncomprehending about red tribe viewpoints and outlooks. We seem to be defiantly clueless concerning what Others may think.

In the aftermath of the October 7 killings and kidnappings by Hamas, we thought we saw that attitude—that defiant lack of comprehension—suffusing a fair amount of blue tribe pundit reaction. 

In the main, we're thinking of conversations we saw on Morning Joe and Deadline: White House. In these conversations, major blue tribe "thought leaders" seemed to have no idea why anyone might be sympathetic to Palestinian causes—why anyone might be "pro-Palestinian" in their general outlook.

These pundits went on and on, then on and on, suggesting that some such alignment could stem from only one source—from antisemitism. They almost seemed to take pride in their inability to imagine other possible reasons for the outlook being voiced by some of These College Students Today, and by some other progressives.

For the record, these pundits have been reinforcing the line which is currently dominant on the Fox News Channel. According to that prevailing line, we progressives are so antisemitic that—to cite one astounding example—Barack Obama was said to need a new sign, a yard sign which (with apologies) says, "Kill the Jews."

That's the kind of rank aggression being voiced on major Fox programs. Back on MSNBC, major blue pundits have gone on and on in an alarmingly similar vein. 

Why would anyone be sympathetic to the Palestinians' outlooks or causes? The cluelessness has been deep and vast—and it has sometimes seemed to be held almost proudly.

As a general matter, our own view would go like this:

As we noted all last week, there is no single, perfect way to view the current situation concerning (take your choice) Israel and Hamas / Israel and Gaza / Israel and the Palestinian people. 

As we saw in Ruth Marcus' heartfelt column for the Washington Post, decent, deeply caring people—deeply caring Jewish people—may come down in different ways concerning these tragic events.

Different people will have different views about this horrible situation. That said, you have to be unhelpfully clueless to behave in the way some major blue pundits have done. 

In our view, progressive / liberal / Democratic Party interests have been served very poorly by a great deal of their work. In our view, that's true concerning this particular matter, but also concerning other major political topics.

In our view, we've been poorly served by much of their work. They may help elect Trump in the process. We'll discuss this problem all week.

"I can't believe I'm losing to this guy!" the fictional Dukakis once said.

The real Dukakis ended up losing. Could that possibly happen again?

Tomorrow: As heard on Morning Joe

The history of that debate: That SNL sketch aired on October 8, 1988. Five days later, on October 13, the actual Candidates Bush and Dukakis took part in their final debate.

That debate opened with a famous question from CNN's Bernard Shaw. As various sources have reported, his female fellow moderators had begged him not to ask that particular question, but ask it he instantly did.

Mainstream pundits landed on Dukakis' response like a ton of bricks. Starting in March 1999, mainstream pundits behaved in a similar way for twenty straight months as they conducted their astonishing war against Candidate Gore during Campaign 2000.

You've almost never read about that astonishing twenty-month war. By the enduring rules of the game, some events simply cannot be discussed by members of the journalistic and academic guilds. 

By the enduring rules of the game, what happens in the mainstream press corps stays in the mainstream press corps. Career players agree to place inconvenient truths inside an ironclad lockbox!


Help a whole nation with your youth!

FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 2023

Ruth Marcus listens well: We're not sure we've ever read a more worthwhile opinion column.

We're speaking of the latest column by Ruth Marcus for the Washington Post. The column hasn't appeared in print editions yet. Online, the headline says this:

A troubling split at my Thanksgiving table—and the nation’s

To what "troubling split" does Marcus refer? She refers to differences within her own Jewish family about what we have come to call the Israel-Hamas war.

Marcus herself, age 65, is inclined to tilt one way. Her daughters are more "pro-Palestinian." As Marcus notes, this is indeed a type of generational split which may be profoundly affecting our national politics. 

That said, her column starts like this:

MARCUS (11/23/23): Our Thanksgiving table has never been a political battleground—not until this year...

This year is different. We are a Jewish family, so you might think the horror of the Hamas attack would bring us together. Anything but. Instead, in the interests of family harmony, the Thanksgiving table has been preemptively declared an Israel-free zone. Pass the corn pudding and drop the cease-fire talk. Tell Grandma not to discuss settlements.

I suspect we are not alone. The Oct. 7 attack exposed many painful realities, including the prevalence of antisemitism in our own country, especially on college campuses. A related one is the generational divide—broadly, for sure, but also within the American Jewish community—over support for Israel and the importance of Israel as a Jewish homeland.

That "generational divide" has been widely polled and widely reported, but Marcus' column brings it all back home. 

Marcus herself grew up with one worldview, her daughters perhaps with another. Concerning that generational divide, Marcys offers this:

MARCUS: Really, how could it be otherwise? I was born in 1958, just 10 years after the establishment of Israel. The nation’s existence was new and tenuous; it was embattled, encircled by enemies committed to its destruction. It needed our support—our dimes diligently tucked into the cards we collected to plant trees in its fledgling forests.

My childhood memories are of the Six-Day War and the accompanying joy over access to the Western Wall; of the shock of the Yom Kippur War. I was walking back to synagogue to join my father for evening services that day when a neighbor stopped to ask: Had I heard the terrible news?

[...]

My children grew up in a different environment—more honest about the contours of the conflict, more complex in the nature of the political discussion, and more fraught. They have scarcely known an Israel without Netanyahu, which is to say an Israel whose aggressive settlement policy that has made a two-state solution increasingly unattainable, and an Israel that fails to treat Palestinians with fairness and dignity.

Growing up, Marcus was swimming in one point of view. Her daughters have grown up in a different time, involving some different realities.

None of this can direct us to the perfectly correct view about the current situation. There is no such perfect view or understanding—not about this complex situation, not about anything else.

That said, what makes this column so superb starts with the paragraph we've omitted. Here's the fuller statement by Marcus:

MARCUS: My childhood memories are of the Six-Day War and the accompanying joy over access to the Western Wall; of the shock of the Yom Kippur War. I was walking back to synagogue to join my father for evening services that day when a neighbor stopped to ask: Had I heard the terrible news?

And, I am obliged to confess, the narrative of Israel’s founding that Jewish children of my generation were offered in Hebrew school and on trips to Israel was deeply misleading at best, tinged with anti-Palestinian bias at worst. This account utterly failed to acknowledge the expulsion of Palestinians from their homes in 1948 or consider Palestinians’ legitimate claims to a homeland. The tenor of our rabbi’s sermons, the discussions in my childhood home, were that Israel could do no wrong.

My children grew up in a different environment—more honest about the contours of the conflict, more complex in the nature of the political discussion, and more fraught. They have scarcely known an Israel without Netanyahu, which is to say an Israel whose aggressive settlement policy that has made a two-state solution increasingly unattainable, and an Israel that fails to treat Palestinians with fairness and dignity.

It is, in short, an Israel that has made itself hard to love...

Has Israel "made itself hard to love?" That's a matter of opinion.

The fact that Marcus makes that claim doesn't mean that the claim is "true." Nor does it mean that Marcus has completely adopted her children's view of these matters. That passage continues as shown:

MARCUS: It is, in short, an Israel that has made itself hard to love. My love for Israel is strong enough to survive my exasperation with the policies of its current government. It might be unrealistic to expect the same of my daughters...

The rumination continues from there, in deeply instructive detail.

Have we ever read a more worthwhile, or more instructive, opinion column? We can't think of when we did.

Marcus has come to broaden her views concerning these matters, but she still stands apart from her daughters. And again—nothing Marcus says requires you, or anyone else, to share any of the views which get described in this column.

You don't have to agree with Marcus' views, or with those of her daughters. Concerning that, we'll offer these words of high praise:

Marcus seems to have let her children attempt to teach her well. Raised within one standard outlook, she has actually come to adjust her views, based in part on her daughters' attempts to "help her with their youth." 

She says there is still a divide. She describes that divide as follows:

MARCUS: [W]e confront the events of Oct. 7 and its terrible aftermath, including the bloodshed in Gaza, from different baselines, clashing perspectives that have generated painful conversations, and tears on both sides.

I am disappointed that, as much as they recognize the horrors of the Holocaust and the “never again” imperative, they do not link that tragedy to the accompanying imperative of Israel as a Jewish homeland. I blame myself for having failed to instill that lesson, and for not having done a better job at convincing them of the interconnectedness of Judaism and Zionism. I worry that they underestimate the persistence of antisemitism and overestimate the willingness of Israel’s neighbors to tolerate a Jewish state.

In turn, they are disappointed at what they see as my reflexive tribalism and my deficit of empathy for the suffering of innocent Palestinians. For them, a deeply felt Jewish identity does not inexorably demand commitment to Israel; the two can be disaggregated.

Judaism teaches the duty to care for the stranger, my daughter reminded me, when I said our charitable contributions would go to ease suffering in Israel, not Gaza. Hadn’t I taught her better than that? My pride in having helped raise a caring person collides with my worry that she does not fully grasp the evils of the world in which we live.

There are "tears on both sides," Marcus reports. Painful though those tears seem to be, they don't seem to be "tears of rage," to quote the title of one of the most painfully insightful of all Dylan songs. 

In yesterday's report, we posted lyrics from an iconic song we've often thought of lately. Are younger people sometimes aware of certain things their elders may not understand?

Younger people are often wrong. They often say the darndest things—but that's true of old fogies too.

But even as they may (or may not) overstate, younger people can sometimes help their elders see the world through a different and wider lens. We'll quote those lyrics once again:

And you of tender years
Can't know the fears
Your elders grew by.
And so please help them with your youth
They seek the truth
Before they can die.

Teach your parents well, the song goes on to say. Of course, for any such teaching to occur, those elders must be willing to listen.

What is the truth about this war? As always, there is no ultimate answer. There can only be the attempt to listen—to be respectful and fair.

During the song from which we're quoting, Voice Two asks these questions during the second verse:

Can you see? Will you care? Can you see we must be free to make a world we can live in?

We regard this as a beautiful column. There are still tears on both sides but, in our view, the columnist Marcus has answered those questions quite well.

Still coming: As heard on blue cable TV

First verse, Tears of Rage: Here's the first verse of Tears of Rage:

We carried you in our arms
On Independence Day
And now you throw us all aside
And put us all away
What dear daughter ’neath the sun
Could treat a father so
To wait upon him hand and foot
Yet always tell him,“No?”

The song describes a more painful type of family divide. For The Band's recording, click here.  


Who does Bernie Sanders support?

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 23, 2023

Teach your parents well: Is Bernie Sanders "pro-Palestinian?"

At the New York Times, it seems that they may not be sure. 

Today's editions feature a long guest essay by Sanders about a high-profile situation. Online, the headline on his essay says this:

Bernie Sanders:  Justice for the Palestinians and Security for Israel

It sounds like Bernie is even-handed—like he's seeking a world which would be better for each major population.

Online, that's what the headline says and suggests. In print editions, though, the headline says this:

Palestinians Must Have Hope for a Brighter Future

That headline may perhaps convey a different impression.

We spent some time last evening watching one of our favorite YouTube videos. It's Kathy Mattea and Suzy Bogguss singing Teach Your Children.

You can watch it by clicking right here.

The video comes from the Ryman Auditorium, way back in 1995. We especially like the video because Mattea and Bogguss take such obvious pleasure, from beginning to end, in the chance to be singing together.

Mattea and Bogguss were singing a hippie era anthem in the original home of the Grand Ole Opry. Last night, we puzzled over the fascinating, intertwined lyrics to the song's second verse.

The second verse of this iconic song features two intertwined voices. The lead voice, Voice One, sings this:

And you of tender years
Can't know the fears
Your elders grew by.
And so please help them with your youth
They seek the truth
Before they can die.

"Teach your parents well," the two voices then sing. and they continue in unison.

At any rate, that's what Voice One sings. Along the way, the second voice—Voice Two—has been singing something which goes roughly like this:

Can you hear? Will you care?
Can you see you must be free
To teach your children 
What you believe in
Make a world 
That we can live in.

The intertwining of the voices makes the content and meaning of these lines a bit hard to nail down. That said, at the end of the intermingling, the second voice seems to say this:

We can live in TEACH!

In our view, Sanders's essay seems to be seeking a way to build "a world we can live in." Others may read the piece differently, of course—and there's never an ultimate way to prove whose reading is actually "right."

At any rate, a final thought:

In recent weeks, we've watched certain adult voices on cable news programs attack These [Imperfect] College Students Today. We've watched these puzzled parents throw these children into one big box—condemn them as a group.

Presumably, those elders are doing the best they can. That said, we've often thought of an ancient plea as we've watched those students getting slagged.

It's a plea to those of tender years:

Teach your parents well, it says. Please help them with your youth!

Full disclosure: Apparently, a certain hippie group sang that song too! 

For their famous recording, click here

On this, our nation's Thanksgiving Eve...

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 22, 2023

...what's up with Donald J. Trump? When we were kids, Thanksgiving morning was all about the Winchester-Woburn game.

The game began at 11 a.m. On his way to winning the Heisman Trophy at the Naval Academy, Joe Bellino was the star of the hometown Winchester team.

(One of the players on the team—his nickname was "The Wit"—was our babysitter's boyfriend. We asked him once what the players do when they go in the locker room at halftime. "We lay on our backs and drink beer," the boyfriend convincingly said.)

This very day, on Thanksgiving Eve, Kevin Drum quotes a passage from Thomas Edsall's assessment of Donald J. Trump's mental health. 

In the main, we don't agree with the specific framework Kevin builds around the quoted assessment. But the assessment reminds us of this passage from Maureen Dowd's column last Sunday:

DOWD (11/19/23): Like other pols, Biden has a healthy ego and like all presidents, he’s truculent about not getting the credit he thinks he deserves for his accomplishments. And it must be infuriating that most of the age qualms are about him, when Trump is only a few years younger.

No doubt the president is having a hard time wrapping his mind around the idea that the 77-year-old Mar-a-Lago Dracula has risen from his gilded coffin even though he’s albatrossed with legal woes and seems more deranged than ever, referring to Democrats with the fascist-favored term “vermin” and plotting a second-term revengefest. Trump’s campaign slogan should be, “There will be blood.” 

[...]

It’s a perfect playing field for the maleficent Trump: He learned in the 2016 race that physical and rhetorical violence could rev up his base. He told me at the time it helped get him to No. 1 and he said he found violence at his rallies exciting.

He has no idea why making fun of Paul Pelosi’s injuries at the hands of one of his acolytes is subhuman, any more than he understood how repellent it was in 2015 when he mocked a disabled Times reporter. He gets barbaric laughs somehow, and that’s all he cares about. In an interview with Jonathan Karl, Trump gloated about how his audience on Jan. 6 was “the biggest crowd I’ve ever spoken in front of by far.”

Never mind that it was one of the most dangerous, shameful days in our history. To Trump, it was glorious.

Absent a fuller context, Trump's comment about that "biggest crowd" strikes us as perhaps innocuous. Also, we think people are totally missing the point when they keep saying that Trump "is only a few years younger."

That said:

Dowd says that Trump, who she has interviewed various times, "seems more deranged than ever." She says that his campaign slogan should be, "There will be blood."

With striking specificity, she says that Trump has no idea why his jokes about Paul Pelosi are inhuman. In Dowd's view, he has no idea why people think that. All he cares about is the fact that he gets laughs.

Intentionally or otherwise, she seems to be describing a victim of "antisocial personality disorder"—colloquially, a sociopath. According to the largest studies, a surprising percentage of adult men could be so diagnosed.

In his short post, Drum notes Trump's apparent ongoing loss of impulse control. "Hardly anyone seems willing to say it," Kevin says, "even though it's become more and more obvious over the past year."

We'll only restate this point:

Our journalists have agreed on a sixty-year-old rule which flatly forbids such discussion. They continue to be shocked, shocked—perhaps more correctly, surprised, surprised—by the downward spiral in Trump's public statements and public behavior.

When Bandy X. Lee assembled her best-selling book, The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump, she explicitly said that Trump's condition would inevitably get worse. To their dying days, our high-end journalists will all agree that they must never discuss such matters—that they must never interview carefully selected medical specialists who can speak to such points of concern.

We aren't saying they're right in adopting that rule. We aren't saying they're wrong. 

We're merely telling you what they're doing. They've agreed that this potentially dangerous situation must never be discussed.

Bellino was a decent guy. Everyone was back then!



HEARING OTHERS: Some college kids are beyond the pale!

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 22, 2023

How about some cable news stars? It's a proven fact! College students often show limited judgment.

Of course, we adults routinely show limited judgment too. Reportedly, that can even happen, on the rare occasion, among upper-end mainstream journalists!

Still, college students may sometimes be inclined to go all in. In yesterday's report, we cited some shouting which one college student heard during a recent demonstration at Northwestern University. We quoted from this lengthy New York Times report:

HARTOCOLLIS AND SAUL (11/11/23): In the days after the Hamas attack on Israel, Max Strozenberg, a first-year student at Northwestern University, experienced a couple of jarring incidents.

Walking into his dorm, he was startled to see a poster calling Gaza a “modern-day concentration camp” pinned to a bulletin board next to Halloween ghosts and pumpkins.

At a pro-Palestinian rally, he heard students shouting, “Hey, Schill, what do you say, how many kids did you kill today,” an echo of a chant from the anti-Vietnam War movement, now directed at Northwestern’s president, Michael H. Schill, who is Jewish.

With apologies for the language, had Northwestern's president actually killed any kids that day? At times of very high partisan feeling, college students, like everyone else, can perhaps show somewhat limited judgment in very large, very loud ways.

What might such behavior tell us about the shouters? According to the Times report, the Northwestern freshman who heard that shouting seemed to think the shouting amounted to, or had stemmed from, a form of antisemitism. 

On the other hand, the Times reporters quoted a "pro-Palestinian" college student in California. She had offered this general rebuttal to that general charge:

HARTOCOLLIS AND SAUL: Pro-Palestinian supporters are quick to push back, asking whether any criticism of Israel and Zionism is acceptable.

They say that the cries of antisemitism are an attempt to stifle speech and divert attention from a 16-year blockade of Gaza by Israel, backed by Egypt, that has devastated the lives of Palestinians. They point to the uprooting of 700,000 people during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. And they rail against Israel’s current invasion of Gaza, which has killed more than 10,000 people, according to the Gazan health ministry.

“We stand staunchly against all forms of racism and bigotry,” said Anna Babboni, a senior at Scripps College in Claremont, Calif., and one of the leaders of the local chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine.

Ms. Babboni said her group is not antisemitic, but it is anti-Zionist...

In the present-day context, it isn't automatically clear what "anti-Zionist" means. But this California college student denied the claim of antisemitism. Indeed, she staunchly said that her group stands against all forms of racism.

Why is that student "pro-Palestinian?" According to Hartocollis and Saul, some such students cite that "16-year blockade of Gaza." Reaching all the way back, they may also "point to the uprooting of 700,000 people during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War."

They'll say that they aren't antisemitic. That said, were the Northwestern shouters antisemitic? How about that senior at Scripps College?

In theory, such questions are very important. They're also hard to answer. 

In this morning's New York Times, Alan Blinder offers a lengthy news report about the loosely-organized nationwide group to which that Scripps senior belongs. Headline included, Blinder starts like this:

BLINDER (11/22/23): After last month’s attack on Israel by Hamas, Students for Justice in Palestine promoted a “tool kit” for activists that proclaimed “glory to our resistance.” The group has been banned or suspended by Brandeis, Columbia and George Washington University. And it was recently the target of thundering speeches on Capitol Hill and blistered during a Republican presidential debate.

In the six weeks since Hamas attacked Israel, there may be no college group that has drawn more scrutiny than Students for Justice in Palestine, perhaps the most popular and divisive campus organization championing the Palestinian cause.

But unlike many national campus groups—whether they are sororities, fraternities, religious or political—Students for Justice in Palestine is by design a loosely connected network of autonomous chapters. There is no national headquarters and no named leader. There is a national student steering committee, but it is anonymous. The group has never registered as a nonprofit, and it has never had to file tax documents.

[...]

That deliberate lack of hierarchy has been crucial to the network’s ascent, allowing chapters to spring up with few obstacles, according to interviews with 20 people and a survey of videos, academic writings, archival news accounts and public records. The network’s constellation of tactics and rhetoric, including theatrical demonstrations with “apartheid walls” and mock Israeli checkpoints, has been replicated on campuses across the country.

The flat structure, though, has also fueled worries among pro-Israel groups that accuse the network of driving antisemitism on campuses, often with little accountability...

“Glory to our resistance?” Given the nature of the events of October 7, it's hard to find a way to locate that statement within the broad range of acceptable American political thinking. 

On the other hand, would that college kid in Claremont subscribe to some such framework? According to Blinder, the national student group to which she belongs is very loosely organized. Indeed, there's no way to know, from Blinder's report, who made the quoted statement.

Would that college kid in Pomona see some type of "glory" in October 7's act of "resistance?" We have no idea, and it seems that she wasn't asked.

Meanwhile, it's also true that today's New York Times offers a guest essay by "a Palestinian writer living in the West Bank"—an essay with which that Scripps student would almost surely agree.

The Palestinian writer is Ali Awad. Headline included, his essay starts like this:

Many West Bank Palestinians Are Being Forced Out of Their Villages. Is My Family Next?

I was born in February 1998 in Tuba, a rural shepherding community of 80 Palestinian residents in the South Hebron Hills of the West Bank, where my family has lived for generations. Over the years we have suffered repeated attacks by Israeli settlers, part of an ongoing campaign to remove us from our land. Still, nothing prepared me for what our life has become since the Hamas attack on Oct. 7. In the last six weeks, the raids and harassment by settlers have become so intense that I do not know how much longer I and the other members of my community will be able to live here.

Under the cover of war, settlers have been storming villages in the West Bank, threatening Palestinians and destroying their homes and their livelihoods. International attention has been mostly focused on the atrocities in Israel and in Gaza, including the internal displacement of more than half of the population of the Gaza Strip.

In the West Bank, increasingly violent assaults on villages have forced at least 16 Palestinian communities—more than 1,000 people—to flee their homes since Oct. 7...

Awad is the age of a typical graduate student. His essay may serve to remind us that there are imaginable reasons for college seniors to be "pro-Palestinian"—to feel the bulk of their sympathy aligned with people like Awad.

Can a college student be "pro-Palestinian" without being antisemitic? Could such students even engage in a type of "shouting" in which they may seem to exercise limited discernment?

It seems to us that the answer is a fairly obvious if unfortunate yes. That doesn't mean that every other college student is somehow required to adopt the first student's overall view of this matter. 

It simply means that Person B can disagree with Person A's view—can even do so rather loudly—without necessarily being racist or misogynist, or without being antisemitic.

That doesn't mean that no one holds views or feelings which are antisemitic, since some people plainly do. Also, it doesn't mean that there aren't American college students whose reaction to October 7 are almost impossible to square with the most expansive framework of American belief.

As we close today, we direct your attention to one such student—a junior at Penn. Especially on the right, a speech by this student on October 28 has gained a substantial amount of attention. On November 10, a report in Penn's student newspaper quoted part of what had been said:

DILWORTH (11/10/23): Recently, online reports citing a clip of a speech from a pro-Palestinian rally in Center City on Oct. 28 suggested that [the student] called the Hamas attacks on Oct. 7 “glorious” and said she felt “empowered and happy” when Hamas invaded Israel. [Her] theft of [an] Israeli flag was reported the same day. 

“How about the photos of the bulldozer breaking through the deadly border? Do you remember that picture? And the several other joyful and powerful images which came from the glorious Oct. 7?” she reportedly said in the video circulating online.

To watch the video clip of this student's speech, you can just click here. It's hard to place this student's reactions to "the glorious October 7" within even the broadest framework of American political belief.

Is that student antisemitic? We'd be inclined to say that, within the framework of American thought and belief, she is currently lost to the world.

That said, it shouldn't be especially hard to see why some other students might be "pro-Palestinian"—might principally sympathize with people like Ali Awad, or with the people of Gaza. 

That doesn't mean that such students are "right" in some ultimate way.  In our view, it does suggest that people who are seeking solutions shouldn't rush to call such students names, or to assume the worst about their mentality or their motives.

Over the past many years, our own blue tribe has formed the habit of name-calling others. Some of our thought leaders may not be especially good at hearing the actual voices of some such actual people.

You don't have to agree with that Scripps College student. We're just suggesting that you probably shouldn't rush to call such people names. They'll do plenty of that on Fox without our team joining in.

We'll make a shocking suggestion:

For the many people within our own blue tribe who (quite understandably) are "pro-Israel," it's even possible that there are some things that student knows which some older people don't! This brings us to the statements by certain "cable news" stars to which we've referred of late.

How should those "pro-Palestinian" students be seen? In our view, some blue tribe leaders have been inclined to take the more simplistic route—the road more traveled by. 

In our view, these thought leaders have appeared on our blue tribe's "cable news" shows and adopted a very odd, if perhaps understandable, stance:

They can't seem to understand why anyone would disagree with their own (plainly perfect) understandings and views. There is no knowledge but their knowledge, no facts but the facts they cite.

In fairness, we humans are wired to react in such ways, major top experts have said.

Coming Friday: Unabashedly clueless! ("Teach your parents well.")


Fox friends interview voter panel!

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 2023

Fox & Friends / comic relief: "We have all sorts of folks here," one of the Fox friends said.

It was roughly 6:25 a.m. Eastern. The speaker was Steve Doocy. He's been one of the regular weekday friends since 1998!

Doocy was introducing this morning's seven-person "voter panel." But had any Democrats been included in the panel?

Actually, yes! As Doocy started his introductions, it quickly became apparent that there would be at least one:

DOOCY (11/21/23): So let's bring in our panel. We have all sorts of folks here.

Up in the upper left-hand corner, Republican voter Brian Benstock. Democrat voter switching to the Republican Party Stephanie Rapp, right there. She's waving...

By the time Doocy had finished calling the roll, the fairness and balance were obvious. According to his introductions, his panel contained three (3) Republican voters and three (3) independent voters. But it also contained one "Democrat voter:"

The panel included Stephanie Rapp, a "Democrat voter" who is switching to the Republican Party!

Quite plainly, the friends had assembled a solid cross-section of the U.S. electorate. Exactly as Doocy had promised, all sorts of folks were there!

With the introductions done, the initial question was asked. That exchange went exactly like this:

DOOCY: We thank you all for joining us. All right, so! Can I see—

Since yesterday was his birthday, and he celebrated with that bonfire cake yesterday in the White House, can I see the hands? Who thinks Joe Biden's too old?

O.K., it's unanimous.

Let me ask you this, Brian. Why is he too old?

The fair and balanced conversation continued along from there. For the record, one of the Republican voters was actually introduced as a Republican congressional candidate.

How independent were the three independent voters? We have no idea. But the fairness and balance were on full display. It wasn't just a bunch of Republican voters. One "Democrat voter" was there!

The panel was interviewed during each of the program's three hours. At 9 p.m., a well-appointed clown car arrived and drove the voters away.

This is the shape of "segregated news" under our comical brave new arrangements. Can a modern nation expect to function this way? 

We'll guess that the answer's not yes. 

Special bonus footage: The appearance of the voter panel was teased at 6:11. 

To watch that bit of cable clowning, you can just click here.


HEARING OTHERS: Does pro-Palestinian mean antisemitic?

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 2023

When do we start calling names? Our own blue tribe has faced an obvious analytical challenge in these modern and perhaps final days.

That challenge centers on a key question: When do we start calling names?

The problem breaks down like this:

Rather plainly, no one else is ever as intellectually brilliant, or as morally pure, as we blue tribe members are. 

Basically, there's no chance that those who disagree with our instincts or our views could ever turn out to be right. This forces us to assess the motives of such people, or their inner moral states. The question we're stuck with turns into this:

Why do the others insist on adopting views which are so plainly wrong?

Understandably, we often adopt the simplest answer to that age-old question. The others, who have now become Others, are racist / sexist / homophobic / transphobic / just deeply morally wrong.

The others fall into a certain basket. They're deplorable, even irredeemable. 

So it often has gone. And as our perfect insight continues to function in the case of the Israel-Hamas war, some of us have reached similar conclusions concerning those who refuse to share our own unassailable assessments.

We can't imagine what they're thinking! A certain assumption about such people may rapidly follow from there.

No one could blame our blue tribe stars for reaching such obvious judgments. And sure enough:

Especially on some major "cable news" programs, some of our stars have been especially bewildered by the unsupportable, inexplicable views of These College Students Today.

Some of these students—way too many of these students!—have been adopting a "pro-Palestinian" view! Most cable news stars don't share those views. Indeed, they seem to be completely bewildered by the very existence of these countervailing views.

How in the world could a college student hold a different view from our own? This seems to be the question driving some of the blue cable stars.

Some major news orgs have offered reports which attempt to unpack this conundrum. To their credit, Hartocollis and Saul authored one such effort in the November 11 New York Times.

For the record, we don't think their effort was perfect. For now, their article started like this, principal headlines included:

After Antisemitic Attacks, Colleges Debate What Kind of Speech Is Out of Bounds

In the days after the Hamas attack on Israel, Max Strozenberg, a first-year student at Northwestern University, experienced a couple of jarring incidents.

Walking into his dorm, he was startled to see a poster calling Gaza a “modern-day concentration camp” pinned to a bulletin board next to Halloween ghosts and pumpkins.

At a pro-Palestinian rally, he heard students shouting, “Hey, Schill, what do you say, how many kids did you kill today,” an echo of a chant from the anti-Vietnam War movement, now directed at Northwestern’s president, Michael H. Schill, who is Jewish.

Mr. Strozenberg’s paternal grandparents escaped the Nazis just before other family members were taken to the concentration camps. Now, he finds himself in an eerie time warp, resisting his grandmother’s pleas to take off the small star of David that he wears around his neck.

It’s not that he is feeling safe—just defiant. The mood on campus these days, he said, “is not pro-Palestinian, it’s antisemitic.”

Max Strozenberg is a good, decent person. He's also a college freshman.

He heard a certain number of students engaged in a certain chant and he seems to have interpreted it in a certain way. 

He thought the incident was "jarring." In our view, there's no obvious reason why he shouldn't have reacted that way.

As a point of personal privilege, do you mind if we let our thoughts drift back to the days of the Vietnam War? We ourselves were college students then, and other students around the nation frequently offered this chant:

Hey, hey, LBJ,
How many kids did you kill today?

Presumably, that's the "chant from the anti-Vietnam War movement" to which the reporters refer. It was a tough and politically divisive chant then, but it made a lot more sense than the updated chant Strozenberg heard at Northwestern.

Michael H. Schill is Northwestern’s president. We'll assume he's a good, decent person.

Back in the day, "LBJ" was, in fact, the commander in chief of the American military. He was directly responsible for the military actions which led to a gigantic number of civilian deaths during the long-running Vietnam War.

In their report, Hartocollis and Saul don't attempt to explain the theory according to which Michael Schill stands accused of killing babies today, presumably in Gaza. Their updated chant strikes us as possibly being a tiny bit dumb—but then, did we mention the fact that it was a bunch of college students who were involved in the chant?

Max Strozenberg is a good, decent person? So, we'll hasten to assume, is Anna Babboni, a senior at Scripps College in Claremont, Calif.

Like Nestor addressing Diomedes not far from the towering walls of Troy, Babboni has several years on her freshman contemporary at Northwestern half a world away. That said, she too is cited in this Times report, and this is what she said:

Pro-Palestinian supporters are quick to push back, asking whether any criticism of Israel and Zionism is acceptable.

They say that the cries of antisemitism are an attempt to stifle speech and divert attention from a 16-year blockade of Gaza by Israel, backed by Egypt, that has devastated the lives of Palestinians. They point to the uprooting of 700,000 people during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. And they rail against Israel’s current invasion of Gaza, which has killed more than 10,000 people, according to the Gazan health ministry.

“We stand staunchly against all forms of racism and bigotry,” said Anna Babboni, a senior at Scripps College in Claremont, Calif., and one of the leaders of the local chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine.

Ms. Babboni said her group is not antisemitic, but it is anti-Zionist...

In the language of this report, Babboni actually is "pro-Palestinian." Staunchly, she says her pro-Palestinian advocacy group isn't antisemitic.

It almost sounds like she might have said that her group opposes antisemitism. At any rate, she seems to have cited pieces of history, and at least one ongoing action, in an effort to explain her point of view.

At this point, Hartocollis and Saul author a passage in which we think they make an error of omission. That said, their article starts to suggest the possibility that students who actually are "pro-Palestinian" may have arguments to make on behalf of their stance!

If so, that doesn't mean that it isn't dumb to be chanting the chant that Strozenberg heard at Northwestern. It doesn't mean that a student like Strozenberg has to end up agreeing with their overall point of view.

It doesn't mean that those students are "right." It does make us wonder about the cable stars who can't seem to hear the various things Babboni and others have said.

Especially at times like these, hearing the voices of others can be very hard. By way of contrast, attacking others as racist is easy. 

Our tribe has leaned in the latter direction over the past quite a few years, and it seems to us that we've hurt progressive interests as we've insisted on adopting that stance.

Is Anna Babboni a food, decent person? How about Max Strozenberg? Is he good and decent too?

More generally, is it even possible that two people, each of whom is good and decent, could actually disagree about some deeply important matter? In recent years, our own blue tribe has had an increasingly difficult time with an age-old question like that.

We've had trouble hearing the voices of others. Tomorrow, we'll start with the voice of a college student whose reactions will strike most people as being quite hard to defend.

Tomorrow: Graduate student at Penn praises "glorious" Hamas attack